We hit on this briefly in another thread but I think we could split this and start one since members here like to provide solutions.
I have posted this before and will use it here to kick off this thread.
"Now if I was the NHQ/CC some of the changes I would make in regards to uniforms would be:
1) Find a middle ground somewhere between corp and AF style all around
2) Change the way recommendations for uniform changes are submitted. This would be either a central point for membership to recommend changes or changing the language in 39-1 to state that all uniform suggestions will be sent to the NUC and no one can deny membership that process. IE if a member has a recommendation, change etc, only the NUC can decide whether or not to pursue it, and no one can squash it between the member and the NUC. There would be a suspense control in place or developed for the member to track the status of their submission.
3) Require weigh-ins for all members above 18yo who desire to wear the AF style uniform until the implementation of a unified uniform. Also members would be required to sign a form stating that they will comply with uniform policies or face some degree of personnel action.
4) Any wing desiring specialized uniforms (ground teams, etc) would be required to submit with solid justification a supplement for approval. Justification needs to be a state statute, county ordinance, etc for the implementation of said uniforms. Supplements would be required to be reviewed every two years or upon changes to 39-1.
5) CAPM39-1 would undergo review every 2 years or as needed to maintain currency.
Would these be popular, probably not but would help to bring a more firm identity to the org and allow for more enforcement of the publication."
Now knowing members are so wound up on weigh ins and it's a pain I think it's a needed requirement to project that image we need to across the org. There are numerous instances where weight is required to be provided and this is nothing different from there. I'll this caveat to it though, you don't want to weigh in, you wear G/W and you don't fly or participate in anything where you have to give your weight that simple. Making this a requirement in writing in the manual makes it something that has to be done.
As mentioned above find a common ground for uniforms one way or another. Standardize one color of grey and find one or two companies who already have that color in their inventory. This keeps costs down and provides a source for the items.
Work closely with CAP-USAF to find some middle ground on uniforms and work to find a compromise that is beneficial to all. IE work to allow DoD awards and decorations be worn on the G/W.
I am sure I could come up with more ideas and suggestions as time goes by.
The very fact that weigh-ins were so unpopular should have been the impetus to not only
have them as a best-practice, but mandate them for all members.
The entire situation would become less contentious overnight if CAP just enforced its existing rules, regs, and polices.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 04, 2014, 05:53:50 PM
The very fact that weigh-ins were so unpopular should have been the impetus to not only
have them as a best-practice, but mandate them for all members.
The entire situation would become less contentious overnight if CAP just enforced its existing rules, regs, and polices.
True but until that change or enforcement starts somewhere we will continue to be where we are at. If it's written and members are held accountable the point will get across sooner or later. As I pointed out if you don't want to weigh in, you don't fly period and your uniform choice is limited, CCs who don't comply get removed.
Where do I sign?
Quote from: Eclipse on July 04, 2014, 06:08:17 PM
Where do I sign?
LOL.... This is if I was the NAT/CC.
I'd sign onto this as well.
Quote from: abdsp51 on July 04, 2014, 05:48:34 PM
2) Change the way recommendations for uniform changes are submitted. This would be either a central point for membership to recommend changes or changing the language in 39-1 to state that all uniform suggestions will be sent to the NUC and no one can deny membership that process. IE if a member has a recommendation, change etc, only the NUC can decide whether or not to pursue it, and no one can squash it between the member and the NUC. There would be a suspense control in place or developed for the member to track the status of their submission.
Are you on crack? We can't get decent suspense control on personnel and administrative actions for day to day operations! :)
Quote from: NIN on July 04, 2014, 08:28:55 PM
Quote from: abdsp51 on July 04, 2014, 05:48:34 PM
2) Change the way recommendations for uniform changes are submitted. This would be either a central point for membership to recommend changes or changing the language in 39-1 to state that all uniform suggestions will be sent to the NUC and no one can deny membership that process. IE if a member has a recommendation, change etc, only the NUC can decide whether or not to pursue it, and no one can squash it between the member and the NUC. There would be a suspense control in place or developed for the member to track the status of their submission.
Are you on crack?
No but he did just have some smash fries which I hear is just as good.
Quote from: NIN on July 04, 2014, 08:28:55 PM
Quote from: abdsp51 on July 04, 2014, 05:48:34 PM
2) Change the way recommendations for uniform changes are submitted. This would be either a central point for membership to recommend changes or changing the language in 39-1 to state that all uniform suggestions will be sent to the NUC and no one can deny membership that process. IE if a member has a recommendation, change etc, only the NUC can decide whether or not to pursue it, and no one can squash it between the member and the NUC. There would be a suspense control in place or developed for the member to track the status of their submission.
Are you on crack? We can't get decent suspense control on personnel and administrative actions for day to day operations! :)
"OK Google" "Set reminder for 39-1 update for 2015."
Of course that would require NHQ to have a functional calender, but I digress.
1) Is more or less what we have now.
2) While I agree that we should have a more direct line to the NUC....an "Ask the NUC" function is what the USAF does. I don't see a need for suspense control. That would assume that a) you should get feed back on your suggestion and b) that there is some sort of staff working that feed back. In the end it makes no difference if your squadron commander says "that's stupid" then one of the anonymous NUC members. I think the chain of command process is good because we don't have any staff to man the THOUSANDS of requests we will get for ABU's, Swords, Pink TuTus, etc.
3) Requiring weigh ins....is just another administrative burden on the units that will not change a thing as far as enforcement of the already existing regs. I ask this again....how often, which scale is "the scale", do we change the regs from "meet USAF standards to wear USAF Uniforms" to "Have meet the USAF standards at your last weigh in to be able to wear USAF uniforms"? What if someone wishes to challenge a squadron's weigh in? IMHO not really required to have mandatory periodic weigh ins......we just need to hammer our squadron commanders (and above) on not enforcing the standards.
4) Sort of agree....but not totally. We need to require wings to publish specialty uniforms and wing policies on optional items in a supplement. That way at least region and national can see what they are doing. I don't see having to go to the National Commander or NUC every time you think you need a specialty uniform. Just like in #3 above.....regional and national commanders should be monitoring what is going on and hammering as needed.
5) All regulations should be constantly reviewed by the NHQ Staff responsible for that reg.
Quote from: lordmonar on July 04, 2014, 10:08:13 PM
1) Is more or less what we have now.
2) While I agree that we should have a more direct line to the NUC....an "Ask the NUC" function is what the USAF does. I don't see a need for suspense control. That would assume that a) you should get feed back on your suggestion and b) that there is some sort of staff working that feed back. In the end it makes no difference if your squadron commander says "that's stupid" then one of the anonymous NUC members. I think the chain of command process is good because we don't have any staff to man the THOUSANDS of requests we will get for ABU's, Swords, Pink TuTus, etc.
3) Requiring weigh ins....is just another administrative burden on the units that will not change a thing as far as enforcement of the already existing regs. I ask this again....how often, which scale is "the scale", do we change the regs from "meet USAF standards to wear USAF Uniforms" to "Have meet the USAF standards at your last weigh in to be able to wear USAF uniforms"? What if someone wishes to challenge a squadron's weigh in? IMHO not really required to have mandatory periodic weigh ins......we just need to hammer our squadron commanders (and above) on not enforcing the standards.
4) Sort of agree....but not totally. We need to require wings to publish specialty uniforms and wing policies on optional items in a supplement. That way at least region and national can see what they are doing. I don't see having to go to the National Commander or NUC every time you think you need a specialty uniform. Just like in #3 above.....regional and national commanders should be monitoring what is going on and hammering as needed.
5) All regulations should be constantly reviewed by the NHQ Staff responsible for that reg.
1) And look at the headaches and drama there is with it. You have those butt hurt they can't wear one uniform and feel they are second class. Working to finding a common ground between everyone will go far in easing the moaning and groaning.
2) This process eliminates wing or region commanders from canning something simply because they don't like it or feel it's stupid. Let the NUC determine the merit of the suggestion, plus this shows the membership the process in action, and they can track it rather than it disappearing into a black hole somewhere.
3) Requiring the weigh-ins mandates enforcement for those who want to wear the AF style to ensure compliance with 39-1 and the H/W standard in effect. You don't weigh in your stuck in corp and you don't fly period. Commanders who don't conduct them and enforce it are canned period. Weigh-ins would be annual and upon commanders discretion based upon observations. The only change is the weigh in is now mandatory. If commanders can't comply with this what else are the not complying with.
