Alright, there has been several posts regarding the Uniform Manual and how it is out of date with today's uniform standards.
If you were responsible for updating the CAP Uniform Manual (CAPM 39-1) to meet current standards, what would you change/omit/add to it?
Here's a few ground rules:
1-If it isn't a current uniform item (ie. black trousers for the Corporate Uniform) it doesn't count. What you believe should be, may not be what it really is.
2-Quote the paragraph that needs updated, if possible.
3-Give the reason why you believe a specific item needs to be added/removed/changed.
Since almost everyone is big on uniforms on here, I figured it might be fun to see what the results would be!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigh
REPOSTED TO FIX IMAGE ERRORS.
An everywhere issue: change of wording for regulation. Especially in 6.2 there is an issue with the wording that I have had trouble with and quite a few others have too, 6.2 says that you can wear up to four badges, taken to look like this.
(http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4785/previewquadstack.jpg) (http://img195.imageshack.us/i/previewquadstack.jpg/)
(I know this image is not mine, I used it because it shows the max of what 6.2 suggests if you read that paragraph without interpretation)
Especially since there is a statement that one badge can be worn on the pocket. But what it means is one patch can be worn on the pocket, not badge. I now understand that your badges can look like this at most.
(http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/8102/img004zt.jpg) (http://img32.imageshack.us/i/img004zt.jpg/)
Only with a space in between the badges.
The next issue that needs to be addressed is that the photographs of the uniforms are mostly of uniforms that are as bare as possible.
(http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/1093/barebdu.jpg) (http://img841.imageshack.us/i/barebdu.jpg/)
The images of proper wear are there to make the regulation easier to understand. The issue is that they don't really show much of how the uniform is to be set up and worn when they are bare.
Resolve the conflict between Table 5-2 and Table 5-3 of CAPM 39-1 and CAPR 39-3 with respect to the precedence of foreign awards. Some foreign awards are erroneously listed as US awards in 5-2.
I propose an even more basic change.
CAPM 39-1 CAP Cadet Uniform Manual
CAPM 39-2 CAP Senior Uniform Manual
I know there is a CAPR 39-2, so I'd be open to a new designation.
There would be some duplication of material.
This would eliminate attempting to cover c/Enlisted, c/Officer, SMWOG, CAP NCO, CAP Officer at the same time.
I think this is a much more usable approach. Can you think of a time when you've referenced 39-1 for a cadet and senior issue at the same time?
That is a very interesting idea. Since our cadet uniforms seem to be changed less than senior members it might be a more stable document.
However, my concern would be that either accidentally or intentionally we would start ending up with differences between how the same uniform is worn by cadets and seniors -- for example, BDUs. Trying to make two documents consistent with each other hasn't been a strong suit of CAP up till now.
Lets get *one* right before making two out of it.
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
Quote from: phirons on January 02, 2011, 03:49:34 PM
I propose an even more basic change.
CAPM 39-1 CAP Cadet Uniform Manual
CAPM 39-2 CAP Senior Uniform Manual
I know there is a CAPR 39-2, so I'd be open to a new designation.
There would be some duplication of material.
This would eliminate attempting to cover c/Enlisted, c/Officer, SMWOG, CAP NCO, CAP Officer at the same time.
I think this is a much more usable approach. Can you think of a time when you've referenced 39-1 for a cadet and senior issue at the same time?
Quote from: a2capt on January 02, 2011, 05:24:13 PM
Lets get *one* right before making two out of it.
The size of the work to revise 39-1 has been been given as a reason it's not been updated.
Splitting the work into more reasonable chunks should help.
To RiverAux's point. Yes the 2 manuals could get out of synch, but would that be worse than the current situation.
Quote from: phirons on January 02, 2011, 05:43:56 PM
The size of the work to revise 39-1 has been been given as a reason it's not been updated.
A fairly bogus explanation if I've ever heard one. Yes, we have had a lot of uniform changes since it was last updated, but I am fully confident that if one person sat down it would take about 2 days to fully incorporate all the existing ICLs into an updated version of the current regulation.
Now, a full overhaul and remake would be a different story, but I think most of us would be happy with just an updated regulation at this point.
Hm....... fix the blue's shirt crease to be more current with the AF standards?
Obviously implement the ICLs.... I thought this type of thread was made before..
Quote from: Ozzy on January 06, 2011, 07:52:18 PM
Hm....... fix the blue's shirt crease to be more current with the AF standards?
?
The natural crease (as they come in the bag) is just behind the epaulet. The last CAPM 39-1 had you move it so it was centered on the epaulet... Probably because of the wing patch.
Quote from: MIKE on January 06, 2011, 08:23:32 PM
The natural crease (as they come in the bag) is just behind the epaulet. The last CAPM 39-1 had you move it so it was centered on the epaulet... Probably because of the wing patch.
OK, seriously - I drop my shirts off in a pile at the cleaners and receive them clean and pressed in a bag.
Granted, if you are thinking about it at the time and doing it yourself, or preparing for an NCC inspection, whatever, otherwise I seriously doubt there are many units in the country where the sleeve crease is at the top of the list of uniform problems.
By all means align it with USAF standards, but that isn't going to change how the nice lady on the corner presses the shirts.
I'm compiling all the ICLs and overlaying/making references, I kinda started on that a while back and let it sit, the thread made me think about it again. My intention was to have something that you only had to look one place, not start from the back and go to the front of the pile.
First off I do not think we should split the manual. CAP has a lot of manuals already, so creating a new manual designation that duplicates some of the regs doesn't make sense. Especially if you want to refer to the manual during uniform reg instruction, having two can cause confusion. Secondly creases should be an issue. If there is a reg on them and you do not enforce that reg, and a cadet or anyone finds out, you will lose your credibility and authority. At that point it becomes an issue of integrity beyond being just "another regulation".
CAP has only TWO Manuals CAPM 39-1 and CAPM 52-4, National Cadet Competition. The idea of splitting CAPM 39-1 into two has some merit but as previously stated keeping the two in sync for common material will be a problem. Of course sync between documents is already a problem when one regulation clashes with another regulation on the same issue.
Correction: CAP has a lot of documents and designations and I think we should look long and hard at the issue before we decide to create another one.
Quote from: RiverAux on January 02, 2011, 06:02:53 PM
Quote from: phirons on January 02, 2011, 05:43:56 PM
The size of the work to revise 39-1 has been been given as a reason it's not been updated.
A fairly bogus explanation if I've ever heard one. Yes, we have had a lot of uniform changes since it was last updated, but I am fully confident that if one person sat down it would take about 2 days to fully incorporate all the existing ICLs into an updated version of the current regulation.
Now, a full overhaul and remake would be a different story, but I think most of us would be happy with just an updated regulation at this point.
The manual should be completely revised to incorporate all ICLs. To say "its too much" is a cop-out. I feel sure there are enough concerned citizens that CAP could put together a group of folks to rewrite that reg and make it readable again.
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on January 02, 2011, 04:06:11 AM
REPOSTED TO FIX IMAGE ERRORS.
An everywhere issue: change of wording for regulation. Especially in 6.2 there is an issue with the wording that I have had trouble with and quite a few others have too, 6.2 says that you can wear up to four badges, taken to look like this.
(I know this image is not mine, I used it because it shows the max of what 6.2 suggests if you read that paragraph without interpretation)
Especially since there is a statement that one badge can be worn on the pocket. But what it means is one patch can be worn on the pocket, not badge. I now understand that your badges can look like this at most.
Only with a space in between the badges.
Please cite your reference for the picture with four badges being wrong. I know it looks absolutely crazy and busy, but please show where it states only two can be above the tape on the BDU in the 39-1. I may have read over it.
I was also going to mention that it should also include authorizing the cadet first sergeant diamond, but the new 52-16 doesn't try to authorize it so its a non-issue I guess.
As to me mentioning the shirt crease, I did it because the wing patch isn't an issue anymore and because its the common practice of not just the AF but of the general population as well.
Quote from: sleepyboyd on January 07, 2011, 03:31:26 AMPlease cite your reference for the picture with four badges being wrong. I know it looks absolutely crazy and busy, but please show where it states only two can be above the tape on the BDU in the 39-1. I may have read over it.
It states where two can be worn, and never mentions the pockets, ergo.
We are not in the Army, and we don't wear badges on our pockets.
Quote from: sleepyboyd on January 07, 2011, 03:31:26 AM
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on January 02, 2011, 04:06:11 AM
REPOSTED TO FIX IMAGE ERRORS.
An everywhere issue: change of wording for regulation. Especially in 6.2 there is an issue with the wording that I have had trouble with and quite a few others have too, 6.2 says that you can wear up to four badges, taken to look like this.
(I know this image is not mine, I used it because it shows the max of what 6.2 suggests if you read that paragraph without interpretation)
Especially since there is a statement that one badge can be worn on the pocket. But what it means is one patch can be worn on the pocket, not badge. I now understand that your badges can look like this at most.
Only with a space in between the badges.
Please cite your reference for the picture with four badges being wrong. I know it looks absolutely crazy and busy, but please show where it states only two can be above the tape on the BDU in the 39-1. I may have read over it.
It's one of the convoluted deals with 39-1. Fig 2-17 Note 5 says that a CAP wing and a specialty insignia may be worn. Note 6 states that a military wing may be worn below a CAP wing, although it doesn't say that it's worn in place of a specialty insignia, it implies it. It's worded strangely.
Quote from: sleepyboyd on January 07, 2011, 03:31:26 AM
Please cite your reference for the picture with four badges being wrong. I know it looks absolutely crazy and busy, but please show where it states only two can be above the tape on the BDU in the 39-1. I may have read over it.
I used to think the same way you are. The 39-1 reads that you can wear four badges. That is if you read it plainly. However if you read through it and decipher what the manual really means, you will come up with this;
Two skill badges above the CAPtape.
One command badge above the nametape.
That is all that is allowed on the BDU. I know, the 39-1 says that you can wear four badges/devices. So where did the fourth badge go? I have the same curiosity. My best guess is that they are taking about a specialty badge allowed on the pocket such as in CAP specialty badges (ES Communications or Safety or Cadet Programs) or in Army or USAF specialty badges (MP), however none of those are authorized on CAP BDUs. CAP specialty badges can only be worn on blues, and once you leave your specialty in the army or USAF you have to take that specialty badge off. Unlike with things such as CIB, CAB, AASLT, or ABN, those once they are earned it takes nearly God to take them away.
That is one thing that I think REALLY REALLY REALLY needs changed in the 39-1, not just section B paragraph one marked 6-2 in the 39-1, but they way the whole 39-1 is worded, it can get confusing.
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on January 07, 2011, 02:53:56 PMTwo skill badges above the CAPtape.
Correct.
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on January 07, 2011, 02:53:56 PMOne command badge above the nametape.
In actuality, no. I know Vanguard produces a cloth one, but there has yet to be any guidance for wear on the BDU. Also, the command badge came out
after the current version of 39-1. So 39-1 does not currently authorize it.
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on January 07, 2011, 02:53:56 PMI know, the 39-1 says that you can wear four badges/devices. So where did the fourth badge go? I have the same curiosity. My best guess is that they are taking about a specialty badge allowed on the pocket such as in CAP specialty badges (ES Communications or Safety or Cadet Programs) or in Army or USAF specialty badges (MP), however none of those are authorized on CAP BDUs.
It addresses wear on the blues, but is kinda sketchy on BDUs.
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on January 07, 2011, 02:53:56 PM
CAP specialty badges can only be worn on blues, and once you leave your specialty in the army or USAF you have to take that specialty badge off. Unlike with things such as CIB, CAB, AASLT, or ABN, those once they are earned it takes nearly God to take them away.
There's some differences between what's considered specialty badges. If you're talking about Security Police, Firefighters, and similar that are worn on the pocket, those are considered "duty" badges, and are not treated or worn the same as specialty insignia. 2903's terminology has to be known. You are correct in that once that duty is no longer performed, they are no longer allowed for wear.
Now, something like a maintenance, medical, operations, etc. "occupational" badges may be worn, and for CAP purposes, they are worn as "specialty insignia." 39-1 actually gives a table on them, although it is a bit outdated.
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on January 07, 2011, 02:53:56 PMThat is one thing that I think REALLY REALLY REALLY needs changed in the 39-1, not just section B paragraph one marked 6-2 in the 39-1, but they way the whole 39-1 is worded, it can get confusing.
It's just one of many.
Quote from: Hawk200 on January 07, 2011, 02:40:05 PM
It's one of the convoluted deals with 39-1. Fig 2-17 Note 5 says that a CAP wing and a specialty insignia may be worn. Note 6 states that a military wing may be worn below a CAP wing, although it doesn't say that it's worn in place of a specialty insignia, it implies it. It's worded strangely.
I quote the 39-1
5. CAP Aviation Badges and Specialty Insignia: Embroidered, worn 1/2 inch above the cloth "Civil Air Patrol" tape worn
over the left breast pocket. If both devices are worn, aviation badges should be 1/2 inch above specialty insignia.
6. Military Aviation Badges: Embroidered (subdued or white on blue), centered 1/2 inch below the CAP
aviation badge above left breast pocket.
There is nothing stated here that leads me to believe it limits the member from wearing three or four badges. The only limit I can see is that they must fall below the top notch of the collar.
My point is that CAP has a very real problem in developing implied rules. Implied rules are made by reading what the member wants to read and not what the regulation states. This is a problem when folks like me are fine and dandy in one squadron, move to a new state, and all of a sudden, everyone reads the reg a new way... It stll says the same thing, but they "imply" different things into it. I wear a CAP Pilot Wing, USAF Navigator Wing, and a GTL badge in BDU, in blues I only wear the CAP Pilot and USAF Navigator... because it states only 2 there... Letter of the Law....
Rewritting this regulation and making it clear, would help make this problem go away. If it said only two for the BDU, i'll go take one of them off...
Quote from: sleepyboyd on January 07, 2011, 10:54:05 PM
I quote the 39-1
5. CAP Aviation Badges and Specialty Insignia: Embroidered, worn 1/2 inch above the cloth "Civil Air Patrol" tape worn
over the left breast pocket. If both devices are worn, aviation badges should be 1/2 inch above specialty insignia.
6. Military Aviation Badges: Embroidered (subdued or white on blue), centered 1/2 inch below the CAP
aviation badge above left breast pocket.
There is nothing stated here that leads me to believe it limits the member from wearing three or four badges. The only limit I can see is that they must fall below the top notch of the collar.
My point is that CAP has a very real problem in developing implied rules. Implied rules are made by reading what the member wants to read and not what the regulation states. This is a problem when folks like me are fine and dandy in one squadron, move to a new state, and all of a sudden, everyone reads the reg a new way... It stll says the same thing, but they "imply" different things into it. I wear a CAP Pilot Wing, USAF Navigator Wing, and a GTL badge in BDU, in blues I only wear the CAP Pilot and USAF Navigator... because it states only 2 there... Letter of the Law....
Rewritting this regulation and making it clear, would help make this problem go away. If it said only two for the BDU, i'll go take one of them off...
No one would be more for siding with you on this one than I. I have a CIB, AASLT wings, and a GT badge, I want to wear all three, plus I am now going for MS so I can get MO, so then there will be a set of wings, I want to be able to wear all four. However as it has been explained to me, only two, you have to read the whole reg, and yes there is some deciphering to do... a lot.
QuoteCAP specialty badges can only be worn on blues
From the 39-1 re: white aviator shirt
5. CAP Specialty Badges: Worn centered on left breast pocket. Females also have the option of wearing specialty badges 1/2 inch above the pocket (beneath the aviation badge) if they prefer.
Quote from: peter rabbit on January 07, 2011, 11:30:46 PM
QuoteCAP specialty badges can only be worn on blues
From the 39-1 re: white aviator shirt
5. CAP Specialty Badges: Worn centered on left breast pocket. Females also have the option of wearing specialty badges 1/2 inch above the pocket (beneath the aviation badge) if they prefer.
Ok smart elleck, blues, is just a short hand term for dress uniforms, blues short sleeve, blues long sleeve, blues with service jacket, and corporate dress uniform. Happy?
Heres a suggestion... and i'll prolly get shot for saying this but, how about we go to three uniforms.
White Aviators w/ or w/o blazer for dress
Polo's and grey slacks
BDU's...
The USAF, USMC, US Navy, and US Army have all dropped the BDU from thier uniform inventory... so why do we still treat it like a AF style Uniform?
Then, we can all be "Uniform".... imagine that! theres nothing like showing up to a CAP event and having seniors in polo's, aviators, and blues, a few cadets in the crowd in bdu's, a few blue flight suits, a few green flightsuits... all in "uniform"
Quote from: sleepyboyd on January 07, 2011, 11:48:50 PM
Heres a suggestion... and i'll prolly get shot for saying this but, how about we go to three uniforms.
White Aviators w/ or w/o blazer for dress
Polo's and grey slacks
BDU's...
your right, you will get alot of flak for that. Why is there such a problem with having USAF style uniforms? Really I want someone to actually say why they don't want us to have USAF style unfiorms, other than the really old worn out excuse of not everyone can wear them.
Quote
The USAF, USMC, US Navy, and US Army have all dropped the BDU from thier uniform inventory... so why do we still treat it like a AF style Uniform?
Because we haven't been phased into the new ABU yet, eventually, most likely, it will happen. And let's not turn this into an ABU vs Multicam issue. That has been said many times, we will eventually be transitioned into ABU.
Quote
Then, we can all be "Uniform".... imagine that! theres nothing like showing up to a CAP event and having seniors in polo's, aviators, and blues, a few cadets in the crowd in bdu's, a few blue flight suits, a few green flightsuits... all in "uniform"
If you have that many different uniforms at one time then there is a scheduling issue that needs to be addressed. Either field uniforms, or dress uniforms.
No one said anything about multicam...
You look at a US Army unit in formation... odds are, they are all in the same uniform.
You look at a USMC unit in formation... odds are they are all in the same uniform.
You look at a USAF unit in fomration... odds are they are all either in flightsuits or BDU's... or all in blues.
Why do we need two different uniform lines... one for those who can wear AF style and one for those who cannot. I always get weird looks from new members when I explain this in Level one...and most throw up thier hands and just buy the Polo shirt after looking at the 39-1.
and the multiple uniforms... go to a SAREX... Base staff can have polos/aviators/blues on, and ground teams are in BDU/Blue Utilities, and flight crews can have Blue/Green flightsuits or Polo's on.
I wear the AF style uniform, mainly because I just canabalize old work uniforms into CAP uniforms. I truly want to hear others opinions on having such a varied "uniform" appearance
As long as the AF says that our overweight and barbate members are not allowed to wear their uniform, we will continue to have two styles.
Quote from: sleepyboyd on January 07, 2011, 11:48:50 PMThe USAF, USMC, US Navy, and US Army have all dropped the BDU from thier uniform inventory... so why do we still treat it like a AF style Uniform?
USAF - still wearing BDU's until Nov. 2011
Quote from: Eclipse on January 08, 2011, 12:31:26 AM
Quote from: sleepyboyd on January 07, 2011, 11:48:50 PMThe USAF, USMC, US Navy, and US Army have all dropped the BDU from thier uniform inventory... so why do we still treat it like a AF style Uniform?
