CAP Talk

So we got a bit off topic on the ABU thread regarding rank insignia on the service coat.  Some believe that the grey epaulets don't look quite right on the class A service coat.  I'm one of them.  I had mentioned in the previous threat that I was one of the few that thought the maroon epaulets seemed to be a better match color wise, Dark maroon with dark blue vs light grey with dark blue. 

So possible options anyone? 

Someone mentioned changing the rank insignia itself to be a bit more distinctive, as the CG aux does.  That made me think of how our BDU's look.  Perhaps something a bit nicer looking, than the BDU sew on but the same concept sewn on the epaulets of the coat. 

Well as the newbie here and as the outsider looking in I agree that the grey epaulets do look a little off and I can see how some CAP members might be put off by them and how it could feel like a "mass punishment" for an offense committed over twenty years ago.

When I was in HS I can vaguely remember CAP Officers wearing the letters "C.A.P." in place of the letters "U.S." on the tunic lapels and a different nametag, but otherwise they looked exactly like an USAF Officer.

There is Good, and Bad, in that.

One Team - One Fight, with a common uniform and a common look is the good thing.

Being confused for an USAF Officer is the bad.

Both are subject to abuse by unprofessional CAP members trolling for salutes.

Maybe you could take an example from the USCGAux on their office insignia.

I know the silver vs gold USCG style shoulder boards might not work for CAP but all USCGAux pin-on and sew-on insignia (i.e. rank) all have a superimposed letter "A" for Auxiliary on them. So maybe a solution would be to create rank insignia with a superimposed "CAP" on them? Using red (or maroon) as the letter color will make them stand out on the silver or gold rank device.

Another solution might be to create a colored felt or plastic backer to your rank insignia like the light blue discs used by US Army Infantry personnel. This would create a colored border around your rank which make it clearly different at a glance but not look as "off" as the current grey epaulets. Again a red border (or maroon) around your rank on the blue coat/jacket/tunic epaulets would actually look very good.

Plus with modern embroidery, making epaulet slides for your shirts with either superimposed red "CAP" letters or a red rank borders (or both) on a blue slide would not be hard.

Again just a suggestion from someone outside your organization who thinks you do great work and wants you to look good while doing it.

My take has always been the USAF Style CAP uniform is exactly the same as the AD USAF uniforms with the addition of a CAP patch on the left shoulder.....and a blue hat with the ABUs.

One fight one uniform.

One set of uniforms for all! (so long as veterans can wear their military-earned fruit salad)  :P

Quote from: lordmonar on June 14, 2013, 10:10:09 PM
My take has always been the USAF Style CAP uniform is exactly the same as the AD USAF uniforms with the addition of a CAP patch on the left shoulder.....and a blue hat with the ABUs.

One fight one uniform.

Forgive my ignorance, but is a shoulder patch a CAP tradition? Can't say in my 23 years of Military Service I've ever seen a shoulder patch on an Air Force uniform.

Also I concur with the Blue patrol cap... a simple, yet professional, quick differentiation between CAP and USAF.

My preference is for metal rank insignia, CAP cutouts, and wing patches. Not everyone likes the wing patches on blues or service dress but it's how it was when I was a cadet. I liked it. I also think we should go back to the blue rank slides on the shirts. I liked those too.

I don't think that we should set up the uniforms of 60,000 people on the premise that Airman Joe Snuffy can't tell the difference and might actually salute somebody he doesn't have to. That doesn't say anything about us. It says something about the Air Force.

Quote from: shuman14 on June 14, 2013, 08:29:46 PM
Being confused for an USAF Officer is the bad.

CAP members being confused for USAF Officers happens so infrequently as to be essentially the stuff of urban legends.

Quote from: Eclipse on June 15, 2013, 01:06:15 AM

Quote from: shuman14 on June 14, 2013, 08:29:46 PM
Being confused for an USAF Officer is the bad.

CAP members being confused for USAF Officers happens so infrequently as to be essentially the stuff of urban legends.

Huh. I see it happen every time one of my fellow CAP members wears a AF style uniform in public.

Quote from: Fubar on June 15, 2013, 07:54:17 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on June 15, 2013, 01:06:15 AM

Quote from: shuman14 on June 14, 2013, 08:29:46 PM
Being confused for an USAF Officer is the bad.

CAP members being confused for USAF Officers happens so infrequently as to be essentially the stuff of urban legends.

Huh. I see it happen every time one of my fellow CAP members wears a AF style uniform in public.

Problematic confusion is the rarity.  Seriously, how often does it cause meaningful trouble if John Q. Public doesn't know the difference?  I'm not talking about the nearly mythical salute troll, but a CAP member going about their business responsibly and wearing the uniform properly.  The wailing and gnashing of teeth on this issue is all out of proportion to the incidence of actual incidents.

Having said all that, I'm a big fan of the polo shirt uniform.  Most of the time I simply have no need for the other uniforms and could care less whether anyone knows I can wear major's oak leaves in CAP.

Quote from: wuzafuzz on June 15, 2013, 12:12:17 PM
I'm not talking about the nearly mythical salute troll, but a CAP member going about their business responsibly and wearing the uniform properly.  The wailing and gnashing of teeth on this issue is all out of proportion to the incidence of actual incidents.

What you do you mean "nearly mythical?" Its a well documented problem in CAP. That doesn't mean its a common problem at all, but we all know it happens. We've either seen it, or there are members who have been booted for doing exactly that. Just like the Major (CAP) who was on a base around Kansas or something demanding a salute from the SP at the gate. There's nothing mythical about it.

However, with that being said, the CGAUX has its own issues. Its more rare in my experience than it is with CAP for a few reasons.

First, the CGAUX works side-by-side with the USCG even receiving official orders for CGAUX members to be stationed aboard cutters or aircraft. Its less like you're going to have people trolling for salutes NOTICEABLY because you tend to get them anyway. Not always, but on most bases you either have a very formal approach where the base commander wants CGAUX members respected, or its a smaller base where the level of familiarity means hardly anyone is saluted anyway.

Second, I think (I could be wrong) there are less CGAUX members than CAP. So you're going to have less instances of bad uniforms and salute trolls with a smaller force.

Third, there is a cultural difference between the AF and the CG. AF is considerably more military like (which is odd for me to say as a prior service Marine) than the CG. The CG has a greater level of a familiarity within its ranks. Officers routinely speak to their crew by their first names even.

Anyway, my worst experience with a uniform issue in the CGAUX was one time up at the Academy where I saw an Auxiliarist walking around in a flight suit and flip flops. Moron.

Quote from: brent.teal on June 14, 2013, 07:59:28 PM
So we got a bit off topic on the ABU thread regarding rank insignia on the service coat.  Some believe that the grey epaulets don't look quite right on the class A service coat.  I'm one of them.  I had mentioned in the previous threat that I was one of the few that thought the maroon epaulets seemed to be a better match color wise, Dark maroon with dark blue vs light grey with dark blue. 

So possible options anyone? 

Someone mentioned changing the rank insignia itself to be a bit more distinctive, as the CG aux does.  That made me think of how our BDU's look.  Perhaps something a bit nicer looking, than the BDU sew on but the same concept sewn on the epaulets of the coat.

I've made this suggestion I'm about to make again a few times in the past here...

I could care less about wearing ABUs. They're hot (although I guess the new ripstop won't be) and heavy. Either way, for this scenario lets say CAP was already wearing them. I would say that we would mirror the AF in the entire uniform but either use ABU colored nametape that says Civil Air Patrol, or to make it more distinguishing without looking ridiculous use the old subdued patches from the BDUs. That would distinguish members without it standing out like a sore thumb.

I think the blue cover on an ABU would look dumb. No offense to the person who made the suggestion. Why wear an ABU if you're going to do that? The point of wearing the ABU is to match the AF. If you're going to go so far off uniform than just stick with what we've got. You'll run the risk of looking dumb like the Indiana Guard Reserve which wears ACUs but with black patrol caps. I was walking around Camp Atterbury thinking there was a buttload of instructors on that base as the Army uses black caps for instructors in a class.

For the blues... no patches. That's just dumb. I realize that it was done for awhile in the past, but so where many things. We thought separate but equal was fine in the past too but looking back we all realize it was stupid (and racist but that's a different point). We should go back to blue slides that CAP on the top (closest to neck).

The AF is too worried about the relatively few number of CAP members who are playing themselves off as AF officers. Just boot them from CAP and make it publicly known. That should be enough. If it gets egregious enough take it to the next step. One thing I've not seen, or heard of, from the CGAUX is this problem. I'm sure it exists in some small number, but I know CGIS takes care of it real quick and quiet like. Gets rid of the member, lets them go on their way, and does no harm publicly to the CGAUX or the Coast Guard.

Okay....here is my story.....this happened just Yesterday.

I'm standing outside the Nellis Airman Leadership School.  I'm in short sleeve blues.....I'm a CAP SNCO......a SrA come walking up to and pops me a salute......he saw the silver insignia on my flight cap and instantly thought "Officer" and popped me a salute.

He almost instantly saw I was and NCO and we all had a laugh.

I RETURNED his salute......and told him he did right.....he saw "shiny on a hat" and saluted.

90% of the general public can't tell the USAF from the Marines, Army, Navy or the Boy Scouts.
90% of the USAF does not even know that CAP exists let alone how to identify us in low light and at a distance.

IMHO it is not really issue.   As Eclipse said.....the few instances where we (and the USAF) have screwed the pooch on "I thought he was in the USAF".....are not really that big of a deal.....and could be fixed by the USAF taking some time at basic training and during PME to educate their people about who we are, what we are about, how to recognize us, and what we are allowed and not allowed to do.

So......If I were SECAF for a day.

CAP would have the same uniforms as the USAF.   We would have a patch on the left shoulder of our uniforms (all of them except the mess dress).  We would wear subdued name and Civil Air Patrol tapes on our ABU's and wear an Ultra Marine Blue base ball cap.

This take care of all the instances of being distinctive while at the same time being part of the team.

A CAP Col standing in front of some airman at the MPF/Supply/Flight Ops.....is readily recognizable as a member of CAP.....because of the patch.
At 30 feet he blends into the back ground with all of the other officers.

AND THIS GOES FOR THE FAT AND FUZZIES TOO!

P.s. We would keep the polos....just swap the crest and name around and wear khaki pants....again to match up with USAF policies.

QuoteYou'll run the risk of looking dumb like the Indiana Guard Reserve which wears ACUs but with black patrol caps.

I know quite a few IGR members as I live in Indiana. I've seen them in the black patrol cap, it doesn't look dumb at all, in fact it looks very professional and is a simple, yet very clear way to tell a SDF member from an Army Soldier.

BTW, they only wear the Black patrol cap in garrison, when conducting field problems they wear ACU pattern patrol caps or boonie caps.

Again, as an outsider looking in, I see part of the problem is that CAP does not work as closely with the USAF as the USCGAux does with the USCG.

There is really no "augmentation" for CAP like what the USCGAux does, so the USAF doesn't see the day-to-day value added of the organization.

The USCGAux also has , for lack of a better word, a "rank device" called a member device and blank shoulder boulders called member boards.

Whenever a USCGAux members is augmenting a USCG vessel or station, they must take off their office insignia (ie silver "rank" devices) and put on member devices or boards. The only exception to this is the uniform coat because the silver "rank" is sewn on to the sleeve cuff and can't be removed. Regardless, the color silver and the superimposed "A" on the pin-on ranks are clear differentiators.

Maybe, if I could suggest, that CAP find a way to work closer with the USAF. For example, marry up with local USAFR and AFNG units and provide them support, even if its just moral support by bringing cookies to their drills.

Also the USCGAux has a mission to support the USCG recruiters so Auxies can augment recruiting stations and also support the New London Academy's recruiting efforts as well.

I would think with the CAPs' role in cadet programs the USAF recruiters and Colorado Springs would LOVE you guys and gals.

I think the closer you get the USAF and the more value you provide to their existing missions the more accepting of you they will be and the closer alignment will help the uniform issue correct itself.

Quote from: NorCal21 on June 15, 2013, 03:03:26 PM

Quote from: wuzafuzz on June 15, 2013, 12:12:17 PM
I'm not talking about the nearly mythical salute troll, but a CAP member going about their business responsibly and wearing the uniform properly.  The wailing and gnashing of teeth on this issue is all out of proportion to the incidence of actual incidents.

What you do you mean "nearly mythical?" Its a well documented problem in CAP.

No. It isn't.

Not even a little.

Quote from: Eclipse on June 15, 2013, 10:01:29 PM

Quote from: NorCal21 on June 15, 2013, 03:03:26 PM

Quote from: wuzafuzz on June 15, 2013, 12:12:17 PM
I'm not talking about the nearly mythical salute troll, but a CAP member going about their business responsibly and wearing the uniform properly.  The wailing and gnashing of teeth on this issue is all out of proportion to the incidence of actual incidents.

What you do you mean "nearly mythical?" Its a well documented problem in CAP.

No. It isn't.

Not even a little.

Other than the anecdotal CAP officer being rude to some airman, trolling for salutes, etc.......about the only real FUBAR was back in the 90's where some Airman loaned out some M-16s to a CAP officer for an encampment or some such activity.

The FUBAR on that was not so much that the CAP officer was "posing" as an officer but that the SF armory guy gave out weapons to ANY officer.

My squadron is on Nellis AFB and we very seldom have any problems.  And when we do.....we handle them quickly and forcefully.....last one we had, was during the last air show.  A CAP officer got a ticket for speeding and then tried to pull rank, and complain about "why are you pulling people over and not out keeping the base safe" sort of argument.