4) Doing this keeps commanders across the board in the loop and have SA on it. Plus it prevents Wgs from using it's state requirement without citing it as a cop out. This puts the onus and burden of proof on the Wg CC and Region CC to track these things.
5) Yes they should but 39-1 needs to be constantly updated to keep up.
Commanders across the board should be enforcing this and other regs and not just treating them as guidelines or suggestions. Problem is we can all count at least one instance where that has not happened at all.
1) I agree. But there you go.
2)Why should wing and regional commanders not be able to ax something they don't like? Why should all the power be in the NUC.....oh how does one get to be on the NUC? Bottom line is that decision is the CAP/CC.....the NUC simply makes suggestions. I agree that maybe we should stream line it.....it just means more work for the NUC to toss out all those stupid suggestions that could have been axed at lower levels. As for tracking.....again......you are perfectly able now to track it yourself.....Col Wing Commander, did you get my white paper? Would please provide me feed back? Mr Wing Commander, why are you not responding to my requests? Col Regional Commander I sent the following white paper to my wing commander, he has not responded to any of my requests for feed back or what he intends to do with my request.....therefor I am forwarding it to you for your consideration."
3) No requiring weights does not mandate anything other then the squadron produce a periodic report that says "we conducted the weigh in and here are the results".....Enforcement is already mandated. It is the culture that needs to be fixed. We cannot allow commanders to do what they want "sure you can wear boonies" or to let things slide. We can only fix that by having the fortitude to have those tough conversations and being ready to FIRE someone for not getting it right. Making me do weigh ins only means that I got more work to do....because I'm already enforcing the uniform regs. It is only going to create more costs and more paperwork and more time away from doing things like AE, CP and ES.
4) If we are doing number 3 we don't have to worry about number 4. CAWG (just to pick you guys for a second) think they need a special uniform.....put it in the SUP.....region should be looking at all the SUPs even if they don't have approve them......so they should already have the SA. But again this is about reducing work load and keeping things in their channels.....Does the CAP/CC really have to review and approve all of these? And if you codify it as requiring law, or verification by the Pope......you automatically take away "this is a really good idea" for any situations are less then law. If you make things too restrictive for special circumstance then you only push subordinate units to just ignore the regulation.....like CAWG did for many many years.....and the only reason why they took it to the NB was to get everyone off their backs about or to go around the regional/national CC by using the power of the NB to overrule the commander. (thank the FSM that that is gone now!).
5) So we agree on one thing. :)
Quote from: lordmonar on July 04, 2014, 11:18:06 PM
1) I agree. But there you go.
2)Why should wing and regional commanders not be able to ax something they don't like? Why should all the power be in the NUC.....oh how does one get to be on the NUC? Bottom line is that decision is the CAP/CC.....the NUC simply makes suggestions. I agree that maybe we should stream line it.....it just means more work for the NUC to toss out all those stupid suggestions that could have been axed at lower levels. As for tracking.....again......you are perfectly able now to track it yourself.....Col Wing Commander, did you get my white paper? Would please provide me feed back? Mr Wing Commander, why are you not responding to my requests? Col Regional Commander I sent the following white paper to my wing commander, he has not responded to any of my requests for feed back or what he intends to do with my request.....therefor I am forwarding it to you for your consideration."
3) No requiring weights does not mandate anything other then the squadron produce a periodic report that says "we conducted the weigh in and here are the results".....Enforcement is already mandated. It is the culture that needs to be fixed. We cannot allow commanders to do what they want "sure you can wear boonies" or to let things slide. We can only fix that by having the fortitude to have those tough conversations and being ready to FIRE someone for not getting it right. Making me do weigh ins only means that I got more work to do....because I'm already enforcing the uniform regs. It is only going to create more costs and more paperwork and more time away from doing things like AE, CP and ES.
4) If we are doing number 3 we don't have to worry about number 4. CAWG (just to pick you guys for a second) think they need a special uniform.....put it in the SUP.....region should be looking at all the SUPs even if they don't have approve them......so they should already have the SA. But again this is about reducing work load and keeping things in their channels.....Does the CAP/CC really have to review and approve all of these? And if you codify it as requiring law, or verification by the Pope......you automatically take away "this is a really good idea" for any situations are less then law. If you make things too restrictive for special circumstance then you only push subordinate units to just ignore the regulation.....like CAWG did for many many years.....and the only reason why they took it to the NB was to get everyone off their backs about or to go around the regional/national CC by using the power of the NB to overrule the commander. (thank the FSM that that is gone now!).
5) So we agree on one thing. :)
We can agree to disagree on this all day long. What I have posted I see as ways for membership to own part of their processes, and eliminate this thing that anyone can can a suggestion. Do I think that CC's have enough on their plate yeo, but I also know that many don't comply with some of the most basic aspects. And weigh in it's been addressed you don't weigh in you wear corp and you don't fly or participate in activities where that may be an issue. If I was the NAT/CC I would want to hear all ideas in regards to the appearance of the org whether or not my wing or region commanders liked it. For all we know some member has a dang good one but it will never get through as long as wing and region can ax it.
I know of a few instances where having approval across the board would nip alot in the rear. IE people claim that PA has to wear orange hats for whatever reason, that's easily withing the purview of the Wing CC to do. But there are places where it's said that it's a state or county requirement for things. Having the sup sent to NHQ with the justification and state item quoted eases their process some.
CA for example everyone was hooting and hollering that it was a state law that the GT wore the orange shirt. Guess what after a couple hours worth of research and a few phones calls I learned that it was not the case and that it was a recommendation and best practice. We did have that conversation if I do recall.
Yes.....but you are missing the point.
BACK IN THE DAY.....once the NB made their ill informed decision....there was nothing the national commander could do.
Now.....NVWG...if they want to/need to adopt a special uniform for some reason.......say the school that they have an 800 squadron in does not allow blues or bdu uniforms.....the Wing CC writes the supp and it is done. Region or anyone else who wants to say something....well call the wing cc. If they can't convince their boss then the boss axes it on the spot.
If it has to go all the way to CAP/CC.....well then it gets pushed to the NUC who then has to fight with the guy from MEWG who knows nothing about it.....and has is pissed off at the very idea that we have units in schools in the first place. In the mean time what's happening at the unit level?
The less we MUST send to NHQ the best. We should trust (but verify) our lower level commanders to do the right thing....and monitor them and hammer them when they step out of line.
Having higher level approval will NOT nip anything in the bud. PAWG and CAWG and many other wings operated outside of the regulations for YEARS. It did not get nipped in the bud because NO ONE was reinforcing the regs at higher head quarters.
If as in the case for CAWG it turns out that someone LIED to higher head quarters when pressed on the issue.....well then you can always take care of that.
My point here is that more regulations and more processes are not necessarily the answer.
More supervision and more internal fortitude to call up the squadron/group/wing commander and saying "WTF dude....Orange T-shirts? You got to be kidding me! I'm giving you 2 months to get all your people back into black T-shirts". Or for smaller issues...."Cadet why are you wearing a boonie hat?" "Why Major Needsajob Sir"......then you know where to go from there.
Most of the problems you are talking about are simply that.....commanders and leaders at all levels NOT DOING THEIR BASIC JOB!
You follow the rules. You make sure your subordinate follow the rules. You encourage your peers to follow the rules. And you challenge your superiors when they deviate from the rules.
If we did that......we would not need to do anything else. But making more rules.....the ones they are not following now....is not going to help.
YMMV
Quote from: lordmonar on July 04, 2014, 10:08:13 PM
3) Requiring weigh ins....is just another administrative burden on the units that will not change a thing as far as enforcement of the already existing regs. I ask this again....how often, which scale is "the scale", do we change the regs from "meet USAF standards to wear USAF Uniforms" to "Have meet the USAF standards at your last weigh in to be able to wear USAF uniforms"? What if someone wishes to challenge a squadron's weigh in? IMHO not really required to have mandatory periodic weigh ins......we just need to hammer our squadron commanders (and above) on not enforcing the standards.
Fine - hammer them.
Don't want to deal with the "official scale" nonsense (which is just that, nonsense), just bring in a Dr's note that says what you weigh.