USAF - still wearing BDU's until Nov. 2011
Also, the general public still treats it as a military uniform, and will continue to do so for a couple of decades. We all know that perception trumps reality every time.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 08, 2011, 12:31:26 AM
USAF - still wearing BDU's until Nov. 2011
Correct. The USAF is also dropping Black Boots and Black/Brown shirts in flightsuits on that same date.
Quote from: SarDragon on January 08, 2011, 12:23:45 AM
As long as the AF says that our overweight and barbate members are not allowed to wear their uniform, we will continue to have two styles.
If we dropped the AF style uniforms, we wouldn't have a problem with everyone not "fitting" into a uniform. we would also have a more distinctive look, allowing us to develop an independent image for CAP.
Again, just playing devils advocate... i like my AF uniform... cause it' free...
Quote from: sleepyboyd on January 08, 2011, 12:20:19 AM
No one said anything about multicam...
You look at a US Army unit in formation... odds are, they are all in the same uniform.
You look at a USMC unit in formation... odds are they are all in the same uniform.
You look at a USAF unit in fomration... odds are they are all either in flightsuits or BDU's... or all in blues.
Why do we need two different uniform lines... one for those who can wear AF style and one for those who cannot. I always get weird looks from new members when I explain this in Level one...and most throw up thier hands and just buy the Polo shirt after looking at the 39-1.
Don't they have to at least have the minimum uniform of blues/aviator uniform?
Besides, why do we bother with what Army, or Marines do, as has been said here many times, we are not Army or Marines. Our connection is USAF, so long as we are connected with USAF, we should and most likely will have the USAF style uniforms. I still don't see the problem with having these different uniforms. All it does is show that we are accepting of everyone.
Quote from: sleepyboyd on January 07, 2011, 10:54:05 PMThere is nothing stated here that leads me to believe it limits the member from wearing three or four badges.
I see your point, but I can't agree on
four badges. Now, considering the way it's written, I can understand the inference of
three as follows (from tape up): specialty insignia, military wings, CAP wings.
In general, CAP uniforms are derivatives of Air Force ones. More than two badges above the tape is not the norm for the Air Force. There are people that have been shown wearing numerous badges, even over the nametape. To many, it could be overcompensating to do so. You may not believe that's it's not forbidden to wear three or four badges; but whether or not it's legal, you'll probably end up with people taking a negative view of you.
Quote from: sleepyboyd on January 07, 2011, 10:54:05 PMThe only limit I can see is that they must fall below the top notch of the collar.
That stipulation applies only to the blues,
6-3. Description and Proper Placement on the Service Dress Uniform is what applies.
It wouldn't surprise me if the original writers were employees completely unfamiliar with military uniforms, and have never worn one.
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on January 08, 2011, 01:23:22 AM
Don't they have to at least have the minimum uniform of blues/aviator uniform?
Correct. 39-1, 1-5 does state that each member will equip themselves with the basic uniform (note sigular). It then interestingly identifies two basic uniforms which are listed in subparagraph a and b below that.
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on January 08, 2011, 01:23:22 AM
Besides, why do we bother with what Army, or Marines do, as has been said here many times, we are not Army or Marines. Our connection is USAF, so long as we are connected with USAF, we should and most likely will have the USAF style uniforms.
The reference to the Army and Marines was a reference to how those organizations maintain a uniform image across thier organization. No statement was made that we should in some way, mimic those services. It was used to point out that CAP does not appear uniform across it's organization.
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on January 08, 2011, 01:23:22 AM
I still don't see the problem with having these different uniforms. All it does is show that we are accepting of everyone.
What is more accepting than for everyone to wear the same uniform... Big, Small, Bearded or Shaven...
Quote from: Hawk200 on January 08, 2011, 02:44:16 AM
You may not believe that's it's not forbidden to wear three or four badges; but whether or not it's legal, you'll probably end up with people taking a negative view of you.
Oh well...
Quote from: Hawk200 on January 08, 2011, 02:44:16 AM
Quote from: sleepyboyd on January 07, 2011, 10:54:05 PMThe only limit I can see is that they must fall below the top notch of the collar.
That stipulation applies only to the blues, 6-3. Description and Proper Placement on the Service Dress Uniform is what applies.
I stand corrected.
Quote from: sleepyboyd on January 08, 2011, 03:13:23 AMQuote from: Hawk200 on January 08, 2011, 02:44:16 AM
Quote from: sleepyboyd on January 07, 2011, 10:54:05 PMThe only limit I can see is that they must fall below the top notch of the collar.
That stipulation applies only to the blues, 6-3. Description and Proper Placement on the Service Dress Uniform is what applies.
I stand corrected.
It's easy to miss. I've found reading a chapter a day until I finish with it helps. Do it a couple times a year, and make sure you get the ICLs.
Quote from: sleepyboyd on January 08, 2011, 03:13:23 AM
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on January 08, 2011, 01:23:22 AM
Besides, why do we bother with what Army, or Marines do, as has been said here many times, we are not Army or Marines. Our connection is USAF, so long as we are connected with USAF, we should and most likely will have the USAF style uniforms.
The reference to the Army and Marines was a reference to how those organizations maintain a uniform image across thier organization. No statement was made that we should in some way, mimic those services. It was used to point out that CAP does not appear uniform across it's organization.
Not true as you state it. I have been in many many many formations while is was in the Army, almost one every day. We have had personnel in greens, others in flight suits, and most in BDU or ACU. You aren't going to get the overall "uniformity" that you want, ever. The purpose of the uniform is to look like everyone else in that uniform other than your personal awards. It is not to make every possible uniform combination the same, just to make those in BDU look like those in BDU, those in blues look like those in blues, those in BBDU like those in BBDU, and those in the aviator uniform like those in the aviator uniform. You want to get everyone in one uniform and only one uniform? Then you are going to have to get rid of all uniforms but one, and knowing CAP and the three missions, I bet you can guess which uniform that would be, either BDU or BBDU.
I mean no disrespect sir at all.
I had resisted commenting on this thread and have allowed discussion to mature before posting.
The simple fact that the creation, tampering with and alteration of CAP uniforms has been one lacking in organized planning, structure and coordination in the past (with no guarantee that this will change) would seem to always perpetuate this issue with CAPM 39-1.
There is no need for a "split" manual, nor any such radical action.
What is called for is 1) a true standing committee that reviews all proposed uniform changes and measures them against the benchmark of member expense and true necessity, 2) a 5-10 year moratorium on uniform changes (pending only radical change in the style of USAF counterparts), 3) an end to "willy-nilly" additions to it...for example, all the "I-got-a-good-idea-for a new award/patch/badge" as well as higher level uniform "pet projects."
The committee mentioned above has to be serious about maintaining an ascetically pleasing uniform and MUST TAKE THE COST TO THE MEMBERSHIP TO HEART in the process. People don't stop to realize that what seem like minor changes or alterations (such as additional patches, required insignia and the like) actually do cost money to NON-PAID members who, many times, give a great deal already of their own finance to make things happen.
The moratorium on major uniform changes (like creating uniform combos, changing positions and designs of badges, creating a slew of ribbons, badges...or replacing existing badges for no more reason that "THEY LOOK BETTER.") will save time, money and unnecessary legwork for memebrs.
There is no need to have "Imperial" uniforms, that is, that some change MUST be made when new leadership comes in like the "coins of the realm" did in other empires to demonstrate a NEW ERA. Sometimes someone "up there" gets an idea and then, because of position, make it happen. One thing that, in my opinion, seems to have become that way via default is the "NATIONAL COMMANDER'S UNIT CITATION'" (the "blue hornet," if you will) that was issued for Hurricane Katrina and Rita to several Wings that has never been reissued for any event I am aware of (could be wrong).
Maybe what we need instead of a CAP Manual outright, is instead what has been suggested from time to time here...some "corollary" to USAF uniform literature that preserves the overall wear of the USAF style uniform to conform to how it is worn in CAP. Thus, the overall "base" uniform remains as is worn in the USAF, only the CAP document alters the wear to reflect CAP insignia et al.
Thus, all changes are automatic and the only revisions involve where to place insignia. Also, the USAF would have the desired control of the wear of the uniform from the most basic level. Pages about the "white/grays" and other uniforms would be the only CAP "uniform." Thus, there would still be two styles "USAF STYLE" and "CAP Style." If kept in check and specific uses for uniform wear were maintained (for example all Mission Staff Personnel could wear some version of blues while all field ES personnel would wear BDUs and Flight suits...that's only an example for illustrative purposes so sand down Eclipse and others.)
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on January 08, 2011, 03:59:13 AM
You want to get everyone in one uniform and only one uniform? Then you are going to have to get rid of all uniforms but one, and knowing CAP and the three missions, I bet you can guess which uniform that would be, either BDU or BBDU.
I never said one uniform for everyone... I said one
line of uniform. Meaning, Aviators, Polo's, and BDU's or BBDU's... BBDU's might be better than BDU's.. When was the last time any CAP member needed to evade from someone in modern times? Its silly to me, that we covet the USAF style BDU, and then place colorful patches on it, and then wear a safety vest in the field over it. Why be camo in the first place? Do we feel some need to "look" military? We aren't. we are not a reserve, we are not a guard, we are an auxilliary... and as such (short of a beach landing by the chinese, or some type of "
Red Dawn" scenerio), will never need to be "clandestine" or "camo'd" at anytime.
Why have a unit change of command (for example), and have some folks in aviators, and some in blues? Why couldn't we all be in aviators? We always try to mirror active duty, but they don't have a "alternative" uniform for members who are big or unshaven. No, they have a uniform line that is worn by all of its members.
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on January 08, 2011, 03:59:13 AM
I mean no disrespect sir at all.
Its a forum for discussion... why would I take offense to your point of view?
Quote from: sleepyboyd on January 08, 2011, 04:17:40 PM
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on January 08, 2011, 03:59:13 AM
You want to get everyone in one uniform and only one uniform? Then you are going to have to get rid of all uniforms but one, and knowing CAP and the three missions, I bet you can guess which uniform that would be, either BDU or BBDU.
I never said one uniform for everyone... I said one line of uniform. Meaning, Aviators, Polo's, and BDU's or BBDU's... BBDU's might be better than BDU's.. When was the last time any CAP member needed to evade from someone in modern times? Its silly to me, that we covet the USAF style BDU, and then place colorful patches on it, and then wear a safety vest in the field over it. Why be camo in the first place? Do we feel some need to "look" military? We aren't. we are not a reserve, we are not a guard, we are an auxilliary... and as such (short of a beach landing by the chinese, or some type of "Red Dawn" scenerio), will never need to be "clandestine" or "camo'd" at anytime.
Why have a unit change of command (for example), and have some folks in aviators, and some in blues? Why couldn't we all be in aviators? We always try to mirror active duty, but they don't have a "alternative" uniform for members who are big or unshaven. No, they have a uniform line that is worn by all of its members.
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on January 08, 2011, 03:59:13 AM
I mean no disrespect sir at all.
Its a forum for discussion... why would I take offense to your point of view?
If an Auxiliary has no purpose being in the same uniform as their active counterpart then I guess auxiliary police shouldn't be in their active police's uniform either should they?
It has nothing to do with needing to blend in or hide or anything of the sort. It has to do with our link to the USAF.
Quote from: Major Carrales on January 08, 2011, 08:30:19 AM
Maybe what we need instead of a CAP Manual outright, is instead what has been suggested from time to time here...some "corollary" to USAF uniform literature that preserves the overall wear of the USAF style uniform to conform to how it is worn in CAP. Thus, the overall "base" uniform remains as is worn in the USAF, only the CAP document alters the wear to reflect CAP insignia et al.
Thus, all changes are automatic and the only revisions involve where to place insignia. Also, the USAF would have the desired control of the wear of the uniform from the most basic level. Pages about the "white/grays" and other uniforms would be the only CAP "uniform." Thus, there would still be two styles "USAF STYLE" and "CAP Style." If kept in check and specific uses for uniform wear were maintained (for example all Mission Staff Personnel could wear some version of blues while all field ES personnel would wear BDUs and Flight suits...that's only an example for illustrative purposes so sand down Eclipse and others.)
I actually really like this. Most people always point to the USAF regs as arguments for certain uniform issues, when our regulation says nothing about this practice. I like this.
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on January 08, 2011, 04:22:06 PM
If an Auxiliary has no purpose being in the same uniform as their active counterpart then I guess auxiliary police shouldn't be in their active police's uniform either should they?
It has nothing to do with needing to blend in or hide or anything of the sort. It has to do with our link to the USAF.
Those same Auxilliary police are all in the same uniform line as well. Meaning, they don't put the fat ones in a different set of shirts and slacks...
If we had strict weight and fitness standards members needed to meet, then we could all wear the AF style uniform, and I would have no problem with that.... but we don't. We take EO training to be more inclusive, and then force the fat guys and the bearded ones into another uniform line.
I truely understand where you are comming from. Our history and our service are directly linked to the USAF. I wear the AF style uniform because 1) I fit the profile, and 2) I already have them from work, and it's cheaper on me. However, I'm just suggesting that we all wear the same line of uniform... and Big Blue isnt going to let "all of us" wear thier uniform, and bring discredit to it by looking out of shape in it.
Quote from: Major Carrales on January 08, 2011, 08:30:19 AM
What is called for is 1) a true standing committee that reviews all proposed uniform changes and measures them against the benchmark of member expense and true necessity, 2) a 5-10 year moratorium on uniform changes (pending only radical change in the style of USAF counterparts), 3) an end to "willy-nilly" additions to it...for example, all the "I-got-a-good-idea-for a new award/patch/badge" as well as higher level uniform "pet projects."
The committee mentioned above has to be serious about maintaining an ascetically pleasing uniform and MUST TAKE THE COST TO THE MEMBERSHIP TO HEART in the process. People don't stop to realize that what seem like minor changes or alterations (such as additional patches, required insignia and the like) actually do cost money to NON-PAID members who, many times, give a great deal already of their own finance to make things happen.
I agree with you that overall costs to the membership needs to be a priority in any uniform changes. For example a move to the new ABU's/ACU's that the AF is using, would likely cost the member over $200.00 for everything needed to wear the uniform properly (including outer jacket). Even cadets getting "free" uniforms are likely going to have to spend close to another $100.00 (shoes, insignias, patches, etc) just to be in compliance.
Many CAP members seem to place way to much emphasis on uniforms than is necessary :-[
RM
We could always go down the reasonable route and keep the BDUs. There's nothing wrong with them.
*Ahem*
ACU/ABU's are not current uniform items thus breaking rule 1 of the game.
Actually, the first rule is not to talk about it, though that is probably technically rule "0".
Quote from: Eclipse on January 09, 2011, 12:44:49 AM
Actually, the first rule is not to talk about it, though that is probably technically rule "0".
The first rule of CAPTalk, we do not talk about CAPTalk.
The second rule of CAPTalk, we do not talk about CAPTalk.
The third rule of CAPTalk, if this is your first thread, you will be trashed.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 09, 2011, 12:44:49 AM
Actually, the first rule is not to talk about it, though that is probably technically rule "0".
The first rule of Fight Club...Don't talk about fight club.
Quote from: sleepyboyd on January 08, 2011, 04:17:40 PM
I never said one uniform for everyone... I said one line of uniform. Meaning, Aviators, Polo's, and BDU's or BBDU's... BBDU's might be better than BDU's.. When was the last time any CAP member needed to evade from someone in modern times? Its silly to me, that we covet the USAF style BDU, and then place colorful patches on it, and then wear a safety vest in the field over it. Why be camo in the first place? Do we feel some need to "look" military? We aren't. we are not a reserve, we are not a guard, we are an auxilliary... and as such (short of a beach landing by the chinese, or some type of "Red Dawn" scenerio), will never need to be "clandestine" or "camo'd" at anytime.
The camo argument has always been a strawman argument. CAP has always worn the uniform that the Air Force has worn, be it the green utilities (I still have mine) that ended in the late eighties early nineties, and the khaki's (which was before my time). Even during WW 2, with the exception of red epaulets, we wore the uniform of the Army Air Forces. That has been our history, our tradition. The adding and evolution of the aviators has been a positive for those in our organization that don't meet the weight and/or grooming requirements, but stripping the military uniforms from those that meet the grooming and weight requirements will only destroy that connection to our history and tradition.
The red epaulets were removed after about a year and the CAP uniforms were identical to Army Air Corp uniforms except for insignia. Even cadet NCO grades were identical to the military. For awhile the NCO grades had a red background, like the Marine Corp, but were changed to standard Army stripes. During the War, CAP had a large NCO Corp for ground duty assignments. And NCOs could be promoted.
Back to the OP, the one thing that really needs to be done right now is an update incorporating all the ICL's to CAPM 39-1. We can worry about changes later, but we really need the manual to reflect all the CURRENT requirements.
Although, I suspect they are waiting for the CPU expiration date so that they don't have to include it. 8)
Why don't we just set up the uniform manual in sections that can be changed as needed and not have to upgrade the entire manual each time there is a uniform change. These sections will have a review every two years and would be upgraded at that time. This would also give the uniform committee a two year window to work on revisions and approval.
Quote from: davedove on January 10, 2011, 12:43:18 PM
Back to the OP, the one thing that really needs to be done right now is an update incorporating all the ICL's to CAPM 39-1. We can worry about changes later, but we really need the manual to reflect all the CURRENT requirements.
Although, I suspect they are waiting for the CPU expiration date so that they don't have to include it. 8)
What is the CPU?
And not to be a PITA, but if we're going to play by the regs, then the ICLs are all invalid anyway (since by regulations, ICLs can only be issued for emergency, non-routine items and must be incorporated into their parent regulation within 180 days). So that leaves a lot OFF the table.
Quote from: JoeTomasone on January 10, 2011, 05:02:06 PM
Quote from: davedove on January 10, 2011, 12:43:18 PM
Back to the OP, the one thing that really needs to be done right now is an update incorporating all the ICL's to CAPM 39-1. We can worry about changes later, but we really need the manual to reflect all the CURRENT requirements.
Although, I suspect they are waiting for the CPU expiration date so that they don't have to include it. 8)
What is the CPU?
And not to be a PITA, but if we're going to play by the regs, then the ICLs are all invalid anyway (since by regulations, ICLs can only be issued for emergency, non-routine items and must be incorporated into their parent regulation within 180 days). So that leaves a lot OFF the table.
Oops! :-[ I missed that in my edit. I meant CSU, the Corporate Service Uniform, which is being eliminated.
Actually, I never interpreted the ICL regs to say that the ICU's expire. Yes, the regs require them to be incorporated within 180 days, but it doesn't say they expire if that doesn't happen. The way I read it, only the ICL's with expiration dates included expire. Now, National is certainly in violation of the regs if they don't do it, but I guess nobody's pushing the issue at a high enough level.