This officer was quickly set straight by the Air Show project officer and was made to appolgise to the SF commander and the SF troop in question.
We don't tolerate that sort of shenanigans here.  :)

Why can't people get it into their thick skulls that we are CIVILIANS who are afforded the PRIVILEGE of wearing a military-style uniform? ???

Quote from: shuman14 on June 15, 2013, 07:19:02 PM
Again, as an outsider looking in, I see part of the problem is that CAP does not work as closely with the USAF as the USCGAux does with the USCG.

Maybe, if I could suggest, that CAP find a way to work closer with the USAF. For example, marry up with local USAFR and AFNG units and provide them support, even if its just moral support by bringing cookies to their drills.

I think the closer you get the USAF and the more value you provide to their existing missions the more accepting of you they will be and the closer alignment will help the uniform issue correct itself.

1) How so?

2) Many organizations associated with the AF do this. 

3) We are already close,  the uniform issue will correct itself when members adhere to the regs(especially uniform wear), ditch any belief in entitlement, and focus on what can be provided to the AF rather than what the AF should provide us.

Quote from: Garibaldi on June 15, 2013, 10:29:34 PM
Why can't people get it into their thick skulls that we are CIVILIANS who are afforded the PRIVILEGE of wearing a military-style uniform? ???

The concept of "privilege" is lost on a significant sector of our population where everything is "deserved".

There's also the issue of being handed something with no knowledge of what it represents, and earning something you have a clue about.

Not to mention stewardship of your organization vs. personal desires.

Quote from: shuman14 on June 15, 2013, 06:46:29 PM

QuoteYou'll run the risk of looking dumb like the Indiana Guard Reserve which wears ACUs but with black patrol caps.

I know quite a few IGR members as I live in Indiana. I've seen them in the black patrol cap, it doesn't look dumb at all, in fact it looks very professional and is a simple, yet very clear way to tell a SDF member from an Army Soldier.

BTW, they only wear the Black patrol cap in garrison, when conducting field problems they wear ACU pattern patrol caps or boonie caps.

I'll just chalk it up as a difference of opinion. Black patrol cap is for instructors. There's no need for the difference in garrison.

Quote from: Eclipse on June 15, 2013, 10:01:29 PM

Quote from: NorCal21 on June 15, 2013, 03:03:26 PM

Quote from: wuzafuzz on June 15, 2013, 12:12:17 PM
I'm not talking about the nearly mythical salute troll, but a CAP member going about their business responsibly and wearing the uniform properly.  The wailing and gnashing of teeth on this issue is all out of proportion to the incidence of actual incidents.

What you do you mean "nearly mythical?" Its a well documented problem in CAP.

No. It isn't.

Not even a little.

Yes. It is.

I can pull media reports for you. CAP even posted a letter to the membership about the moron in KS I think it was demanding a Salute by an SP. The letter documented very well the situation.

Quote from: abdsp51 on June 15, 2013, 10:31:56 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on June 15, 2013, 07:19:02 PM
Again, as an outsider looking in, I see part of the problem is that CAP does not work as closely with the USAF as the USCGAux does with the USCG.

Maybe, if I could suggest, that CAP find a way to work closer with the USAF. For example, marry up with local USAFR and AFNG units and provide them support, even if its just moral support by bringing cookies to their drills.

I think the closer you get the USAF and the more value you provide to their existing missions the more accepting of you they will be and the closer alignment will help the uniform issue correct itself.

1) How so?

2) Many organizations associated with the AF do this. 

3) We are already close,  the uniform issue will correct itself when members adhere to the regs(especially uniform wear), ditch any belief in entitlement, and focus on what can be provided to the AF rather than what the AF should provide us.

1. AUXCHEF program is a prime example. Nearly every single Coast Guard installation has CGAUX members with official orders stationed onboard performing duties such as radio operations, lead dentist (at AIRSTA Clearwater), flight crew on C-130's and Jayhawks. Or that the congressionally mandated mission of the Coast Guard for boating safety has been handed over primarily to the CGAUX? The USCG works hand-in-hand training CGAUX members for boat crew operations on their fast boats as well. You would be hard pressed to walk onto any USCG installation and not find an auxiliarist directly augmenting the active duty personnel.

This may happen in CAP, but it would be a great exception rather than anything close to common.

2. He's not talking about many organizations. He's talking about this could become a core mission for CAP; although, again with #1 it would be nice to see the USAF begin working with CAP to get members authorized, certified and trained to directly augment the AF. There was a time when we USED to do that. Only been 60-70 years now.

3. How can you say CAP and the USAF are already close when better than 3/4 of the AF don't know CAP exists or has the complete wrong idea of who we are? I guess you can say CAP is close to the USAF if you're doing so as a matter of perspective versus comparison with other auxiliaries and their parent organizations.

Quote from: Eclipse on June 15, 2013, 10:37:57 PM

Quote from: Garibaldi on June 15, 2013, 10:29:34 PM
Why can't people get it into their thick skulls that we are CIVILIANS who are afforded the PRIVILEGE of wearing a military-style uniform? ???

The concept of "privilege" is lost on a significant sector of our population where everything is "deserved".

There's also the issue of being handed something with no knowledge of what it represents, and earning something you have a clue about.

Not to mention stewardship of your organization vs. personal desires.

I think you're 100% correct here; although, I wouldn't limit it to CAP. This unfortunately tends to be the way our society acts with most things. Everyone today expects things rather than having to earn them. With the attitude being so prevalent in society its understandable that some of it would show up in CAP.

Quote from: NorCal21 on June 16, 2013, 07:31:56 AM

3. How can you say CAP and the USAF are already close when better than 3/4 of the AF don't know CAP exists or has the complete wrong idea of who we are? I guess you can say CAP is close to the USAF if you're doing so as a matter of perspective versus comparison with other auxiliaries and their parent organizations.

How can I say that, ok how about this. Every group commander upon being appointed is deeply briefed on what the organization is and what we do and given a tour of the AFRCC.  And you are telling me that 250,000 people know nothing about us I will chalk it up to most generally don't care.   Also all the units I have been a member of have had a real close working relationship with the AF.  Also I can also say that I have gotten nothing but support in a CAP capacity from the AF simply by asking. 

Sorry but you are off base on your assessment in this regards,  there is a close relationship and if there is not one in your area you need to take the steps to correct it.   

Comparing an organization with a limited mission (CGAux), but one which is focused on augmentation, to an organisation with a broad mission (CAP) that is not focused on augmentation and then using that as justification for an assertion that CAP's relationship with the USAF isn't "close" isn't fair or indicates a misunderstanding of the role and mission of both organizations.

The CGAux's sole role and mission is specifically augmentation and extension of the USCG.  CAP has a lot more on their plate then
direct augmentation, and the majority of it is nearly independent of USAF involvement.

Quote from: abdsp51 on June 16, 2013, 04:21:50 PM


How can I say that, ok how about this. Every group commander upon being appointed is deeply briefed on what the organization is and what we do and given a tour of the AFRCC.  And you are telling me that 250,000 people know nothing about us I will chalk it up to most generally don't care.   Also all the units I have been a member of have had a real close working relationship with the AF.  Also I can also say that I have gotten nothing but support in a CAP capacity from the AF simply by asking. 

Sorry but you are off base on your assessment in this regards,  there is a close relationship and if there is not one in your area you need to take the steps to correct it.   

Still completely disagree. Without doubt the CGAUX and multiple SDFs have a significantly greater relationship with their parent service. Than again maybe its because those auxiliaries work directly with their parent services as their mission.

CAP does not. CAP isn't even the AF Auxiliary except when under official mission orders. This creates an atmosphere of separation.

I didn't say 3/4 don't know anything. I said it was a mixture of don't know, don't care or are uninformed. Don't misquote me please. And yes, just because a group commander gets a briefing doesn't mean anything for this discussion. OK, so we know a couple hundred to thousand AF personnel know based on that comment. I've met many AF who didn't know what CAP was or didn't know its mission if they had heard of it.

Also, your personal experience of your units having close relationships is your experience. I think one can look through even the threads here on CAPTalk to see that its not a common experience. My experience is that in five years, across five states with six squadrons not one had a relationship with the AF other than what's standard with CAP for inspections and whatnot. When I was a cadet I was with two squadrons over three years in one state and never saw a relationship with the AF.

So you can't tell me that MY assessment is wrong simply because it doesn't jive with your experience. I won't say not one person, but at the very least the vast majority of CAP members on this board would agree that there could be a markedly better relationship with the AF. I mean come on dude... people here are constantly calling for there to be awareness classes or courses of some type for AF personnel. You don't get that because CAP has a close relationship with the AF. Maybe the organization does, but the individual units do not in large numbers.

Quote from: Eclipse on June 16, 2013, 04:34:42 PM
Comparing an organization with a limited mission (CGAux), but one which is focused on augmentation, to an organisation with a broad mission (CAP) that is not focused on augmentation and then using that as justification for an assertion that CAP's relationship with the USAF isn't "close" isn't fair or indicates a misunderstanding of the role and mission of both organizations.

The CGAux's sole role and mission is specifically augmentation and extension of the USCG.  CAP has a lot more on their plate then
direct augmentation, and the majority of it is nearly independent of USAF involvement.

Well you DID notice that I made the caveat that I was speaking relatively versus as a comparison right?

As I stated in my last post, CAP as an organization may be close with the AF but most individual units are not. My comments referring to the relationship between CAP and USAF are from a unit level perspective.

And your last sentence is my point. The majority of CAP work is independent of involvement with the USAF. This is why there's not a very close relationship. I didn't make a comment one way or another as to whether it was good or bad that its not a close relationship. I just said its not close, and that's because much of CAP work isn't with the AF. Saying CAP isn't a direct augmentee while the CGAUX is doesn't disprove my point. It simply explains the reason behind the reality of my point.

Quote from: NorCal21 on June 16, 2013, 04:38:45 PM

Quote from: abdsp51 on June 16, 2013, 04:21:50 PM


How can I say that, ok how about this. Every group commander upon being appointed is deeply briefed on what the organization is and what we do and given a tour of the AFRCC.  And you are telling me that 250,000 people know nothing about us I will chalk it up to most generally don't care.   Also all the units I have been a member of have had a real close working relationship with the AF.  Also I can also say that I have gotten nothing but support in a CAP capacity from the AF simply by asking. 

Sorry but you are off base on your assessment in this regards,  there is a close relationship and if there is not one in your area you need to take the steps to correct it.   

Still completely disagree. Without doubt the CGAUX and multiple SDFs have a significantly greater relationship with their parent service. Than again maybe its because those auxiliaries work directly with their parent services as their mission.

CAP does not. CAP isn't even the AF Auxiliary except when under official mission orders. This creates an atmosphere of separation.

I didn't say 3/4 don't know anything. I said it was a mixture of don't know, don't care or are uninformed. Don't misquote me please. And yes, just because a group commander gets a briefing doesn't mean anything for this discussion. OK, so we know a couple hundred to thousand AF personnel know based on that comment. I've met many AF who didn't know what CAP was or didn't know its mission if they had heard of it.

Also, your personal experience of your units having close relationships is your experience. I think one can look through even the threads here on CAPTalk to see that its not a common experience. My experience is that in five years, across five states with six squadrons not one had a relationship with the AF other than what's standard with CAP for inspections and whatnot. When I was a cadet I was with two squadrons over three years in one state and never saw a relationship with the AF. 

So you can't tell me that MY assessment is wrong simply because it doesn't jive with your experience. I won't say not one person, but at the very least the vast majority of CAP members on this board would agree that there could be a markedly better relationship with the AF. I mean come on dude... people here are constantly calling for there to be awareness classes or courses of some type for AF personnel. You don't get that because CAP has a close relationship with the AF. Maybe the organization does, but the individual units do not in large numbers.

There was no misquote.  And yes you did say 3/4 do not know anything do we need to capture said quote and put it in big bold letters for you to comprehend?  And if units do not have a close relationship with the USAF that is on them to do not the AF.  It is not the USAF's job to educate it's members on us, it is our job as the organization. Members who were trying to brow beat it to death were given proper forums to discuss and introduce such ideas.  Face it if you want a better relationship with Ma blue for your unit get off your rear and keyboard and do something about it.  It is upto you and your unit's leadership to forge and maintain the relationship you claim does not exist. 

Quote from: NorCal21 on June 16, 2013, 04:38:45 PMCAP does not. CAP isn't even the AF Auxiliary except when under official mission orders.

Incorrect and another wive's tale.  CAP is always an auxiliary of the USAF.

And seriously, now we're bringing in SDF's to the conversation.

Quote from: NorCal21 on June 16, 2013, 07:21:31 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on June 15, 2013, 10:01:29 PM

Quote from: NorCal21 on June 15, 2013, 03:03:26 PM

Quote from: wuzafuzz on June 15, 2013, 12:12:17 PM
I'm not talking about the nearly mythical salute troll, but a CAP member going about their business responsibly and wearing the uniform properly.  The wailing and gnashing of teeth on this issue is all out of proportion to the incidence of actual incidents.

What you do you mean "nearly mythical?" Its a well documented problem in CAP.

No. It isn't.

Not even a little.

Yes. It is.

I can pull media reports for you. CAP even posted a letter to the membership about the moron in KS I think it was demanding a Salute by an SP. The letter documented very well the situation.

Anecdotal reports are not "documented evidence" in the way this infers, which would be a systemic or endemic issue, which it isn't.
Every organization has bozos, including our beloved parent service.  Trying to extrapolate their behavior into trends serves nothing except agendas.

And in at least a few of the cases I've been either involved in or peripherally aware, >all< parties were at fault, because everyone involved decided they were going to "give somebody some learning", to the detriment of all involved.