No one close will be an issue - if the unit scale says 151 and the Dr says 150, the conversation is over. If the Unit scale says
380 and the Dr. says 260, then you've got an issue. That will be a less then 1% problem. No one clearly out of weight will
even bother, and those close will be close.
Want to challenge the scale, challenge it. That's 5 minutes of discussion and the Dr's note again. 5 minutes better spent
then a time-wasting safety brief on cold weather hazards in July or redoing knife safety the 12th time, and also 5 minutes
setting the tone that the "party is over" for those who choose to ignore the rules.
Those "close" aren't the issue, and setting the tone on the problem will literally fix 9% of that same problem overnight.
Done.
Quote from: lordmonar on July 05, 2014, 12:43:38 AMMost of the problems you are talking about are simply that.....commanders and leaders at all levels NOT DOING THEIR BASIC JOB!
You follow the rules. You make sure your subordinate follow the rules. You encourage your peers to follow the rules. And you challenge your superiors when they deviate from the rules.
If we did that......we would not need to do anything else. But making more rules.....the ones they are not following now....is not going to help.
Agree 100%, but rules with no consequences, literally ignored by those charged with the enforcement, are meaningless.
This is one pendulum that is going to need to swing all the way in the other direction before it is fixed.
The first time HEADCAP refuses to hand a flag to a new wing or region CC because he is not in compliance with H/W, will be the day
CAP is back on track, until then, and especially when not only are the flags passed but the photos are published nationally,
no one downstream is going to pay it any more mind then it already gets.
We get a couple of tow bars left on the plane and somehow the system is quickly updated so every FRO has to ask the question from now on.
Fair enough, that's an issue which literally risks life and property of our members and the general public.
So why is something so basic and important to the integrity and image of CAP so hard to enforce?
And again, why does CAP care about the wailing and gnashing of teeth of people who are breaking
these simple, clear rules?
Quote from: lordmonar on July 04, 2014, 11:18:06 PM
2)Why should wing and regional commanders not be able to ax something they don't like?
But it's not just the regional commanders. It's their subordinate staff members as well.
Let's say 1st Lt. Goodguy has an idea. Now, he's supposed to follow the chain of command. So he submits it to the Deputy Commander for Seniors. That, in turn, is sent to the Squadron CC. Then it goes up to Group, and before it gets to the Group CC his assistant will evaluate it. Same for Wing. Same for Region. And so on.
All it takes is
one person to say "Eh, I don't like it" and it's axed.
If Lt. Goodguy is lucky, he'll get word filtered back down to him that his submission was killed. But, more likely than not, he'll hear nothing and have no idea that it was thrown in the trash can, or why.
Quote from: Panache on July 05, 2014, 04:28:58 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on July 04, 2014, 11:18:06 PM
2)Why should wing and regional commanders not be able to ax something they don't like?
But it's not just the regional commanders. It's their subordinate staff members as well.
Let's say 1st Lt. Goodguy has an idea. Now, he's supposed to follow the chain of command. So he submits it to the Deputy Commander for Seniors. That, in turn, is sent to the Squadron CC. Then it goes up to Group, and before it gets to the Group CC his assistant will evaluate it. Same for Wing. Same for Region. And so on.
All it takes is one person to say "Eh, I don't like it" and it's axed.
If Lt. Goodguy is lucky, he'll get word filtered back down to it that his submission was killed. But, more likely than not, he'll hear nothing and have no idea that it was thrown in the trash can, or why.
Lt Goodguy only needs to follow up at it goes up the chain. If he thinks he is getting stone walled or disagrees with Echelon X, he goes on up the chain.
You guys want your cake and to eat it too. If you really feel strongly about it....you will fight for it. Like I said before....I don't have a real problem with a VFR direct to the NUC. I do have a problem with a suspense and record tracking requirement for it.
Assuming that such a tool was implemented....and we followed the USAF ROE....the NUC would meet once every two years and wade through all the suggestions that the uniform staff has been collecting....as well as all the stuff the uniform staff has been working on.
They would then make their recommendations to CAP/CC after routing it through CAP-USAF.
There is very little chance of any immediate feed back.
Quote from: lordmonar on July 05, 2014, 04:35:22 AM
You guys want your cake and to eat it too. If you really feel strongly about it....you will fight for it. Like I said before....I don't have a real problem with a VFR direct to the NUC. I do have a problem with a suspense and record tracking requirement for it.
Gah. It hates me to say this, but I do agree with you there.
I think adding a suspense date to "Ask the NUC!" submissions would create too much overhead. And, let's be honest here, I imagine most would put an unreasonable amount of time on it, like, say, a week.
So holding people accountable for processing items and keeping folks in the loop is bad got it. Sorry adding the requirement of a suspense timeline is there to ensure people are doing what they are suppose to be doing. Membership should be kept informed on the status of the things they submit. Sorry but all it takes is one person in that chain to have a bad day or be get pissed and discourage a member because he/she followed up. It is way to easy for someone to get the run around via phone or email on something they are trying to follow up on the way you believe it should be. If there was a system in place for it to be routed, it can not be canned by anyone but the NUC and the CC and provide feedback to the member suggesting it, you would see less bickering about uniform changes and recommendations.
Quote from: Panache on July 05, 2014, 04:44:09 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on July 05, 2014, 04:35:22 AM
You guys want your cake and to eat it too. If you really feel strongly about it....you will fight for it. Like I said before....I don't have a real problem with a VFR direct to the NUC. I do have a problem with a suspense and record tracking requirement for it.
Gah. It hates me to say this, but I do agree with you there.
I think adding a suspense date to "Ask the NUC!" submissions would create too much overhead. And, let's be honest here, I imagine most would put an unreasonable amount of time on it, like, say, a week.
That's what I'm talking about. As far as I know there is no NUC right now. They were formed to get a new 39-1 out the door and they did. So I don't see any of them gearing up for the "next round" of suggestions, gripes, complaints, ect.
So.....okay....Maybe there should be a National Uniform Officer who is charge of fixing the minor oversights, corrections, and misunderstandings that any an all new regs generate. His job would be to take all those "ask the NUC" questions and sort them into appropriate piles........."Can I wear my Navy Obscure Warfare Badge", "Grammar and spelling errors in 39-1", "Pictures don't match the words/Para 1.1 says but Para 4.5 says","Suggestions for the NUC","when are we getting ABUs"........then either work them himself.....ie. fix the errors, make the changes needed to follow policy, forward those that need CC or CoS approval up the chain, collate all the suggestion to the NUC into a working group agenda to be handed out when the next NUC actually convenes.
Not everything should have to go to the NUC.......a staffer can make the call and fix it if a few minutes, but a researching and developing a whole new uniform would be too much for just one guy.
Until we got a staffer working this....even if we had a Ask the NUC system.....we would have to wait until they were formed. In the mean time we go a set of leaders who we expect to use their best judgement to make the right call. And a system where any member can fight for what they thinks is right.
Quote from: lordmonar on July 05, 2014, 04:35:22 AM
Quote from: Panache on July 05, 2014, 04:28:58 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on July 04, 2014, 11:18:06 PM
2)Why should wing and regional commanders not be able to ax something they don't like?
But it's not just the regional commanders. It's their subordinate staff members as well.
Let's say 1st Lt. Goodguy has an idea. Now, he's supposed to follow the chain of command. So he submits it to the Deputy Commander for Seniors. That, in turn, is sent to the Squadron CC. Then it goes up to Group, and before it gets to the Group CC his assistant will evaluate it. Same for Wing. Same for Region. And so on.
All it takes is one person to say "Eh, I don't like it" and it's axed.
If Lt. Goodguy is lucky, he'll get word filtered back down to it that his submission was killed. But, more likely than not, he'll hear nothing and have no idea that it was thrown in the trash can, or why.
Lt Goodguy only needs to follow up at it goes up the chain. If he thinks he is getting stone walled or disagrees with Echelon X, he goes on up the chain.
That's a great idea, but it doesn't work. BTDT. Wing said it went to region. Region refused to answer. After several tries, went to Nat/CC. Nat/CC told Reg/CC to answer. Never heard a peep.
QuoteYou guys want your cake and to eat it too. If you really feel strongly about it....you will fight for it.
Head, Wall. Wall, Head. Play nice.
QuoteLike I said before....I don't have a real problem with a VFR direct to the NUC. I do have a problem with a suspense and record tracking requirement for it.
