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.

[Eclipse]

I don't disagree at all this isn't really the best plan, but when discussing constitutionally-based rights, we need to separate what
"is" from what "we like".

Congress generally builds in effective dates to new laws, along with a boilerplate means to notify the constituency, but that doesn't change
their respective rights and authority.

[billford1]

^ 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.

When the AF allowed this uniform to be announced with an ICL with almost no opposition I wonder why it took so long for them to have such a change of mind and then say it was never really approved.   If they are serious about setting the wear out date and then designing a new uniform for us I hope they intend to issue the uniform to CAP members.

[JoeTomasone]

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

Precisely.

I'm not saying that the BoG lacks the authority to make policy -- far from it. 

What I am saying is that until that policy is properly incorporated into regulations/ICLs, it is not binding on the membership.

Yes, Congress has the undeniable authority to enact legislation, but until it's signed by the President, it is NOT binding law.   There is a procedure that the law requires to be followed, just as the BoG/NHQ has a procedure that the CAP Constitution and CAPR 5-4 requires to be followed. 

A bill becomes law when it is signed by the President.

A policy becomes binding when it is properly incorporated into an ICL OR is incorporated into a draft regulation that is submitted for member comment and subsequently approved by CAP/EX, CAP/CC, and published.

The fact that NHQ lately seems to prefer to improperly short-circuit the proper procedure on matters such as uniform changes does not change the fact that such actions are contrary to regulations; and therefore are invalid.   The result is that the BoG policies, which are themselves valid, are not currently valid regulations that are binding on the membership.   NHQ could fix it in short order by simply following the proper procedure.

A Wing Commander issues a supplement for 60-1.   CAPR 5-4 certainly holds that a Wing Commander has the authority to issue a supplement.    However, proper procedure for issuing a supplement to 60-1 requires NHQ approval.    If such approval is not sought, is the supplement valid? 

[FW]

^I defer to the Master rated Barraks lawyer.  However, the BoG may write a regulation, change a regulation, or order a regulation published without any comment from the membership. That body is not bound by CAP regulations or AFI's.  Regulations originating from the BoG may only be changed by the BoG.  They may even suspend any regulation (or the C&BL's) when it suits their needs.  Since the BoG approved the CSU, I wonder if this whole exercise is just one big cluster ....? 

[JoeTomasone]

However, the BoG may write a regulation, change a regulation, or order a regulation published without any comment from the membership.

Cite, please.

Regulations and manuals may only be issued by National Headquarters.

The Board of Governors may direct the National Commander to issue, modify or rescind regulations
or portions of regulations. Regulations, or portions of regulations issued, modified or rescinded by the
National Commander pursuant to written instructions of the Board of Governors shall not be subject to
the ratification by the National Board.

...And those would need to go through the CAPR 5-4 procedure or an ICL if the criteria for issuing an ICL is met.

Regulations and manuals may only be issued by National Headquarters. The following responsibilities relate to the management of regulations and manuals:

a. The National Board/National Executive Committee/Board of Governors will establish policies in accordance with the Constitution and Bylaws of Civil Air Patrol. The National Commander may establish immediate regulations under the provisions of Article XX, paragraph 3, of the Constitution of Civil Air Patrol, when circumstances dictate.

The National Commander, upon declaration of a situation requiring immediate action due to a state of
emergency or an unforeseen circumstance involving the preservation of life or property, may promulgate
emergency regulations without the ratification of a majority vote of the National Board. Such emergency
regulation shall remain in force unless revoked by a majority vote of the National Board.

The BoG can alter the CONSTITUTION by a majority vote, but they cannot directly issue regulations.   They can only promulgate policy or direct that regulations be issued - but these must be codified INTO regulations by NHQ.   I should add that those regulations dictating this procedure are in force because the Board established them; if they didn't agree with them, they could easily alter them. 