Quote from: NorCal21 on June 16, 2013, 07:16:42 AM

Quote from: shuman14 on June 15, 2013, 06:46:29 PM

QuoteYou'll run the risk of looking dumb like the Indiana Guard Reserve which wears ACUs but with black patrol caps.

I know quite a few IGR members as I live in Indiana. I've seen them in the black patrol cap, it doesn't look dumb at all, in fact it looks very professional and is a simple, yet very clear way to tell a SDF member from an Army Soldier.

BTW, they only wear the Black patrol cap in garrison, when conducting field problems they wear ACU pattern patrol caps or boonie caps.

I'll just chalk it up as a difference of opinion. Black patrol cap is for instructors. There's no need for the difference in garrison.

How long ago was that? In my 23+ plus years of service I've never seen an Army instructor wear anything but the issued patrol cap or beret... except Drill Sergeants on the trail... who of course wear a Campaign Cover.  :-\

Quote from: abdsp51 on June 16, 2013, 04:21:50 PM

Quote from: NorCal21 on June 16, 2013, 07:31:56 AM

3. How can you say CAP and the USAF are already close when better than 3/4 of the AF don't know CAP exists or has the complete wrong idea of who we are? I guess you can say CAP is close to the USAF if you're doing so as a matter of perspective versus comparison with other auxiliaries and their parent organizations.

How can I say that, ok how about this. Every group commander upon being appointed is deeply briefed on what the organization is and what we do and given a tour of the AFRCC.  And you are telling me that 250,000 people know nothing about us I will chalk it up to most generally don't care.   Also all the units I have been a member of have had a real close working relationship with the AF.  Also I can also say that I have gotten nothing but support in a CAP capacity from the AF simply by asking. 

Sorry but you are off base on your assessment in this regards,  there is a close relationship and if there is not one in your area you need to take the steps to correct it.   

If that IS the case, can you tell me how many direct augmentation missions the CAP conducts with the USAF each year?  :-\

Quote from: shuman14 on June 16, 2013, 05:17:42 PM
If that IS the case, can you tell me how many direct augmentation missions the CAP conducts with the USAF each year?  :-\

No I can't that's above my grade, we can be the auxiliary and not directly augment the USAF it happens daily. We do not have to directly augment  the USAF to have a close relationship.  Again the relationship is close and with any relationship can be better.  If a local unit is suffering from a poor relationship they need to look at it find, out why, and fix it and not rely on the USAF to do so. 

Quote from: shuman14 on June 16, 2013, 05:17:42 PMIf that IS the case, can you tell me how many direct augmentation missions the CAP conducts with the USAF each year?

Define augmentation - depending on your vector, every CAP mission and SAREx could be considered augmentation since we are either
performing a direct mission of the parent service or preparing for one.  Then there's the Green Flag Exercises,  Counter Drug missions (another mission of the parent service).

Does augmentation require physically standing next to someone in a similar uniform?

Quote from: NorCal21 on June 16, 2013, 04:38:45 PM
CAP isn't even the AF Auxiliary except when under official mission orders.

And US Code disagrees

Quote from: Title 10 US Code Section 9442(a)Volunteer Civilian Auxiliary.— The Civil Air Patrol is a volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force when the services of the Civil Air Patrol are used by any department or agency in any branch of the Federal Government.

Quote from: shuman14 on June 16, 2013, 05:17:42 PM

If that IS the case, can you tell me how many direct augmentation missions the CAP conducts with the USAF each year?  :-\

Well, if it helps, just last year I was invited to visit Tyndal and was briefed by the 3-star AFNORTH commander on his use of CAP.  He showed me their Air Tasking Order (ATO) for the day, and CAP made up the majority of the sorties.  He said that was typical.

He claimed that we were "critical" to his operations.

But I suppose he could have been wrong about that.

Quote from: Eclipse on June 16, 2013, 05:24:10 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on June 16, 2013, 05:17:42 PMIf that IS the case, can you tell me how many direct augmentation missions the CAP conducts with the USAF each year?

Define augmentation - depending on your vector, every CAP mission and SAREx could be considered augmentation since we are either
performing a direct mission of the parent service or preparing for one.  Then there's the Green Flag Exercises,  Counter Drug missions (another mission of the parent service).

Does augmentation require physically standing next to someone in a similar uniform?

No, but how about orders signed by an approving official from the USAF? If the USAF has to approve it before it can be done, then it's clearly an augmentation.

Quote from: shuman14 on June 16, 2013, 06:46:58 PMNo, but how about orders signed by an approving official from the USAF? If the USAF has to approve it before it can be done, then it's clearly an augmentation.

Then just about everything in CAP is "augmentation" - certainly anything that involves money.

Quote from: Ned on June 16, 2013, 05:37:04 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on June 16, 2013, 05:17:42 PM

If that IS the case, can you tell me how many direct augmentation missions the CAP conducts with the USAF each year?  :-\

Well, if it helps, just last year I was invited to visit Tyndal and was briefed by the 3-star AFNORTH commander on his use of CAP.  He showed me their Air Tasking Order (ATO) for the day, and CAP made up the majority of the sorties.  He said that was typical.

He claimed that we were "critical" to his operations.

But I suppose he could have been wrong about that.

No, that's how it SHOULD work, where every commander understands the role and the value added of the CAP to his/her mission.

So my question really is, in the above situation, is that the norm or the exception.

Based on my limited experience with CAP and on what I've read on this forum and over at Military.com, I sadly must say it appears to be the exception.

I truly hope I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.  :(

Quote from: Eclipse on June 16, 2013, 06:51:25 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on June 16, 2013, 06:46:58 PMNo, but how about orders signed by an approving official from the USAF? If the USAF has to approve it before it can be done, then it's clearly an augmentation.

Then just about everything in CAP is "augmentation" - certainly anything that involves money.

Well if that is the case, then I stand corrected.

Quote from: shuman14 on June 16, 2013, 06:52:52 PMwhat I've read on this forum and over at Military.com

Not exactly an authoritative, unbiased source for just about anything.

Quote from: Eclipse on June 16, 2013, 07:04:03 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on June 16, 2013, 06:52:52 PMwhat I've read on this forum and over at Military.com

Not exactly an authoritative, unbiased source for just about anything.

True, I did say "limited experience".

If I'm wrong, I'll be the first to admit it, but it seems, at least on the surface, that many here agree with that same premise.

Quote from: shuman14 on June 16, 2013, 05:17:42 PM

Quote from: abdsp51 on June 16, 2013, 04:21:50 PM

Quote from: NorCal21 on June 16, 2013, 07:31:56 AM

3. How can you say CAP and the USAF are already close when better than 3/4 of the AF don't know CAP exists or has the complete wrong idea of who we are? I guess you can say CAP is close to the USAF if you're doing so as a matter of perspective versus comparison with other auxiliaries and their parent organizations.

How can I say that, ok how about this. Every group commander upon being appointed is deeply briefed on what the organization is and what we do and given a tour of the AFRCC.  And you are telling me that 250,000 people know nothing about us I will chalk it up to most generally don't care.   Also all the units I have been a member of have had a real close working relationship with the AF.  Also I can also say that I have gotten nothing but support in a CAP capacity from the AF simply by asking. 

Sorry but you are off base on your assessment in this regards,  there is a close relationship and if there is not one in your area you need to take the steps to correct it.   

If that IS the case, can you tell me how many direct augmentation missions the CAP conducts with the USAF each year?  :-\

Every SAR, CD and DHS mission CAP flies is Direct Augmentation.  Every hour we fly is one hour the USAF can use for training or flying combat missions.  I fly for the Green Flag missions......missions that the USAF CANNOT....I SAY AGAIN.....CANNOT fly due to combat requirements.  WE ARE AUGMENTING the USAF.

We don't do it the same way the GCAUX does it.....but we do augment the USAF and at least at the MAJCOM level they know who we are and they know we do a good job and appreciate us.

First off, I hope no one is taking my questions as a disparagement of their service, I really do think very highly of your volunteer service to our Nation, so my bad if I insulted anyone. NOT what I came here to do.

So maybe a better way to ask my question is, when and why did the change come down?

Was it the USAF that dictated the change  from blue to maroon to grey?

Was it someone at CAP corporate HQ that dictated it?

OR

Was it some kind of consensus by your leadership and management that dictated the change?

AND

Is there anyway to change it now or are we just discussing something will never change, regardless of the input of the membership of CAP?
 

^ Seriously, that's miles of bad road and search is your friend on this site if you really want to drive it again.

It's tied to Congressionally-mandated changes to our charter back in the '90's. 

Some say it was because of bad behavior on the part of some high-visibility members and the leadership, some say it was inevitable with the
reduction in the military (BRAC, etc.) as well as the changing mission and huge drawn-downs, some say it was well-intentioned re-scoping to
allow us to reach for more and different missions as well as funding from other sources that did not produce the  results desired.

Most believe it was a combination of the above as well as any number of other factors.   Those who try and draw straight lines from certain events to
specific results usually fins the lines can't be drawn as straight as they were led to believe.

Frankly, it really doesn't matter at this point.

OK, but CAN you change the uniform if you want to or does it require USAF approval and/or Congressional approval?

I can't accurately describe the chain but I think it goes something like this.

Uniform change idea goes to National Uniform Committee.

NUC meets, talks about proposed change.

Change is submitted to Executive Committee? or the National command staff. Or something. Eventually...

The final decision lies with the CSAF, I believe, if what I've read here is accurate.

Don't want to take this any more off the rails than it is, but someone asked earlier about the relative size of CAP and CG Aux.  CG Aux has about 30,000 members.  CAP has 35,000 senior members. 

Quote from: Garibaldi on June 15, 2013, 10:29:34 PM
Why can't people get it into their thick skulls that we are CIVILIANS who are afforded the PRIVILEGE of wearing a military-style uniform? ???

Because it is either not taught or not taught well enough.   In my experience, C&C and compliance with 39-1 is simply not considered important/enforced amongst the SM corps, and I've seen units where it extends to Cadets as well.   

Quote from: Garibaldi on June 17, 2013, 01:56:50 AM
I can't accurately describe the chain but I think it goes something like this.

Uniform change idea goes to National Uniform Committee.

NUC meets, talks about proposed change.

Change is submitted to Executive Committee? or the National command staff. Or something. Eventually...

The final decision lies with the CSAF, I believe, if what I've read here is accurate.

So the Chief of Staff approved your corporate "Sky Captain, and the World of Tomorrow" uniform?  :o

Or is it only the USAF style ones he controls?

Quote from: shuman14 on June 17, 2013, 09:37:33 PM

Quote from: Garibaldi on June 17, 2013, 01:56:50 AM
I can't accurately describe the chain but I think it goes something like this.

Uniform change idea goes to National Uniform Committee.

NUC meets, talks about proposed change.

Change is submitted to Executive Committee? or the National command staff. Or something. Eventually...

The final decision lies with the CSAF, I believe, if what I've read here is accurate.

So the Chief of Staff approved your corporate "Sky Captain, and the World of Tomorrow" uniform?  :o

Or is it only the USAF style ones he controls?

Ok this leads me to believe you are not a member.  Corporations controls Corp uniforms and the AF controls AF style uniforms.

Not in CAP.

Quote from: abdsp51 on June 17, 2013, 09:44:58 PMOk this leads me to believe you are not a member.  Corporations controls Corp uniforms and the AF controls AF style uniforms.

The USAF controls all of the uniforms.

Quote from: abdsp51 on June 17, 2013, 09:44:58 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on June 17, 2013, 09:37:33 PM

Quote from: Garibaldi on June 17, 2013, 01:56:50 AM
I can't accurately describe the chain but I think it goes something like this.

Uniform change idea goes to National Uniform Committee.

NUC meets, talks about proposed change.

Change is submitted to Executive Committee? or the National command staff. Or something. Eventually...

The final decision lies with the CSAF, I believe, if what I've read here is accurate.

So the Chief of Staff approved your corporate "Sky Captain, and the World of Tomorrow" uniform?  :o

Or is it only the USAF style ones he controls?

Ok this leads me to believe you are not a member.  Corporations controls Corp uniforms and the AF controls AF style uniforms.

Correct, I'm not a member... I never claimed to be either, just a supporter.

Quote from: shuman14 on June 17, 2013, 11:04:26 PM

Quote from: abdsp51 on June 17, 2013, 09:44:58 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on June 17, 2013, 09:37:33 PM

Quote from: Garibaldi on June 17, 2013, 01:56:50 AM
I can't accurately describe the chain but I think it goes something like this.

Uniform change idea goes to National Uniform Committee.

NUC meets, talks about proposed change.

Change is submitted to Executive Committee? or the National command staff. Or something. Eventually...

The final decision lies with the CSAF, I believe, if what I've read here is accurate.

So the Chief of Staff approved your corporate "Sky Captain, and the World of Tomorrow" uniform?  :o

Or is it only the USAF style ones he controls?

Ok this leads me to believe you are not a member.  Corporations controls Corp uniforms and the AF controls AF style uniforms.

Correct, I'm not a member... I never claimed to be either, just a supporter.

So you're NOT a member, but you decide to join a board that is meant for members of an organization that you are not a member of and you start a thread about something you know nothing about.

Hmmmm, sounds a bit trollish to me...

CAP membership is not a pre-requisite to use this forum.

Quote from: PHall on June 18, 2013, 12:14:40 AM

Quote from: shuman14 on June 17, 2013, 11:04:26 PM

Quote from: abdsp51 on June 17, 2013, 09:44:58 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on June 17, 2013, 09:37:33 PM

Quote from: Garibaldi on June 17, 2013, 01:56:50 AM
I can't accurately describe the chain but I think it goes something like this.