Assuming that such a tool was implemented....and we followed the USAF ROE....the NUC would meet once every two years and wade through all the suggestions that the uniform staff has been collecting....as well as all the stuff the uniform staff has been working on.
They would then make their recommendations to CAP/CC after routing it through CAP-USAF.
There is very little chance of any immediate feed back.
I have submitted, a few times, a suggestion for a tool to handle this in eServices, using already developed processes.
1. Member submits idea with documentation.
2. Member's Commander gets a notice of suggestion. Commander has 5 options - Approve, Approve with comments, Return for more information, Reject with comments, Do nothing.
3. Commander has two weeks to take action. If no action taken, suggestion goes to next level and member and commander are notified.
4. Repeat until suggestion reaches NHQ/DP, when procedures and timelines list in CAPM 39-1 take effect.
5. Member is notified at each step of action taken.
6. if Returned for more information, the member has two weeks to provide the information or process ends there. The updated information, when submitted, goes straight to the level that requested it, no starting over.
Quote from: abdsp51 on July 05, 2014, 04:54:46 AM
So holding people accountable for processing items and keeping folks in the loop is bad got it.
You misunderstand me. I'm pretty much on your side in all of this.
I'm all for the "Make a Suggestion to the NUC" function. And maybe even a simplified tracking system "Status: Pending / Under Review / Denied / etc." but I don't think putting a suspense date is reasonable because the NUC only gets together at set times and when they do, they're going to have to go through a lot of suggestions. While I would like to know that status of my submission, I understand that they'll get to it when they have the time to do so.
And, let's face it, pretty much anything done at NHQ moves at the speed of a glacier anyway.
One idea: a dedicated "uniform suggestion" database that you have to go through before you make your suggestion, much like the system many online tech support agencies use ("have you checked the knowledgebase for your answer yet?"). Make the member check to see if their suggestion has already been made. It'll save the NUC some time going through duplicate requests.
Quote from: abdsp51 on July 05, 2014, 04:54:46 AM
So holding people accountable for processing items and keeping folks in the loop is bad got it. Sorry adding the requirement of a suspense timeline is there to ensure people are doing what they are suppose to be doing. Membership should be kept informed on the status of the things they submit. Sorry but all it takes is one person in that chain to have a bad day or be get pissed and discourage a member because he/she followed up. It is way to easy for someone to get the run around via phone or email on something they are trying to follow up on the way you believe it should be. If there was a system in place for it to be routed, it can not be canned by anyone but the NUC and the CC and provide feedback to the member suggesting it, you would see less bickering about uniform changes and recommendations.
Not what I said. Not by a long shot.
Every leader should be providing feed back down the chain....be it a denied promotion/PD/Award/what ever.
But superiors are accountable to subordinates. :) Sorry that's just the way it is.
Adding a Suspense Time line.......implies that you in fact have a standing Uniform Office......or a group of staff officers who do that job. I know the USAF has one. Someone who has a duty to respond in X number of days.
As for "It can not be canned by anyone but the NUC" just shows that you don't trust your leaders. Maybe we should not trust them with promotions, decorations, mission planning or any of the other things they have to do.
I just don't see a suspense time line being very practical. The USAF doesn't even do that....and they got a full time staff on the Air Staff........who by the way get ridiculed by the USAF every time they come up with a new project. "we got XYZ wrong with the Air Force and these guys are coming up with the Billy Mitchel and Hap Arnold uniforms!"
Quote from: lordmonar on July 04, 2014, 11:18:06 PM
oh how does one get to be on the NUC?
This is a good point.
Honestly, I think that having the NUC staffed by solely by Colonels and Lt. Colonels isn't really the best practice here. I'm not disparaging those members, but it wouldn't be a bad idea to throw in a couple of members who have been in the organization for less time, or have a different (Squadron or Group-based) perspective. Get some fresh ideas.
Let's have some Captains or 1st Lieutenants on the NUC. Heck, maybe even a 2d Lieutenant.
Question: Did the last NUC have any NCO members?
Don't know.....but one of my ideas for the NCO corps......one of their jobs, at least initially, would be the keepers of military customs and courtesies and the Uniform Police.
So the Uniform Staff Office would be part of the CAP/CMSgt's job. He/She would not chair the NUC...but would a voting member and primary member...maybe vice chair for want of another term. He/She would handle the routine things about 39-1 that would not need to be staffed or sent to CC or NUC.
Quote from: lordmonar on July 05, 2014, 05:08:46 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on July 05, 2014, 04:54:46 AM
So holding people accountable for processing items and keeping folks in the loop is bad got it. Sorry adding the requirement of a suspense timeline is there to ensure people are doing what they are suppose to be doing. Membership should be kept informed on the status of the things they submit. Sorry but all it takes is one person in that chain to have a bad day or be get pissed and discourage a member because he/she followed up. It is way to easy for someone to get the run around via phone or email on something they are trying to follow up on the way you believe it should be. If there was a system in place for it to be routed, it can not be canned by anyone but the NUC and the CC and provide feedback to the member suggesting it, you would see less bickering about uniform changes and recommendations.
Not what I said. Not by a long shot.
Every leader should be providing feed back down the chain....be it a denied promotion/PD/Award/what ever.
But superiors are accountable to subordinates. :) Sorry that's just the way it is.
Adding a Suspense Time line.......implies that you in fact have a standing Uniform Office......or a group of staff officers who do that job. I know the USAF has one. Someone who has a duty to respond in X number of days.
As for "It can not be canned by anyone but the NUC" just shows that you don't trust your leaders. Maybe we should not trust them with promotions, decorations, mission planning or any of the other things they have to do.
I just don't see a suspense time line being very practical. The USAF doesn't even do that....and they got a full time staff on the Air Staff........who by the way get ridiculed by the USAF every time they come up with a new project. "we got XYZ wrong with the Air Force and these guys are coming up with the Billy Mitchel and Hap Arnold uniforms!"
MSgt Harris, I have been in long enough to not trust them especially after giving multiple supervisors, etc the benefit of the doubt. And that was also with plenty of follow up on my part, there is trust and then trust but verify. I give every new supervisor, superintendent, OIC, etc the benefit of the doubt until they show otherwise. I don't believe in blind trust and haven't for awhile. I follow up on anything that impacts my career both in my day job and here in CAP.
What I mean by suspense with the NUC is that it cannot sit at any stage between the member and the NUC for a period of time. In other words it can't sit at group, wing or region for longer than x days. If it does then it's sent up higher, once it hits the NUC then its a matter of when they convene and lets face it they need to convene more often than xx years.
Arajca has spelled out a system that my own CC had come up with along the lines when I first mentioned this. The only thing I would remove is the reject aspect.
Maybe if there were steps and measures in place for leadership, programs, processes, etc to be held accountable by the membership the org would function much better than it does.
The key is accountability, something woefully lacking in CAP.
The unit CC doesn't want to be bothered, so he says "it's Group's fault", Group blames Wing, and Wing just doesn't respond.
(Odd how Region is rarely in the conversations, isn't it?).
Companies actually interested in customer service can give you real-time status on the product - Dominios shows
you where the "pizza" is, Amazon gives you updates on the whole process.
A system that requires and shows the step-by-step status of "whatever" is what is needed in CAP
to reel in the blame game.
That, again, would put the onus on the unit CCs. Commander would still be free to accept and pas-forward,
or deny things as they saw fit, but would have no way to blame others for the denials, and would then
have to deal with the members directly.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 05, 2014, 03:42:11 PM
A system that requires and shows the step-by-step status of "whatever" is what is needed in CAP
to reel in the blame game.
Give me one week, a supply of Tim Horton's Coffee, and some pizza, and I can build this in Google Apps using Google Forms at a sum total cost of...let me see...carry the one...ZERO.
Unfortunately, the Echelons-Above-Reality won't accept it unless they pay some consultant at least 5 figures to do it. Were a volunteer to do it, it would get caught up in the "not-invented-here" syndrome and die a painful death as various people would specifically engineer systems to prevent the volunteer-developed, free, system from functioning.
^ That right there.
(http://www.dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/200000/20000/4000/300/224312/224312.strip.gif)
(http://www.dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/200000/20000/1000/300/221323/221323.strip.sunday.gif)
Quote from: Panache on July 05, 2014, 05:14:16 AM
Honestly, I think that having the NUC staffed by solely by Colonels and Lt. Colonels isn't really the best practice here.