[FW]

Joe, you are correct in citing the appropriate parts of the C&BL.  However, re read the above: "Regulations, or portions of regulations issued, modified or rescinded by the National Commander pursuant to written instructions of the Board of Governors shall not be subject to the ratification by the National Board." (this has come to mean no comments by the membership either)
Also, since the BoG may suspend the Constitution and/or bylaws at any time,  they really can do anything they want.  How do you think they got rid of HWSNBNed.
As our CAP/NLO has stated: "The Board of Governors has superplenary rights".  They are above the regulations of CAP; only answerable to congress.  Believe me, I just don't make this stuff up.

[Eclipse]

A policy becomes binding when it is properly incorporated into an ICL OR is incorporated into a draft regulation that is submitted for member comment and subsequently approved by CAP/EX, CAP/CC, and published.

I'd grant you that new rulings don't become practically enforcible until they are published, and in theory we're all just volunteers working together towards the same ends, but that doesn't mean their decisions aren't immediately binding.  If they decide tomorrow that everyone must do "x", they must do "x" - whether you could discipline a member for not doing "x" because of improper or non-existent notification of the field would be a decision for the chain of command and maybe the MARB, but that doesn't change the fact that we all have to do "x".
As a matter of process, requests for comment go out before decisions are made, not after the gavel falls.

Further, I will continue to hold that decisions made which might violate USAF process, directives, or just hack them off, are not the problem or purview of the membership, either.  The rank and file's chain ends with the BoG.  If they tell us do do something which by higher regulation they don't have the authority to do, we still have to do it unless we are willing to challenge that decision directly, via process, to the USAF.  If our only response is local grumbling, then we need to obey directives of our chain.  Absent a "Supreme Court of the CAP", again the decisions about disciplinary action would be through the chain or the MARB if it became applicable.

Directives that violate USAF AFI's or similar are the problem of the BOG, NEC, and CAPFLT001, not the rank and file membership.

A Wing Commander issues a supplement for 60-1.   CAPR 5-4 certainly holds that a Wing Commander has the authority to issue a supplement.    However, proper procedure for issuing a supplement to 60-1 requires NHQ approval.    If such approval is not sought, is the supplement valid?

This isn't even a relevant comparison.  Wing Commanders are not ultimate authorities in regards to their responsibilities.  They are fully
bound by specific regulations as to where they can supplement regulations, and in all cases a supplement can only strengthen or compliment a reg, it can't weaken it or change it substantially.  As pointed out, this is not so with the BoG or NEC, who's power come directly from the Constitution and who can change, supplement, or null regulations at will.

[JoeTomasone]

Joe, you are correct in citing the appropriate parts of the C&BL.  However, re read the above: "Regulations, or portions of regulations issued, modified or rescinded by the National Commander pursuant to written instructions of the Board of Governors shall not be subject to the ratification by the National Board." (this has come to mean no comments by the membership either)

Actually, I believe that this addresses Section 2:

2. Except as provided in Article X paragraph 2.c., and paragraph 3 and 4 of this article, all CAP policies
(policies promulgated by the National Board or National Commander) shall be ratified by a majority vote
of the National Board.

...And thusly states that while the CAP/CC can issue emergency regulations that must be voted on by the NB, regulations issued at the direction of the BoG does NOT require such approval.    And rightly so.

Also, since the BoG may suspend the Constitution and/or bylaws at any time,  they really can do anything they want.

Technically true, but if they went overboard, I would expect that CAP-USAF and/or Congress would take action.  Hopefully we never have to find out.

  How do you think they got rid of HWSNBNed.

Near as I can tell, and from what I remember that I read at the time, it was done in accordance with Article XV of the CAP Constitution. 

As our CAP/NLO has stated: "The Board of Governors has superplenary rights".  They are above the regulations of CAP; only answerable to congress.  Believe me, I just don't make this stuff up.

Well, then the NLO is not entirely correct.   The BoG can only act IAW the CAP Constitution.   The fact that they can amend it by a majority vote does not obviate the fact that they must follow what they have promulgated.