Uniform change idea goes to National Uniform Committee.

NUC meets, talks about proposed change.

Change is submitted to Executive Committee? or the National command staff. Or something. Eventually...

The final decision lies with the CSAF, I believe, if what I've read here is accurate.

So the Chief of Staff approved your corporate "Sky Captain, and the World of Tomorrow" uniform?  :o

Or is it only the USAF style ones he controls?

Ok this leads me to believe you are not a member.  Corporations controls Corp uniforms and the AF controls AF style uniforms.

Correct, I'm not a member... I never claimed to be either, just a supporter.

So you're NOT a member, but you decide to join a board that is meant for members of an organization that you are not a member of and you start a thread about something you know nothing about.

Hmmmm, sounds a bit trollish to me...

I came here to get an answer to a question (see my first post in the education forum), got my answer but decided to stick around for the debate.

As an outsider looking in, I guess my opinions and observations are "worthless" to you? You don't care how a non-member perceives the CAP on face value? How a career military officer from a sister Service perceives the CAP means nothing?  ???

I brought up the fact in a previous thread that I thought the grey epaulet slides just looked "off", that is to say wrong and was trying to understand why you wear that godawful looking piece of uniform accessory in the first place. That lead to a debate of how to fix it.

If that makes me a troll, where do I find my bridge to live under? 

Quote from: shuman14 on June 18, 2013, 02:39:36 AM
I came here to get an answer to a question (see my first post in the education forum), got my answer but decided to stick around for the debate.

As an outsider looking in, I guess my opinions and observations are "worthless" to you? You don't care how a non-member perceives the CAP on face value? How a career military officer from a sister Service perceives the CAP means nothing?  ???

I brought up the fact in a previous thread that I thought the grey epaulet slides just looked "off", that is to say wrong and was trying to understand why you wear that godawful looking piece of uniform accessory in the first place. That lead to a debate of how to fix it.

If that makes me a troll, where do I find my bridge to live under?

You tried to tell us how to fix it in your post.  And we have had the grey slides that you abhore so much since about 95/96.  They are far better than the Maroon that used to be worn.  The grey slides are ten times better than the maroon.

Opinions are valued however you basically walked into our house and told us we were effed and how to fix it.   How would you like to have someone come into your area or a board dedicated to the Army or Marines and voice the same opinion.  I have worked rather closely with the Army and have seen many things that I felt were effed up, but not once did I tell them how to fix it. 

Having an opinion is one thing presenting it and then telling us how to fix how jacked we are is another.  Plus you generalized CAP officers as unprofessional and troll for salutes.

Phall tends to be somewhat "direct" for no particular reason based we guess on his gastrointestinal health, so I wouldn't take his
shot as typical for here.

With that said calling our uniform "god awful" isn't exactly going to get you on the "nice" Christmas card list, either.
Every service has a few inexplicable things that don't look "right" to an outsider, but simply "are".

Our status keeps use squarely in the sites of just about everyone, with little advantage for all the opinions and approvals we
have to get to make what would seem like logical "minor" changes.  It makes all of us somewhat sensitive about the situation because
neither logic, nor the opinion of the masses, is generally utilized in the ultimate decisions.

Further compounding the issue is that we have to deal with the perceived financial burden placed on the membership, especially
cadets, when major changes are made.  I personally think this is mostly a red herring, but it's a piece of the puzzle.

Quote from: abdsp51 on June 18, 2013, 03:02:29 AM

Quote from: shuman14 on June 18, 2013, 02:39:36 AM
I came here to get an answer to a question (see my first post in the education forum), got my answer but decided to stick around for the debate.

As an outsider looking in, I guess my opinions and observations are "worthless" to you? You don't care how a non-member perceives the CAP on face value? How a career military officer from a sister Service perceives the CAP means nothing?  ???

I brought up the fact in a previous thread that I thought the grey epaulet slides just looked "off", that is to say wrong and was trying to understand why you wear that godawful looking piece of uniform accessory in the first place. That lead to a debate of how to fix it.

If that makes me a troll, where do I find my bridge to live under?

You tried to tell us how to fix it in your post.  And we have had the grey slides that you abhore so much since about 95/96.  They are far better than the Maroon that used to be worn.  The grey slides are ten times better than the maroon.

Opinions are valued however you basically walked into our house and told us we were effed and how to fix it.   How would you like to have someone come into your area or a board dedicated to the Army or Marines and voice the same opinion.  I have worked rather closely with the Army and have seen many things that I felt were effed up, but not once did I tell them how to fix it. 

Having an opinion is one thing presenting it and then telling us how to fix how jacked we are is another.  Plus you generalized CAP officers as unprofessional and troll for salutes.

Hold on now, I never said that, don't put words in my mouth. I never said you were "jacked up" or "salute trolls", I have nothing but respect for volunteers who do good work for no pay and make our country stronger and help train our youth to better Americans.

Identifying a problem and offering suggestions on how to fix is what you're suppose to do. Walking in and saying you're jacked up and walking out is the @zzhole move.

So do you think the grey epaulets look good? I agree they do look better than the maroon, but are the best color choice, in your opinion?

If you too believe that the grey epaulets could be better done or done away with, why don't you want to discuss it? The fact that an outsider brought up the discussion shouldn't matter... should it?

BTW I'm considering joining CAP, another reason I cam here was to learn more about the culture and people in the organization, but this attack sure makes me feel warm and welcomed.

Quote from: shuman14 on June 14, 2013, 08:29:46 PM
Well as the newbie here and as the outsider looking in I agree that the grey epaulets do look a little off and I can see how some CAP members might be put off by them and how it could feel like a "mass punishment" for an offense committed over twenty years ago.

When I was in HS I can vaguely remember CAP Officers wearing the letters "C.A.P." in place of the letters "U.S." on the tunic lapels and a different nametag, but otherwise they looked exactly like an USAF Officer.

There is Good, and Bad, in that.

One Team - One Fight, with a common uniform and a common look is the good thing.

Being confused for an USAF Officer is the bad.

Both are subject to abuse by unprofessional CAP members trolling for salutes.

Maybe you could take an example from the USCGAux on their office insignia.

I know the silver vs gold USCG style shoulder boards might not work for CAP but all USCGAux pin-on and sew-on insignia (i.e. rank) all have a superimposed letter "A" for Auxiliary on them. So maybe a solution would be to create rank insignia with a superimposed "CAP" on them? Using red (or maroon) as the letter color will make them stand out on the silver or gold rank device.

Another solution might be to create a colored felt or plastic backer to your rank insignia like the light blue discs used by US Army Infantry personnel. This would create a colored border around your rank which make it clearly different at a glance but not look as "off" as the current grey epaulets. Again a red border (or maroon) around your rank on the blue coat/jacket/tunic epaulets would actually look very good.

Plus with modern embroidery, making epaulet slides for your shirts with either superimposed red "CAP" letters or a red rank borders (or both) on a blue slide would not be hard.

Again just a suggestion from someone outside your organization who thinks you do great work and wants you to look good while doing it.

Your words not mine, do you dispute the quoted and bolded areas?   You basically said that our slides were jacked and these are fixes to it.  I have no issues with  the grey at all and I believe IMHO that they are a suitable contrast to the blue.  Again you came here and spouted off and wanted a warm reception.  You remind me of a holier than though lawyer that was here a month ago.

Quote from: Eclipse on June 18, 2013, 03:03:05 AM
Phall tends to be somewhat "direct" for no particular reason based we guess on his gastrointestinal health, so I wouldn't take his
shot as typical for here.

With that said calling our uniform "god awful" isn't exactly going to get you on the "nice" Christmas card list, either.
Every service has a few inexplicable things that don't look "right" to an outsider, but simply "are".

Our status keeps use squarely in the sites of just about everyone, with little advantage for all the opinions and approvals we
have to get to make what would seem like logical "minor" changes.  It makes all of us somewhat sensitive about the situation because
neither logic, nor the opinion of the masses, is generally utilized in the ultimate decisions.

Further compounding the issue is that we have to deal with the perceived financial burden placed on the membership, especially
cadets, when major changes are made.  I personally think this is mostly a red herring, but it's a piece of the puzzle.

I never said the uniform was bad I said the slides were godawful (BTW my spell checkers says its one word).

Clearly by reading the post in this thread, others threads on this forum and on Military.com, many members of CAP seem dissatisfied with the current uniform choices in whole or in part. So it's not just me standing on a soapbox in the desert.

As I've said before, I think you do great work and I'd like for you to look good doing it. But I guess that makes me a troll.

Quote from: shuman14 on June 18, 2013, 03:22:45 AMSo do you think the grey epaulets look good? I agree they do look better than the maroon, but are the best color choice, in your opinion?

If you too believe that the grey epaulets could be better done or done away with, why don't you want to discuss it? The fact that an outsider brought up the discussion shouldn't matter... should it?

Why not?  Because it's been discussed to death.  Literally.  To. Death.  Generally by new, well-intentioned members or outsiders seeking to "fix" CAP.

It doesn't matter if we like them, they are the best choice, or what the color is.  They are what has been authorized by the USAF.  So "discussing" it, just annoys the monkey.

Look at the number of meaningless threads on uniforms on this board and you will see why most of us are tired of the conversation(s).  The majority of our members are not
prior-service, so a uniform is a unique and generally fun thing that is a tangible discussion point both from a "how-to" and a "why" perspective.  Unfortunately many get so wrapped up
in them that they forget why they joined in the first place, and they become the focal point of their all-too-short time in CAP.  Either because they are frustrated with the current state, never get full or correct answers from their inconsistently trained leadership, or simply don't "get it".

QuoteYour words not mine, do you dispute the quoted and bolded areas?   You basically said that our slides were jacked and these are fixes to it.  I have no issues with  the grey at all and I believe IMHO that they are a suitable contrast to the blue.  Again you came here and spouted off and wanted a warm reception.  You remind me of a holier than though lawyer that was here a month ago.

You're taking my words out of context, I accused no one of that, and as several subject matter experts here pointed out in this thread that was exact reason for the change.

Again, how do you spur debate without offering "point" and "counterpoint"?

Now, if you took my suggestions as a personal insult or a general insult directed at the CAP uniform, I apologize, that was never my intention.

Quote from: Eclipse on June 18, 2013, 03:36:37 AM

Quote from: shuman14 on June 18, 2013, 03:22:45 AMSo do you think the grey epaulets look good? I agree they do look better than the maroon, but are the best color choice, in your opinion?

If you too believe that the grey epaulets could be better done or done away with, why don't you want to discuss it? The fact that an outsider brought up the discussion shouldn't matter... should it?

Why not?  Because it's been discussed to death.  Literally.  To. Death.  Generally by new, well-intentioned members or outsiders seeking to "fix" CAP.

It doesn't matter if we like them, they are the best choice, or what the color is.  They are what has been authorized by the USAF.  So "discussing" it, just annoys the monkey.

Then how do you EVER effect change? Somewhere the idea gets started and works it way up the chain and a change gets implemented.

If discussions here spur that idea, how is that bad?

BTW, sorry if I'm beating the dead horse, this is new to me, personally, I'm sorry if I'm fighting a fight that was lost long ago... I didn't know.  :(

Dead horse, fight lost years ago (and possibly re-lost due to HWSRN's unilateral actions in creating a "corporate service uniform").

There's no change to be made, no debate to be had.  Word is an updated uniform manual is in the final draft stages, and that
may bring a new field uniform (I still don't think it's going to happen), but beyond that, we don't need to change anything else.

You will find only a handful are dissatisfied with grey slides.  And they know/knew how to recommend uniform changes for consideration and none of them at least to the knowledge of members here know went  forward with it.  And military.com is about as trustworthy as a con artist. And you effect change by going through channels you as a Army officer should know that just as well as anyone.  And you sure don't effect change by doing what you did.

Quote from: abdsp51 on June 18, 2013, 03:59:05 AM
You will find only a handful are dissatisfied with grey slides.  And they know/knew how to recommend uniform changes for consideration and none of them at least to the knowledge of members here know went  forward with it.  And military.com is about as trustworthy as a con artist. And you effect change by going through channels you as a Army officer should know that just as well as anyone.  And you sure don't effect change by doing what you did.

Well they are vocal handful then.

As I'm an outsider, I don't know the "channels" that CAP uses.

As to effecting change, this isn't an "official" forum of the CAP, is it? It is "a discussion board for the Civil Air Patrol community", this was a discussion that started in one thread, was brought out into this thread, and here we are going thru a point - counterpoint, which truly is the purpose of a discussion forum.

We're trying to have a healthy debate, which some of us enjoy... you're just attacking me.  :(

I've said I'm sorry if I insulted you or CAP in general, what more would you like?  :-\

Quote from: Eclipse on June 18, 2013, 03:48:31 AM
Dead horse, fight lost years ago (and possibly re-lost due to HWSRN's unilateral actions in creating a "corporate service uniform").

There's no change to be made, no debate to be had.  Word is an updated uniform manual is in the final draft stages, and that
may bring a new field uniform (I still don't think it's going to happen), but beyond that, we don't need to change anything else.

Again, excuse my ignorance what/who is HWSRN, and what did he/she/it do?

Quote from: shuman14 on June 18, 2013, 04:11:07 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on June 18, 2013, 03:48:31 AM
Dead horse, fight lost years ago (and possibly re-lost due to HWSRN's unilateral actions in creating a "corporate service uniform").

There's no change to be made, no debate to be had.  Word is an updated uniform manual is in the final draft stages, and that
may bring a new field uniform (I still don't think it's going to happen), but beyond that, we don't need to change anything else.

Again, excuse my ignorance what/who is HWSRN, and what did he/she/it do?

