When will there be just one uniform???

[hollandmin]

Hi all,

I was just curious, When will CAP come to the conclusion that there should only be one organizational uniform for all members of CAP? 

The organization thoughts unity, inclusion and teamwork, but have different uniforms based on grooming standards, height, and weight standards (which no one ever follows), which creates a 2 tiered system. those who can and those who can not.

Wouldn't it be better to have all personnel in the same uniforms which decreases ambiguity and increases consistency? 

Perhaps CAP needs to have its own Camo design (which makes no sense for SAR) and military-style uniform that is consistent among the entire org.

Just some thoughts. . .

(Please don't say we are part of the AF, if that were  truly the case they would be financially supporting all needs of every squadron to ensure their ready status and training objectives)

[foo]

Great post!  I'm surprised no one has made this argument yet.

[Ned]

It's been a while since I took out both uniform manuals and counted, but CAP has almost exactly the same number of uniforms as our colleagues in the USAF.  Some are for different purposes, of course, but the coincidence is striking.  And the numbers are similar for the Army as well.

And it certainly feels unfair that height/weight and grooming standards restrict the choices of some of our terrific members, but it is worth remembering that the Air Force discharges their members who, because of physical differences and choices, do not meet their standards.  And they apply (roughly) the same standards to us as they do to themselves.  The fact that CAP provides professional appearing uniform choices for all of our members is a Good Thing - and allows all of our diverse membership to serve.

So my personal guess is that we will continue to have multiple uniforms because we need to have multiple uniforms to perform our missions.

[Eclipse]

we need to have multiple uniforms to perform our missions.

Absolutely false. It's all about marketing, affectation, and esthetics.

100% of CAP's missions, such that they still are, could be performed wearing a golf shirt and shorts,
including cadets.

The multiform is the result of decades of affectation and compromise with zero discussion regarding
mission readiness, performance, or actual need.

A partial solution would be all blue field uniforms, and leave the whites for adult members and blues for
cadets, however there are too many adult members who would walk the day that happened.

Unless the USAF can get over itself regarding height / weight for CAP members, as long as CAP is dependent on
adult volunteers from the general population, who on the whole are never going to meet USAF specs, this situation will persist.

[ZigZag911]

Full disclosure: I don't meet weight rules.

Still, I think there could be a lot of advantages to consolidating uniform options.

I think we'd be better off if all seniors wore some version of the corporate uniform.

Regulations could be modified to permit wearing rank, badges and ribbons on the blazer...perhaps "hard" rank on the lapels?

It would eliminate all issues about adult grooming standards.

It would make life simpler for CAP members who also serve active or reserve military personnel at a significantly different (usually lower) grade.

It would make visual distinction between seniors and cadets instantly apparent.

Have all seniors wear blazer or gray and whites, Blue BDUs, non-USAF flight suits. Substitute polos where appropriate.

Leave the military style for the cadets.

Allow a relatively long (3 to 5 years) phase out period.

I bet the Air Force - both leadership and folks in the field  - would love it.

[Ned]

We have noted before that many members have sincere, well-reasoned opinions about what would be "better, " "more professional," or even more respectful for our diverse memberships.

I suspect these discussions have been occurring in CAP since our WWII-era members had to wear red shoulder straps on their Army-style uniforms.  And after literally decades of discussion, there is no good-faith consensus for change. Yet.

So we will continue to respectfully speak with each other about this worthy topic.  But without some reason to change other than differing opinions about what would be "better," it is unlikely any of us will see significant change in the foreseeable future.

Ned Lee
Former Member, National Uniform Committee

[NIN]

The organization thoughts unity, inclusion and teamwork, but have different uniforms based on grooming standards, height, and weight standards (which no one ever follows), which creates a 2 tiered system. those who can and those who can not.

But it doesn't create a two-tiered system. Only if people want it to be a two-tiered system.

I own and frequently wear the Corporate Field Uniform (BBDUs), the Corporate Flight Duty Uniform (the blue flight suit) as well as the Blazer and aviator combos. I also wear the USAF-style uniforms (within the 39-1 standards).

I'm not a "second class citizen" when I put on BBDU or the blazer. Nor are any of the members of my wing.

We all contribute as we can within our own capabilities and for our own reasons.

[Eclipse]

But it doesn't create a two-tiered system.

Tell that to the people who can't wear their military badges and decs, and have no service dress
equivalent.

"Hey guys, next round is on me, flag down the waiter..."

"That's not a waiter, that's the Wing Commander..."

It's easy to say there's no 2-tiered equivalent when you're on the good side of one
of the tiers.

[NIN]

It's easy to say there's no 2-tiered equivalent when you're on the good side of one of the tiers.

Again: I wear both uniforms clasifications. Doesn't matter what "side" I'm on. You're the one creating "sides."

Went to Seattle with AF style Class B and my blazer combo.  Wore them both and huh: nobody mistook me for the maitre'd. (thats only in mess dress, anyway). And weirdly: I wasn't treated like a second class citizen or someone who was "lesser" because I was wearing corporates (I was 100% corporate last year in Louisville. Not sure why I did that, but maybe it was "easier travel")

There is a Service Dress equivalent: Corporate service dress, AKA Blazer combo.  Surely you know that.

And oh, by the way: even if everybody on the senior side was in corporate uniforms we'd still have the same prohibition on military badges and decs. That's a "no military stuff on 'civilian' clothes" thing from the USAF.

(Personally, I think thats a more or less misplaced 'rule', but it is what it is. Nobody stops the VFW/Legion guys from wearing military badges or ribbons or whatever on their civvie outfits, right? But the USAF doesn't have control over those orgs. They do over this one.)

About 25+ years ago, I went to a conference in Ocean City, MD on a whim. I met a guy there who was an active military officer I knew from the old CAP-Talk email list days.  He was in aviators. He was the first guy I'd ever met wearing aviators who didn't _have_ to wear aviators. As an active military officer, he was well within the appearance standards for both his service and the USAF.  Back then, being young and stupid, I had that same misplaced "there's the USAF-style folks, then there's the 'fat & fuzzies'." opinion.  I said to him "Whoa, dude, what are you doing in corporate style? You don't have to wear that." To this day, his reply sticks with me: "I wear an Army uniform all day. Why do I need to switch to a USAF one in the evening?  Besides, this uniform isn't only for people who can't wear USAF-style."

[Eclipse]

Again: I wear both uniforms clasifications.

Yes.  You have the choice. That's the difference.

There is a Service Dress equivalent: Corporate service dress, AKA Blazer combo.  Surely you know that.

And surely you know that just because NHQ puts it in a table and declares it "equivalent",
doesn't make it so. The CWU (golf shirt), is also indicated as "equivalent" to USAF-Style Service dress.

A ridiculous assertion.

    e·quiv·a·lent
    adjective
        equal in value, amount, function, meaning, etc.

Going back to the 2-tiered system consider this...

What about the scores of members who can't wear the ASOEA?

This was touted as a significant achievement in the history of CAP,
"All hands on deck, Total Force!!!"

However "Not for you"

That's not 2-tiered?

[PHall]

Bob, aren't you retired from CAP? So why do you care?

[SarDragon]

The horse is dead! Long live the horse!

As a "fuzzy", I have my own views on the subject, but I'll not inject them.

We have what we have, and the powers that be (TPTB) do not seem wiling to make big changes. Grousing about it here, to the point of veiled personal attacks, certainly isn't going to accomplish anything. Therefore, I'm shutting it off.

If you aren't satisfied with the commentary on this topic, use the search function to review the multitude of other discussions in the same vein.

Click.