1. The Board of Governors shall, in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Air Patrol Constitution
and Bylaws, be the governing body of Civil Air Patrol and shall govern, direct and manage the affairs of
the corporation.

[FW]

Sorry Joe.  Even though I wish you were correct, the BoG (by majority vote, of course) has suspended the constitution for the matter above.  CAP-USAF has no authority over the BoG.  The SECAF only has authority over the 4 members he/she selects.  Public Law is what must be referred to here.  And, from what I've been constantly beaten up on by those who have the power, it's what we must live with.  If you think this is wrong, it's time to talk to your congressman about it.

[JoeTomasone]

the BoG (by majority vote, of course) has suspended the constitution for the matter above

Can you cite, sir?  I must have missed that.

[FW]

I can only repeat what the BoG members told me.  Since there was no constitutional means for the BoG to remove the commander, the BoG voted to suspend the rules to deal with it.  That's what happened with HWSNBN'd.  Will they do it again?  I have no idea.  Could they?  Yes.  The BoG is the final say in CAP.  It's that simple.  Everyone else just plays. 

[JoeTomasone]

I can only repeat what the BoG members told me.  Since there was no constitutional means for the BoG to remove the commander, the BoG voted to suspend the rules to deal with it.  That's what happened with HWSNBN'd.  Will they do it again?  I have no idea.  Could they?  Yes.  The BoG is the final say in CAP.  It's that simple.  Everyone else just plays. 

Unless the Constitution was amended since then, seems pretty clear they could have done so "legitimately":

The National Commander or National Vice Commander may be removed from office for
personal misconduct involving moral turpitude which creates an appearance of serious impropriety to the
public or which may discredit or embarrass the Civil Air Patrol and/or the United States Air Force.

[FW]

But that "right" is the exclusive right of the National Board.

[JoeTomasone]

But that "right" is the exclusive right of the National Board.

*ZOINKS*

You're right, I missed that part.

The removal was never voted on???

[FW]

^Not by the National Board.  It was never given a chance.  The Board of Governors didn't really vote to remove him from office either.  They just voted him "off the island" all together. 

[Spike]

And back to how uniform phasing out is a game to most.

Seems like the National Commander extended the phase out date of the CSU, but by next september we need to replace everything metal (grade, cutouts etc.) with grey slides.  Now we have a CSU that is by all intents and purposes identical to the AF-Style (not the jacket of course).  It can be worn until 2012.

Why can we not just go with this new incarnation of the CSU, and not get rid of it??

[FW]

That, Spike, would be logical.  I don't think it will happen for that reason.

[NC Hokie]

Now we have a CSU that is by all intents and purposes identical to the AF-Style (not the jacket of course).  It can be worn until 2012.

Why can we not just go with this new incarnation of the CSU, and not get rid of it??

I have a suspicion that CAP leadership might be hoping for just this result, as modifying an outgoing uniform makes little sense under any other circumstances.

[Hawk200]

I have a suspicion that CAP leadership might be hoping for just this result, as modifying an outgoing uniform makes little sense under any other circumstances.

I'd support it. I would have supported it in the first place if this is what it would have been. In this incarnation, it's truly a CAP unique uniform, and not an attempt to superficially look like an Air Force one.

[JoeTomasone]

Well, two problems:

1.  If you wear the Jacket with it, still looks too AF.

2.  If you don't wear the Jacket with it, it's just the white/grey with different pants.  What's the point?

[Eclipse]

2.  If you don't wear the Jacket with it, it's just the white/grey with different pants.  What's the point?

Which would be white / blue, so 1/2 the uniform is different, not a minor thing.

Also, no military badges and the different nameplate.  Distinctive enough but uniform at a distance and for photos.

[Hawk200]

1.  If you wear the Jacket with it, still looks too AF.

It would look similar to the blues with the grey epaulettes on the jacket, and would be closer in uniformity with a standardized jacket.