"He Who Shall Not Be Named", former National Commander who was removed from office not by his choice.

Quote from: NorCal21 on June 15, 2013, 03:03:26 PM

Quote from: wuzafuzz on June 15, 2013, 12:12:17 PM
I'm not talking about the nearly mythical salute troll, but a CAP member going about their business responsibly and wearing the uniform properly.  The wailing and gnashing of teeth on this issue is all out of proportion to the incidence of actual incidents.

What you do you mean "nearly mythical?" Its a well documented problem in CAP. That doesn't mean its a common problem at all, but we all know it happens. We've either seen it, or there are members who have been booted for doing exactly that. Just like the Major (CAP) who was on a base around Kansas or something demanding a salute from the SP at the gate. There's nothing mythical about it.

What do I mean by "nearly mythical?"  I believe I answered that when I wrote "The wailing and gnashing of teeth on this issue is all out of proportion to the incidence of actual incidents."  Perhaps I should have said the frequency of actual incidents, but that's nit picking.

You assert salute trolling is a well documented problem in CAP, yet I have NEVER witnessed a single problem.  I've only heard of such problems by reading CAP Talk and the occasional gripe on some other discussion board that becomes a discussion topic here.  The tale from a guy who knew a gal who heard from some dude on the Internet does not prove a well documented problem.  I allow the "nearly mythical" status because I am a cynic and believe some goober, somewhere, has donned his or her CAP uniform and wandered about hoping for a salute to artificially inflate their low self-esteem.  In those rare instances leadership should deal with the problem and then move on.

I have not seen proof of an endemic problem.  Absent such evidence I believe salute trolls are an aberration.  Unfortunately tales of those events become the seeds for even more entertaining stories shared by those with an axe to grind. 

On the subject of grey epaulets, I think they look a little goofy.  My opinion is irrelevant though.  The Air Force says to wear them so we wear them.  The polo shirt meets 95% of my uniform needs so I'm not losing any sleep over epaulets, shiny rank insignia, or BDU's/ABU's/red shirts. 

Quote from: PHall on June 18, 2013, 04:33:14 AM

Quote from: shuman14 on June 18, 2013, 04:11:07 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on June 18, 2013, 03:48:31 AM
Dead horse, fight lost years ago (and possibly re-lost due to HWSRN's unilateral actions in creating a "corporate service uniform").

There's no change to be made, no debate to be had.  Word is an updated uniform manual is in the final draft stages, and that
may bring a new field uniform (I still don't think it's going to happen), but beyond that, we don't need to change anything else.

Again, excuse my ignorance what/who is HWSRN, and what did he/she/it do?

"He Who Shall Not Be Named", former National Commander who was removed from office not by his choice.

OK... really that bad, huh?

Joe, we have folks on here all the way from 12 yo cadets to ex- or sitting wing commanders to a member of the Board of Governors. It may be unofficial, but there are some heavy hitters who can "pass the word" both up and down the pipe. There have been changes made based on discussion here, but when it comes to uniforms, the AF makes the rules. CAP has limited input in changes.

Quote from: SarDragon on June 18, 2013, 06:20:32 AM
Joe, we have folks on here all the way from 12 yo cadets to ex- or sitting wing commanders to a member of the Board of Governors. It may be unofficial, but there are some heavy hitters who can "pass the word" both up and down the pipe. There have been changes made based on discussion here, but when it comes to uniforms, the AF makes the rules. CAP has limited input in changes.

Dave, thanks for the info. Truly I kinda thought that was the case, but there is some input from the membership to the leadership and management of CAP, and from them to USAF, isn't there?

I mean it seems to me that the Air Force itself isn't happy with it's uniforms. In my 23 years of Service I've seen the USAF change it uniform three times and experiment with changes so many times it make your head spin.

There was the old Army style:

(http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/uploads//monthly_04_2009/post-1577-1239938145.jpg)

Then there was the experiment to add hard shoulder boards to it:

(http://usafflagranks.com/lew_allen_jr_7_files/image009.jpg)

Then there was the airline style with naval sleeve rank:

(http://usafflagranks.com/usaf_service_dress_coat_uniform_files/image047.jpg)

And now the current uniform:

(http://www.keesler.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/web/120430-F-FL836-102.jpg)

Then recently we had these experiments:

(http://www.qando.net/images/usaf_uniform.jpg)

(http://www.airforcemag.com/SiteCollectionImages/Magazine%20Article%20Images/2009/january%202009/uniform04.jpg)

(http://s355.photobucket.com/user/saccrewdog/media/USAFUniform.jpg.html)

Personally I liked the belted, WWII style, very traditional.

So as the Air Force changes, so will CAP.

With the recent news in Congress about a bill to mandate all the Services to adopt a single field/combat uniform, it's probably a good thing that CAP didn't adopt the ABU, because it may be gone soon, but stocks of BDUs will eventually dry up too... and then?

I think/believe that the USAF wouldn't be opposed to the change, I point to the States that have operational Airwings within their SDFs.

The SDF Airwing uniforms are mirror images of the USAF uniform with the only real changes being the red name tag, State Seal buttons replacing the federal ones and the States' two letter initials replacing the "U.S." cutouts on the coat lapels, adding the same State initials to the epaulet slides and adding a State Seal to hat badge, either replacing the 13 Stars above the Eagle or added to the shield on it's chest.

(http://www.calguard.ca.gov/casmr/PublishingImages/Collier_photo.JPG)

So I really don't think the change would really be that hard to get approved, if the membership of CAP wanted it and pushed for it thru the proper channels.

SDF's and other organizations can do whatever they want - only CAP is under the command of the USAF.  This seems to be lost on a lot of people.

Quote from: Eclipse on June 18, 2013, 10:27:51 PM
SDF's and other organizations can do whatever they want - only CAP is under the command of the USAF.  This seems to be lost on a lot of people.

Well the various Air National Guards are part of the Air Force (when in Title 10 status), and the various SDF Airwings fall under their parent AFNG, so approval for their use of the Air Force uniform did come from somewhere within the USAF.

That being said, I can't see why the USAF wouldn't grant a reasonable uniform change request from the CAP, again if that is what the membership wanted.

Has there ever been a poll or survey taken of the membership of CAP it get their thoughts on this?

What are we requesting and why?

We don't need to change anything beyond closing the schism caused by over 1/2 our membership not being able to wear the same thing as the
over members. 

That's about the only thing "important" right now.

CAP doesn't actually have a "uniform", it has class-specific menu.

Quote from: Eclipse on June 19, 2013, 12:10:22 AM
What are we requesting and why?

We don't need to change anything beyond closing the schism caused by over 1/2 our membership not being able to wear the same thing as the
over members. 

That's about the only thing "important" right now.

CAP doesn't actually have a "uniform", it has class-specific menu.

Is that for those who can't meet height/weight requirements?

Also grooming as in hair and beards.

Well, I don't really know how to respond to that, it's a personal choice to be overweight, not to shave, or not cut your hair.

CAP is not the Military so you can't take them out and PT them to death or order them to shave and get a hair cut.

We have similar issues in the USCGAux, but other than direct augmentation to a USCG vessel or station, the uniform is not required.

Education classes can be taught in the blazer uniform or in authorized polo shirts, same for vessel inspections, Dealer visits, heck even certain patrol missions could be conducted in blue USCGAux t-shirts, boat shorts and PFD.

Plus the USCG seems to, for the most part, let a slightly overweight Auxie or thicker than normal authorized beard slide by, which I guess the USAF doesn't for CAP.

Quote from: shuman14 on June 19, 2013, 02:12:00 AM
Well, I don't really know how to respond to that, it's a personal choice to be overweight, not to shave, or not cut your hair.

Not always, nor is it really relevent to the service.  CAP is not building a rapid deployment force, nor do any of its missions
require a fitness level beyond the ability to walk a fair distance and carry a backpack.  In short, if you can make the meeting,
you can do just about anything you could want to in CAP, and the FAA does a fairly good job of mandating medicals for our pilots.

But regardless, this is an issue that effects more then 50% of the adult membership, and the USAF is perfectly happy to accept
the volunteer service, yet feels no mandate to treat everyone equally.

You can make all the arguments about healthy members, etc., but since CAP doesn't provide health care or coverage, it's really
none of their business, as long as the member in question can accomplish the mission.  There's a lot of members in CAP perfectly willing
to give 40-60 hours a week running units and activities, yet when it comes time to be recognized, they are forced to stand in line looking
like a real estate agent or an Olympic judge.  Not to mention the members who believe (falsely) that the customs and courtesies afforded
those in a USAF style uniform can be somehow ignored for those in corporate.  As if they are somehow "less".

Quote from: shuman14 on June 19, 2013, 02:12:00 AM
Well, I don't really know how to respond to that, it's a personal choice to be overweight, not to shave, or not cut your hair.

CAP is not the Military so you can't take them out and PT them to death or order them to shave and get a hair cut.

We have similar issues in the USCGAux, but other than direct augmentation to a USCG vessel or station, the uniform is not required.

Education classes can be taught in the blazer uniform or in authorized polo shirts, same for vessel inspections, Dealer visits, heck even certain patrol missions could be conducted in blue USCGAux t-shirts, boat shorts and PFD.

Plus the USCG seems to, for the most part, let a slightly overweight Auxie or thicker than normal authorized beard slide by, which I guess the USAF doesn't for CAP.

Discriminate much?  There are plenty of documented medical conditions that cause a person to be overweight, as well as medications.  Civil Air Patrol as well as the DoD which you are a commissioned officer of has non discrimination policies.  There are members here who can not actively PT to be within height/weight due to said conditions and members who have family who fall into this category.  You sir seriously lack tact and common sense. 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/25/air-force-colonel-waistline/2017841/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/25/air-force-colonel-waistline/2017841/)

"Col. Tim Bush is no longer in command of the 319th Air Base Wing at the base as of Wednesday, Maj. Mike Andrews, spokesman for Air Mobility Command, said in a statement. The wing's vice commander, Col. Christopher Mann, is interim commander until a replacement is found.

Bush had failed the physical fitness test because his waistline was measured at 41 inches, 2 inches above the limit, he said."

Summary - he got hurt, couldn't run, and gained weight.  The USAF lost a valuable asset because of an arbitrary number - there's a lot of
airman and officers in the same boat.  It should be noted he passed all other aspects of PT except the measurement.

You could certainly make the argument that this was someone's plan to make the draw-down easier, but there's a lot of good people affected, including some uber-fit weight lifters and the like.

I am friends with a very fit field-grade officer who was literally starving himself to make the measurement, so the point of actually affecting his
health negatively just to make the number.

Certainly not all of our overweight members are in this sort of category, but clearly this isn't necessarily a "choice" issue.

Quote from: abdsp51 on June 19, 2013, 02:27:43 AM

Quote from: shuman14 on June 19, 2013, 02:12:00 AM
Well, I don't really know how to respond to that, it's a personal choice to be overweight, not to shave, or not cut your hair.

CAP is not the Military so you can't take them out and PT them to death or order them to shave and get a hair cut.

We have similar issues in the USCGAux, but other than direct augmentation to a USCG vessel or station, the uniform is not required.

Education classes can be taught in the blazer uniform or in authorized polo shirts, same for vessel inspections, Dealer visits, heck even certain patrol missions could be conducted in blue USCGAux t-shirts, boat shorts and PFD.

Plus the USCG seems to, for the most part, let a slightly overweight Auxie or thicker than normal authorized beard slide by, which I guess the USAF doesn't for CAP.

Discriminate much?  There are plenty of documented medical conditions that cause a person to be overweight, as well as medications.  Civil Air Patrol as well as the DoD which you are a commissioned officer of has non discrimination policies.  There are members here who can not actively PT to be within height/weight due to said conditions and members who have family who fall into this category.  You sir seriously lack tact and common sense.

And your personal attacks are becoming tiresome.  ::)

Yes, there are some cases of medical issues but the majority of people who are over weight simply need to lower their calorie intake and increase their physical activity.  That's not discrimination, that's a fact.

Not saying anyone needs to be a track and field star but if everyone walked an extra mile each day, this would be a much fitter country.

BTW, you do know that failure to meet height and weight standards are still grounds to be discharged from all Branches of the Armed Services. Again not discrimination, but a fact.

QuoteNot to mention the members who believe (falsely) that the customs and courtesies afforded
those in a USAF style uniform can be somehow ignored for those in corporate.  As if they are somehow "less".

That's just plain wrong, and I am sorry that is happening.

Quote from: shuman14 on June 19, 2013, 03:43:59 AMBTW, you do know that failure to meet height and weight standards are still grounds to be discharged from all Branches of the Armed Services. Again not discrimination, but a fact.

Your argument in this regard holds no weight when discussing the issue in the CAP context.

CAP makes no "investment" in the membership, in fact, in most cases it is quite the opposite, especially for those not involved in ES.
One could make the argument that USAF fuel spent in training members is an "investment", however in that regard there are zero
expectations of returning service for training, nor is there any data that members wearing green flight suit fly better then those in blue.

As mentioned earlier, CAP provides no health care or coverage for members, nor do they provide income, shelter, or sustenance.
The military effectively "owns" people for the duration of their commitment, and as such, provides for their life needs 24x7x365, including
in many cases lifetime care and a nice retirement.  In return, they expect obedience,  readiness, and fitness commensurate with duty requirments.  A fair deal.

CAP, by design, depends on the benevolence of it's members to provide their skills and treasure in a "come as you are" fashion.  That's where the
ROI on the organization rests - people bringing their skill and experience to the table, for free, in service to their country. 

What's that got to do with a height/weight table that is arbitrary and does not match the demographics of the very people who you are recruiting?

It's an affectation, nothing more.