Dare I say GOB/GN?
Quote from: CyBorg on July 06, 2014, 01:23:55 AMDare I say GOB/GN?
The
Good Old Boy Network is designed to let those with power give their friends desired positions.
Who on earth would punish a friend by putting them on the National Uniform Committee?
Quote from: Fubar on July 06, 2014, 10:13:37 PM
Quote from: CyBorg on July 06, 2014, 01:23:55 AMDare I say GOB/GN?
The Good Old Boy Network is designed to let those with power give their friends desired positions.
Who on earth would punish a friend by putting them on the National Uniform Committee?
Well......sometime the GOBN also let those with power punish those they don't like. >:D
But yes......who in their right mind would want to be on the NUC......and admit it to the general public?
Can you imagine getting blamed for all the BS we complain about here on CT as if it was their (sole) fault?
Just look at some of the comments made about axing the U.S. Flag.
And that was a simple no braining......the USAF does not wear a flag on their ABU/BDU uniform. But there have been threats and accusations about their patriotism.
Cyborg and the G/W haters think that they are discriminating against them.....but they were not even empowered to make changes to the G/W......just to fix the discrepancies between the rules for the G/W and USAF uniform.
If I ever got asked to sit on the NUC......I would be very careful about who I told.
Quote from: lordmonar on July 06, 2014, 10:22:54 PM
Cyborg and the G/W haters think that they are discriminating against them.....but they were not even empowered to make changes to the G/W......just to fix the discrepancies between the rules for the G/W and USAF uniform.
Discrimination? No. Hate the G/W? Proudly guilty.
What "discrepancies" were there? What was changed? The G/W is the same status quo that it has been since 1995.
Quote from: CyBorg on July 06, 2014, 10:44:15 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on July 06, 2014, 10:22:54 PM
Cyborg and the G/W haters think that they are discriminating against them.....but they were not even empowered to make changes to the G/W......just to fix the discrepancies between the rules for the G/W and USAF uniform.
Discrimination? No. Hate the G/W? Proudly guilty.
What "discrepancies" were there? What was changed? The G/W is the same status quo that it has been since 1995.
Sorry if I put you in with the "It's discrimination" crowd.
but your follow up makes my point......you only focus on the "sorry you can't wear USAF uniforms" and that's not what the NUC was formed to tackle.
The discrepancies like badge placement, differences between the USAF short sleeve shirt and the White Shirt.
That was as far as they were supposed to go.
They were supposed to bring in the ABU but that got axed. It must be very frustrating to be on the NUC.
All Cadets: AF style uniform
All Seniors: Corporate style (not necessarily GWs, we can design/discuss alternatives)
This would result in uniformity!
Suspense dates are unreasonable; acknowledgment of receiving suggestion would be a step in the right direction.
No uniformity is possible if cadets are wearing one uniform and senior members another!!!!!!!!
D'uh!!!!!!!!!!!! :o
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on July 07, 2014, 03:00:08 AM
No uniformity is possible if cadets are wearing one uniform and senior members another!!!!!!!!
D'uh!!!!!!!!!!!! :o
But it's a whole lot closer than what we have now.
Quote from: lordmonar on July 05, 2014, 05:20:12 AM
Don't know.....but one of my ideas for the NCO corps......one of their jobs, at least initially, would be the keepers of military customs and courtesies and the Uniform Police.
So the Uniform Staff Office would be part of the CAP/CMSgt's job. He/She would not chair the NUC...but would a voting member and primary member...maybe vice chair for want of another term. He/She would handle the routine things about 39-1 that would not need to be staffed or sent to CC or NUC.
What qualifies NCOs to be better "keepers of military customs and courtesies and the Uniform Police" than commissioned officers? Having been an NCO and currently a commissioned officer, I know that unless the NCO was a MTI, MTL, first sergeant, recruiter, honor guard or similar, that being an NCO in itself does not guarantee that they're more knowledgable, experienced or better in customs and courtesies and proper uniform wear. In fact, some of the biggest culprits I've encounter in CAP regarding unauthorized military badges and/or incorrect placement on the uniform are former NCOs.
Nothing.....no insult was intended.
My point was that uniforms and C&C would be the initial job for the CAP NCO corps.....as we expand the NCO/Enlisted concept in CAP.
Quote from: lordmonar on July 07, 2014, 04:32:06 AM
Nothing.....no insult was intended.
My point was that uniforms and C&C would be the initial job for the CAP NCO corps.....as we expand the NCO/Enlisted concept in CAP.
I didn't take it as an insult. I was asking an honest question. I think some NCOs are really good at these things (C&C, D&C, uniforms, etc.), but I also know many who aren't. The same goes for officers.
Unless referring to cadets, I don't agree that this should be one of the roles of CAP NCOs. This is ultimately the commander's responsibility and any senior officer can and should assume an active role in this. Furthermore, if the CAP NCO program expands to include non-prior service members, then a brand new CAP SSgt wouldn't be much different from a current CAP 2d Lt or FO, which, for the most part, are not knowledgable or experienced enough in these areas to be able to assume the role you suggest.
Everything is ultimatly the commander's responsiblity.
He has a staff to do different jobs within his area of responsbility.
Safety to a safety officer.
PD to the PD officer
Cadets to the DCC
Etc, and so on.
Your statement that some are good at one thing and others are not.....I agree with.
If my idea of NCO's taking on the role of keepers of the military heritage and traditions takes shape.....we would have ways to teach non-prior NCO's how to do it.
Who are the current go to subject matter experts on all things uniform and drill? Cadets. Uniforms and C&C's are teachable skills.
Yet they will have to deal with some grown men egos...
Quote from: lordmonar on July 07, 2014, 04:56:43 AM
Everything is ultimatly the commander's responsiblity.
He has a staff to do different jobs within his area of responsbility.
Safety to a safety officer.
PD to the PD officer
Cadets to the DCC
Etc, and so on.
Your statement that some are good at one thing and others are not.....I agree with.
If my idea of NCO's taking on the role of keepers of the military heritage and traditions takes shape.....we would have ways to teach non-prior NCO's how to do it.
Who are the current go to subject matter experts on all things uniform and drill? Cadets. Uniforms and C&C's are teachable skills.
I'm one to always follow CAPM 39-1 to the letter when it comes to my uniform. When There's been a gray area or something unclear in the past, I've consulted through the chain of command or asked the question through the CAP Knowledgebase. Even then, I've always opted for the most conservative interpretation of CAPM 39-1.
All that said, once in a while, I get a Maj or Lt Col question me about something in my uniform (usually they have theirs wrong), but I'm always able to point to CAPM 39-1, an ICL or a wing supplement. The first time a brand new SSgt try to do the same, things will get "interesting", to say the least.
Don't get me wrong, I think EVERYONE is responsible for proper uniform wear. But I still don't think that a brand new SSgt has any business being the "uniform police" when he/she may still be learning how to wear his/her own uniform.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 07, 2014, 01:39:38 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on July 07, 2014, 04:56:43 AM
Everything is ultimatly the commander's responsiblity.
He has a staff to do different jobs within his area of responsbility.
Safety to a safety officer.
PD to the PD officer
Cadets to the DCC
Etc, and so on.
Your statement that some are good at one thing and others are not.....I agree with.
If my idea of NCO's taking on the role of keepers of the military heritage and traditions takes shape.....we would have ways to teach non-prior NCO's how to do it.
Who are the current go to subject matter experts on all things uniform and drill? Cadets. Uniforms and C&C's are teachable skills.
I'm one to always follow CAPM 39-1 to the letter when it comes to my uniform. When There's been a gray area or something unclear in the past, I've consulted through the chain of command or asked the question through the CAP Knowledgebase. Even then, I've always opted for the most conservative interpretation of CAPM 39-1.
All that said, once in a while, I get a Maj or Lt Col question me about something in my uniform (usually they have theirs wrong), but I'm always able to point to CAPM 39-1, an ICL or a wing supplement. The first time a brand new SSgt try to do the same, things will get "interesting", to say the least.
Don't get me wrong, I think EVERYONE is responsible for proper uniform wear. But I still don't think that a brand new SSgt has any business being the "uniform police" when he/she may still be learning how to wear his/her own uniform.