2.  If you don't wear the Jacket with it, it's just the white/grey with different pants.  What's the point?

Uniformity again. Go to a wing event, and you'll see six different shades of grey pants. Not so with the CSU, the blue pants are all the same shade of blue. That would go a long way.

Now if they would just allow beards and longer hair with it, we could get back to two types of uniforms instead of three. Our utilities don't even differentiate as much as blues, CSU, and white/grey does.

[Smithsonia]

For anyone of the Uniform committee or National Staff who may be lurking. When 39-1 is redone it would be helpful if we could get a picture of each uniform approved. Start with White and Greys and add approved jacket or sweater and then approved outer wear coats. Do the same for duty uniforms and dress uniforms. Right now I can't figure out any of this stuff and as this thread indicates - we all have various ideas.

There are more regulations and ideas than anyone can fit together in any coherent fashion.

I am for simplified uni's
1. Dress (whatever one you like but just one please. Well male and female versions of course)
2. Utility (perhaps 2, one for flight and one for ground, I suggest BBDUs and Dark blue flight suits for everybody)
3. Golf Shirt and or Whites with Grays for liaison and comfort while in office or training.

Add a sweater, add an outer coat/jacket/black A2, add gloves, add hats. 20-25 photos tops for all approved uniform items.
Add exceptions below the pictures for approved berets, raincoats, or whatever. Close up thumbnails of these will work.

The current 39-1 reflects a time when duplicating photos was expensive and added much to printing
costs. Being that 39-1 is either on CD or online... that is no longer the case.

Simply put: Tell us what you want. Give us a way to do it. We will comply. We're trying to be good about this. But, you are confusing us.

[Hawk200]

3. Golf Shirt with Grays for liaison and comfort while in office or training.

The other stuff aside, what need is there for a gold shirt?

[JoeTomasone]

1.  If you wear the Jacket with it, still looks too AF.

It would look similar to the blues with the grey epaulettes on the jacket, and would be closer in uniformity with a standardized jacket.

Exactly, and when the first out-of-weight member is spotted in what appears to be the blues, someone on the USAF side is bound to get bent out of shape.

2.  If you don't wear the Jacket with it, it's just the white/grey with different pants.  What's the point?

Uniformity again. Go to a wing event, and you'll see six different shades of grey pants. Not so with the CSU, the blue pants are all the same shade of blue. That would go a long way.

Too far, I think, as above. 

IIWIC, we'd have:

USAF Blues, BDUs, Flight suit for those meeting standards

Greys (w/standard shade), BBDUs, Blue flight suit for those who do not.

Yes, I'd advocate getting rid of all of the others. 

[Smithsonia]

Hawk 200.
You've misread the quote provided by me. I said "Golf" Shirt (check my quote in your own posting) and you interpreted it as "gold" shirt. I can't account for member dyslexia.

[Hawk200]

Exactly, and when the first out-of-weight member is spotted in what appears to be the blues, someone on the USAF side is bound to get bent out of shape.

As someone who has been on the Air Force side, I seriously doubt that a double breasted coat with a white shirt is going to be mistaken for an Air Force service dress. The outfit was supposed to look very close to Air Force service dress with enough differentiation that it wasn't. I'd bet that most Air Force personnel had a response of "Who/What is that?" It's different enough that any airman out of boot isn't going to even confuse it with semi-formal.

Too far, I think, as above.

Uniformity among ourselves. The grey slacks vary in color that there is little uniformity to the concept. It's a cobbled together concept that's lacking.

IIWIC, we'd have:

USAF Blues, BDUs, Flight suit for those meeting standards

Greys (w/standard shade), BBDUs, Blue flight suit for those who do not.

Yes, I'd advocate getting rid of all of the others.

With a standardized jacket and grey pants, you'd get my vote. But right now there aren't  standardized grey pants, but there are standardized blue pants. They're here, now, why not use them?