Quote from: Eclipse on June 19, 2013, 02:38:08 AM
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/25/air-force-colonel-waistline/2017841/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/25/air-force-colonel-waistline/2017841/)

"Col. Tim Bush is no longer in command of the 319th Air Base Wing at the base as of Wednesday, Maj. Mike Andrews, spokesman for Air Mobility Command, said in a statement. The wing's vice commander, Col. Christopher Mann, is interim commander until a replacement is found.

Bush had failed the physical fitness test because his waistline was measured at 41 inches, 2 inches above the limit, he said."

Summary - he got hurt, couldn't run, and gained weight.  The USAF lost a valuable asset because of an arbitrary number - there's a lot of
airman and officers in the same boat.  It should be noted he passed all other aspects of PT except the measurement.

You could certainly make the argument that this was someone's plan to make the draw-down easier, but there's a lot of good people affected, including some uber-fit weight lifters and the like.

I am friends with a very fit field-grade officer who was literally starving himself to make the measurement, so the point of actually affecting his
health negatively just to make the number.

Certainly not all of our overweight members are in this sort of category, but clearly this isn't necessarily a "choice" issue.

I take it the Air Force doesn't have a body fat percentage like the Army?

I'd say for most of my Army career I've never been within table height/weight but I've always been within body fat percentage.

And you're most likely right, in 2005, at the height of the ground war in Iraq, fat or thin it didn't matter, needed bodies in uniform so they kept everybody and took everybody willing to enlist.

Now, like the draw downs under Clinton, they'll use any excuse to put someone out.

So when the next ground war starts (most likely in Syria) we'll be scampering to find bodies... again. 

Quote from: Eclipse on June 19, 2013, 03:52:48 AM

Quote from: shuman14 on June 19, 2013, 03:43:59 AMBTW, you do know that failure to meet height and weight standards are still grounds to be discharged from all Branches of the Armed Services. Again not discrimination, but a fact.

Your argument in this regard holds no weight when discussing the issue in the CAP context.

CAP makes no "investment" in the membership, in fact, in most cases it is quite the opposite, especially for those not involved in ES.
One could make the argument that USAF fuel spent in training members is an "investment", however in that regard there are zero
expectations of returning service for training, nor is there any data that members wearing green flight suit fly better then those in blue.

As mentioned earlier, CAP provides no health care or coverage for members, nor do they provide income, shelter, or sustenance.
The military effectively "owns" people for the duration of their commitment, and as such, provides for their life needs 24x7x365, including
in many cases lifetime care and a nice retirement.  In return, they expect obedience,  readiness, and fitness commensurate with duty requirments.  A fair deal.

CAP, by design, depends on the benevolence of it's members to provide their skills and treasure in a "come as you are" fashion.  That's where the
ROI on the organization rests - people bringing their skill and experience to the table, for free, in service to their country. 

What's that got to do with a height/weight table that is arbitrary and does not match the demographics of the very people who you are recruiting?

It's an affectation, nothing more.

Wasn't making the argument regarding CAP but in response to the "DoD doesn't discriminate" comment.

Quote from: shuman14 on June 19, 2013, 03:56:34 AM
I take it the Air Force doesn't have a body fat percentage like the Army?

It does not.  A couple of years ago it went to a static max waist measurement, regardless of your height.

Interestingly, there was a period of time where CAP's standards were actually more strict then the USAF as they moved to
a performance-based PT system and away from tables.  Then the pendulum swung the other way and now they have very
strict measurements that become part of your PT score.

Quote from: Eclipse on June 19, 2013, 04:00:54 AM

Quote from: shuman14 on June 19, 2013, 03:56:34 AM
I take it the Air Force doesn't have a body fat percentage like the Army?

It does not.  A couple of years ago it went to a static max waist measurement, regardless of your height.

Interestingly, there was a period of time where CAP's standards were actually more strict then the USAF as they moved to
a performance-based PT system and away from tables.  Then the pendulum swung the other way and now they have very
strict measurements that become part of your PT score.

The Army's test does a neck and waist measurement and factors in your age to get an allowable percentage.

The base table in my opinion is fubar. Theoretically, you could, for certain heights, be 30% body fat, but you will pass the base table.

Conversely, the WWE bodybuilder will never pass the base table but on tape test will have less then 9% body fat.

Personally, if you can pass the PT test, I think that should be it and that we do away with the height/weight requirements.

I remember guys in basic Training that were passing their APFT with no problems but they didn't pass the height/weight so the Drill SGTs darn near starved them to death and made them run extra PT in the evenings to get them under weight.

Quote from: shuman14 on June 19, 2013, 03:43:59 AM
And your personal attacks are becoming tiresome.  ::)

Yes, there are some cases of medical issues but the majority of people who are over weight simply need to lower their calorie intake and increase their physical activity.  That's not discrimination, that's a fact.

Not saying anyone needs to be a track and field star but if everyone walked an extra mile each day, this would be a much fitter country.

BTW, you do know that failure to meet height and weight standards are still grounds to be discharged from all Branches of the Armed Services. Again not discrimination, but a fact.

If I was personally attacking you you would know it.  I think you just can't tolerate being called out on your bs and try to play the victim card.  Man up own up to your own verbiage your words not mine that are called out.  You make blanket statements and try to play the victim when your called on it, shows where your integrity is at.

Quote from: abdsp51 on June 19, 2013, 04:41:31 AM

Quote from: shuman14 on June 19, 2013, 03:43:59 AM
And your personal attacks are becoming tiresome.  ::)

Yes, there are some cases of medical issues but the majority of people who are over weight simply need to lower their calorie intake and increase their physical activity.  That's not discrimination, that's a fact.

Not saying anyone needs to be a track and field star but if everyone walked an extra mile each day, this would be a much fitter country.

BTW, you do know that failure to meet height and weight standards are still grounds to be discharged from all Branches of the Armed Services. Again not discrimination, but a fact.

If I was personally attacking you you would know it.  I think you just can't tolerate being called out on your bs and try to play the victim card.  Man up own up to your own verbiage your words not mine that are called out.  You make blanket statements and try to play the victim when your called on it, shows where your integrity is at.

Really, you're very professional aren't you.  ::)

Quote from: shuman14 on June 19, 2013, 04:46:36 AM

Quote from: abdsp51 on June 19, 2013, 04:41:31 AM

Quote from: shuman14 on June 19, 2013, 03:43:59 AM
And your personal attacks are becoming tiresome.  ::)

Yes, there are some cases of medical issues but the majority of people who are over weight simply need to lower their calorie intake and increase their physical activity.  That's not discrimination, that's a fact.

Not saying anyone needs to be a track and field star but if everyone walked an extra mile each day, this would be a much fitter country.

BTW, you do know that failure to meet height and weight standards are still grounds to be discharged from all Branches of the Armed Services. Again not discrimination, but a fact.

If I was personally attacking you you would know it.  I think you just can't tolerate being called out on your bs and try to play the victim card.  Man up own up to your own verbiage your words not mine that are called out.  You make blanket statements and try to play the victim when your called on it, shows where your integrity is at.

Really, you're very professional aren't you.  ::)

And you are exhibiting typical troll behavior.

Tick-tock.Tick-tock.Tick-tock.

Quote from: SarDragon on June 19, 2013, 04:54:03 AM
Tick-tock.Tick-tock.Tick-tock.

Yep, seriously overdue.

QuoteAnd you are exhibiting typical troll behavior.

In your opinion... are you a moderator? If you are, ban or suspend me for TOS violations?

If you're not, please continue adding your "productive" input the discussion.

Quote from: SarDragon on June 19, 2013, 04:54:03 AM
Tick-tock.Tick-tock.Tick-tock.

Can't stop the clock... :D

Quote from: shuman14 on June 19, 2013, 08:49:23 PM

QuoteAnd you are exhibiting typical troll behavior.

In your opinion... are you a moderator? If you are, ban or suspend me for TOS violations?

If you're not, please continue adding your "productive" input the discussion.

Lighten up, Francis!

As an acknowledged outsider, with a limited knowledge of CAP, your attempts to "fix" everything you see wrong with CAP can certainly come across as trolling, even if that's not your intent.

Believe it or not, the organization, and its members, have a pretty good idea of the things that need fixed. Many of them have complex solutions that require coordination with the Air Force, which is not always easily accomplished. Others are up against organizational inertia.

IMHO, it's an exercise in mental self-abuse to sit around and point out problems, without an accompanying realistic plan for a solution. Maybe you should put your money where your mouth is, join CAP, and help us change from within.

Quote from: shuman14 on June 19, 2013, 08:49:23 PM

QuoteAnd you are exhibiting typical troll behavior.

In your opinion... are you a moderator? If you are, ban or suspend me for TOS violations?

If you're not, please continue adding your "productive" input the discussion.

I may not be a moderator but I do not need to be one to call someone out on their bull and behaivor.  I am a far more productive member of this board than you have been.  Maybe I could offer insight into how jacked things in the Army are and offer to fix it??

Does Radioman have a new screen name?

Quote from: abdsp51 on June 19, 2013, 10:49:41 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on June 19, 2013, 08:49:23 PM

QuoteAnd you are exhibiting typical troll behavior.

In your opinion... are you a moderator? If you are, ban or suspend me for TOS violations?

If you're not, please continue adding your "productive" input the discussion.

I may not be a moderator but I do not need to be one to call someone out on their bull and behaivor.  I am a far more productive member of this board than you have been.  Maybe I could offer insight into how jacked things in the Army are and offer to fix it??

Please do, I welcome the debate.

Quote from: SarDragon on June 19, 2013, 10:18:39 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on June 19, 2013, 08:49:23 PM

QuoteAnd you are exhibiting typical troll behavior.

In your opinion... are you a moderator? If you are, ban or suspend me for TOS violations?

If you're not, please continue adding your "productive" input the discussion.

Lighten up, Francis!

As an acknowledged outsider, with a limited knowledge of CAP, your attempts to "fix" everything you see wrong with CAP can certainly come across as trolling, even if that's not your intent.

Believe it or not, the organization, and its members, have a pretty good idea of the things that need fixed. Many of them have complex solutions that require coordination with the Air Force, which is not always easily accomplished. Others are up against organizational inertia.

IMHO, it's an exercise in mental self-abuse to sit around and point out problems, without an accompanying realistic plan for a solution. Maybe you should put your money where your mouth is, join CAP, and help us change from within.

Francis? I always thought of myself as a Winger.  ;D

Seriously, I didn't start the thread, a CAP member did and I offered my input to the debate. So not being a member of CAP invalidates my observations of your uniforms?

I'm trying to understand the "coordination" and once I do, then  I can recommend a realistic plan.

Several people (CAP members) have pointed out that the reason for the change from all blue to maroon then grey WAS because of unprofessional behavior by CAP members in the past, so to say I'm attacking the organization as whole for pointing that out is wrong.

The purpose of this thread was to debate/discuss possible changes to the CAP uniform, I simply suggested some changes that I believe would make the current CAP more aesthetically pleasing to the public at large yet remain within the USAF's intent that the CAP uniform be visibly different from their uniform. For that I've been attacked and called a troll.

As to joining CAP, I really think I will. My best friend is a member and his oldest son is soon going to be old enough to join so that will be a way for the three of us to socialize together and to continue to serve our Country and community.

But right now I can't. I just graduated from my Masters program in May and I'm now doing the great American job hunt so I can pay off my student loans.


So I guess it wrong

Quote from: shuman14 on June 20, 2013, 12:09:37 AM
Several people (CAP members) have pointed out that the reason for the change from all blue to maroon then grey WAS because of unprofessional behavior by CAP members in the past, so to say I'm attacking the organization as whole for pointing that out is wrong.

That is not what we said, nor is that a clear situation.   That is generally the conjecture of people trying to make a negative point.

If you read >my< post, as well as the hundreds of others related, you would know it is not nearly as clear as that.

Repeating now, there is no "realistic plan" to change this, any more then there can be a "realistic plan" to change an Army uniform because some rank-and-file Sgt doesn't like the material.

The frustration and push-back comes because the history of this is on this site, read up, and you will know it is a sore point and one we are tired of debating, especially since there's no "debate"
to be had.

Quote from: shuman14 on June 20, 2013, 12:09:37 AMBut right now I can't. I just graduated from my Masters program in May and I'm now doing the great American job hunt so I can pay off my student loans.

You might be surprised how much that $65 investment can pay off by opening yourself up to networking in an organization made up of mostly professionals.
I can draw a straight line from CAP to my most significant sources of income since I left the corporate world about 6 years ago.

And in the mean time it gives you something to do.

I agree with you Eclipse.

QuoteRepeating now, there is no "realistic plan" to change this, any more then there can be a "realistic plan" to change an Army uniform because some rank-and-file Sgt doesn't like the material.

Any Soldier with a recommendation for a uniform change can contact G-1, HQDA directly and submit their recommendation.

When the Army a few years ago decided to change the Army uniform there was a website called "PBO Soldier", if I remember correctly, which had polls and surveys a Soldier could take regarding proposed changes and a contact email to recommend changes not addressed in the polls and surveys.

There is also an official webforum called the "S-1Net" where you could openly recommend a uniform change, among other things.

With that being said, are you truly telling me their is no mechanism for the rank and file CAP member to recommend a uniform change to your Corporate leadership and the USAF?  :o

Quote from: shuman14 on June 20, 2013, 12:53:53 AM

QuoteRepeating now, there is no "realistic plan" to change this, any more then there can be a "realistic plan" to change an Army uniform because some rank-and-file Sgt doesn't like the material.

Any Soldier with a recommendation for a uniform change can contact G-1, HQDA directly and submit their recommendation.