IMHO, the manual needs to be restructured. Instead of AF style, Corporate, etc, use Dress, Service, Work, Flight. If a particular uniform fits in multiple sections, have the full description in the first section and a reference to that in the other sections. This helps avoid internal conflicts (i.e. updating the golf shirt in one section, but not in all sections.)
My idea has the following:
Dress uniforms:
- AF Service Dress
- CAP Service Dress (aka CSU)
- Blazer
- Mess Dress
- Semi Formal AF Service
- Semi Formal CAP Service
- Semi Formal Blazer
Service uniforms:
- AF Service uniform
-- Short Sleeve
-- Long sleve
- CAP Service uniform (aka Aviator Shirt)
-- Short Sleeve
-- Long Sleeve
- Golf/Polo Shirt
Work uniform:
- Battle Dress Uniform
- Field Uniform (aka bbdu)
- Utility Uniform
- Golf/Polo Shirt
Flight unifrom:
- Sage green flight suit
- Navy blue flight suit
- Utility Uniform
- Golf/Polo Shirt
Outerwear information is included with each uniform description, i.e. the camo field jacket is included with the bdu, while the blue field jacket is included with the bbdu.
A separate manual needs to be created to describe and show the authorized accoutrements. Placement would still be in the uniform manual (all placement instructions are included in the particluar uniform section), but the lists and pictures would be in the accoutrements manual. (One Specialty Badge is authorized for wear centered on the lower portion of the left and right breast pockets. See CAPM 39-2, CAP Uniform Accoutrements, for a list of Specialty Badges.)
This structure would help promote a more equal impression between the AF style and Corporate uniforms. Using common terminology (AF Service/CAP Service vs AF Service/Aviator Shirt) helps reinforce the equality issue as well.
Quote from: davedove on January 11, 2011, 12:43:17 PM
Actually, I never interpreted the ICL regs to say that the ICU's expire. Yes, the regs require them to be incorporated within 180 days, but it doesn't say they expire if that doesn't happen. The way I read it, only the ICL's with expiration dates included expire. Now, National is certainly in violation of the regs if they don't do it, but I guess nobody's pushing the issue at a high enough level.
Here's what the reg (CAPR 5-4) actually says, emphasis and comments mine:
Quote from: CAPR 5-4, Section 4
4. Interim Change Letters (ICL). Situations requiring immediate action due to a state of emergency, an unforeseen circumstance involving the preservation of life or property, or other contingencies that may require prompt action may result in an interim change letter being issued outlining immediate policies. ICLs may be issued by any level of command unless specifically limited or prohibited by the regulation or manual governing that subject matter. Issuance of policies by ICL is a temporary measure.
ICLs are to be issued for urgent issues, not routine ones (i.e. uniforms).
Quote from: CAPR 5-4, Section 4
a. ICLs outlining immediate policies to be followed for a limited time will be issued with a stated expiration date. Such expiration dates shall not be more than 180 days from the date the letter was issued.
So if it's temporary, it must have an expiration date, which is not to exceed 180 days.
Quote from: CAPR 5-4, Section 4
b. ICLs outlining immediate policies that are intended to become permanent shall be incorporated into an appropriate publication within 90 days of the date the letter was issued.
"Shall be" == mandatory.
So, to sum:
1. You cannot issue ICLs for uniform matters as they are not "Situations requiring immediate action due to a state of emergency, an unforeseen circumstance involving the preservation of life or property, or other contingencies that may require prompt action".
2. However, should you try to squeeze it into the "other contingencies that may require prompt action" category, it "SHALL BE" incorporated into the appropriate publication within 90 days.
3. Since (by the logical interpretation of the regs) you cannot issue ICLs for uniform matters and even if you could each failed to be incorporated into 39-1 within 90 days, they can not (any longer) be considered valid.
Your honor, the barracks lawyer rests.
So, are the ICL's valid or not?
Quote from: HGjunkie on January 11, 2011, 11:34:05 PM
So, are the ICL's valid or not?
Yes.
And that's a clearer answer than we've gotten from NHQ.
Quote from: davidsinn on January 11, 2011, 11:38:31 PM
Quote from: HGjunkie on January 11, 2011, 11:34:05 PM
So, are the ICL's valid or not?
Yes.
And that's a clearer answer than we've gotten from NHQ.
More properly, if you go by the regs, no. If you ask National, yes.
So, who do we follow, National or the Regs? That's a brain-twister if i've ever seen one...
Now you enter into the dirty world of politics.
You follow National if you don't want a ton of grief heaped upon your head.
You follow the regs if you feel the need to rebel to the point of receiving pain.
As for me, I both follow the uniform ICLs and make my displeasure known up the Chain of Command. I am Captain, hear me whimper.
Quote from: JoeTomasone on January 12, 2011, 01:20:21 PM
Now you enter into the dirty world of politics.
You follow National if you don't want a ton of grief heaped upon your head.
Non-concur.
National Headquarters has no command or control function. It is composed of about a hundred hard-working employees who have no authority to issue regulations or orders.
Command is solely a function of our volunteer leadership, starting with Gen Courter and flowing through the region and wing commanders down to your squadron commander.
I certainly agree that the 39-1 needs to be updated and revised, and also agree that we are dirty on incorporating the ICLs.
I just don't think this is the biggest or most important problem CAP has to deal with. If I were National Commander, I would have a lot higher priorities than fixing the uniform regulations. Obviously, reasonable minds will vary on just how important spending hundreds of volunteer hours fixing the 39-1 is.
But just as obviously here on CAPTalk - based on the amount of time we spend talking about clothing and doodads worn on clothing - it is clearly the most important issue on CAP's plate.
Bottom line, consult the regs and follow the guidance of your commander. At some point, I'm confident we will get a new 39-1 to argue about and pick apart. It's what we do.
But I'm going to avoid that committee like the plague.
Quote from: Ned on January 12, 2011, 04:57:40 PM
Non-concur.
National Headquarters has no command or control function. It is composed of about a hundred hard-working employees who have no authority to issue regulations or orders.
On the contrary, CAPR 5-4 spells out the duties of the National staff WRT implementing National Board policy (which the ICLs have stated that these changes come from):
Quote from: CAPR 5-4, Section 2
2. Regulations and Manuals. 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.
b. National Headquarters (NHQ) staff, including volunteer members of CAP assigned to the National Commander's staff, shall incorporate all policies, or changes to existing policies, into drafts of CAP regulations, manuals, or revisions thereof. The NHQ staff may also implement non-policy publications or changes to publications (e.g., address changes, points of contact, Air Force or other DoD mandated changes, statutory or other legal requirements) as needed.
c. The NHQ OPR shall coordinate draft regulations, manuals or revision thereof with NHQ directorates and, when applicable, other affected agencies in accordance with established NHQ CAP procedures. When a draft regulation, manual or revision is referred to a committee, the OPR will coordinate with that committee, in addition to the appropriate NHQ and CAP-USAF directorates. The OPR will edit the draft regulation, manual or revision based on inputs received during coordination and will submit the draft regulation to the NHQ publications manager to be posted for 30 days on the NHQ website for comment by the volunteer membership. The NHQ publications manager will promptly notify the National Board, CAP-USAF and such other parties as designated by the National Commander, National Vice Commander and/or National Chief of Staff, of such posting.
d. Resolving Comments. At the end of the comment period, the NHQ Publications Manager will send all comments received to the NHQ OPR. The NHQ OPR will evaluate all comments for inclusion into the regulation, manual or revision. Once complete, the OPR will attach a cover letter to the draft publication reflecting all comments received and whether the recommendation was incorporated or not. For those recommendations not incorporated, the cover letter will state the reason for not incorporating it. Draft regulations, manuals or revisions that govern Air Force assigned missions or CAP's use of federally provided resources will be forwarded to CAP-USAF for approval. CAP-USAF will forward approved draft regulations, manuals or revisions to the CAP/EX
e. The National Headquarters Executive Director (NHQ CAP/EX) shall review the final draft regulation, manual or revision. The final draft publication will then be sent it to the National Commander for approval. Once approved, the regulation, manual or revision will be sent to the NHQ publications manager for publication and distribution.
(Emphasis mine)
39-1 is stuck somewhere in (b) or (c). The NB has voted to implement these items, but instead of following CAPR 5-4's procedure for incorporating these into 39-1, National merely issued ICLs (NIAW CAPR 5-4, as I contend).
I estimate it would take no more than 3 hours to incorporate all of the ICLs into 39-1 in draft form for comment. While I agree that National does have several other (perhaps more pressing) things to attend to, I cannot believe that in the past 6 years no one has found a few hours to kick-start the rest of the process off. On the contrary, if it had been done each time the NB had changed policies, then it wouldn't even be 3 hours of work.
Alternatively, the NB could have simply voted to change CAPR 5-4 to allow ICLs to be issued for routine items and to have no expiration date pending incorporation into existing publications. However, they haven't done this either.
I have no problem with following the will of the Board and wearing my uniform IAW 39-1 and ICLs, but it bothers me that National expects us to follow regulations, yet apparently sees fit to disregard them when it suits them. That is a seriously bad precedent to set, mitigated only by the fact that only about 0.000000000000000000000001% of CAP Members ever actually READ the regulations anyway.
<sarcasm>
Maybe that's the solution - stop reading the regs and do whatever we want?
</sarcasm>
I have actually been thinking of making a new 39-1. ll it would take was a couple of meetings, one to get the dress uniforms, and one to get the BDU uniforms, and about two days to get the manual written up. Shouldn't be too hard to do. If I do this, I will post is here on CT for you guys to check before I submit it for approval, or should I do it the other way around and submit it first and let it come out in draft form (if they accept it)?
Oh, and BTW, here's the relevant section of the CAP Constitution:
Quote
ARTICLE XX
REGULATIONS
1. To further the orderly administration of the activities, business and affairs of the Corporation, the
National Commander shall establish and maintain regulations which shall be applicable to all members of
Civil Air Patrol. These regulations will be based on policies established by the Board of Governors,
National Board, CAP-USAF, or law.
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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
Emphasis, again, mine.
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: of course I have no faith in our leadership concerning this issue so dont count on the higher ups approving it.
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on January 12, 2011, 05:28:21 PMI have actually been thinking of making a new 39-1.
It's sorta half done sitting here, after I got a headache jumping back and forth. But the gist of it is all the documents inline with references and cites where things are superseded, and obsolete material struck out. Perhaps I should take a shot at finishing it.
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on January 12, 2011, 05:28:21 PM
I have actually been thinking of making a new 39-1. ll it would take was a couple of meetings, one to get the dress uniforms, and one to get the BDU uniforms, and about two days to get the manual written up. Shouldn't be too hard to do. If I do this, I will post is here on CT for you guys to check before I submit it for approval, or should I do it the other way around and submit it first and let it come out in draft form (if they accept it)?
Technically speaking (by the letter of the regulations), you can't:
Quote from: CAPR 5-4, Section 2(b)
b. National Headquarters (NHQ) staff, including volunteer members of CAP assigned to the National Commander's staff, shall incorporate all policies, or changes to existing policies, into drafts of CAP regulations, manuals, or revisions thereof.
If anyone could do it and submit it, I'd have been all over it years ago.
Quote from: JoeTomasone on January 12, 2011, 05:33:28 PM
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on January 12, 2011, 05:28:21 PM
I have actually been thinking of making a new 39-1. ll it would take was a couple of meetings, one to get the dress uniforms, and one to get the BDU uniforms, and about two days to get the manual written up. Shouldn't be too hard to do. If I do this, I will post is here on CT for you guys to check before I submit it for approval, or should I do it the other way around and submit it first and let it come out in draft form (if they accept it)?
Technically speaking (by the letter of the regulations), you can't:
Quote from: CAPR 5-4, Section 2(b)
b. National Headquarters (NHQ) staff, including volunteer members of CAP assigned to the National Commander's staff, shall incorporate all policies, or changes to existing policies, into drafts of CAP regulations, manuals, or revisions thereof.
If anyone could do it and submit it, I'd have been all over it years ago.
You can't make an official publication, but anyone can create and submit a draft. Look at the section on Honor Guard uniforms that was included. It was obviously written by an amateur. And it's only marginally better than the Honor Guard "manual" that came out before.
I think that a well written draft of a proposed 39-1 might actually fly. I've been thinking about writing one myself, in the same format as 36-2903. Granted, there would be differences when including the corporate uniforms, but the general format could be utilized.
Quote from: Hawk200 on January 12, 2011, 05:40:32 PM
You can't make an official publication, but anyone can create and submit a draft. Look at the section on Honor Guard uniforms that was included. It was obviously written by an amateur. And it's only marginally better than the Honor Guard "manual" that came out before.
I think that a well written draft of a proposed 39-1 might actually fly. I've been thinking about writing one myself, in the same format as 36-2903. Granted, there would be differences when including the corporate uniforms, but the general format could be utilized.
I was thinking more of sticking with the format of the current 39-1 but change the big things that need changed, like wording, updating, to include getting rid of those gray shaded areas that make you think... if this is how it is now, then what in the world were they doing to this uniform before?
I would like to see the 39-1 made in a format that would be sent to each wing, edited to what that wing has implemented for use in their wing, such as different headgear and such. Then have each wing have the 39-1 available on their website instead of having the 39-1 on the NHQ website and then having memorandums on the wing website. Just have it all in one manual, such as CAPR39-1INWG, CAPR39-1ILWG, CAPR39-1CAWG. I think this would make things a bit easier. However I do see this being a problem when someone wants one in paper format. The only way we could get it on paper would be to print it ourselves or have VG sell each wing's different 39-1.
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on January 12, 2011, 05:50:49 PM
I would like to see the 39-1 made in a format that would be sent to each wing, edited to what that wing has implemented for use in their wing, such as different headgear and such. Then have each wing have the 39-1 available on their website instead of having the 39-1 on the NHQ website and then having memorandums on the wing website. Just have it all in one manual, such as CAPR39-1INWG, CAPR39-1ILWG, CAPR39-1CAWG. I think this would make things a bit easier. However I do see this being a problem when someone wants one in paper format. The only way we could get it on paper would be to print it ourselves or have VG sell each wing's different 39-1.
Yeah, no thanks. It's hard enough for them to keep one uniform manual updated, lets not make 53 (52 wings plus national). I'll gladly stick with wings writing and publishing properly approved supplements as needed. Plus, what does someone in Maine care what special hat we're wearing in Texas?
Quote from: jeders on January 12, 2011, 05:54:17 PM
Yeah, no thanks. It's hard enough for them to keep one uniform manual updated, lets not make 53 (52 wings plus national). I'll gladly stick with wings writing and publishing properly approved supplements as needed. Plus, what does someone in Maine care what special hat we're wearing in Texas?
It has nothing to do with you knowing what another wing is doing with their uniforms. It is all to do with the fact that there are some that have no idea that wings can even make uniform alterations for use in their own wing. Last week I got asked what in the world I was wearing, because they didn't know that there are supplements to the manual on the wing website.
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on January 12, 2011, 05:57:34 PM
Quote from: jeders on January 12, 2011, 05:54:17 PM
Yeah, no thanks. It's hard enough for them to keep one uniform manual updated, lets not make 53 (52 wings plus national). I'll gladly stick with wings writing and publishing properly approved supplements as needed. Plus, what does someone in Maine care what special hat we're wearing in Texas?
It has nothing to do with you knowing what another wing is doing with their uniforms. It is all to do with the fact that there are some that have no idea that wings can even make uniform alterations for use in their own wing. Last week I got asked what in the world I was wearing, because they didn't know that there are supplements to the manual on the wing website.
I don't know about that case, but in my experience, when someone doesn't know that there's a supplement on the wing website, they also don't know how to find the regs on the national site. So I can appreciate why this might be helpful, but I doubt that it will make the slightest bit of difference.
Quote from: JoeTomasone on January 12, 2011, 05:24:47 PM
On the contrary, CAPR 5-4 spells out the duties of the National staff WRT implementing National Board policy (which the ICLs have stated that these changes come from):
I stand by my statement. Only the volunteer leadership can make policy or give orders (which includes regulations).
Sure, the NHQ professionals and the volunteers on the National Staff can coordinate, incorporate, edit, revise, draft, and re-draft as directed. But it ain't an enforceable regulation or order until some combination of the BoG/NB/NEC and the National Commander says it is.
None of the professionals NHQ has command authority over any member of CAP.
You may be right as to the status of any pending 39-1 revisions. But the bottom line remains - consult the regulations and follow the guidance of your commander.
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on January 12, 2011, 05:57:34 PMLast week I got asked what in the world I was wearing, because they didn't know that there are supplements to the manual on the wing website.
What were you wearing?
Blue beret.
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on January 12, 2011, 09:12:10 PM
Blue beret.
I'm assuming you were in an operational environment per the supplement?
Quote from: davidsinn on January 12, 2011, 09:17:35 PM
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on January 12, 2011, 09:12:10 PM
Blue beret.
I'm assuming you were in an operational environment per the supplement?
Or unit sponsored training.
But no, I thought it was the meeting where it is all ES training, but wrong night.
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on January 12, 2011, 09:20:48 PM
Quote from: davidsinn on January 12, 2011, 09:17:35 PM
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on January 12, 2011, 09:12:10 PM
Blue beret.
I'm assuming you were in an operational environment per the supplement?
Or unit sponsored training.
But no, I thought it was the meeting where it is all ES training, but wrong night.
I consider unit sponsored training(FTXs and the like) to be operational. An all ES meeting night is a gray area but since the supplement is loosely worded I wouldn't have a problem with it unless the person wearing it became a problem(attitude).
Quote from: Eclipse on January 12, 2011, 09:23:14 PM
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on January 12, 2011, 09:12:10 PM
Blue beret.
Well...that is some whuffie you'll never get back...
It does look pretty good and is comfortable to boot.
Quote from: davidsinn on January 12, 2011, 09:23:31 PM
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on January 12, 2011, 09:20:48 PM
Quote from: davidsinn on January 12, 2011, 09:17:35 PM
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on January 12, 2011, 09:12:10 PM
Blue beret.
I'm assuming you were in an operational environment per the supplement?
Or unit sponsored training.
But no, I thought it was the meeting where it is all ES training, but wrong night.
I consider unit sponsored training(FTXs and the like) to be operational. An all ES meeting night is a gray area but since the supplement is loosely worded I wouldn't have a problem with it unless the person wearing it became a problem(attitude).
Attitudes do come largely with items like those, but I know cadets like that sort of thing, it is a bonus for them, so I wear it for them. Plus I am actually more comfortable in a beret, I have worn one for about 10 years.
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on January 12, 2011, 09:25:44 PM
...cadets like that sort of thing, it is a bonus for them, so I wear it for them. Plus I am actually more comfortable in a beret, I have worn one for about 10 years.
You wear it
for them?
Ok, seriously...
Quote from: davidsinn on January 12, 2011, 09:23:31 PM
It does look pretty good and is comfortable to boot.
Yeah, super high speed. ::)
I forgot Eclipse, you don't work with cadets, nor were you one.