[Hawk200]

I can't account for member dyslexia.

Or civility.

[JoeTomasone]

Exactly, and when the first out-of-weight member is spotted in what appears to be the blues, someone on the USAF side is bound to get bent out of shape.

As someone who has been on the Air Force side, I seriously doubt that a double breasted coat with a white shirt is going to be mistaken for an Air Force service dress. The outfit was supposed to look very close to Air Force service dress with enough differentiation that it wasn't. I'd bet that most Air Force personnel had a response of "Who/What is that?" It's different enough that any airman out of boot isn't going to even confuse it with semi-formal.

Well, remember, concern about looking too much like an AF uniform is why it's on the way out in the first place.

But right now there aren't  standardized grey pants, but there are standardized blue pants. They're here, now, why not use them?

I just want to settle on a uniform that won't change in a year.   If we can find a standard shade of grey -- heck, let Vanguard sell it for those who can't find it -- the greys make much more sense, jacket notwithstanding.  I don't have a grand answer for that one.

As for the shade, I'd say it needs to match the epaulet slides; but I have no earthly idea what shade that is.

I have all three dress uniforms - CSU (no jacket), greys, and blues, but I always wear the blues.  I have the greys in case for some reason I've let my hair go.  The CSU just really added the blue slides.   (And can I say that I was looking forward to wearing my Capt blue slides when I got home?!  I bought them so that I'd have incentive to get promoted..  Sigh..)

Maybe I'll have them shipped here and give them to the USAF 1st Lt across the way - paying forward the incentive. 

[Hawk200]

Well, remember, concern about looking too much like an AF uniform is why it's on the way out in the first place.

Because it used hard rank, Air Force officer insignia, and a blue nametag similar in design to an Air Force one. "U.S." collar brass got changed out for CAP cutouts pretty early in the game. The problem was more in the insignia than it was in the components.

If we can find a standard shade of grey --

But why go looking to standardize a color when one is already here? The CSU blue shade is standardized. We could have a standardized uniform that's a lot more associative with the Air Force variants today, rather than whatever development time would be required to come up with a standardized color.

I'm considering at the practical availability of the pieces, and what many members already have. We don't need to look. In fact, looking at other avenues is overlooking what we have. That's wasteful.

There is so much we could do with what's available to clean up our uniforms, but we seem to get stuck on our exclusivity. If the CSU as configured with today's letter had been the one originally produced, we might not have had any (or near as many) issues in the first place.

[Spike]

So here is what I understand as the general consensus.....

We can look almost like Air Force if we are not overweight or have a beard. 

If we are overweight or have a beard we need to wear something SO different from all other CAP members that we do not even look like we are in the same Civil Air Patrol.

How about getting rid of all Air Force uniforms.  Would those that meet wear requirements for Air Force style hate that, be upset and post dislike for it on this board??  You bet you all would.

I see a double standard here.  The "it doesn't effect/affect me, so to hell with those that are being caught in the middle". AND "I meet requirements for AF Style, am better than you and you need to get out of a uniform that has metal rank on it because I can not wear metal rank on my Air Force Jacket".

That is what it boils down to, I think some AF-Style wearing members are upset that CSU wearing members don't have to wear grey junk and look more professional.

[JoeTomasone]

That is what it boils down to, I think some AF-Style wearing members are upset that CSU wearing members don't have to wear grey junk and look more professional.

How could that be so when they have the option of wearing the same uniform?

You are right, of course - I absolutely desire to wear the USAF style uniforms.   I'm proud of the fact that we are the USAF's Auxiliary, and I think it's entirely appropriate that we have the USAF style uniforms.    That being said, we don't have a policy of "get in shape and get cleaned up or you're out!" that the military does - of course, we haven't the same needs.   