When the Army a few years ago decided to change the Army uniform there was a website called "PBO Soldier", if I remember correctly, which had polls and surveys a Soldier could take regarding proposed changes and a contact email to recommend changes not addressed in the polls and surveys.

There is also an official webforum called the "S-1Net" where you could openly recommend a uniform change, among other things.

With that being said, are you truly telling me their is no mechanism for the rank and file CAP member to recommend a uniform change to your Corporate leadership and the USAF?  :o

There is and it is not a frequently used option. It has to run from the members CC to the Group (if there is one), Wing, Region, and finally the NUC.  ANd I have actually pinged NHQ about the whole maroon slides and the response I receieved back was there was going to be a change to the uniform any way.

QuoteThere is and it is not a frequently used option. It has to run from the members CC to the Group (if there is one), Wing, Region, and finally the NUC.  And I have actually pinged NHQ about the whole maroon slides and the response I received back was there was going to be a change to the uniform any way.

Roger. Thank you.

BTW, I went to the beginning of the Uniforms forum which had post back to 2005 and went forward till about 2007 and I must apologize, I see now that this topic has been beaten to death about a hundred times from a hundred different angles with a hundred different sticks.

My bad, sorry.

Quote from: abdsp51 on June 20, 2013, 12:59:16 AMThere is and it is not a frequently used option. It has to run from the members CC to the Group (if there is one), Wing, Region, and finally the NUC.  ANd I have actually pinged NHQ about the whole maroon slides and the response I receieved back was there was going to be a change to the uniform any way.

I can testify...that it does work.  I made a suggestion to my wing commander, wrote up a short sweet and detailed white paper, he put it on the agenda for the NB, it got discussed, modified, voted on, passed and adopted.

So it does work.  Now with the NB no longer an entity......in fact it should be easier for suggestions from the field to get implemented....as now you only have to convince one person that your idea has merit instead of a majority of 60.

Quote from: lordmonar on June 20, 2013, 02:21:16 AM

Quote from: abdsp51 on June 20, 2013, 12:59:16 AMThere is and it is not a frequently used option. It has to run from the members CC to the Group (if there is one), Wing, Region, and finally the NUC.  ANd I have actually pinged NHQ about the whole maroon slides and the response I receieved back was there was going to be a change to the uniform any way.

I can testify...that it does work.  I made a suggestion to my wing commander, wrote up a short sweet and detailed white paper, he put it on the agenda for the NB, it got discussed, modified, voted on, passed and adopted.

So it does work.  Now with the NB no longer an entity......in fact it should be easier for suggestions from the field to get implemented....as now you only have to convince one person that your idea has merit instead of a majority of 60.

Can you share what it was?

My basic suggestion was to wear the commander's badge just like the USAF does.

It was modified to be allowed to wear it on BDU/BBDU's and the flight suit.

About a 65% victory from my original suggestion.

Quote from: lordmonar on June 20, 2013, 02:51:07 AM
My basic suggestion was to wear the commander's badge just like the USAF does.

It was modified to be allowed to wear it on BDU/BBDU's and the flight suit.

About a 65% victory from my original suggestion.

That's awesome and should be an inspiration.

Quote from: lordmonar on June 20, 2013, 02:51:07 AM
It was modified to be allowed to wear it on BDU/BBDU's and the flight suit.

The commander's badge is not, and never has been worn on the flight suit.

Quote from: Eclipse on June 20, 2013, 03:34:13 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on June 20, 2013, 02:51:07 AM
It was modified to be allowed to wear it on BDU/BBDU's and the flight suit.

The commander's badge is not, and never has been worn on the flight suit.

Strange....you can order it from vanguard....and a lot of people do it.

:)

But let's not argue.

A commander's badge for the flight suit?

Link?

Not to mention that just because VG sells it doesn't mean it authorized?

Quote from: Eclipse on June 20, 2013, 04:25:42 AM
A commander's badge for the flight suit?

Link?

Not to mention that just because VG sells it doesn't mean it authorized?

Per table 6-4, the command badge doesn't appear to be authorized on the flight suit or field uniforms, either one. It is markedly absent from that list. It is present in the list for the aviator, blues, and service uniforms.

Quote from: Eclipse on June 20, 2013, 04:25:42 AM
A commander's badge for the flight suit?

Link?

Not to mention that just because VG sells it doesn't mean it authorized?

Quote from: From the omnibus ICLh. Leather Name Patch on Flight Suits and Jackets. Effective 10 July 2007, specialty
insignia may be worn on leather name patches in addition to aeronautical badges.

The CAPM 39-1 is unclear on whether the Commander badge is a specialty insignia. They are worn in the same place on the uniform.

The commander's badge is clearly not a specialty insignia, and it was. never intended nor authorized for the flight suit.

There always seems to be a disconnect between what's authorized by CAP and what's sold by Vanguard. CAP should exercise a bit more oversight on this, since many members assume that if Vanguard sells it, then it's authorized.

BTW, the Air Force allows current commanders to wear the badge in their flight suits. I know CAP doesn't, but this could be a change in the new CAPM 39-1.

Quote from: abdsp51 on June 16, 2013, 04:47:30 PM

There was no misquote.  And yes you did say 3/4 do not know anything do we need to capture said quote and put it in big bold letters for you to comprehend?  And if units do not have a close relationship with the USAF that is on them to do not the AF.  It is not the USAF's job to educate it's members on us, it is our job as the organization. Members who were trying to brow beat it to death were given proper forums to discuss and introduce such ideas.  Face it if you want a better relationship with Ma blue for your unit get off your rear and keyboard and do something about it.  It is upto you and your unit's leadership to forge and maintain the relationship you claim does not exist.

Knock yourself out with capturing the quote. My post is about three up from yours. I said 3/4 don't know who CAP is or have the wrong idea of who we are. You completely left out the second half of my statement. Therefore... misquote. I also disagree with you that it's not the job of the AF. It may not be their job alone because CAP should play a part as well but we are part of the AF community. We should be part of the AF education.

Again big difference in culture between AF/CAP and USCG/CGAUX. The CGAUX members all just received an email with expanded Exchange privileges for shopping online. You routinely here Team Coast Guard by gold side, silver side and civilian employees. Why? Because the USCG wants each part of the team to feel as if they are an equal part. Clearly the gold side members are a step above being that its what they do as a job and career versus volunteering part-time for the rest of us, but we still play a vital role.

If the AF had the same culture for accepting CAP it would be a world of difference and I believe taking a cue from the Coast Guard will push the AF well beyond its current capabilities and make both organizations significantly greater and more professional. I think your idea on how to achieve greater cooperation between the two is rather poor in all honesty.

Quote from: Eclipse on June 16, 2013, 05:00:30 PM

Quote from: NorCal21 on June 16, 2013, 04:38:45 PMCAP does not. CAP isn't even the AF Auxiliary except when under official mission orders.

Incorrect and another wive's tale.  CAP is always an auxiliary of the USAF.

And seriously, now we're bringing in SDF's to the conversation.

Well according to 10 USC § 9441 CAP is a nonprofit corporation that is not an instrument of the US Government (and by proxy of the USAF) except under provisions of 9442 (b)(2) stating the CAP is the USAF Auxiliary only when performing missions as assigned by the Secretary of the USAF.

You might want to inform Colorado Wing, Arizona Wing, and USAF leadership at Peterson AFB, Luke AFB, MacDill AFB and the AFA that CAP is always the auxiliary because its from personnel in those organizations where I've been taught what I stated first with the US Code.

Quote from: Eclipse on June 16, 2013, 05:11:28 PM

Anecdotal reports are not "documented evidence" in the way this infers, which would be a systemic or endemic issue, which it isn't.
Every organization has bozos, including our beloved parent service.  Trying to extrapolate their behavior into trends serves nothing except agendas.

And in at least a few of the cases I've been either involved in or peripherally aware, >all< parties were at fault, because everyone involved decided they were going to "give somebody some learning", to the detriment of all involved.

I didn't say anecdotal now did I? I said reports from the media (newspapers for example) and from even CAP's own press releases to members in eServices aren't considered documented evidence in your mind? Alright Bill... do I have to specifically give you a legal definition of "is" while we're at it?

I also never inferred that this is a systemic or endemic issue. You just implied that was my point.

Quote from: shuman14 on June 16, 2013, 05:13:49 PM

How long ago was that? In my 23+ plus years of service I've never seen an Army instructor wear anything but the issued patrol cap or beret... except Drill Sergeants on the trail... who of course wear a Campaign Cover.  :-\

Well my only experience with the Army has been after I joined the Marines in 1994 and more so in 2010 to present. I've routinely seen instructors at Ft Riley wear black patrol caps.

Quote from: Tim Medeiros on June 16, 2013, 05:34:49 PM

Quote from: NorCal21 on June 16, 2013, 04:38:45 PM
CAP isn't even the AF Auxiliary except when under official mission orders.

And US Code disagrees

Quote from: Title 10 US Code Section 9442(a)Volunteer Civilian Auxiliary.— The Civil Air Patrol is a volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force when the services of the Civil Air Patrol are used by any department or agency in any branch of the Federal Government.

Already just replied to this but I will do so again...

Current through Pub. L. 113-9. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

(a) Status.—
(1) The Civil Air Patrol is a nonprofit corporation that is federally chartered under section 40301 of title 36.
(2) Except as provided in section 9442 (b)(2) of this title, the Civil Air Patrol is not an instrumentality of the Federal Government for any purpose.
(b) Purposes.— The purposes of the Civil Air Patrol are set forth in section 40302 of title 36.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/9441 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/9441)

(a) Volunteer Civilian Auxiliary.— The Civil Air Patrol is a volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force when the services of the Civil Air Patrol are used by any department or agency in any branch of the Federal Government.
(b) Use by Air Force.—
(1) The Secretary of the Air Force may use the services of the Civil Air Patrol to fulfill the noncombat programs and missions of the Department of the Air Force.
(2) The Civil Air Patrol shall be deemed to be an instrumentality of the United States with respect to any act or omission of the Civil Air Patrol, including any member of the Civil Air Patrol, in carrying out a mission assigned by the Secretary of the Air Force.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/9442 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/9442)


THEREFORE again... when not serving on a mission such as squadron meetings CAP is NOT serving as an auxiliary but as a nonprofit corporation. Even CLC materials provided by CAP state as much.

Quote from: JoeTomasone on June 17, 2013, 04:51:14 AM

Quote from: Garibaldi on June 15, 2013, 10:29:34 PM
Why can't people get it into their thick skulls that we are CIVILIANS who are afforded the PRIVILEGE of wearing a military-style uniform? ???

Because it is either not taught or not taught well enough.   In my experience, C&C and compliance with 39-1 is simply not considered important/enforced amongst the SM corps, and I've seen units where it extends to Cadets as well.

Yeah I'll agree with that. One example is a guy on another thread who says he only wears the polo because he feels uncomfortable with being saluted by military. People say we're not AF so our uniforms aren't as important to maintain. BS. Our uniforms aren't AF. They are CAP. They should be maintained in accordance with our regs; although, I'll admit 39-1 doesn't make it easy to do that!

Quote from: abdsp51 on June 17, 2013, 09:44:58 PM

Ok this leads me to believe you are not a member.  Corporations controls Corp uniforms and the AF controls AF style uniforms.

While it is true he admitted after this post that he's not in CAP I think its wrong to assume someone's not because they don't know this point. I was a cadet for a couple of years in the 80's and 90's, and now as a SM since 08. I didn't have a clue about this point until I took CLC. You would have incorrectly assumed I wasn't a member even though I had been for about four years with not knowing this.

Quote from: shuman14 on June 18, 2013, 02:39:36 AM

I came here to get an answer to a question (see my first post in the education forum), got my answer but decided to stick around for the debate.

As an outsider looking in, I guess my opinions and observations are "worthless" to you? You don't care how a non-member perceives the CAP on face value? How a career military officer from a sister Service perceives the CAP means nothing?  ???

I brought up the fact in a previous thread that I thought the grey epaulet slides just looked "off", that is to say wrong and was trying to understand why you wear that godawful looking piece of uniform accessory in the first place. That lead to a debate of how to fix it.

If that makes me a troll, where do I find my bridge to live under?

Well I like your posts. They seem to be asking honest questions. I wouldn't worry that some are butt hurt that you're not a member. Funny how some comment on what civilians think of us but then when a non-member comments they get upset.

Quote from: NorCal21 on June 23, 2013, 03:29:52 AMThe CGAUX members all just received an email with expanded Exchange privileges for shopping online.

Would someone please tell me how base exchange privileges are somehow a barometer of the relationship to the respective parent service?

CAP members already have all the privileges they need as members, privileges which are also "enhanced" if you have a billet or activity on base, beyond that, and by far,
the vast majority of members have no access nor need for access to a base exchange or commissary, and anyone who does routinely shop at a base exchange knows that
their prices are the same or higher then local retail stores because either by policy or in some cases law, they have to keep things on an equal footing with local businesses.

Quote from: Eclipse on June 18, 2013, 03:36:37 AM

Why not?  Because it's been discussed to death.  Literally.  To. Death.  Generally by new, well-intentioned members or outsiders seeking to "fix" CAP.

It doesn't matter if we like them, they are the best choice, or what the color is.  They are what has been authorized by the USAF.  So "discussing" it, just annoys the monkey.

For some fun, light-heartedness....

Literally? To quote one of my favorite movies... "You keep using that word but I do not think it means what you think it means."

Quote from: Eclipse on June 18, 2013, 03:48:31 AM
Dead horse, fight lost years ago (and possibly re-lost due to HWSRN's unilateral actions in creating a "corporate service uniform").