You would be surprised how far something like that will carry some cadets. Now we don't want cadets to be motivated in the field of ES for the badges, berets, or awards, but you have to remember cadets do get a feel good attitude from things of that sort. However some will also feel awkward being the only one wearing a large item such as a beret. So yeah, I would wear just about anything to help a cadet feel better about him/herself, even if it made me feel like a dork. Also, I have been wearing a beret for so long that a PC does feel rather weird. I haven't worn a PC since Basic Training, even then it felt weird because as a cadet I wore a beret more often than not, it was the headgear for the HG, and we wore it for GT also. So I do feel like it is more comfortable.
Now back to the thread.
If the 39-1 is re-written now then we have to be ready for it to be re-re-written in another yearish, if the field uniform changes. I still do think it would be good to have a reliable regulation that isn't shrouded in controversy as much as it currently is.
BDU/BBDU
Remove the American flag patch-put specialty patches back on right sleeve
Clarify the amount of badges to be worn above the pocket (2-3?) and allow one on the pocket flap for a total of 3 or 4
Clarify that badges are to be sewn 1/2 to the white thread of the badge not the blue border
Get rid of the BBDU and go with OD (pipe dream but I would switch to OD right now if it were an option)
Switch to tan combat boots (black are getting next to impossible to find)
Blues
Clarify the amount of badges to be worn above the pocket (2-3?) and allow one on the pocket flap for a total of 3 or 4
Allow cadets to wear only their highest achievement award if they are so inclined
Allow the wear of a foreign badge (to include cords) above the nameplate (cadet or senior) The AF allows but only in said country
Update NRA badge wording
Update Military awards wording (If you are awarded the AF small arms ribbon as a CAP member you should be able to wear it.)
Wing Patches back on Blues Coat and "class B" shirts
Back to CAP cutout on oneside with rank on the other for Cadet enlisted, back to CAP cutouts for ALL on all uniforms (NOT U.S.)
Patches/Awards
Military Badge chart showing what can and cannot be worn
Discontinue CAP NCO ranks (those who are may continue to be, all new members are officers)
Discontinue the following (those who have earned may continue to wear) CPR patch, ES "pluto patch" (allow the T34 oval patch), ES decal on white helmets, Rad Monitoring patch, model rocketry patch, check pilots patch, afrcc patch, nasar patches, archer patch, Pre-solo badge, neat patch.
...and the following ribbons are gone too
Orientation pilot ribbon, community service ribbon, AFA and VFW ribbons, Nat Unit Citation, and the Eaker ribbon.
Quote from: GroundHawg on January 13, 2011, 01:43:31 PM
Switch to tan combat boots (black are getting next to impossible to find)
The rest of your post aside, especially the seemingly pointless bit about discontinuing certain patches and ribbons for no real reason, in what way are black boots getting next to impossible to find? Google turns up lots of result, many of the relevant, along with eBay and Amazon. Oh, and that little place called Vanguard, then there's your local surplus shop, and asking your state director about getting some from DRMO (at the squadron or group level, not just the individual level). As much as you may hate Vanguard, it has everything you need.
I would be happy if we could simply go to tapes/insignia that was white on whatever color material it was being applied to. I would even pay extra for it from vanguard.
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on January 13, 2011, 01:50:50 PM
Quote from: GroundHawg on January 13, 2011, 01:43:31 PM
Switch to tan combat boots (black are getting next to impossible to find)
The rest of your post aside, especially the seemingly pointless bit about discontinuing certain patches and ribbons for no real reason, in what way are black boots getting next to impossible to find? Google turns up lots of result, many of the relevant, along with eBay and Amazon. Oh, and that little place called Vanguard, then there's your local surplus shop, and asking your state director about getting some from DRMO (at the squadron or group level, not just the individual level). As much as you may hate Vanguard, it has everything you need.
Just saw two different styles at MCSS this week as well.
Quote from: GroundHawg on January 13, 2011, 01:43:31 PM
BDU/BBDU
Remove the American flag patch-put specialty patches back on right sleeve
Agree 1000%
QuoteClarify the amount of badges to be worn above the pocket (2-3?) and allow one on the pocket flap for a total of 3 or 4
Agree on clarification, should be 2. Disagree on the pocket flap.
QuoteClarify that badges are to be sewn 1/2 to the white thread of the badge not the blue border
Pretty sure that this is already in there in clear language. But if it's still a little fuzzy, then agree.
QuoteGet rid of the BBDU and go with OD (pipe dream but I would switch to OD right now if it were an option)
Disagree, mostly because it's a "new" uniform, not a 39-1 fix.
QuoteSwitch to tan combat boots (black are getting next to impossible to find)
Disagree, haven't had any problem finding black boots, and the AF wears green.
QuoteBlues
Clarify the amount of badges to be worn above the pocket (2-3?) and allow one on the pocket flap for a total of 3 or 4
Agree/disagree, same as above.
QuoteAllow cadets to wear only their highest achievement award if they are so inclined
Disagree, have you ever known a cadet who wants to wear fewer ribbons.
QuoteAllow the wear of a foreign badge (to include cords) above the nameplate (cadet or senior) The AF allows but only in said country
Not sure.
QuoteUpdate NRA badge wording
Definitely agree.
QuoteUpdate Military awards wording (If you are awarded the AF small arms ribbon as a CAP member you should be able to wear it.)
Definitely agree.
QuoteWing Patches back on Blues Coat and "class B" shirts
Disagree. Taking the patches off brought us more inline with the AF. Plus, I'm pretty sure they told us to take them off.
QuoteBack to CAP cutout on oneside with rank on the other for Cadet enlisted, back to CAP cutouts for ALL on all uniforms (NOT U.S.)
Disagree completely, rank on both sides brought us more in line with the AF.
QuotePatches/Awards
Military Badge chart showing what can and cannot be worn
Disagree, a chart would be outdated in a few years, the current language saying occupational specialty badges never gets outdated.
QuoteDiscontinue CAP NCO ranks (those who are may continue to be, all new members are officers)
Disagree because this is outside the purview of a 39-1 revision.
QuoteDiscontinue the following (those who have earned may continue to wear) CPR patch, ES "pluto patch" (allow the T34 oval patch), ES decal on white helmets, Rad Monitoring patch, model rocketry patch, check pilots patch, afrcc patch, nasar patches, archer patch, Pre-solo badge, neat patch.
...and the following ribbons are gone too
Orientation pilot ribbon, community service ribbon, AFA and VFW ribbons, Nat Unit Citation,
Disagree, why do you want to just axe a bunch of things that recognize achievements inside and out of CAP?
Quoteand the Eaker ribbon.
Strongly disagree. Double why?
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on January 12, 2011, 11:59:55 PM
I forgot Eclipse, you don't work with cadets
I'm pretty sure that he runs encampment every year, IIRC. But I was a cadet and I work with them and agree with his perspective of them. But, to each his own.
Quote from: GroundHawg on January 13, 2011, 01:43:31 PM
Allow cadets to wear only their highest achievement award if they are so inclined
Yes.
Someone said no because most cadets will wear them all. Why not give the option. Some older cadets might like it.
Quote from: GroundHawg on January 13, 2011, 01:43:31 PM
Update NRA badge wording
YES
I've been running a junior rifle program that gives out those awards since 1999. The wording was wrong then >:(
Quote from: GroundHawg on January 13, 2011, 01:43:31 PM
Back to CAP cutout on oneside with rank on the other for Cadet enlisted, back to CAP cutouts for ALL on all uniforms (NOT U.S.)
As far as the cadet grade, YES. If you disagree have you calculated the expense in doubling squadron supplies of senior cadet NCO grade. 4 C/CMSgt cutouts are $36 + Vanguard's famous low shipping.
Quote from: GroundHawg on January 13, 2011, 01:43:31 PM
...and the following ribbons are gone too
Orientation pilot ribbon, community service ribbon, AFA and VFW ribbons, Nat Unit Citation, and the Eaker ribbon.
Beginning to think you just don't like ribbons...
Quote from: phirons on January 13, 2011, 05:06:23 PMBeginning to think you just don't like ribbons...
No, thats were the real 'RM' must have went. ;)
Quote from: phirons on January 13, 2011, 05:06:23 PM
Quote from: GroundHawg on January 13, 2011, 01:43:31 PM
Allow cadets to wear only their highest achievement award if they are so inclined
Yes.
Someone said no because most cadets will wear them all. Why not give the option. Some older cadets might like it.
Quote from: GroundHawg on January 13, 2011, 01:43:31 PM
Update NRA badge wording
YES
I've been running a junior rifle program that gives out those awards since 1999. The wording was wrong then >:(
Quote from: GroundHawg on January 13, 2011, 01:43:31 PM
Back to CAP cutout on oneside with rank on the other for Cadet enlisted, back to CAP cutouts for ALL on all uniforms (NOT U.S.)
As far as the cadet grade, YES. If you disagree have you calculated the expense in doubling squadron supplies of senior cadet NCO grade. 4 C/CMSgt cutouts are $36 + Vanguard's famous low shipping.
Quote from: GroundHawg on January 13, 2011, 01:43:31 PM
...and the following ribbons are gone too
Orientation pilot ribbon, community service ribbon, AFA and VFW ribbons, Nat Unit Citation, and the Eaker ribbon.
Beginning to think you just don't like ribbons...
Sounds to me that he is mostly trying to get away from anything that would associate us with the military too much, such as ribbons and how grade is worn, along with a patch such as the Pluto patch that could be looked at as something that looks like a campaign patch.
I dont hate ribbons or patches or awards... I just hate when they are to excess. I dont get why there are 5 patches and a ribbon for pilots when they already have wings to indicate they are pilots. You want to simplify a uniform manual? Strip it down.
I dislike cartoonish insignia that imho does not present a professional image. Want to be taken seriously? Take off the Disney Pluto patch off your uniform, would have been more appropriate if it were Goofy. Seriously.
Uniforms look better when they are free of clutter, but I also belive that the CAP needs to look like the CAP not the AF.
As for the boots, I can get a set of NEW desert boots at most of the local surplus stores for $20-$30. I have to order black boots online as NOONE has them here locally and they run on the low end used between $30-$50 USED and $60-$100 new. Im just trying to stretch what little cash I have.
And Vanguard sucks, I wont order anything from them that I can get elsewhere. Ever.
Quote from: GroundHawg on January 13, 2011, 06:56:09 PM
I dont hate ribbons or patches or awards... I just hate when they are to excess. I dont get why there are 5 patches and a ribbon for pilots when they already have wings to indicate they are pilots. You want to simplify a uniform manual? Strip it down.
I dislike cartoonish insignia that imho does not present a professional image. Want to be taken seriously? Take off the Disney Pluto patch off your uniform, would have been more appropriate if it were Goofy. Seriously.
I think that the Pluto patch goes back to the early days of CAP. In WWI and WWII cartoon characters were very widely used on patches and planes, along with them being painted or drawn in places where our troops have been. They were used on planes, on bombs, tanks and many other places, and still are today. In fact where do you think ole Kilroy comes from?
Quote
Uniforms look better when they are free of clutter, but I also belive that the CAP needs to look like the CAP not the AF.
Exactly my point. CAP is USAF. We are the OFFICIAL AUXILIARY!!!
Quote
As for the boots, I can get a set of NEW desert boots at most of the local surplus stores for $20-$30. I have to order black boots online as NOONE has them here locally and they run on the low end used between $30-$50 USED and $60-$100 new. Im just trying to stretch what little cash I have.
And Vanguard sucks, I wont order anything from them that I can get elsewhere. Ever.
I have to agree that VG sucks. They are the worst company that CAP could have contracted with. However I can get a nice pair of jungle boots brand new at the local surplus for $25, or I can get a decent used pair for about $15, simply because the demand isn't out there as much now. I have asked about the boots at the local surplus and their plan to keep them, they said that they don't plan to get rid of the black jungles ever. They are just not hard to get at all.
Hmmmm.... ???
Double Hmmmm... ??? ???
There have been some good suggestions in this thread. Whether any of them are adopted or not...throw it at the wall and see if it sticks.
My suggestions will be divided into three categories, Reasonable, Iffy, and When Pigs Fly.
REASONABLE:
AF Blue Uniform
Adopt brushed silver CSU nameplate with "Civil Air Patrol." I've seen it being worn with blues (unauthorised) already.
Re-adopt CAP cutouts...the "U.S." were granted to us (I think) as kind of a sop for losing the blue shoulder marks.
Define exactly what badges/ribbons can/can't be worn, and spell it out in 39-1.
Allow plain grey shoulder marks for SMWOG (hi Eclipse!).
BDU's/BBDU's
White on navy blue nametapes and grade insignia, as now allowed on the utility jumpsuit.
Perhaps go to solid green BDU's...military look, but not worn by U.S. military.
Allow SMWOG to wear CAP metal cutouts (pain to sew cloth ones on and then remove them when promoted)
Utility jumpsuit:
Authorise flight cap for wear...it's already authorised with the CAP blue flight suit and the only difference in the two is the material they're made of. It's illogical to differentiate between one being NOMEX and one not.
Phase out plastic-encased grade in favour of embroidered on dark blue for all flight suits, jackets, etc.
IFFY:
Campaign, lobby, beg, borrow, steal, whatever to retain CSU with General Courter's modifications (possibly in "when pigs fly" category).
AF Blue Uniform:
Ask AF (nicely) to adopt similar standards as USCGAux for height/weight
Ask AF (nicely) to use plain blue nameplate; they're easy to get and AFROTC/JROTC already uses them...why not us?
Propose to AF (nicely) that we give up dark-blue sleeve braid
Ask AF (nicely) to replace Hap Arnold buttons with CAP buttons as sold by Vanguard.
Aviator uniform:
As much as I hate it, grey is too ingrained to change. So change white aviator shirt for Van Heusen blue aviator shirt...different cut and darker blue to AF issue. Standardise grey UNIFORM trousers (law enforcement, security type).
Dark-blue/black commercially-available airline pullover sweater.
I have no idea about headgear, except to enquire about Navy black or USPHS black garrison caps:
(http://catalog.lighthouseuniform.com/images/blkmengarrisoncap.jpg)
(http://www.uniforms-4u.com/Productimages/7323/u-us-navy-black-unisex-garrison-cap-8731.jpg)
WHEN PIGS FLY
AF Blue Uniform:
Ask AF (nicely) to permit us to wear the same blue shoulder marks that cadets do...blank for SMWOG and with smaller-size metal grade for officers, perhaps in exchange for readopting CAP cutouts. These would be worn on both the blue shirt and service coat epaulettes (not sure if they'd be wide enough for those).
Ask AF (nicely) to allow us to wear same shoulder boards/epaulet sleeves as AFROTC, perhaps with a CAP cutout pinned to them (SDF's sometimes wear cutouts of their state abbreviation pinned to their shoulder marks). Vanguard has a full listing.
Aviator uniform:
Adopt dark-blue airline-type coat to replace current bloody awful blazer w/pocket protector, with blazer-type nameplate, CAP cutouts and badges. This may also go in "iffy" category.
Let the rotten tomatoes begin....
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on January 12, 2011, 11:59:55 PM
I forgot Eclipse, you don't work with cadets, nor were you one.
Na, not at all.
Rest assured, that wasn't meant in a derogatory manner. Only as he wasn't a cadet and doesn't spend that much time around cadets. After you spend enough time around cadets you will see that they love the uniform and are motivated by it, especially when there is something that they can do to make the uniform a little more personal by showing their achievements. Adults may not be as motivated by these sort of things as teenagers. Also not saying teenagers care more about the uniform than what they do in the uniform.
Quote from: CyBorg on January 13, 2011, 08:54:49 PM
Allow plain grey shoulder marks for SMWOG (hi Eclipse!).
Quote from: CyBorg on January 13, 2011, 08:54:49 PM
Allow SMWOG to wear CAP metal cutouts (pain to sew cloth ones on and then remove them when promoted)
By this logic, why force SMWOG to buy epaulet sleeves that mean nothing once promoted? Only way I can see this is if all SMs use them and pin metal grade insignia on them. I'm in favor of SMWOG simply wearing NO sleeves until they make 2d Lt in 6 months or so. I concur with the CAP cutouts and nothing on the BDU/BBDU cap.
Quote from: JoeTomasone on January 13, 2011, 09:51:12 PM
By this logic, why force SMWOG to buy epaulet sleeves that mean nothing once promoted? Only way I can see this is if all SMs use them and pin metal grade insignia on them.
You know what Joe, you just might be on to something there. That would make things cheaper. You would only need to buy sleeves at certain intervals of PD advancement or when yours get worn out. That would make being promoted just a little cheaper. Plus I thing it would look pretty good. Also make the CAP at the top of the sleeve metal too.
Point taken about the plain grey shoulder marks.
However, unless the metal grade pinned to it were of a different size, shape etc than what the RealMilitary uses (think some law enforcement agencies), National will cry (first) EEK! (visions of berry boards in their collective noggins) and then NO!
I had even thought about regulation USAF blue shoulder marks with CAP cutouts pinned to them...but then that thought went down the pipe as it wouldn't even fit in the "when pigs fly" category...it'd be more like "when pigs go Warp 9 in a Klingon Bird-Of-Prey."
Quote from: CyBorg on January 13, 2011, 10:19:26 PM
(. . .) National will cry (first) EEK! (. . .)
Sigh.
Please remember that National Headquarters doesn't care about CAP uniforms one way or another. The 100 or so corporate staff working tirelessly on our behalf do not make policy, not do they make the regulations. They work in civilian clothes in any event.
If by "National" you meant our senior volunteer leadership such as the National Commander, NB, and NEC then you should recall that they were the very groups that implemented the CSU so that all of our members could have a professional-appearing uniform that would allow for the display of earned CAP ribbons and badges.
"National" is not some sort of enemy trying to make you look silly in an unprofessional uniform. "National" is volunteers, just like you and me. Who have always tried to do the right thing when it comes to uniforms.
If you really need an enemy, just look around here - we have a lot of very reasonable folks right here on CAPTalk, and there is nothing even resembling a consensus on what our uniforms should look like. Everyone has their own ideas. Most people seem to think that whatever awards, ribbons, and badges they have not earned are "unnecessary" and could be removed from the uniform. Similarly, if a member earned any sort of award for military or civilian service anywhere in the universe, they believe it should be allowed on the CAP uniforms. At t least [i[their[/i] uniform.
Quote from: GroundHawg on January 13, 2011, 01:43:31 PM
Remove the American flag patch-put specialty patches back on right sleeve
Disagree
Quote
Clarify that badges are to be sewn 1/2 to the white thread of the badge not the blue border
Agree
Quote
Switch to tan combat boots (black are getting next to impossible to find)
Disagree
Quote
Allow cadets to wear only their highest achievement award if they are so inclined
Highly disagree
Quote
Update NRA badge wording
Update Military awards wording (If you are awarded the AF small arms ribbon as a CAP member you should be able to wear it.)
Agree
Quote
Wing Patches back on Blues Coat and "class B" shirts
Disagree
Quote
Discontinue the following (those who have earned may continue to wear) CPR patch, ES "pluto patch" (allow the T34 oval patch), ES decal on white helmets, Rad Monitoring patch, model rocketry patch, check pilots patch, afrcc patch, nasar patches, archer patch, Pre-solo badge, neat patch.