What I truly would like to see would be the USAF relaxing the standards (and perhaps accepting medical waivers?) to allow more of our membership that currently does not meet the weight standard to wear the USAF uniforms.    The grooming standards, however, I feel should then apply to all members.   If you want to join a quasi-military organization and wear a military-style uniform, you have to expect to at least meet things halfway.   If you insist on retaining the ZZ Top beard, then that is the choice you make.   

Further, I would *love* to see more Commanders enforcing proper uniform wear. 

I realize that all of this has little chance of happening... But hey, it's bedtime, can't I dream?

[FARRIER]

Vanguard is still selling the trousers. I wonder if this means that those Senior Members still wishing to do so, can purchase the trousers and the flight cap, especially if they are working with cadets. Just thinking out loud.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I think the way the CSU was "introduced" had at least as much to do with the grief over it as the similarity to the AF uniform did.

If it had come out with AF approval, which would have meant grey epaulette sleeves and nameplate most likely, I doubt this would be happening the way it has.

[Earhart1971]

I have a problem with the whole process of elimination of the "Corporpate Uniform" White/Blue.

And Page 21 of the Agenda 2010 National Board has a very interesting attachment.

"One reason possibly cited for the elimination of the CAP Corporate Uniform was its
somewhat similarity to the new Army Blue Service Dress Uniform. The Army has done
away with their green service dress uniform and has updated an older blue uniform style
for the modern era. Differences are many between the CAP Corporate Uniform and this
Army uniform, but as you can see below, some similarities do exist."

And below this is in the 2010 Agenda is a picture of the "Army Uniform" that has just been implimented that conflicts with our Blue/White Corporate Uniform.

I have a problem with CAP changing its Uniform at all, but additional to that I object to CAP having to change for a NEW Combination, because the Army has a new Uniform.

I object to all this, the excuses and the whole process that got us to this point.

[FW]

^Maybe we will get some clarity about this with the NB meeting next week?

[Spike]

If it had come out with AF approval, which would have meant grey epaulette sleeves and nameplate most likely, I doubt this would be happening the way it has.

It had AF approval.  The AF told CAP "remove US Cutouts, and metal rank insignia from the flight cap".  By doing that, it meant there was approval for everything else regarding the CSU.  If they did not approve they would have instead said "get rid of it NOW", not 3 years later.   

[Eclipse]

Jan 2011.

Jan 2012
For the record.   

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I may start wearing my grey epaulettes and name tag right away, to show that at least ONE junior officer member of CAP doesn't have a problem with the "compromise" combination and in fact likes it a heckuva lot better than grey and white.

[Hawk200]

I may start wearing my grey epaulettes and name tag right away, to show that at least ONE junior officer member of CAP doesn't have a problem with the "compromise" combination and in fact likes it a heckuva lot better than grey and white.

Why not? I'd recommend that you print the letter out, and carry it for a while. Considering some of the stuff I've seen in the past as far as uniforms go, there's probably plenty of people that won't know of it.

[Strick]

I am just going to clean out my closet today and throw the dar n thing away and just wear my AF style uniform ,

[SilverEagle2]

Blast from the past

I like the compromise for now.

[Strick]

They just revised the ICL, now you have to remove the blue name plate and replace it with the grey...

[Gunner C]

They just revised the ICL, now you have to remove the blue name plate and replace it with the grey...

What's next?  Replace black socks with white?  This is getting silly.

[Strick]

I can see the WING CONFRENCE NOW......... Whit shirt blue pant grey slides and name tag, hard rank on jacket,  grey pants white shirt blue slides, ..........Everbody do somebody a favor and print these ICL out and pass them out .  I am tempted to configure my multiforms in the various configurations and take pictures.   I have a collection of berry boards, let me know when we are going to start wearing them again

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I have a collection of berry boards, let me know when we are going to start wearing them again

YAUGH!

I got rid of mine as soon as the grey slides were authorised back in '95!

[Strick]

I found them when I was a cadet in the supply shed, they were going to throw them out..  I think they look good sharp from a distance.