There's no change to be made, no debate to be had.  Word is an updated uniform manual is in the final draft stages, and that
may bring a new field uniform (I still don't think it's going to happen), but beyond that, we don't need to change anything else.

Yes but that's your opinion. Saying its been debated before to death and we shouldn't debate it anymore is incorrect in my opinion. We debated the Constitution for years, should we stop debating the meaning of it because we've come down on what it means? A new generation has new ideas, desires, and wants. Same thing with CAP. We always have new people with new ideas. Change is the only constant. Older folks like you who want to cut off debate because you're tired of it are frankly... dinosaurs not long for the pasteur. I don't mean that in any way to be offensive. I've just seen it in every organization and group I'm part of. The old school guys are tired of debate, don't see a purpose and get angry over it. The new guys are looking for ways to bring in fresh ideas.

Basically I'm saying you're Windows and us younger folks are more Google. Nothing wrong with Windows really, but not fresh idea oriented like Google.

Quote from: NorCal21 on June 23, 2013, 04:07:20 AMBasically I'm saying you're Windows and us younger folks are more Google. Nothing wrong with Windows really, but not fresh idea oriented like Google.

Younger folks?

Quote from: NorCal21 on June 23, 2013, 04:07:20 AMNothing wrong with Windows really, but not fresh idea oriented like Google.

Point me at one "new" idea in this thread and we can talk.

Quote from: shuman14 on June 18, 2013, 04:08:46 AM

As to effecting change, this isn't an "official" forum of the CAP, is it? It is "a discussion board for the Civil Air Patrol community", this was a discussion that started in one thread, was brought out into this thread, and here we are going thru a point - counterpoint, which truly is the purpose of a discussion forum.

I agree with you. Seems rather absurd to poo poo Military.com for what it is but stand firm on the quality of this board which is essentially the same thing in theory.

Quote from: wuzafuzz on June 18, 2013, 04:52:31 AM


You assert salute trolling is a well documented problem in CAP, yet I have NEVER witnessed a single problem. 

I think I've discovered the problem here.

I should have said well-documented. The "well" was a modifier of the word documented. It was not meant to imply a common occurrence.

Also, saying something isn't simply because you've not seen it is rather naive isn't it?

Quote from: Eclipse on June 18, 2013, 10:27:51 PM
SDF's and other organizations can do whatever they want - only CAP is under the command of the USAF.  This seems to be lost on a lot of people.

Well no they can't. An SDF can only do what the state commander of military forces (who generally is a Army Guard general) says they can wear. The USCG Auxiliary can only do what the Commandant of the USCG says we can. No different than what CAP can do based on what the USAF says it can.

Quote from: Eclipse on June 19, 2013, 01:12:40 AM
Also grooming as in hair and beards.

Haha I will say one thing I'm not used to is the fact that a member of the CGAUX may have a full mustache and beard. Old seagoing tradition I guess but wow.

Quote from: shuman14 on June 19, 2013, 02:12:00 AM

Plus the USCG seems to, for the most part, let a slightly overweight Auxie or thicker than normal authorized beard slide by, which I guess the USAF doesn't for CAP.

I think this is partly due to us in the CGAUX having way more Navy and Coasties in our ranks with the Chief's belly!

Quote from: abdsp51 on June 19, 2013, 02:27:43 AM

Discriminate much?  There are plenty of documented medical conditions that cause a person to be overweight, as well as medications.  Civil Air Patrol as well as the DoD which you are a commissioned officer of has non discrimination policies.  There are members here who can not actively PT to be within height/weight due to said conditions and members who have family who fall into this category.  You sir seriously lack tact and common sense.

I think that's an overreaction to what he said. Clearly it was a generality. Generalities, by their nature, do not include everyone as they allow for exceptions. I'm sure he's full well aware of those exceptions such as thyroid issues and so on. Geez, lighten up and don't be so critical and read everything literally as a 100% statement.

Salute trolling isn't documented on any level.  Message boards don't count, nor do urban legends.

Quote from: NorCal21 on June 23, 2013, 04:11:37 AM
Also, saying something isn't simply because you've not seen it is rather naive isn't it?

So is believing that just because you have seen something it's endemic and not an anomaly.

Some of us "older folks" have scope beyond the typical unit meeting, some of us even do things on a Regional
and National level, things that would be severely impacted by goobers trolling salutes, and so are on the constant watch,
and yet, have little of the issue to speak of.

Quote from: Eclipse on June 19, 2013, 03:52:48 AM

Quote from: shuman14 on June 19, 2013, 03:43:59 AMBTW, you do know that failure to meet height and weight standards are still grounds to be discharged from all Branches of the Armed Services. Again not discrimination, but a fact.

Your argument in this regard holds no weight when discussing the issue in the CAP context.

But it absolutely has context when it taken with his previous post and then the following post attacking his statement. He was providing an example. Examples need not be of the same content matter to be contextual.

Quote from: Eclipse on June 23, 2013, 04:00:25 AM

Quote from: NorCal21 on June 23, 2013, 03:29:52 AMThe CGAUX members all just received an email with expanded Exchange privileges for shopping online.

Would someone please tell me how base exchange privileges are somehow a barometer of the relationship to the respective parent service?

CAP members already have all the privileges they need as members, privileges which are also "enhanced" if you have a billet or activity on base, beyond that, and by far, the vast majority of members have no access nor need for access to a base exchange or commissary, and anyone who does routinely shop at a base exchange knows that their prices are the same or higher then local retail stores because either by policy or in some cases law, they have to keep things on an equal footing with local businesses.

Bob, I wouldn't to buy that with Bill Gates' money. Ever.

I have shopped on base since I've been old enough to shop. I've done comparisons over the years, and with few exceptions, brand for brand, item for item, the exchange and commissary have lower prices. If nothing else, there's no sales tax.

There is one notable exception, and that's gasoline. They can only go below the average local price by a certain amount. That's been a rule since the late '70s or early '80s. The local stations complained so much about being undersold that they made the change.

Quote from: SarDragon on June 23, 2013, 04:24:43 AMI have shopped on base since I've been old enough to shop. I've done comparisons over the years, and with few exceptions, brand for brand, item for item, the exchange and commissary have lower prices. If nothing else, there's no sales tax.

I agree on the sales tax, but everything I've ever seen at the NEX is overpriced with little selection. If you need it in a pinch, fine, but no way I'd
shop there first if there was a Walmart or Target in the area.

Quote from: abdsp51 on June 20, 2013, 12:59:16 AM


There is and it is not a frequently used option. It has to run from the members CC to the Group (if there is one), Wing, Region, and finally the NUC.  ANd I have actually pinged NHQ about the whole maroon slides and the response I receieved back was there was going to be a change to the uniform any way.

Which is exactly the reason (in my opinion) that its not widely used. Too many people to get in the way and stop the movement up the chain because they disagree with the suggestion. Which is why Shuman pointed out the Army's board where direct comments could be made from a Soldier to the uniform board.

Same thing occurred with the Navy.

Quote from: Storm Chaser on June 20, 2013, 11:55:02 AM
There always seems to be a disconnect between what's authorized by CAP and what's sold by Vanguard. CAP should exercise a bit more oversight on this, since many members assume that if Vanguard sells it, then it's authorized.

BTW, the Air Force allows current commanders to wear the badge in their flight suits. I know CAP doesn't, but this could be a change in the new CAPM 39-1.

Its a good thing CAP and Vanguard went all Nazi on us than and made it so only VG could sell the stuff huh?!  :clap:

Quote from: Eclipse on June 23, 2013, 04:00:25 AM

Quote from: NorCal21 on June 23, 2013, 03:29:52 AMThe CGAUX members all just received an email with expanded Exchange privileges for shopping online.

Would someone please tell me how base exchange privileges are somehow a barometer of the relationship to the respective parent service?

CAP members already have all the privileges they need as members, privileges which are also "enhanced" if you have a billet or activity on base, beyond that, and by far,
the vast majority of members have no access nor need for access to a base exchange or commissary, and anyone who does routinely shop at a base exchange knows that
their prices are the same or higher then local retail stores because either by policy or in some cases law, they have to keep things on an equal footing with local businesses.

Its just one example I was using. Good lord people. You guys are some of the most negative people I've ever seen. Seriously. Everything is wrong or dumb if it doesn't fit your worldview on CAP.

And how it differs is that CAP gets only what it needs by only allowing uniform purchase. CGAUX gets more than it needs and is given full access as if we were active duty because we are viewed as equal members of Team Coast Guard.

I shop regularly at the exchange and I'll tell you that many things I purchase aren't even close to be the same or higher as in town. Medicines are a prime example. They are upwards of 75% cheaper on base. I will admit Exchange Select dishsoap is pricey though.

Quote from: Eclipse on June 23, 2013, 04:08:55 AM

Quote from: NorCal21 on June 23, 2013, 04:07:20 AMBasically I'm saying you're Windows and us younger folks are more Google. Nothing wrong with Windows really, but not fresh idea oriented like Google.

Younger folks?

Quote from: NorCal21 on June 23, 2013, 04:07:20 AMNothing wrong with Windows really, but not fresh idea oriented like Google.

Point me at one "new" idea in this thread and we can talk.

Yeah. Younger folks. Definition problem?

I didn't limit it to this thread. Why are you?

Quote from: Eclipse on June 23, 2013, 04:20:29 AM
Salute trolling isn't documented on any level.  Message boards don't count, nor do urban legends.

Quote from: NorCal21 on June 23, 2013, 04:11:37 AM
Also, saying something isn't simply because you've not seen it is rather naive isn't it?

So is believing that just because you have seen something it's endemic and not an anomaly.

Some of us "older folks" have scope beyond the typical unit meeting, some of us even do things on a Regional
and National level, things that would be severely impacted by goobers trolling salutes, and so are on the constant watch,
and yet, have little of the issue to speak of.

You either have bad reading comprehension skills or eyes. I never once inferred this was a systemic or endemic problem nor did I say it was a common occurrence. That was something you read and the other guy did as well. I even went as far to post a comment saying I have determined what the confusion was. It was that I left out the "-" between well and documented. My mistake. I should have read well-documented as in the few cases that have occurred have been full documented and reported to the AF and CAP membership.

Quote from: NorCal21 on June 23, 2013, 04:38:23 AMI should have read well-documented as in the few cases that have occurred have been full documented and reported to the AF and CAP membership.

Cite one "fully documented case" reported to the USAF and CAP.

Quote from: Eclipse on June 23, 2013, 04:56:57 AM

Quote from: NorCal21 on June 23, 2013, 04:38:23 AMI should have read well-documented as in the few cases that have occurred have been full documented and reported to the AF and CAP membership.

Cite one "fully documented case" reported to the USAF and CAP.

Here's the link to the letter from Gen Courter. When at NESA I spoke with a couple people from national (along with the rest of my class) and we were informed that CAP and the USAF did a full investigation and the person involved had been dealt with. They didn't mention a name or anything else. We didn't need to know. In either case it was fully documented by both organizations.

http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/Military_Salute_Letter_to_all_CAP_m_AB3C339B82592.pdf (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/Military_Salute_Letter_to_all_CAP_m_AB3C339B82592.pdf)

That entire letter, the forum article, and "talking to people at NESA" is one whole load of wive's tales - especially that letter, based on a military forum
that was later suspected to be fully apocryphal.

Cite a real case.

Quote from: Eclipse on June 23, 2013, 05:09:02 AM
That entire letter, the forum article, and "talking to people at NESA" is one whole load of wive's tales - especially that letter, based on a military forum
that was later suspected to be fully apocryphal.

Cite a real case.

They're out there. I'm not doing all the work for you.

This sort of removes you from the realm of people who debate honestly. We're done.

Oops.

Quote from: NorCal21 on June 23, 2013, 05:11:22 AMDon't need to. I just did. You're essentially stating that I'm lying and that two NESA commanders are lying as they stated there was in fact truth to it. Again, just because you didn't see it you think it's not true.

"Believing something to be true" does not make it true, repeating something you "believe" doesn't make you a liar, just misinformed, which you and they are on this case.

NorCal,

Perception is reality.

Quote from: NorCal21 on June 23, 2013, 03:44:11 AM

Quote from: shuman14 on June 16, 2013, 05:13:49 PM

How long ago was that? In my 23+ plus years of service I've never seen an Army instructor wear anything but the issued patrol cap or beret... except Drill Sergeants on the trail... who of course wear a Campaign Cover.  :-\

Well my only experience with the Army has been after I joined the Marines in 1994 and more so in 2010 to present. I've routinely seen instructors at Ft Riley wear black patrol caps.

Never been to Fort Riley, so I can't speak intelligently on what they do there. I can tell you the Army Uniform Manual, AR 670-1, makes no mention of a "black patrol cap" as authorized headgear for instructors.

My FSM!  The AD military ignore their own uniform regulations!  Say its not so!

Quote from: shuman14 on June 23, 2013, 04:18:32 PM

Quote from: NorCal21 on June 23, 2013, 03:44:11 AM

Quote from: shuman14 on June 16, 2013, 05:13:49 PM

How long ago was that? In my 23+ plus years of service I've never seen an Army instructor wear anything but the issued patrol cap or beret... except Drill Sergeants on the trail... who of course wear a Campaign Cover.  :-\

Well my only experience with the Army has been after I joined the Marines in 1994 and more so in 2010 to present. I've routinely seen instructors at Ft Riley wear black patrol caps.

Never been to Fort Riley, so I can't speak intelligently on what they do there. I can tell you the Army Uniform Manual, AR 670-1, makes no mention of a "black patrol cap" as authorized headgear for instructors.

First day of encampment here in Illinois and the ARNG Instructors for the OCS here at Camp Lincoln are wearing black patrol/BDU caps.