You always will win when you can cite the reg in question. Bonus points for the exact paragraph, table or figure. >:D
But seriously, it's not that hard to look up this stuff these days. A smartphone is today's regulations file cabinet.
Quote from: PHall on July 07, 2014, 01:50:13 PM
You always will win when you can cite the reg in question. Bonus points for the exact paragraph, table or figure. >:D
But seriously, it's not that hard to look up this stuff these days. A smartphone is today's regulations file cabinet.
That's so true. I keep all the regs in my iPhone and iPad. They come handy all the time.
Suspense dates are there to move things along and improve the current process. It would also show who's doing their job and who isn't.
Quote from: abdsp51 on July 07, 2014, 05:25:06 PM
Suspense dates are there to move things along and improve the current process. It would also show who's doing their job and who isn't.
They're also there so you can plan ahead and schedule your work.
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on July 07, 2014, 03:00:08 AM
No uniformity is possible if cadets are wearing one uniform and senior members another!!!!!!!!
D'uh!!!!!!!!!!!! :o
Really?
So the U.S. military academies, where cadets or midshipman wear a customized uniform, while active duty personnel (equivalent to CAP seniors in this analogy)
wear their service's prescribed uniform, lack "uniformity"?
I'm proposing basically the same approach, only reversed, for various reasons -- cadets wear the parent service's uniform, seniors wear the specially designed one.
A fallacy. We are not the US Military Academy. But back to your analogy of the US Military Academy. Are you telling me the cadets do not wear the same uniform in the field? The active military there wear the ACU and the cadets wear... what? When they go to the field? I thought they wore the ACU as well.
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on July 07, 2014, 11:34:34 PM
A fallacy. We are not the US Military Academy. But back to your analogy of the US Military Academy. Are you telling me the cadets do not wear the same uniform in the field? The active military there wear the ACU and the cadets wear... what? When they go to the field? I thought they wore the ACU as well.
The problem is that, unlike the service academies and ROTC, most senior members are not active duty, reserve or retired personnel; they're civilians. Many don't meet grooming or weight standards imposed by our parent service. That's a fact, whether we like it or not. And since it's very unlikely that the U.S. Air Force will ever authorize the wear of their uniform for personnel not meeting this standard, the only viable option to eliminate the perception of a "second class" membership is to adopt a single corporate uniform that everyone can wear.
The only alternative to that would be to improve the current corporate uniform while also keeping the Air Force-style uniform. That would alleviate, but not resolve the current dilemma; we have some members with uniform options and others without.
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on July 07, 2014, 11:34:34 PM
A fallacy. We are not the US Military Academy.
We are also not RealMilitary™, so that point is moot.
Quote from: Panache on July 08, 2014, 04:15:36 AM
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on July 07, 2014, 11:34:34 PM
A fallacy. We are not the US Military Academy.
We are also not RealMilitary™, so that point is moot.
Some would argue that West Point isn't either.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on July 07, 2014, 11:06:51 PM
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on July 07, 2014, 03:00:08 AM
No uniformity is possible if cadets are wearing one uniform and senior members another!!!!!!!!
D'uh!!!!!!!!!!!! :o
Really?
So the U.S. military academies, where cadets or midshipman wear a customized uniform, while active duty personnel (equivalent to CAP seniors in this analogy)
wear their service's prescribed uniform, lack "uniformity"?
I'm proposing basically the same approach, only reversed, for various reasons -- cadets wear the parent service's uniform, seniors wear the specially designed one.
I'm getting so tired of this debate.. Service academies are unique in terms of uniforms that are based on history and tradition.
We are not.
Previously senior members who didn't meet the standard were limited to a polo shirt, a blazer uniform or a white shirt with only a name tag. This whole mess started when some senior members (who didn't comply with the accepted standard) opted for a custom uniform so they could wear all of the bling.
Being a member of this organization is expensive enough and Cadets generally laugh at senior members enough already because of the lack of self discipline that results in these constant debates and pushes for s whole assortment of uniforms.
Can't we show some pride within our selves and agree to disagree or take the high road and conform to a standard. After all, the standard relates to a healthy life style.
Can we stop making excuses or debate exceptions to policy. Let the unit commander determine when there will be an exception to policy.
Years ago, the first sergeant of the Combat Support Squadron at my AF Reserve base was redlined at a drill and then processed for retirement because he didn't meet the weight standard. He was a senior master sergeant hoping to serve until age 60 in order to obtain the maximum points for retirement. Instead, he was cut short with only 20 years service. I remember his big argument at the time was that if he lost weight to conform to standards, he would have to go out and purchase a whole new wardrobe. Funny how some people justify sacking a career.
We are volunteers and we have been given a special privilege to wear an Air Force uniform with unique insignia. If you don't want to comply with the accepted standard, just wear a polo shirt or blazer.
QuoteFrom Panache
Some would argue that West Point isn't either.
QuoteFrom PHall
We are also not RealMilitary™, so that point is moot.
These two messages gives more weight to my response. CAP is not a Military Academy, so do not compare both!
With that argument, CAP should not wear a military uniform as CAP is not a military service.
Not true. It can if it is treated as the Civilian Auxiliary of the United States Air Force.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 08, 2014, 02:33:19 PM
With that argument, CAP should not wear a military uniform as CAP is not a military service.
CAP does not wear a "military" uniform, it wears a "military-
style" uniform.
Quote from: flyboy1 on July 08, 2014, 11:22:56 AM
Quote from: ZigZag911 on July 07, 2014, 11:06:51 PM
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on July 07, 2014, 03:00:08 AM
No uniformity is possible if cadets are wearing one uniform and senior members another!!!!!!!!
D'uh!!!!!!!!!!!! :o
Really?
So the U.S. military academies, where cadets or midshipman wear a customized uniform, while active duty personnel (equivalent to CAP seniors in this analogy)
wear their service's prescribed uniform, lack "uniformity"?
I'm proposing basically the same approach, only reversed, for various reasons -- cadets wear the parent service's uniform, seniors wear the specially designed one.
I'm getting so tired of this debate.. Service academies are unique in terms of uniforms that are based on history and tradition.
We are not.
Previously senior members who didn't meet the standard were limited to a polo shirt, a blazer uniform or a white shirt with only a name tag. This whole mess started when some senior members (who didn't comply with the accepted standard) opted for a custom uniform so they could wear all of the bling.
Being a member of this organization is expensive enough and Cadets generally laugh at senior members enough already because of the lack of self discipline that results in these constant debates and pushes for s whole assortment of uniforms.
Can't we show some pride within our selves and agree to disagree or take the high road and conform to a standard. After all, the standard relates to a healthy life style.
Can we stop making excuses or debate exceptions to policy. Let the unit commander determine when there will be an exception to policy.
Years ago, the first sergeant of the Combat Support Squadron at my AF Reserve base was redlined at a drill and then processed for retirement because he didn't meet the weight standard. He was a senior master sergeant hoping to serve until age 60 in order to obtain the maximum points for retirement. Instead, he was cut short with only 20 years service. I remember his big argument at the time was that if he lost weight to conform to standards, he would have to go out and purchase a whole new wardrobe. Funny how some people justify sacking a career.
We are volunteers and we have been given a special privilege to wear an Air Force uniform with unique insignia. If you don't want to comply with the accepted standard, just wear a polo shirt or blazer.
Wow. Just wow.
I was going to quote out specific points, but the whole post should stand as an example of all that is wrong with the debate
and discussion, not to mention the attitude of many members.
"Conform to the standard."
No acknowledgement that the standard is unreasonable based on the membership demographic.
No acknowledgment of the detriment to spirit and initiative that having two uniform classes for members
who are otherwise 100% equal causes.
"We are volunteers..." That's funny. So do those who "meet the standard" qualify as "Volunteer+?"
Are their hours and time more valuable then those who don't? Are they more deserving of the decorations
they have received to the point that the world needs to see them displayed, vs. never being worn?
I'm as staunch an advocate of "shut up and color" as anyone else, but even that
has limits when the leadership charged with enforcing the rules ignores them either themselves, or in their subordinates.
CAP accepts the hard work and effort of its members equally, and should recognize their service and commitment, equally,
or at the very least respect that service and commitment by enforcing its policies and regulations equally.
Until then, this "just wear the golf shirt" can...well...you get the idea.