Strongly disagree
Quote
...and the following ribbons are gone too
community service ribbon, AFA and VFW ribbons...
Extremely disagree
Quote from: Ned on January 13, 2011, 10:50:17 PM
If by "National" you meant our senior volunteer leadership such as the National Commander, NB, and NEC then you should recall that they were the very groups that implemented the CSU so that all of our members could have a professional-appearing uniform that would allow for the display of earned CAP ribbons and badges.
and they are they same group who allowed it to be taken away without an acceptable replacement.
Quote from: Ned on January 13, 2011, 10:50:17 PM
If you really need an enemy, just look around here - we have a lot of very reasonable folks right here on CAPTalk, and there is nothing even resembling a consensus on what our uniforms should look like. Everyone has their own ideas. Most people seem to think that whatever awards, ribbons, and badges they have not earned are "unnecessary" and could be removed from the uniform. Similarly, if a member earned any sort of award for military or civilian service anywhere in the universe, they believe it should be allowed on the CAP uniforms. At t least [i[their[/i] uniform.
For the most part the folks on this board just want a consistent, simple, uniform that meets the mission requirements of all the members in an equal and reasonable way.
The first step towards that is a couple of us here being granted the authority to spend a few hours on a weekend and normalize all the regulations, remove the ambiguity, typos, and outright incorrect information so that 99% of the "discussions" become moot.
This would include, of course, disallowing all the nuance we find in various wings and making everyone wear the same uniform, the same way, no matter where in CONUS they are standing.
This is a baseline situation that every other similar organization has solidified, but we can't seem to get out of our own way on it.
Quote from: phirons on January 13, 2011, 05:06:23 PMYES
I've been running a junior rifle program that gives out those awards since 1999. The wording was wrong then
Your rifle program can give out all the badges it wants, CAP members just can't wear them.
Quote from: GroundHawg on January 13, 2011, 01:43:31 PM
Switch to tan combat boots (black are getting next to impossible to find)
Um...seriously? You might want to try, I don't know, looking in
stores. They tend to stock this kind of thing.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 14, 2011, 12:35:59 AM
and they are they same group who allowed it to be taken away without an acceptable replacement.
Strange. I was in the (rather small) room at the time, and that's not how I remember it.
But what do I know?
But if it makes you feel better to bad-mouth the National Commander and NEC, feel free to do so.
But make sure you review the CAP Core Value of Respect.
How is directly stating a fact bad-mouthing anyone, or straying from core values?
Please feel free to enlighten us on who really disavowed the CSU. I'm sure we'd all like to really know.
Fact 1 - The CSU sundowns on 31 DEC 2011
Fact 2 - There is no suitable replacement for the CSU.
Who else but our national leadership has the authority to do that?
Quote from: Ned on January 13, 2011, 10:50:17 PM
If by "National" you meant our senior volunteer leadership such as the National Commander, NB, and NEC then you should recall that they were the very groups that implemented the CSU so that all of our members could have a professional-appearing uniform that would allow for the display of earned CAP ribbons and badges.
But it didn't end up being a uniform for all members, just the chubby folks. We fuzzy folks got left out.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 14, 2011, 12:40:30 AM
Quote from: phirons on January 13, 2011, 05:06:23 PMYES
I've been running a junior rifle program that gives out those awards since 1999. The wording was wrong then
Your rifle program can give out all the badges it wants, CAP members just can't wear them.
Quote from: GroundHawg on January 13, 2011, 01:43:31 PM
Switch to tan combat boots (black are getting next to impossible to find)
Um...seriously? You might want to try, I don't know, looking in stores. They tend to stock this kind of thing.
Wow you might want to try, I don't know not being condesending or sarcastic. ::)
What stores do you suggest, Walmart, Target, Sams? Because the local AAFES at the 3 closest bases (1 AF and 2 Army, All over 100 miles) dont stock them and they are a special order which I can do online. None of my local surplus stores has any under $60. Im currently wearing my Cocoran Jump Boots that I got at Ft. Bragg in 1996. They are the only pair of black boots I kept when we transitioned to the ACU. I do not plan to ever wear them in the field. I think that having to resort to Ebay to get a pair of boots at resonable prices is pushing the limits. I have the money, but I have cadets in my squadron that do not. I have already bought 3 pairs of boots this year for cadets that otherwise would not be able to wear their uniform properly. (all from the base thrift shop btw)
I'm being both condescending and sarcastic, this is what I do.
"Black boots" are so readily available as to be seriously laughable to make the comment that they are "getting scarce".
You're putting a whole lot of caveats on the follow-up to make your argument.
As you mentioned, boots are easily obtainable online, and how about police and fire uniform stores? They don't have to be
"jump boots". Tactical boots are cheaper, more comfortable, and readily available.
These are $40:
(http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/cbaker8702_2133_85219073)
http://www.schooluniforms.com/5075.html
(literally the first of 4,680 hits in Google shopping for the term "military style boot")
As to cadets not being able to afford them, the flag is thrown there as well, first, it is irrelevant to the discussion
on which ones to wear, considering the tan ones won't be any cheaper, and will be much more easily ruined in normal
use, second, no matter what you propose, somebody always raises their hand on the cadet cash flow issue.
Good on 'ye for doing it, but supplying your members with uniforms from your own pocket is not your responsibility and
in most cases is counter productive.
And for the record, my Walmart does, in fact, sell boots that are more than acceptable for CAP wear, sorry yours doesn't carry them.
for what it is worth, I bought my boots at Academy Sports. Wal-Mart carries black "duty" boots that are well within regs and MUCH cheaper than AAFES. I think people get hung up on having to wear "official issue" boots. WHY? Even WIWOAD the first thing I did was ditch the boots they issued me and got something that I liked better and had better functionality. I still have 1 pair of the boots I was issued 20 years ago. They are my "muck" boots, they haven't seen polish in 20 years.
For what the majority of CAP members need boots for, a $25.00 pair of Chinese made jungle boots more than fits the bill.....
Quote from: cap235629 on January 14, 2011, 04:16:58 AM
I think people get hung up on having to wear "official issue" boots.
This concept still escapes me too. Most of the time while active duty, I didn't wear issue boots. I got boots that met the safety requirements, but most weren't issue items, but still compliant. Half the time, I sold them off to someone that "had to have them." I always bought things that were comfortable, and most issue boots aren't (to me).
Quote from: Ned on January 13, 2011, 10:50:17 PM
If by "National" you meant our senior volunteer leadership such as the National Commander, NB, and NEC then you should recall that they were the very groups that implemented the CSU so that all of our members could have a professional-appearing uniform that would allow for the display of earned CAP ribbons and badges.
"National" is not some sort of enemy trying to make you look silly in an unprofessional uniform. "National" is volunteers, just like you and me. Who have always tried to do the right thing when it comes to uniforms.
If you really need an enemy, just look around here
Sir, I don't need any enemies, nor do I try to make them. I've made far too many in my lifetime without trying. I still do as I stumble through life. Sometimes it's for being too blunt, sometimes for being too taciturn.
I defer to you as someone with a lot more TRUE knowledge of what goes on behind the scenes in that building on Maxwell AFB than I do. For those of us who do not have your first-hand knowledge, all we have to go on is rumour and innuendo, sometimes accurate, more often not.
I do not know General Courter; I have never met her (the only National CC's I have met were General Bergman and General U.S. Ranger Corps Leader), but those who have tell me she is a fine person and very dedicated to the welfare of those under her command. I have no reason to believe otherwise. God bless her in all she does for this sometimes-crazy organisation.
The NB and NEC to me are a baffling bureaucracy who often seem to contradict one another, and honestly I don't think I'm smart enough to understand what goes on there.
All I can do is look at it from the point of view of a Captain-soon-to-be-Major-I-hope who has been in and out of CAP a couple of times in the past 18 years, who does the best he can with his limited abilities.
And, from my point of view, the whole uniform thing, especially the CSU issue, is vexing.
First, the ICL's said it was being received "with great enthusiasm," and that CAP was actively seeking the Air Force's input on things that were in fact changed, like hard rank on the flight cap, and using "CAP" rather than "U.S." on the lapels of the service coat. I know a heckuva lot of people who liked it, myself included, even though I never got to wear the full service coat configuration.
It seemed like a relatively happy medium had been found between the AF uniform and the grey/whites, except of course for our friends with facial hair.
Then, seemingly out of nowhere, it was axed. No real explanation as to why, and no explanation as to why, even with General Courter's modifications (which were an example of inventiveness on her part), it still had to go. If it had to go, why modify it?
When one doesn't get a clear explanation, then ideas, not always accurate, begin to take shape. Nature abhors a vacuum, and when a vacuum exists, often the wrong kind of air is blown in to fill that vacuum.
In my case, since I joined right after the imposition of the
berry boards, maroon epaulettes, which was always presented to me as a punitive measure by the Air Force because of several incidents, it has seemed to me, rightly or wrongly, that "National," be it the NEC, NB, BoG, or anyone else I've omitted, have been fearful that somehow, some way, one of our uniforms/insignia is going to offend the Air Force and it will be grounds for another punitive measure. The reaction, like booting out the CSU (if that
was a reaction), has seemed to me to be like using a guillotine to cure a headache, and (rightly or wrongly) seeming to promulgate grey as the only acceptable colour for a CAP-distinctive uniform, gives me the impression that suggesting anything in any shade of blue triggers a reaction of "no, we can't do that, we
might (heavy emphasis) anger the AF again," when it is not known whether or not that is the case without
asking our parent service.
I am quite aware that there are colleagues of mine in CAP, some on this board, who would, given their way, "de-militarise" us completely, sever all links with the Air Force, cut all ranks, uniforms, ribbons etc, and be solely an ES organisation with airplanes. I am not one of those.
Sir, I respect your service to this organisation greatly, not to mention your qualifications.
I apologise if I have given you, or anyone else, offence.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 14, 2011, 02:04:36 AM
How is directly stating a fact badmouthing anyone, or straying from core values?
Directly stating a fact is not badmouthing anyone. But of course, we both know that is not what you did.
Let's review:
What you actually said was:
Quote from: Bob Williamsthey [are the] same group who allowed it to be taken away without an acceptable replacement.
Which is quite a collection of value-laden opinions attempting to masquerade as "fact."
Let's start with your choice of the word "allowed." Which, according to the dictionary on my desk means "permitted, consented, or granted." All of which require volitional choice.
So tell me, Bob, upon what
facts do you base your assertion that the NEC had a choice in the matter? Or that they didn't try as hard as they could to preserve a professional appearing uniform that would allow members to wear earned CAP badges and decorations?
Or we could look at your choice of the word "acceptable." Another value-laden word that does not easily resolve to the level of a "fact." I have no doubt that you and many others do not feel that any other uniform choice is "acceptable." I know that many on the NEC would share that opinion to a greater or lesser degree. (But of course the ultimate question is "acceptable
to whom?")
And the reason that your accusation of wrongdoing by the NEC (deliberately choosing to leave our members without an "acceptable" uniform) is improper is because it fails to treat the members of the NEC fairly by presuming some sort of malice or improper motive without any basis to do so.
All CAP members have a duty to respect other members, including our leadership. Directly and publicly implying that our leaders acted improperly in their actions concerning the CSU violates our Core Value of Respect.
Note it always permissible to disagree with a leader's decisions. I imagine some of your squadron commanders may disagree with your actions from time to time. But if they started posting publicly on the internet that your decisions were "unacceptable" or that you had "allowed" some calamity when you knew you had no choice, they would be violating our core values.
Wouldn't you agree?
Now I expect that you will try to turn this around and avoid telling us what facts are in your possession to justify your statements. Most likely you will try to put the ball in my court and ask me to justify the NEC's actions to your satisfaction.
But that's kinda the point. You are the one making the statements, not me. And it is not my job to justify the decisions of the NEC to you or anyone else. As an officer and a commander,
it is your job to support and explain the actions of the chain of command to others and your subordinates if you can. And if you can't, to seek clarification from the chain.
But it is never an officer's job or privilege to go on-line and publicly impute improper actions or motives to his/her superiors. It's that whole respect and loyalty thing.
Ned Lee
Sir, I realise you are not talking to me in this post, so forgive me if I am out of turn.
Quote from: Ned on January 14, 2011, 08:00:44 AM
...upon what facts do you base your assertion that the NEC had a choice in the matter?
I don't know. Did they?
Quote from: Ned on January 14, 2011, 08:00:44 AM
All CAP members have a duty to respect other members, including our leadership. Directly and publicly implying that our leaders acted improperly in their actions concerning the CSU violates our Core Value of Respect.
Agreed. I don't mean to imply anything, but my main feeling is one of perplexity.
How did a uniform that was so well-received, and altered according to the wishes of the Air Force, suddenly become "unacceptable?"
If this were depicted in a comic strip, there would be a huge "?" in a bubble over my head, and a lot of other CAP officers'.
Quote from: Ned on January 14, 2011, 08:00:44 AM
And it is not my job to justify the decisions of the NEC to you or anyone else.
I'm not asking for justification, but there has been precious little information officially released, and again, nature abhors a vacuum.
I would like to know
why, outside of the very vague terminology of "low light/at a distance" and the mechanics of the decision, but as you say it's not the job of the higher-ups to tell me or anyone else. I have heard a lot of rumours, some I've posted on here, others I haven't (and won't).
Quote from: Ned on January 14, 2011, 08:00:44 AM
But it is never an officer's job or privilege to go on-line and publicly impute improper actions or motives to his/her superiors. It's that whole respect and loyalty thing.
Which I hope I'm not doing, not intentionally anyway. My guess that NHQ/NEC/NB/BoG/etc. are afraid of a repeat of the early 1990s is
pure speculation on my part, in the absence of known fact, and based on what is heard in the very imaginative CAP rumour mill.
I know that my opinion, to say nothing of the many others in CAP who share it to whatever degree, is going to change the minds of the officers appointed over me. My dad always lamented the loss of the Ike jacket (I still have his old one) and the Army's adoption of the "greens," (now of course going the way of the CSU) but nonetheless as a soldier in the Army he had to comply...as do we as officers in the USAF Auxiliary.
I will wear my CSU when required by UOD until 2359, 31 December 2011. After that, it will go in the closet with my old four-pocket "Tony Nelson" service coat. I will most likely then resume the AF blue uniform (I'm
just in the ballpark of H/W) as my primary "office dress."
Much of the thread contains speculation or based on rumor on why the CSU and other uniform changes were made. For example the CAP cutouts replaced by the US cutouts on service dress. It's mentioned Big Blue did it as a sop for losing the blue shoulder sleeves. Ignmoring the fact that it was almost a 10 year difference between the two.
The biggest problem is the lack of information passed from Headquarters to the membership. There is less space in "The Volunteer" compared to "CAP News" for information to the membership. And "The Volunteer" is the only avenue for members to see what is news in CAP. Many members are unaware that an ICL has been issued, or actions by the NEC or NB if the minutes are not posted. The lack of information leads to rumors or misinformation to the membership.
Quote from: BillB on January 14, 2011, 12:05:18 PMThe biggest problem is the lack of information passed from Headquarters to the membership. There is less space in "The Volunteer" compared to "CAP News" for information to the membership. And "The Volunteer" is the only avenue for members to see what is news in CAP. Many members are unaware that an ICL has been issued, or actions by the NEC or NB if the minutes are not posted. The lack of information leads to rumors or misinformation to the membership.
:clap: :clap: :clap:
Quote from: Eclipse on January 14, 2011, 12:40:30 AM
Quote from: phirons on January 13, 2011, 05:06:23 PMYES
I've been running a junior rifle program that gives out those awards since 1999. The wording was wrong then
Your rifle program can give out all the badges it wants, CAP members just can't wear them.
I was providing a time reference for how long the reg has been out of synch. I think the NRA program has changed 3 times in that time frame
QuoteThe biggest problem is the lack of information passed from Headquarters to the membership. There is less space in "The Volunteer" compared to "CAP News" for information to the membership. And "The Volunteer" is the only avenue for members to see what is news in CAP. Many members are unaware that an ICL has been issued, or actions by the NEC or NB if the minutes are not posted. The lack of information leads to rumors or misinformation to the membership.
I agree communication to the membership could be improved. With email (assuming members update eServices), FaceBook, etc there are many ways the information pathway to members could be improved. An RSS feed from select pages on capmembers.com (like http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/forms_publications__regulations/meeting_minutes.cfm) would be helpful, as would more prompt posting of the minutes.
In the meantime, the eServices home page has an RSS news feed option. I get a notice anytime an ICL or other announcement is posted there.
As for uniforms and 39-1, I agree with the approach to:
1. simplify and standardize 39-1 as much as possible - one core value is Excellence, so whatever we wear let's look as professional and unified as possible - and make it so members can find the info they need
2. keep future changes to as few as possible to reduce wasted expense to members
3. recognize our multiple roles in the community and work together, regardless of personal opinions about paramilitary, golf shirts, or whatever
Quote from: phirons on January 14, 2011, 02:32:36 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 14, 2011, 12:40:30 AM
Quote from: phirons on January 13, 2011, 05:06:23 PMYES
I've been running a junior rifle program that gives out those awards since 1999. The wording was wrong then
Your rifle program can give out all the badges it wants, CAP members just can't wear them.
I was providing a time reference for how long the reg has been out of synch. I think the NRA program has changed 3 times in that time frame
I've only ever seen the badge actually mentioned in 39-1 one time. I can find references to it online, but not the actual badge. None of the other ones I've seen cadets wear are even remotely close.
If all NRA badges were to be allowed, that's fine, but it needs to be written in. If only certain badges are permitted, they need to be written in and specific, with an official illustration of the badge provided by the NRA included in the manual.
The badge mentioned in the manual is a
competition badge. All the ones I keep seeing cadets wear amount to little more than bling for going to the range one day. Not that there is anything wrong with going to the range, I do it every year for the Army, but my Army marksmanship badges are not authorized on my CAP uniform (and I don't think they should be either). There are legitimate Civilian Marksmanship Program badges authorized on both the Air Force and CAP uniforms, and that's appropriate. The comp badges take some time to be earned, and that should be recognized.
Quote from: Ned on January 14, 2011, 08:00:44 AM
Now I expect that you will try to turn this around and avoid telling us what facts are in your possession to justify your statements. Most likely you will try to put the ball in my court and ask me to justify the NEC's actions to your satisfaction.
But that's kinda the point. You are the one making the statements, not me. And it is not my job to justify the decisions of the NEC to you or anyone else. As an officer and a commander, it is your job to support and explain the actions of the chain of command to others and your subordinates if you can. And if you can't, to seek clarification from the chain.
Pretty much.
Out of nowhere, with no warning and it not being open for comment, the CSU was retired, and initially with a pretty unreasonable timeline at that.
No one has ever provided a single piece of information beyond speculation, conjecture, or insinuation as to why this occurred. The
presumption is that "The Air Force" (you know the single-voiced entity used as an excuse for everything from aircraft placement to
where cadets stand during a unit meeting), had an issue with it and directed that it be retired, yet despite the fact that anytime anyone sneezes it vetted news here and elsewhere, no one has yet been able to pinpoint the moment when the CSU became
uniforma nongrata.
No one.
Ever.
Quote from: Ned on January 14, 2011, 08:00:44 AM
But it is never an officer's job or privilege to go on-line and publicly impute improper actions or motives to his/her superiors. It's that whole respect and loyalty thing.
I never said anyone did anything untoward, inappropriate, or against regulation. I am not impugning anyone's character. People make unpopular decisions all the time, in fact, I am someone who is strongly in favor of the concept of "decisions", because once something
is "decided", those affected can then choose to make their own "decisions" in that regard.
But just because something is "decided", doesn't make the decision "acceptable" to those affected, nor does disagreeing with the acceptability of the decision mean you are impugning anyone's character.
It means you don't agree.
So yes, it is back on you. The only thing those of us in the field know is that out of a blue sky we lost an important uniform option
that fufilled an important role for many members.
You insinuate you know otherwise.
Who eles'e court could it be in ?
Quote from: BillB on January 14, 2011, 12:05:18 PM
For example the CAP cutouts replaced by the US cutouts on service dress. It's mentioned Big Blue did it as a sop for losing the blue shoulder sleeves. Ignmoring the fact that it was almost a 10 year difference between the two.
Closer to five years.
I joined in '93, and my squadron still had brand-new blue epaulettes in original packaging in inventory, though they were wearing the maroon epaulettes (and hating them).
The blue epaulettes went out around 1990-91.
This is a link to a directive from NHQ dated 7/90 about the short-lived maroon circlets (which I never actually saw, except in photos), which preceded the maroon epaulettes:
http://www.incountry.us/cappatches/RANK-OFC/history/circlets.pdf
The grey epaulettes/nameplate and US cutouts came in around the same time, sometime in 1995. I remember getting the grey ones as soon as they were available and consigning the maroon ones to the circular file.
Quote from: peter rabbit on January 14, 2011, 03:02:24 PM
As for uniforms and 39-1, I agree with the approach to:
1. simplify and standardize 39-1 as much as possible - one core value is Excellence, so whatever we wear let's look as professional and unified as possible - and make it so members can find the info they need
2. keep future changes to as few as possible to reduce wasted expense to members
3. recognize our multiple roles in the community and work together, regardless of personal opinions about paramilitary, golf shirts, or whatever
:clap:
Quote from: Eclipse on January 14, 2011, 05:15:02 PM
Out of nowhere, with no warning and it not being open for comment, the CSU was retired, and initially with a pretty unreasonable timeline at that.
From your perspective, true enough. But of course, the volunteer leaders with the actual responsibility for the decision had adequate notice and opportunity for comment, or they would not have approved it. But I can only agree that there was no opportunity for comment from the field. (They didn't ask me, either.)
QuoteNo one has ever provided a single piece of information beyond speculation, conjecture, or insinuation as to why this occurred.
For a guy with your posting frequency it may be hard to remember the infamous "corporate Uniform Gone!" (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=9272.640) thread, which was one of the longest and most viewed in CAPTalk history. You must have posted two dozen times in that thread alone. If you go back and look, you will see the links for both the official PowerPoint briefing as well as an email from an NEC emember actually telling us why he voted as he did.
As I said in that thread, I'm sorry if you think the NEC did not provide you with enough information for you to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they performed their duty honorably and with the best interest of CAP at heart.
But as a commander and CAP officer, you still have a duty to support the decisions made by the volunteer leadership.
Quote
Quote from: Ned on January 14, 2011, 08:00:44 AM
But it is never an officer's job or privilege to go on-line and publicly impute improper actions or motives to his/her superiors. It's that whole respect and loyalty thing.
I never said anyone did anything untoward, inappropriate, or against regulation. I am not impugning anyone's character. People make unpopular decisions all the time, in fact, I am someone who is strongly in favor of the concept of "decisions", because once something
is "decided", those affected can then choose to make their own "decisions" in that regard.
But just because something is "decided", doesn't make the decision "acceptable" to those affected, nor does disagreeing with the acceptability of the decision mean you are impugning anyone's character.
It means you don't agree.
And I thought I was the lawyer here. 8)
Bob, if you are telling me that it would be perfectly OK with you if one of your squadron commanders stood in front of the formation and said "Well, the Group Commander has decided X, but I think that is unacceptable"?
Really?
You wouldn't take that as being a little bit disrespectful or insubordinate?
Really?
Especially if the squadron commander told you that when he said "unacceptable," that really meant that he just disagreed with one of your decsions?
Last I checked this was not a formation or a formal means of communication in any form, nor am I suggesting disobedience or posting with any connection to my current appointments.
Nothing in that very contentious thread provided any information of anything but conjecture and speculation. The only thing presented to the field was the talking points of the presentation, not the reason it was created in the first place. No directives from the USAF were presented, no quotes or comments from anyone involved, nothing.
One of the primary assertions in the presentation was that the CSU was never approved by the USAF, when we all know
that not only was it approved, but they also commented on it and required changes.
How am I suggesting disobedience? Am I indicating people should continue to wear the CSU after the sundown?
No? There isn't much else that would be disobedience or disrespectful about this discussion.
Perhaps it is my use of the word "unacceptable". I rescind that word since it is irrelevant to the discussion.
Fact: The CSU was retired with no alternative.
Fact: The circumstances involved in its abrupt retirement were never made public, so rampant speculation
from conspiracy theory to discrimination against those who can't wear USAF combos is allowed to continue.
NHQ doesn't owe me anything, nor need it be interested in my opinion, but let's not fall back on the paramilitary
arguments here and pretend that CAP is not more of a consensus of the governed than a paramilitary organization.
Why are you trying to make this into a core values situation and ignoring the real question posed.
I find myself in agreement with Eclipse on many things regarding this subject.
I know all about the "need to know" basis on classified information...BTDT...but this issue is not comparable to giving out the codes for the "nuclear football" or the details of a CD/CN mission.
Two things are very unclear to me, and probably always will be.
Just what IS the reason for this out-of-the-blue (pun intended) decision? Some have said it wasn't the Air Force's decision, others have said it was. Others say it was to get rid of all vestiges of the last NatCC. Others say CAP NHQ doesn't want a repeat of the maroon epaulettes. All this is rumour and hearsay, concepts which Ned, as a lawyer, is no doubt quite familiar with.
Why, even with General Courter's directed modifications, is the uniform still being deep-sixed? If the uniform is going to be ixnayed, why not leave it as is?
This is one of those situations when you try to ask those in and upward of your chain of command (I have) the response is usually a variant of "I don't know" or "Don't ask."
I would like to definitely know whether or not we are supposed to crease BDU sleeves. My cadets say yes and I say that since it's not specified in the uniform manual it is not allowed.
Quote from: Ron1319 on February 09, 2011, 01:59:32 AM
I would like to definitely know whether or not we are supposed to crease BDU sleeves. My cadets say yes and I say that since it's not specified in the uniform manual it is not allowed.
You're the deputy commander. Unless they can point to a cite that says you must do it then you can tell them not to and that's that.
I don't make the rules. Generally, I agree with you since I'm fairly sure I'm right. It should be made clear in a revised CAPM 39-1. Is there a solid counterargument that says that I'm wrong?
Quote from: Ron1319 on February 09, 2011, 02:20:36 AM
I don't make the rules. Generally, I agree with you since I'm fairly sure I'm right. It should be made clear in a revised CAPM 39-1. Is there a solid counterargument that says that I'm wrong?
No. The BDU is a field uniform and is not supposed to look pretty.
CAPR 39-1
Table 2-5. Clothing/Accessory Standards
I
T
E
M
To present the proper
military image Will be:
1 Clothing Neat, clean, pressed, proper fit, in good condition, zipped, snapped or
buttoned.
(Emphasis mine) What does pressing do to a uniform? It puts creases in it. Granted, you don't need to starch the uniform until it stands up on its own, or even starched at all. But it does need to be pressed, when pressing the uniform, it will get a crease.
Think about this, what will present the best professional image of CAP?
Quote from: Eclipse on January 14, 2011, 05:15:02 PM
Quote from: Ned on January 14, 2011, 08:00:44 AM
Now I expect that you will try to turn this around and avoid telling us what facts are in your possession to justify your statements. Most likely you will try to put the ball in my court and ask me to justify the NEC's actions to your satisfaction.
But that's kinda the point. You are the one making the statements, not me. And it is not my job to justify the decisions of the NEC to you or anyone else. As an officer and a commander, it is your job to support and explain the actions of the chain of command to others and your subordinates if you can. And if you can't, to seek clarification from the chain.
Pretty much.
Out of nowhere, with no warning and it not being open for comment, the CSU was retired, and initially with a pretty unreasonable timeline at that.
No one has ever provided a single piece of information beyond speculation, conjecture, or insinuation as to why this occurred. The
presumption is that "The Air Force" (you know the single-voiced entity used as an excuse for everything from aircraft placement to
where cadets stand during a unit meeting), had an issue with it and directed that it be retired, yet despite the fact that anytime anyone sneezes it vetted news here and elsewhere, no one has yet been able to pinpoint the moment when the CSU became uniforma nongrata.
No one.
Ever.
Quote from: Ned on January 14, 2011, 08:00:44 AM
But it is never an officer's job or privilege to go on-line and publicly impute improper actions or motives to his/her superiors. It's that whole respect and loyalty thing.
I never said anyone did anything untoward, inappropriate, or against regulation. I am not impugning anyone's character. People make unpopular decisions all the time, in fact, I am someone who is strongly in favor of the concept of "decisions", because once something
is "decided", those affected can then choose to make their own "decisions" in that regard.
But just because something is "decided", doesn't make the decision "acceptable" to those affected, nor does disagreeing with the acceptability of the decision mean you are impugning anyone's character.
It means you don't agree.
So yes, it is back on you. The only thing those of us in the field know is that out of a blue sky we lost an important uniform option
that fufilled an important role for many members.
You insinuate you know otherwise.
Who eles'e court could it be in ?
I'll tell you a little secret, Eclipse. The CSU was developed without the knowledge of the NB. It was brought to its attention when a certain SER/CC started modeling it around the NB meeting where it was moved to accept as a CAP distinctive uniform during new business. The NB, being a bit intimidated by the commander (some were threatened, some liked the grade insignia) voted it in. The Air Force CoS wrote a letter to the BoG asking why the uniform was accepted and instructed them to reevaluate the "CSU" making appropriate changes (I have a copy of the letter and, the response). This was done. The CoS also reminded the BoG of the Air Force's need for approval of all CAP uniforms; including the distinctive uniforms.
Move a couple of years forward and, at an NEC meeting, during new business, the motion was made to retire the uniform... This was not originally published on the agenda and, unless the NEC members had previous knowledge from another source, they were not previously informed. Even though the NEC does not handle uniform items, they voted to end the wear of the "CSU".
Obviously, a huge cry thru out the land was heard. The NB modified the NEC's decision, an ICL was sent out and, the CSU will continue till the end of the year.
My point; the uniform went out as it came in. Such is the way we sometimes do things.....
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on February 09, 2011, 02:43:25 AM
CAPR 39-1
Table 2-5. Clothing/Accessory Standards
I
T
E
M
To present the proper
military image Will be:
1 Clothing Neat, clean, pressed, proper fit, in good condition, zipped, snapped or
buttoned.
(Emphasis mine) What does pressing do to a uniform? It puts creases in it. Granted, you don't need to starch the uniform until it stands up on its own, or even starched at all. But it does need to be pressed, when pressing the uniform, it will get a crease.
Think about this, what will present the best professional image of CAP?
When I iron my BDUs I do not crease the sleeves because bent patches look stupid. It's pretty easy to do. You just roll the sleeve a little and re-iron.
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on February 09, 2011, 02:43:25 AM
Think about this, what will present the best professional image of CAP?
Having clear guidelines so that we can all be uniform and not have to waste our time arguing about little details.
The 39-1 says pressed, not ironed. Pressing and ironing are two different things, pressing is with creases and ironing is simply knocking the wrinkles out.
I am just kidding about that. If you don't want your cadets to have creases, then tell them no creases. I wear creases because it presents a professional military image. When I iron my sleeves, and I iron them every week, I start below the wing patch and crease all the way down, and then I flatten the patch back out with the iron so there is no crease and it is nice and flat. It was the way that we did it WIWAC and it is the way the USAF recruiter told me it was still done by them, and it is the way it was d in the Army, and is still done in the 101st ABN. Because of my upbringing and my military service, that is the way I will do it until we switch to the ABU, if they tell us not to iron the ABU.
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on February 09, 2011, 03:34:55 AM
The 39-1 says pressed, not ironed. Pressing and ironing are two different things, pressing is with creases and ironing is simply knocking the wrinkles out.
From Dictionary.com
Quoteto flatten or make smooth, especially by ironing: to press clothes; to press flowers in the leaves of a book.
Creases aren't smooth. ;) I personally do not like the look of creased sleeves which is why I don't. If I come across someone that does crease their uniform I won't say anything because it is a gray area but in my little corner of CAP their won't be creases. >:D
Quote from: Ron1319 on February 09, 2011, 01:59:32 AM
I would like to definitely know whether or not we are supposed to crease BDU sleeves. My cadets say yes and I say that since it's not specified in the uniform manual it is not allowed.
Table 2.2 in 39-1 says in regards to the BDU shirt - "Military creases are prohibited".
"Military creases" are down the front of the shirt through the pockets. I'm still of the opinion that since it's different everywhere it should be made clear what we should do instead of all doing something different. I think since we're never going to come to consensus that I'll go with "the manual doesn't say we can and since it says exactly how to crease the blues sleeves we can't crease the BDU sleeves."
Quote from: Ron1319 on February 09, 2011, 05:13:49 AM
"Military creases" are down the front of the shirt through the pockets.
Find me a civilian that creases the sides of their sleeves (or anything, really). If that isn't a military crease, what is?
Quote from: RiverAux on February 09, 2011, 01:17:37 PM
Find me a civilian that creases the sides of their sleeves (or anything, really). If that isn't a military crease, what is?
Have you ever had a dress shirt laundered?? Unless you tell the clerk at the shop "do not press my shirt", it comes back to you pressed with creases.
Quote from: RiverAux on February 09, 2011, 04:44:27 AM
Quote from: Ron1319 on February 09, 2011, 01:59:32 AM
I would like to definitely know whether or not we are supposed to crease BDU sleeves. My cadets say yes and I say that since it's not specified in the uniform manual it is not allowed.
Table 2.2 in 39-1 says in regards to the BDU shirt - "Military creases are prohibited".
Military creases are prohibited on all CAP uniform shirts, not just BDUs.
For clarification, creasing the sleeves isn't a "military crease." Military creases are typically used by the Navy and Marines for thier shirts, and have a crease that runs across the pockets. Such crease also requires folding the shirt in rather unique ways to get those creases in the right place.
Like everyone has said, military creases run down the length of the shirt, in front there are two, one on each pocket, on the back there are three, one in the middle, and one evenly spaced from the two side seams and the center crease.
I have never, ever, in my life seen a dress shirt not have creases in the sleeves.
Quote from: davidsinn on February 09, 2011, 04:32:12 AM
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on February 09, 2011, 03:34:55 AM
The 39-1 says pressed, not ironed. Pressing and ironing are two different things, pressing is with creases and ironing is simply knocking the wrinkles out.
From Dictionary.com
Quoteto flatten or make smooth, especially by ironing: to press clothes; to press flowers in the leaves of a book.
Creases aren't smooth. ;) I personally do not like the look of creased sleeves which is why I don't. If I come across someone that does crease their uniform I won't say anything because it is a gray area but in my little corner of CAP their won't be creases. >:D
Just a joke.
I have never seen anywhere, that someone pressed their BDUs, USAF, Army, Navy, or Marines, and didn't have creases down the sleeves.
EDIT: Look at the picture of the SM wearing BDUs in the 39-1, you can clearly tell by the way the sleeve is sticking out from the arm while he is at attention that it is creased.
Quote from: Patterson on February 09, 2011, 01:20:59 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on February 09, 2011, 01:17:37 PM
Find me a civilian that creases the sides of their sleeves (or anything, really). If that isn't a military crease, what is?
Have you ever had a dress shirt laundered?? Unless you tell the clerk at the shop "do not press my shirt", it comes back to you pressed with creases.
We used to call those from the cleaners "Summer creases" as in some're here and some're there but none are where they should be...
Obviously this is an issue. What I'll never do unless someone writes it into the manual that I have to is send my BDU's to the cleaner's to be pressed because they will come back with rings on the pockets from the buttons being pressed into the pocket material. I don't like that look at all. You can see them in both pictures on page 32 here:
http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/M39_1_chap_2.pdf
You'll note that blues shirt sleeves appear to be creased in the front in the picture on page 29 at the above link and the epaulets are tilted to the back because of this. For this reason, we can't really use the uniform manual photos to tell us what to do. That's a problem.
Between pages 28 and 29, the blues shirt sleeves are creased on the front, the middle and the back.
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on February 09, 2011, 04:40:33 PMJust a joke.
I know it's a joke. I'm just carrying on a lighthearted discussion for lack on anything more constructive to do ;D
Quote from: Ron1319 on February 09, 2011, 08:19:44 PM
Obviously this is an issue. What I'll never do unless someone writes it into the manual that I have to is send my BDU's to the cleaner's to be pressed because they will come back with rings on the pockets from the buttons being pressed into the pocket material. I don't like that look at all. You can see them in both pictures on page 32 here:
http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/M39_1_chap_2.pdf (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/M39_1_chap_2.pdf)
You'll note that blues shirt sleeves appear to be creased in the front in the picture on page 29 at the above link and the epaulets are tilted to the back because of this. For this reason, we can't really use the uniform manual photos to tell us what to do. That's a problem.
Between pages 28 and 29, the blues shirt sleeves are creased on the front, the middle and the back.
They're not creased. That's sewing peculiar to female blouses, to get them more form fitting.
I think you're right.. I think they are all creased at the back of the epaulets. I don't see clear evidence of sleeves being creased on BDU's in any of the pictures.
EDIT: Disregard, misread the post.
Yes Military creases(down the front of the uniform should not be there) but like the United States Air Force they crease the sleeves when not in combat since CAP is the Auxiliary of the United States Air Force and CAP is non-combatant we should crease the sleeve's on the uniform.
Quote from: Smexy Lexy on February 10, 2011, 12:24:10 AM
Yes Military creases(down the front of the uniform should not be there) but like the United States Air Force they crease the sleeves when not in combat since CAP is the Auxiliary of the United States Air Force and CAP is non-combatant we should crease the sleeve's on the uniform.
What exactly are you talking about?
Quote from: Ron1319 on February 09, 2011, 08:19:44 PM
Obviously this is an issue. What I'll never do unless someone writes it into the manual that I have to is send my BDU's to the cleaner's to be pressed because they will come back with rings on the pockets from the buttons being pressed into the pocket material. I don't like that look at all.
I had velcro sewn on in place of my buttons for this very reason. Now they just velcro closed. Easier to get in and out of anyhow.