Guys... enough of this urinary prowess audition for the fire department! The decision's already been made; many of us don't like it but we need to 'salute and execute'.
The promise of the late, lamented blue Corporate Sevice Uniform and its flawed adoption - and likewise its sudden rescission - is a lesson all of us - including the echelons above reality - should learn; while there are some excellent ideas for a more military look presented here the corporatists at Building 714 at Max-hell ain't going to budge. And Ma Blue isn't relaxing the standards for wear of their uniform.
When I wear the corporate grays I do my best to try and make it look as close to the AF-style as possible; wearing an aviator shirt with mitered/pleated pockets the same style as the blue service uniform Class B shirt and flat-front medium gray trousers as close to the gray shade of the epaulets. It's not going to be absolutely perfect but at least I look somewhat uniform. YMMV.
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on July 08, 2014, 04:07:57 PM
Guys... enough of this urinary prowess audition for the fire department! The decision's already been made; many of us don't like it but we need to 'salute and execute'.
The promise of the late, lamented blue Corporate Sevice Uniform and its flawed adoption - and likewise its sudden rescission - is a lesson all of us - including the echelons above reality - should learn; while there are some excellent ideas for a more military look presented here the corporatists at Building 714 at Max-hell ain't going to budge. And Ma Blue isn't relaxing the standards for wear of their uniform.
When I wear the corporate grays I do my best to try and make it look as close to the AF-style as possible; wearing an aviator shirt with mitered/pleated pockets the same style as the blue service uniform Class B shirt and flat-front medium gray trousers as close to the gray shade of the epaulets. It's not going to be absolutely perfect but at least I look somewhat uniform. YMMV.
You do know you're going to be burned at the stake for this, right?
Heretic... ;)
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on July 08, 2014, 04:07:57 PM
Guys... enough of this urinary prowess audition for the fire department! The decision's already been made; many of us don't like it but we need to 'salute and execute'.
"Saluting and Executing" doesn't mean you can't also
whine and complain work towards a solution.
Also "S&E" doesn't account for the fact that people have the option to "Salute and Leave".
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on July 08, 2014, 04:07:57 PM
the corporatists at Building 714 at Max-hell ain't going to budge.
Chuck,
I know that you were using a figure of speech here, but it is worth reminding folks that
no one who works in Building 714 at Maxwell have a vote or a say about CAP uniforms. None of them are commanders, members of the CC, SAG, or a voting member of the NUC. Heck, they don't even wear CAP uniforms.
All uniform decisions are made by CAP volunteers. Members just like you and me, who pay dues and have to wear the uniform while performing our duties.
There really isn't a "us" versus "them" here. There is only "us." We are all "corporatists."
And the reason that there isn't a good consensus about CAP uniforms is that there will never, ever, be a consensus as long as we all humans with different opinions about what looks "better," "more professional," or is more "respectful" of our diverse membership.
(Never, ever.)
So we continue to talk about it. Sometimes rationally. Sometimes emotionally.
But we sure talk about it.
How about consensus on enforcement?
Like say not handing a flag to a new Wing CC that is clearly out of compliance?
Quote from: Eclipse on July 08, 2014, 05:09:26 PM
How about consensus on enforcement?
Like say not handing a flag to a new Wing CC that is clearly out of compliance?
No argument there.
There's no data, of course, but my experience suggests that overall the senior leadership is at least as good, if not better, than local leadership when it comes to enforcement.
But we all agree that every one of us should follow the rules, and help others to do so.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 08, 2014, 03:06:15 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 08, 2014, 02:33:19 PM
With that argument, CAP should not wear a military uniform as CAP is not a military service.
CAP does not wear a "military" uniform, it wears a "military-style" uniform.
That's just semantics. Our blue service uniform IS the same Air Force service uniform with CAP specific insignias. And until the ABU was adopted [by the Air Force], so was the BDU.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 08, 2014, 05:32:45 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 08, 2014, 03:06:15 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 08, 2014, 02:33:19 PM
With that argument, CAP should not wear a military uniform as CAP is not a military service.
CAP does not wear a "military" uniform, it wears a "military-style" uniform.
That's just semantics. Our blue service uniform IS the same Air Force service uniform with CAP specific insignias. And until the ABU was adopted, so was the BDU.
Wait....what? We are wearing ABUs now? Are we in the same organization???? :o
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on July 08, 2014, 02:52:09 PM
Not true. It can if it is treated as the Civilian Auxiliary of the United States Air Force.
Really? So a civilian Air Force Auxiliary MUST be allowed to wear the Air Force-style uniform, but the Air Force Academy can't? I'm sorry, but that's a weak argument.
Quote from: Garibaldi on July 08, 2014, 05:37:45 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 08, 2014, 05:32:45 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 08, 2014, 03:06:15 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 08, 2014, 02:33:19 PM
With that argument, CAP should not wear a military uniform as CAP is not a military service.
CAP does not wear a "military" uniform, it wears a "military-style" uniform.
That's just semantics. Our blue service uniform IS the same Air Force service uniform with CAP specific insignias. And until the ABU was adopted, so was the BDU.
Wait....what? We are wearing ABUs now? Are we in the same organization???? :o
Clarified the statement above for those who had trouble understanding. ;)
Quote from: Ned on July 08, 2014, 04:41:54 PM
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on July 08, 2014, 04:07:57 PM
the corporatists at Building 714 at Max-hell ain't going to budge.
Chuck,
I know that you were using a figure of speech here, but it is worth reminding folks that no one who works in Building 714 at Maxwell have a vote or a say about CAP uniforms. None of them are commanders, members of the CC, SAG, or a voting member of the NUC. Heck, they don't even wear CAP uniforms.
All uniform decisions are made by CAP volunteers. Members just like you and me, who pay dues and have to wear the uniform while performing our duties.
There really isn't a "us" versus "them" here. There is only "us." We are all "corporatists."
And the reason that there isn't a good consensus about CAP uniforms is that there will never, ever, be a consensus as long as we all humans with different opinions about what looks "better," "more professional," or is more "respectful" of our diverse membership.
(Never, ever.)
So we continue to talk about it. Sometimes rationally. Sometimes emotionally.
But we sure talk about it.
I stand corrected, sir...
Quote from: Ned on July 08, 2014, 05:31:41 PMNo argument there.
There's no data, of course, but my experience suggests that overall the senior leadership is at least as good, if not better, than local leadership when it comes to enforcement.
But we all agree that every one of us should follow the rules, and help others to do so.
There's plenty of photos, many posted by NHQ.
When the senior leadership hands a flag or award to someone out of compliance, and then worse,
NHQ posts the photos, the real message is "no one actually cares".
A good start would be refusing to post any photo which shows people that are clearly out of compliance.
More
fun would be a requirement that a caption call out the offender.
The fix is they don't get the award or the flag, etc.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 08, 2014, 05:49:25 PM
A good start would be refusing to post any photo which shows people that are clearly out of compliance.
We've tried that, of course. It was an unmitigated failure.
There was a (relatively brief) period of time when our CAP national media (which was pretty much just the newspaper at that point) tried not to publish any photos that showed members wearing their uniforms incorrectly. Which included h/w and grooming, of course, but also discrepancies with badges, ribbons, insignia, etc.
The net result was that there were almost no "acceptable" photos available, and much sharpshooting and discussion of pictures that were published.
And no shortage of discussions on the old CAPTALK reflector about how members "couldn't even wear their uniforms correctly" and almost no discussion about the very real accomplishments of hard-working members depicted therein. It seemed that we would much rather harp on tiny errors in uniform wear than congratulate and admire members for their successes.
I'm sure you remember the long threads here and on CadetStuff that absolutely ridiculed otherwise good people based on photos posted on line. Dog-piling and sharpshooting became the norm, even for members who could not defend themselves or explain a situation.
Restated, then -- as now -- we are in serious danger of being "penny wise and pound foolish" when it comes to uniform wear.
I had a wing commander back in the early '90s that must've had his Air Force-style uniform custom-made, as there's no way AAFES could've carry his size. Thanks to several "generous" donations he made to CAP, he rose from 2d Lt to Lt Col and then Col within a couple of years without military background or special skills. He also had a very large rack of ribbons; very unlikely for someone who hadn't been a member for long. He obviously didn't meet the weight standard, but everyone looked the other way. Of course, that was over 20 years ago.