I'm objecting to the lack of a foundation in the manuals for the argument that is OK to crease the BDU sleeves. The uniform manual is actually 100% clear that uniform wear is to be based exactly on what it says in the uniform manual and not on tradition:
"COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY. Any variation from this publication is not authorized." ... "This publication is the sole source for wear instructions and authorized items for various uniform combinations as prescribed within."
Therefore, what the military does is specifically stated as not applying or a basis for uniform wear. It also says, "Uniforms must be clean, neat and correct in design and specifications, fitted properly, pressed and in good condition (that is not frayed, worn out, torn, faded, patched, and so forth)" Almost immediately upon putting that crease into the sleeve, the sleeve is faded along that crease.
The only manual based counter-argument that I see is that if you take a uniform to the dry cleaners and have it pressed it comes back with creases. The excellence that was our standard was that the BDU uniform was not wrinkled, not creased, and did not have circles on the pockets from being ironed without unbuttoning the pockets. This is the work that the cadet would have to do themselves with an iron in order for the uniform to look excellent.
The more I read about this and the more I read the uniform manual the more set I get in the belief that it's wrong to crease the BDUs. Not creasing them is what we always did and I always looked down on those who did and I never bothered to really give it a second thought. I've been just ignoring it since I rejoined CAP. I have now formed an opinion. Is there a better way to escalate this so that someone at National HQ will look at it and be sure that a revised 39-1 includes guidance? I realize we'll eventually get the new uniforms, but a lot of people will still be wearing the old ones and this should be clarified one way or another to prevent the next person from having to go through what I'm going through.
Quote from: Ron1319 on February 10, 2011, 01:33:30 AMAlmost immediately upon putting that crease into the sleeve, the sleeve is faded along that crease.
Creasing uniform sleeves is, quite simply, traditional in the US military. ABUs, ACUs, MARPATs, etc. are a new thing when it comes to
not pressing uniforms. Before the new field uniforms, creases have been placed in shirts and pants. This, of course, has never included flightsuits. Unless it was specifically directed that it was not to be ironed or creased, you did so.
I'm a little puzzled about your vehemance concerning creasing sleeves. It's unusual. There are many things that are not spelled out in the manual that do need to be clarified, but specific directive on creasing sleeves is picking nits. Military creases are expressly forbidden, but those aren't for sleeves.
I wouldn't worry about the creasing issue as at the rate things are going we'll be well into our second set of ABUs (or whatever follows them) before they get around to revising 39-1.
I spent a long time as a cadet working very hard to understand the manuals and follow them exactly. It was part of my basis for considering myself an excellent Spaatz cadet. I'm a good bit older now, but I still have that same mentality when it comes to following CAP manuals. I'm now equally baffled that people can look at the argument I wrote above and essentially say, "Well the military does it that way, it's tradition." The manual is completely clear that we need to do exactly what it says, and that outside sources, such as military tradition, have no bearing.
Here's the problem. If I get the squadron to agree with me and change the way that they do things, then the cadets go off to CAWG encampment and the encampment staff tells them they're wrong, everyone loses credibility. That's why we need to be standardized, or uniform. Why just throw our hands up in the air and say that the CAPM 39-1 is too hard to revise?
Quote from: Ron1319 on February 10, 2011, 02:28:45 AM
I spent a long time as a cadet working very hard to understand the manuals and follow them exactly. It was part of my basis for considering myself an excellent Spaatz cadet. I'm a good bit older now, but I still have that same mentality when it comes to following CAP manuals. I'm now equally baffled that people can look at the argument I wrote above and essentially say, "Well the military does it that way, it's tradition." The manual is completely clear that we need to do exactly what it says, and that outside sources, such as military tradition, have no bearing.
Here's the problem. If I get the squadron to agree with me and change the way that they do things, then the cadets go off to CAWG encampment and the encampment staff tells them they're wrong, everyone loses credibility. That's why we need to be standardized, or uniform. Why just throw our hands up in the air and say that the CAPM 39-1 is too hard to revise?
You aren't by chance related to anyone else in CAP who might live in the Chicago area are you?
;) ;) ;)
Quote from: Ron1319 on February 10, 2011, 02:28:45 AM
I spent a long time as a cadet working very hard to understand the manuals and follow them exactly. It was part of my basis for considering myself an excellent Spaatz cadet. I'm a good bit older now, but I still have that same mentality when it comes to following CAP manuals. I'm now equally baffled that people can look at the argument I wrote above and essentially say, "Well the military does it that way, it's tradition." The manual is completely clear that we need to do exactly what it says, and that outside sources, such as military tradition, have no bearing.
Here's the problem. If I get the squadron to agree with me and change the way that they do things, then the cadets go off to CAWG encampment and the encampment staff tells them they're wrong, everyone loses credibility. That's why we need to be standardized, or uniform. Why just throw our hands up in the air and say that the CAPM 39-1 is too hard to revise?
Creasing sleeves has been a tradition in the military for a long time. It presents a neat, sharp appearance. Always has. Doesn't really matter if they're on BDUs. You're also forgetting that military traditions, and even some military pubs do have bearing on us. If you don't think so, show me the drill manual. I think you'll find that it doesn't say "Civil Air Patrol" on it.
The manual specifically says "Military creases are prohibited." The other traditional creases are expected. Raging that "THE MANUAL DOESN'T SAY I HAVE TO!" isn't gonna change the fact that it's expected. You may be absolutely certain you're right, but it could cost you. And you wouldn't be the last cadet to be thought of as "That former Spaatz cadet that thinks he knows everything." Just food for thought.
Quote from: Hawk200 on February 10, 2011, 03:25:58 AM
The other traditional creases are expected.
Oh really? Where is it stated they are expected? Where is it explained how to do them? Unless it's in writing you can forget about me doing it. I'm not going to waste my time on something totally useless unless I have to. Just because it's tradition does not make it a good idea.
"COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY. Any variation from this publication is not authorized." ... "This publication is the sole source for wear instructions and authorized items for various uniform combinations as prescribed within."
It seems pretty clear to me that military tradition does not dictate uniform wear.
Quote from: davidsinn on February 10, 2011, 03:40:57 AM
Quote from: Hawk200 on February 10, 2011, 03:25:58 AM
The other traditional creases are expected.
Oh really? Where is it stated they are expected? Where is it explained how to do them? Unless it's in writing you can forget about me doing it. I'm not going to waste my time on something totally useless unless I have to. Just because it's tradition does not make it a good idea.
See below.
Quote from: Ron1319 on February 10, 2011, 03:58:40 AMIt seems pretty clear to me that military tradition does not dictate uniform wear.
And it seems pretty clear to me that you've never spent any time in the service. Not everything you're expected to do is going to be spelled out in regulations. The manual doesn't tell you
how to shine shoes or boots, but you're expected to do so.
If you want to be non comformist, that's fine. Don't join an organization that requires uniformity. Fighting tradition is a sure way to indicate that you're not a team player. If a tradition is not harmful (meaning safety wise, hazing, etc.), fighting it is inadvisable. Fight the things that don't make sense, not the things you don't feel like doing.
Edit:spelling
Add to that the "local" traditions that sprout up in units and Wings (like the NEW YORK WING tradition of SENIORS AND CADETS exchanging rank insignia, unit baseball caps and the like) then its a whole world of FUN operating beyond the shadows of CAPM 39-1.
Quote from: Major Carrales on February 10, 2011, 05:57:21 AM
Add to that the "local" traditions that sprout up in units and Wings (like the NEW YORK WING tradition of SENIORS AND CADETS exchanging rank insignia, unit baseball caps and the like) then its a whole world of FUN operating beyond the shadows of CAPM 39-1.
Not really familiar with that "tradition." Some enlightenment (meaning specific details) could give me something to work with as to whether or not they're acceptable or not.
Quote from: Hawk200 on February 10, 2011, 05:43:39 AM
Quote from: davidsinn on February 10, 2011, 03:40:57 AM
Quote from: Hawk200 on February 10, 2011, 03:25:58 AM
The other traditional creases are expected.
Oh really? Where is it stated they are expected? Where is it explained how to do them? Unless it's in writing you can forget about me doing it. I'm not going to waste my time on something totally useless unless I have to. Just because it's tradition does not make it a good idea.
See below.
Quote from: Ron1319 on February 10, 2011, 03:58:40 AMIt seems pretty clear to me that military tradition does not dictate uniform wear.
And it seems pretty clear to me that you've never spent any time in the service. Not everything you're expected to do is going to be spelled out in regulations. The manual doesn't tell you how to shine shoes or boots, but you're expected to do so.
The manual does state to shine your boots/shoes. It does not state to crease your sleeves. You've lost this argument because you have nothing to back you up other than "we've always done it that way."
If it's not spelled out as something I need to do then I'm not going to waste my time on it. I am fighting something that doesn't make sense. It doesn't make any sense to crease sleeves because some people think we need to because they used to do it in the military.
Quote from: Hawk200 on February 10, 2011, 06:01:00 AM
Quote from: Major Carrales on February 10, 2011, 05:57:21 AM
Add to that the "local" traditions that sprout up in units and Wings (like the NEW YORK WING tradition of SENIORS AND CADETS exchanging rank insignia, unit baseball caps and the like) then its a whole world of FUN operating beyond the shadows of CAPM 39-1.
Not really familiar with that "tradition." Some enlightenment (meaning specific details) could give me something to work with as to whether or not they're acceptable or not.
About three years ago I was trying to end the practice of "funny or otherwise weird" uniform threads where people posted photos of CAP members in odd uniform situations, some clearly out of uniform, out of context. It usually became a place where people would "dogpile," poke fun of and post unbecoming comments about and behind their backs.
It became a CAP-PAO's nightmare, instead of having a positive effect...it gathered all sorts of wrong in one place and compounded it with vitriolic comments.
One thing that was posted in those were some photos from a NEW YORK WING conference of Cadets wearing gray shoulder marks with ranks like Lt Col and Major. Additionally, there were some adult members wearing blue Cadet Officer ones. When I pointed this out to the very same people who were defending the "Funny Uniform Threads," they seemed to make an exception for this citing that this was an old WING tradition and I was uninformed (mostly because I prefer to wear a service cap instead of a flight cap...I used to get that a lot).
This practice happened at their dining in and somehow the photos got on line...but it was somehow "acceptable" while another photo, where a CAP officer in a fight cap was obscured where it looked as if a BDU-clad arm was his, was a horrible example of a uniform violation. The person in question was in full blues, only obscured, and apparently a beloved and well respect CAP officer.
All that aside...the practice of exchanging ranks at a HIGH CAP function like a WING CONFERENCE dinning-in was being done.
Quote from: davidsinn on February 10, 2011, 06:01:11 AM
Quote from: Hawk200 on February 10, 2011, 05:43:39 AM
Quote from: davidsinn on February 10, 2011, 03:40:57 AM
Quote from: Hawk200 on February 10, 2011, 03:25:58 AM
The other traditional creases are expected.
Oh really? Where is it stated they are expected? Where is it explained how to do them? Unless it's in writing you can forget about me doing it. I'm not going to waste my time on something totally useless unless I have to. Just because it's tradition does not make it a good idea.
See below.
Quote from: Ron1319 on February 10, 2011, 03:58:40 AMIt seems pretty clear to me that military tradition does not dictate uniform wear.
And it seems pretty clear to me that you've never spent any time in the service. Not everything you're expected to do is going to be spelled out in regulations. The manual doesn't tell you how to shine shoes or boots, but you're expected to do so.
The manual does state to shine your boots/shoes. It does not state to crease your sleeves. You've lost this argument because you have nothing to back you up other than "we've always done it that way."
If it's not spelled out as something I need to do then I'm not going to waste my time on it. I am fighting something that doesn't make sense. It doesn't make any sense to crease sleeves because some people think we need to because they used to do it in the military.
WAIT!! Time out here folks....
Are we really going at it over to shine boots or not? Or to crease your sleeves on Bdus's?
davidsinn, do you really not shine your boots or dress shoes because it does not spell it out in 39-1....? Please tell me this is joke....
That's clearly not what he said. It's also clear in the regs that you should always wear your own grade.
Quote from: Hawk200 on February 10, 2011, 03:25:58 AM
The manual specifically says "Military creases are prohibited." The other traditional creases are expected. Raging that "THE MANUAL DOESN'T SAY I HAVE TO!" isn't gonna change the fact that it's expected. You may be absolutely certain you're right, but it could cost you. And you wouldn't be the last cadet to be thought of as "That former Spaatz cadet that thinks he knows everything." Just food for thought.
You mean last senior? You wouldn't be the last senior to say, "Forget the (former) Spaatz cadet who quotes regs to me proving I'm wrong. I'm going to keep doing it the way I've always done it. I'd might as well tell him it might cost him for following the rules while I'm at it."
Quote from: davidsinn on February 10, 2011, 06:01:11 AMThe manual does state to shine your boots/shoes. It does not state to crease your sleeves. You've lost this argument because you have nothing to back you up other than "we've always done it that way."
As to creasing sleeves, you're right, it's not mentioned
when it comes to BDUs. It is stated for service uniforms. Table 2-1, Item 2; Table 2-2, Item 2. Those do mention creases on the epaulet.
Now when it comes to BDUs, it specifically forbids
military creases. Now, if it forbids one type of crease, there's more than one type, isn't there?
Quote from: davidsinn on February 10, 2011, 06:01:11 AMIf it's not spelled out as something I need to do then I'm not going to waste my time on it.
Doing the bare minimun doesn't exactly reflect "good credit." That's mediocrity.
Quote from: davidsinn on February 10, 2011, 06:01:11 AMI am fighting something that doesn't make sense.
No, you're not, you're just fighting something. They aren't the same. It looks like you don't want to, not a case of it not making sense.
Two points on this:
1. If you're spending time avoiding creasing the shirt when you're ironing it, you're wasting time.
2. What makes it so wrong to do it? You obviously think it's wrong somehow. How? And why?
Quote from: davidsinn on February 10, 2011, 06:01:11 AMIt doesn't make any sense to crease sleeves because some people think we need to because they used to do it in the military.
Of course, that little argument would come up. "Only the
military would crease a shirt sleeve! It's ridiculous!" No, you might not be saying it, but that's how a lot of people are reading it.
Creases in the sleeves of shirts have been around since the commercial press was first used. It's not something unique to the military.
Quote from: Ron1319 on February 10, 2011, 06:35:13 AM
Quote from: Hawk200 on February 10, 2011, 03:25:58 AM
The manual specifically says "Military creases are prohibited." The other traditional creases are expected. Raging that "THE MANUAL DOESN'T SAY I HAVE TO!" isn't gonna change the fact that it's expected. You may be absolutely certain you're right, but it could cost you. And you wouldn't be the last cadet to be thought of as "That former Spaatz cadet that thinks he knows everything." Just food for thought.
You mean last senior? You wouldn't be the last senior to say, "Forget the (former) Spaatz cadet who quotes regs to me proving I'm wrong. I'm going to keep doing it the way I've always done it. I'd might as well tell him it might cost him for following the rules while I'm at it."
You trumpeted the fact that you were a Spaatz cadet, don't get mad me at me for pigeonholing yourself.
Second, you haven't quoted anything proving me wrong. There is no victory here, because there wasn't a contest. What I'm telling you is that being blatantly non-conformist can cost you.
Third, you're not following a rule in any way, shape, or form. You're making your own rules. Telling people NOT to put creases in their shirts is
your opinion. It's not in the manual,
you want it to be. Trying to change the manual to support your opinion doesn't make it a rule. It's a circular logic that fails.
The manual says very clearly to only do what it says. Since it doesn't say to, you can't. Period. It says to crease blues sleeves so we do. It doesn't say to crease BDU sleeves (or where, or how, or how much of the sleeve.)
I could arbitrarily decide to put creases up the sleeve every 6" would that be OK? It would being doing more than what was asked and therefore not mediocrity.
See the thing is, I don't have a preference one way or the other. Im not trying to get them to change the manual to match my view. If they clarify and say crease the sleeves, I'll crease the sleeves.
You know, I've started two responses to this nonsense, both of which would probably have seen me tossed in the CAP-Talk dungeon and the key thrown out.
True, the manual doesn't specifically say "Crease your sleeves." I'll give you that one. The manual also specifies that a blue belt must be worn, and that the tip (for BDUs anyway) may extend up to one inch past the buckle. But it doesn't specify that the belt tip must actually pass through the buckle. The manual also specifies that black combat boots must be worn, yet fails to mention that those boots must be tied. Using the logic put forth here, there is nothing to say that I have to tie my boots or pass my belt through the buckle, therefore I'm completely justified if I choose not to. I've yet to see someone walking around with their bootlaces dragging the hell along the ground behind them, or with the end of their belt over top of their buckle. Common sense tells us to do such things, so we do them.
Crease your sleeves, or don't. I don't really care one way or the other, as long as your uniform doesn't look like you had to sneak up on it to put it on, or you pulled it out from under the bed. But to tell someone they can't because it's not in the manual is pretty durn stupid.
FWIW, I crease my sleeves and wing patch. Why? Because that's how I was taught when I first put on a CAP uniform 27 years ago, and because I happen to like them that way. It helps present a neat, professional appearance. If you can put forth the same without creased sleeves (and I know lots of people who can and do), good on ya, here's a bunny with a pancake on it's head.
(http://home.earthlink.net/%7Ecfreytag/oolong.jpg)
I just can't quit laughing. Sleeve creases? Seriously? Really?
Ron, I really think you ought to lighten up.
When you lay a shirt flat to iron it, you end up with four creases: collar to sleeve cuff X 2, and cuff to armpit to tail X 2. To not have those creases takes longer to iron the shirt. If there are creases in a BDU shirt, it's no big deal. They don't have to be starched razor sharp, like on a dress shirt.
I've been wearing a CAP uniform since the '60s, and I've never seen so much Sturm und Drang over such a minor point about uniforms.
Quote from: SarDragon on February 10, 2011, 08:30:00 AM
Ron, I really think you ought to lighten up.
I think if you go back and review all of *my* posts you'll find that they're factual, sight references, and are rather unemotional. Again, I don't care one way or the other, I just want the manual to specify exactly what we need to do because I believe it's a lot more specific than whether or not I should tie my boots. The manual seems to specify very clearly that tradition and what the military does are not viable reasons to wear the uniform a certain way. Since there is obviously a significant amount of disagreement on the issue, it should be standardized. The main reason why it needs to be standardized is that cadets especially take these things very, very seriously. If I send my cadets off to someone else's activity one way or another and there is disagreement, they might not be able to handle it as maturely as the adults here on Captalk.
I have a certain manner of speaking which often takes some people a while to get used to. I believe it's coming across on this forum as me being overemotional about this issue. The only thing that got me a bit riled up was being told that it was a negative that I was a former Spaatz cadet who thinks I know everything. I run my own business. If I don't know the answer to everything my employees ask me, then I'm incompetent. It's my job to know everything. I left Intel because of the mass number of people who specialized in saying, "I'll get back to you on that," because they didn't know everything. In that case, everything included answers to basic customer questions. I apply the same philosophy to my job in CAP with "commander" in my title. I see it as my job to definitively know what is correct in this situation and all I've asked of this forum is to be told how to escalate this issue or better request clarification in the supposedly impossible revision of the CAPM 39-1.
It seems that if 39-1 isn't specific on something, the standard USAF custom should apply. Afterall it is their uniform. To an extent, creases on a shirt are done by the cleaners. Custom, tradition or whatever, shirts have had sleeve creases since the dark ages. So what is to argue about?
Quote from: Ron1319 on February 10, 2011, 07:07:51 AM
The manual says very clearly to only do what it says. Since it doesn't say to, you can't. Period.
I bet there is plenty that isn't specifically authorized that you and your cadets do.
Do you put a piece of cardboard behind your nameplate or ribbons/badges? Not specifically authorized.
Do you tuck your shoe/boot laces in? Not specifically authorized.
Do you use shirt stays/garters? Not specifically authorized.
Do you use epaulet shapers? Also not specifically authorized.
What sort of blousing bands do you use? None are specifically authorized -- though it requires that BDU trousers be bloused over the boot, so some form of blousing band is implied.
What the manual DOES say, as others have pointed out, is that all uniforms must be kept neat, clean, pressed and in good repair. It doesn't tell you specifically HOW to keep them clean or press them, only that you must. How each member complies with that is up to them, unless a squadron or wing policy exists.
As others have also pointed out, a crease is the natural byproduct of pressing the uniform. Where the crease ends up lying is also up to the member. Most people center the crease on the shoulder seam, though the natural crease location per the garment's construction is a few inches farther back. People in some wings crease their sleeves but not the shoulder patches. Since I position the crease based on how the sleeve is constructed, not on where the shoulder seam is located, the creases generally fall aft of the shoulder patches, so they don't get creased.
Finally, as *I* have pointed out in another thread, uniform wear is not one of our congressionally mandated missions. Incessant obsessing over uniform wear minutae does not contribute to mission accomplishment. May I respectfully suggest you devote your energies to ridding your cadets of their desire to be perfect little tin soldiers and impart a more mission-focused mindset in them. As anyone in the military will tell you, there's nothing worse than someone whose uniforms are always perfect, yet they're utterly incompetent at their job.
Quote from: Mustang on February 10, 2011, 12:26:58 PM
I bet there is plenty that isn't specifically authorized that you and your cadets do.
Do you put a piece of cardboard behind your nameplate or ribbons/badges? Not specifically authorized.
Do you tuck your shoe/boot laces in? Not specifically authorized.
Do you use shirt stays/garters? Not specifically authorized.
Do you use epaulet shapers? Also not specifically authorized.
What sort of blousing bands do you use? None are specifically authorized -- though it requires that BDU trousers be bloused over the boot, so some form of blousing band is implied.
I'd just like to point out that every single one of those things is not visible. In comparison, creased sleeves on BDU's are extremely visible and I don't buy the argument for a second that we should just tell the cadets to not worry about details of uniform wear and instead go focus on the mission. They should be doing both.
And with that I'm officially walking away from this conversation and not going to get involved in another uniform conversation on Captalk. All I've asked for repeatedly is for everyone to agree that the uniform manual should be updated to say specifically what and how this should be done so that everyone is standardized. It should be really, really simple to do.
Farewell, Uniforms & Awards section of Captalk.
Quote from: Ron1319 on February 10, 2011, 09:32:59 PMIn comparison, creased sleeves on BDU's are extremely visible and I don't buy the argument for a second that we should just tell the cadets to not worry about details of uniform wear and instead go focus on the mission.
Nobody said not to worry about it. You're advocating that people make of point of avoiding a practice that's a normal result of ironing the uniform.
Quote from: Ron1319 on February 10, 2011, 09:32:59 PMAnd with that I'm officially walking away from this conversation and not going to get involved in another uniform conversation on Captalk. All I've asked for repeatedly is for everyone to agree that the uniform manual should be updated to say specifically what and how this should be done so that everyone is standardized. It should be really, really simple to do.
Farewell, Uniforms & Awards section of Captalk.
You may as well quit CAPTalk. Any section can end up as polarized as the other. The martyr complex isn't gonna change anyone's mind.
Wow...this has been an example of something unusual. Many of you have always toted the "if its not in the manual we can't/shouldn't do it" argument, yet this occasion points out that there are times when commonsense applies. Some of you who are pressing for the commonsense approach have often used the "if its not in the manual we can't/shouldn't do it" to others.
What is the lesson here? Tolerance...? Moderation...? Commonsensical application of the regulations? Who's to say.
Now, I am pretty sure the regulations and manuals regarding uniforms are not designed to hinder the mission. I'll say this...if you are in uniform and it starts raining, the temperature drops or the same (for example the temperature this week alone in South Texas has gone from tee shirt to heavy coat...as in 20 degree mornings and 60 degree afternoons) you protect your health first.
If I'm at a SARex and this sort of thing happens (after one can't take there whole CAP wardrobe to such an activity) and conditions force it...I'll let my cadets put on a Hello Kitty jacket, if necessary, to keep them from hypothermia.
Quote from: Major Carrales on February 10, 2011, 11:49:07 PM
If I'm at a SARex and this sort of thing happens (after one can't take there whole CAP wardrobe to such an activity) and conditions force it...I'll let my cadets put on a Hello Kitty jacket, if necessary, to keep them from hypothermia.
Well, since safety is the big thing in CAP these days, I am surprised National does not make us all carry around a Hello Kitty jacket!!
Seriously, Safety, Health and Welfare will always trump the regulation. Unless you want to try to explain at the trial that you "were only following regulations" when you wouldn't let Cadet SpongeBob put the Hello Kitty jacket on when it started snowing.
Quote from: Patterson on February 11, 2011, 04:02:21 AM
Seriously, Safety, Health and Welfare will always trump the regulation. Unless you want to try to explain at the trial that you "were only following regulations" when you wouldn't let Cadet SpongeBob put the Hello Kitty jacket on when it started snowing.
I am wondering why this topic hasn't been "Eclipsed" yet ;) ;) ;)
Quote from: cap235629 on February 11, 2011, 04:13:59 AM
Quote from: Patterson on February 11, 2011, 04:02:21 AM
Seriously, Safety, Health and Welfare will always trump the regulation. Unless you want to try to explain at the trial that you "were only following regulations" when you wouldn't let Cadet SpongeBob put the Hello Kitty jacket on when it started snowing.
I am wondering why this topic hasn't been "Eclipsed" yet ;) ;) ;)
I was actually wondering the same thing.
Maybe the snow took out his 'Net connection?
Quote from: SarDragon on February 11, 2011, 04:31:40 AM
Maybe the snow took out his 'Net connection?
And his smart phone? Naw, dude got abducted by aliens. It's the only logical conclusion.
Quote from: cap235629 on February 11, 2011, 04:13:59 AM
I am wondering why this topic hasn't been "Eclipsed" yet ;) ;) ;)
Inside joke.................hahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahaha :clap: :clap:
Quote from: davidsinn on February 11, 2011, 04:49:25 AM
Quote from: SarDragon on February 11, 2011, 04:31:40 AM
Maybe the snow took out his 'Net connection?
And his smart phone? Naw, dude got abducted by aliens. It's the only logical conclusion.
There's no snow where I am right now - beautiful, balmy Fort Lauderdale.
I was involved earlier on, but even I know at some point what a waste of time discussing revs to 39-1 are on here.
The inconsistencies, internal & external conflicts, and oversights are so simple to fix that if NHQ was interested in doing it,
it would already be done.
2-3 of us could fix everything in a couple of days, maybe a week if we took all new photos.
So what's the point?
we were getting ready to launch a search! Glad it is sunny where you are, I left the house at 6am and it was -5 with 9 inches of snow on the ground. I moved south to get away from all this crap!
Quote from: Eclipse on February 11, 2011, 05:24:15 AM
Quote from: davidsinn on February 11, 2011, 04:49:25 AM
Quote from: SarDragon on February 11, 2011, 04:31:40 AM
Maybe the snow took out his 'Net connection?
And his smart phone? Naw, dude got abducted by aliens. It's the only logical conclusion.
There's no snow where I am right now - beautiful, balmy Fort Lauderdale.
I was involved earlier on, but even I know at some point what a waste of time discussing revs to 39-1 are on here.
The inconsistencies, internal & external conflicts, and oversights are so simple to fix that if NHQ was interested in doing it,
it would already be done.
2-3 of us could fix everything in a couple of days, maybe a week if we took all new photos.
So what's the point?
You know, eclipse's post made me think. NHQ and the NB always say we need new this and new that, but, why not a new 39-1?
Why has there not been a new 39-1? Am i mistaken or was there not a "uniform commite"? What happend to it? Did they recommend to NOT right a new 39-1?
maybe its just me but.....some of us posters that are very dedicated should get together and write up a whole new one, and then (ill pay for printing and shipping) send it to every wing commander and region commander and ask them to approve it asap....might get done faster ah? >:D
Quote from: NCRblues on February 11, 2011, 06:08:08 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on February 11, 2011, 05:24:15 AM
Quote from: davidsinn on February 11, 2011, 04:49:25 AM
Quote from: SarDragon on February 11, 2011, 04:31:40 AM
Maybe the snow took out his 'Net connection?
And his smart phone? Naw, dude got abducted by aliens. It's the only logical conclusion.
There's no snow where I am right now - beautiful, balmy Fort Lauderdale.
I was involved earlier on, but even I know at some point what a waste of time discussing revs to 39-1 are on here.
The inconsistencies, internal & external conflicts, and oversights are so simple to fix that if NHQ was interested in doing it,
it would already be done.
2-3 of us could fix everything in a couple of days, maybe a week if we took all new photos.
So what's the point?
You know, eclipse's post made me think. NHQ and the NB always say we need new this and new that, but, why not a new 39-1?
Why has there not been a new 39-1? Am i mistaken or was there not a "uniform commite"? What happend to it? Did they recommend to NOT right a new 39-1?
maybe its just me but.....some of us posters that are very dedicated should get together and write up a whole new one, and then (ill pay for printing and shipping) send it to every wing commander and region commander and ask them to approve it asap....might get done faster ah? >:D
I'm in
Same here!!!
" It's my job to know everything. I left Intel because of the mass number of people who specialized in saying, "I'll get back to you on that," because they didn't know everything "
No one can ever know everything, and no regulation is ever going to cover 100% of the thoughts and ideas that a cadet or senior can come up with.
Quote from: Larry Mangum on February 11, 2011, 03:13:23 PMNo one can ever know everything, and no regulation is ever going to cover 100% of the thoughts and ideas that a cadet or senior can come up with.
We don't need a document that covers "100% of the thoughts and ideas that a cadet or senior can come up with", we only need one that covers the uniform items we are approved to wear.
There is no reason it cannot be 100% correct, especially if it is a live document instead of a .pdf, etc.
Light up an authorized wiki with SME's as the editors. Anything that comes up as a conflict or question can be fixed on the fly, with discussion pages behind the reg to justify decisions, etc.
"Regulations" need to much authority to change and approve, our uniform directions should probably not be an "R", they should probably be a "M", "P", or "I".
CAPR 39-1 should be one or two pages that outlines then when and who of wear requirements, and perhaps the designators for each class of member, with a reference to "wear in compliance with most recent version of CAPI 39-1"
So, how much personal uniform bias could we expect from that? (the proposed rewritting of CAPM 39-1 mentioned in posts prior) Are y'all gonna stomp on Hawk gear? Limit WING SUPPLEMENTS? I am not writting this to be "that way," however, if you are planning to make CAP uniform wear standard you need to think about how far you want to go with it. The prior issues have to be taken into account.
Quote from: Major Carrales on February 11, 2011, 03:41:53 PM
So, how much personal uniform bias could we expect from that? (the proposed rewritting of CAPM 39-1 mentioned in posts prior) Are y'all gonna stomp on Hawk gear? Limit WING SUPPLEMENTS? I am not writting this to be "that way," however, if you are planning to make CAP uniform wear standard you need to think about how far you want to go with it. The prior issues have to be taken into account.
No custom uniforms, period.
No wing supplements, period. (anything justified for safety becomes a 60-1 supplement only approved for wear when performing that task
and not allowed in mission base).
Done.
Quote from: Eclipse on February 11, 2011, 04:38:59 PM
Quote from: Major Carrales on February 11, 2011, 03:41:53 PM
So, how much personal uniform bias could we expect from that? (the proposed rewriting of CAPM 39-1 mentioned in posts prior) Are y'all gonna stomp on Hawk gear? Limit WING SUPPLEMENTS? I am not writting this to be "that way," however, if you are planning to make CAP uniform wear standard you need to think about how far you want to go with it. The prior issues have to be taken into account.
No custom uniforms, period.
No wing supplements, period. (anything justified for safety becomes a 60-1 supplement only approved for wear when performing that task
and not allowed in mission base).
Done.
You realize that eliminates countless honor cords (as in the Texas CTEP ones authorized by wing supplement, for example), numerous orange items (Hawk Mountain doodads and the California SHIRT mandated by State Law) and countless other such things. I suspect that the movement to a standard uniform worn homogeneously systemwide would hit that "wall of traditions" and Wing commanders would, likely never, let it see the light of day.
As a point of order from another thread...in a world where we elected Wing Commanders, those traditions would stand since, if the supplemented items were popular, no Wing Commander would vote for their removal.
Despite all the outrage here about wanting a standard uniform, I suspect that people like "their corners of the world."
Quote from: Eclipse on February 11, 2011, 04:38:59 PM
No custom uniforms, period.
No wing supplements, period. (anything justified for safety becomes a 60-1 supplement only approved for wear when performing that task
and not allowed in mission base).
Done.
Unless CAP is going to start issuing cadets (and possibly seniors) ECWCS items, some flexibility is needed to keep warm in some of the colder wings. I'm sorry, but with the weather we've had here lately in Minnesota, a field jacket with liner is not enough to keep warm. Actually, I've had some members tell me that it's sometimes hard to stay warm with ECWCS items.
Quote from: DKruse on February 11, 2011, 06:58:19 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on February 11, 2011, 04:38:59 PM
No custom uniforms, period.
No wing supplements, period. (anything justified for safety becomes a 60-1 supplement only approved for wear when performing that task
and not allowed in mission base).
Done.
Unless CAP is going to start issuing cadets (and possibly seniors) ECWCS items, some flexibility is needed to keep warm in some of the colder wings. I'm sorry, but with the weather we've had here lately in Minnesota, a field jacket with liner is not enough to keep warm. Actually, I've had some members tell me that it's sometimes hard to stay warm with ECWCS items.
"Flexibility" does not require a supplement, only common sense. For those of you who have not had the pleasure, spend some time reading our finely crafted supplements - the majority of the directives you will find are simply restatements of exisiting regulations, as if adding another "really" to "you will" would make a difference.
To Sparky, I know exactly what it means - 1 uniform, 1 CAP. And all the nonsesne arguments and discussions we have to deal with after encampments, HMRS, NESA, whatever, disappear overnight. I will gladly accept the week or two of the wailing and gnashing of teeth to make that go away.
Quote from: Eclipse on February 11, 2011, 09:25:13 PM
To Sparky, I know exactly what it means - 1 uniform, 1 CAP. And all the nonsesne arguments and discussions we have to deal with after encampments, HMRS, NESA, whatever, disappear overnight. I will gladly accept the week or two of the wailing and gnashing of teeth to make that go away.
Do those who would follow your proposal so passionately here understand that. Many who so fiercely support following the regulations are usually the first to make uniform suggestions, recommendations and lobby for all sorts of things. I just want it made clear that if people follow your concept it means the end of all such "regionalism."
That the door will be closed to everything...beloved or not. That saying and doing are two different things.
Then what is kept? Suppose we start a movement for the unification of one uniform for all and, the process begins to accept the personal preferences of a few. I am sure some Wisconsin folks will make the Blue Beret system-wide, I'm sure Pennsylvania will heavily lobby for Hawk Orange. Suppose a series of cords are adopted for academic recognition and more is added instead of less.
Let's be certain, the potential for all sorts of things are possible when "CAP fantasy" meets "CAP reality."
I'll be willing to bet, if I were a gambling man, that that might be the reason nothing has been done.
Again, I should point out that in the "democratic CAP" many lobby for here issues such as this would be amplified and create a grid lock where people would be divided. Could you imagine the bedlam that would take place from Wing Commanders trying to garner votes by resisting the removal of Wing Specific items. Or the falling of a Wing Commander that would call for such a removal. I know I keep bringing that up, but we need to start applying cross curricular points to our visions for the future of CAP.
Quote from: Eclipse on February 11, 2011, 03:35:52 PM"Regulations" need to much authority to change and approve, our uniform directions should probably not be an "R", they should probably be a "M", "P", or "I".
CAPR 39-1 should be one or two pages that outlines then when and who of wear requirements, and perhaps the designators for each class of member, with a reference to "wear in compliance with most recent version of CAPI 39-1"
The governing publication for CAP uniforms has been CAP
M 39-1 for as long as I've been in CAP. The olde CAPR 39-1 was something dealing with a totally non-uniform topic.
Why break this up into more than one publication? We need more simplicity, not complexity.
Quote from: Eclipse on February 11, 2011, 09:25:13 PM"Flexibility" does not require a supplement, only common sense. For those of you who have not had the pleasure, spend some time reading our finely crafted supplements - the majority of the directives you will find are simply restatements of exisiting regulations, as if adding another "really" to "you will" would make a difference.
And that is one of the
biggest problems we have regarding uniforms.
My common sense doesn't match yours, which doesn't match Nin's, which doesn't match LtCol Schmuckatelli's, ad nauseum. Unless there's a stable common ground defined in the reg, there are always going to be conflicting interpretations.
Quote from: Eclipse on February 11, 2011, 09:25:13 PM
Quote from: DKruse on February 11, 2011, 06:58:19 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on February 11, 2011, 04:38:59 PM
No custom uniforms, period.
No wing supplements, period. (anything justified for safety becomes a 60-1 supplement only approved for wear when performing that task
and not allowed in mission base).
Done.
Unless CAP is going to start issuing cadets (and possibly seniors) ECWCS items, some flexibility is needed to keep warm in some of the colder wings. I'm sorry, but with the weather we've had here lately in Minnesota, a field jacket with liner is not enough to keep warm. Actually, I've had some members tell me that it's sometimes hard to stay warm with ECWCS items.
"Flexibility" does not require a supplement, only common sense. For those of you who have not had the pleasure, spend some time reading our finely crafted supplements - the majority of the directives you will find are simply restatements of exisiting regulations, as if adding another "really" to "you will" would make a difference.
To Sparky, I know exactly what it means - 1 uniform, 1 CAP. And all the nonsesne arguments and discussions we have to deal with after encampments, HMRS, NESA, whatever, disappear overnight. I will gladly accept the week or two of the wailing and gnashing of teeth to make that go away.
NESA doesn't give you or promote anything that's not IAW 39-1. Just a specialty badge, ballcap, and good training.