Quote from: Ned on July 08, 2014, 06:15:45 PM
The net result was that there were almost no "acceptable" photos available, and much sharpshooting and discussion of pictures that were published.
That is sad indeed and a symptom of a larger and serious problem in our organization.
Quote from: Ned on July 08, 2014, 06:15:45 PM
The net result was that there were almost no "acceptable" photos available, and much sharpshooting and discussion of pictures that were published.
Then what more "evidence" does anyone need that this is a serious problem?
Or, conversely, >not< a problem because no one cares enough to fix it.
Apparently
literally no one.
So we could move the other way and stop caring and still end those conversations.
If NHQ's answers is "too hard", how can there be an expectation anyone else will care?
QuoteFrom Eclipse...
If NHQ's answers is "too hard", how can there be an expectation anyone else will care?
...or be able to enforce...?
Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 08, 2014, 06:20:18 PM
Quote from: Ned on July 08, 2014, 06:15:45 PM
The net result was that there were almost no "acceptable" photos available, and much sharpshooting and discussion of pictures that were published.
That is sad indeed and a symptom of a larger and serious problem in our organization.
And, for me, it brings the "take care of the splinter in your own eye" and "clean up your own side of the street" imagery to mind.
But the fact is the fact is the fact: the current "corporate" uniforms are not in any way equivalent to the AF type uniforms.
Leaving out my well-known personal opinion that they are bog-ugly, the following are nonetheless salient facts:
There is no authorised headdress, and I do not count Larry The Cable Guy style "trucker hats" imprinted with a CAP logo.
There is no service coat or way to display one's earned CAP decorations in a manner similar to the service coat. I do not count the token "one-mini-medal-at-a-time."
This burns my logic circuits since there
are direct equivalents to virtually all the other uniforms:
BDU - BBDU. Check.
Green flight suit - Blue flight suit. Check.
The phrase that comes to mind is "separate but unequal."
Incidentally...we are not alone when it comes to improper wear of uniforms. Check this site from JeffDG's homeland.
http://wearingyourmedalswrong.blogspot.com/ (http://wearingyourmedalswrong.blogspot.com/)
Quote from: Eclipse on July 08, 2014, 06:44:03 PM
Then what more "evidence" does anyone need that this is a serious problem?
Oh, I quite agree. When nitpicking on uniforms clouds proper recognition of members' successes and takes focus from our missions, clearly things have gone too far. It is indeed a serious problem.
Reflected right here on CT where we spend far more time discussing uniforms than missions or members.
(That's what you meant, right?)
If you were trying to make some sort of comment about how local commanders are not doing enough to enforce uniform standards, I was initially inclined to agree with you.
But then I remembered how successful you were as a commander and I am reassured that our commanders have all the tools and guidance they need to accomplish their responsibilities.
If your point was something to effect that "Although NHQ has clearly articulated the standards (39-1) and clearly fixed the responsibility on commanders (and members) to ensure the proper wear of the uniforms, they need to tell us again -- maybe louder or something -- to make us do our jobs. 'Cuz otherwise we won't. And it's their fault that we are not doing our jobs here at the squadron," then I really don't have a response that will satisfy you.
I'm sure you're not surprised.
Quote from: Ned on July 08, 2014, 09:07:03 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 08, 2014, 06:44:03 PM
Then what more "evidence" does anyone need that this is a serious problem?
Oh, I quite agree. When nitpicking on uniforms clouds proper recognition of members' successes and takes focus from our missions, clearly things have gone too far. It is indeed a serious problem.
Reflected right here on CT where we spend far more time discussing uniforms than missions or members.
(That's what you meant, right?)
If you were trying to make some sort of comment about how local commanders are not doing enough to enforce uniform standards, I was initially inclined to agree with you.
But then I remembered how successful you were as a commander and I am reassured that our commanders have all the tools and guidance they need to accomplish their responsibilities.
If your point was something to effect that "Although NHQ has clearly articulated the standards (39-1) and clearly fixed the responsibility on commanders (and members) to ensure the proper wear of the uniforms, they need to tell us again -- maybe louder or something -- to make us do our jobs. 'Cuz otherwise we won't. And it's their fault that we are not doing our jobs here at the squadron," then I really don't have a response that will satisfy you.
I'm sure you're not surprised.
I think that National publishing a manual is great, but when you see photos, go to conferences, etc at the Wing, Region and National level where people are improperly wearing the AF style uniforms and there is no enforcement by these luminaries, that's the problem. If higher echelons of command will not enforce the regulations, how can they expect the CC of Podunk squadron which is having a hard time just getting enough members (of both genders) support their overnight activities enforce them? Leadership on this issue needs to come from the top, if a Wing Commander is at a Wing conference and sees someone outside the guidelines, he needs to correct it, then and there and have the person change or go home. If we had that kind of leadership, you wouldn't be able to find so many pictures of people at official events in violation of the regs.
Quote from: Alaric on July 08, 2014, 09:15:54 PM
if a Wing Commander is at a Wing conference and sees someone outside the guidelines, he needs to correct it, then and there and have the person change or go home.
We mostly agree on this (assuming you can accept a woman as wing commander and the notion that there may be other options besides "fix it or go home.")
Again, commanders at all level share the responsibility with individual members to ensure the proper wearing of the uniform. As a practical matter, that means that local commanders have the lion's share of work to do, since something like 95% of the members are at the squadron level.
I know that when my uniform has a glitch, I genuinely appreciate someone quietly touching my elbow and giving me a clue. For some reason, not all the members apparently feel the same way.
Quote from: Ned on July 08, 2014, 06:15:45 PMIt seemed that we would much rather harp on tiny errors in uniform wear than congratulate and admire members for their successes.
Again, you keep trying to minimize this to people not using a micrometer for their badge placement, as if that was the real problem,
it isn't. The problem is people ignoring the weight tables as if they didn't apply.
We should not be lauding people's success if they can't even follow these basic rules. Those people don't deserve a flag or a dec,
they should be considered for termination, not admiration.
Quote from: Ned on July 08, 2014, 09:32:21 PM
Quote from: Alaric on July 08, 2014, 09:15:54 PM
if a Wing Commander is at a Wing conference and sees someone outside the guidelines, he needs to correct it, then and there and have the person change or go home.
We mostly agree on this (assuming you can accept a woman as wing commander and the notion that there may be other options besides "fix it or go home.")
Again, commanders at all level share the responsibility with individual members to ensure the proper wearing of the uniform. As a practical matter, that means that local commanders have the lion's share of work to do, since something like 95% of the members are at the squadron level.
I know that when my uniform has a glitch, I genuinely appreciate someone quietly touching my elbow and giving me a clue. For some reason, not all the members apparently feel the same way.
A glitch? Why are you trying to minimize this issue as if this was 1982 and we couldn't just pull up 10 photos with
no effort that demonstrate the issue? There have been photos with this problem
this week.
We're not talking about "glitches", are we? We're talking about National, Regional, and Wing CCs handing flags and awards to
people who are clearly, from 50k feet, not even close to being in weight, and usually surrounded by supporting staff in the same situation.
This is not a "Unit CC's" problem when it is ignored by the leadership, whether local or national. People emulate the example,
and do the least required, most painful (when ignored) thing they have to do, unless you have some way to abrogate human nature
because it fits the assertion.
If there was some way to tie this to donations, or a lawyer woke up and felt it was causing some risk to
the corporation or the USAF financially, it would be fixed THAT DAY, but because this causes "soft cost"
to our reputation, incentive and the fix might make people sad, it's ignored and marginalized.
We get that you, personally, are probably just as concerned as we are, and would press more if you could, fair
enough, but it's not cricket to make this a local problem when the national example is the opposite of the
behavior sought.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 08, 2014, 10:26:14 PM
This is not a "Unit CC's" problem when it is ignored by the leadership, whether local or national. People emulate the example,
and do the least required, most painful (when ignored) thing they have to do, unless you have some way to abrogate human nature
because it fits the assertion.
Bob, we know that isn't true, and
you yourself are the proof of it.
You didn't shirk your duties even when you thought that others above you in the chain were perhaps not as diligent.
You had those "difficult conversations" when necessary.
Why do you think your fellow commanders are somehow more easily discouraged than you?
Is it possible that you are letting your "post command" cynicism color your views?
Storm-
Quoteby Storm.
Really? So a civilian Air Force Auxiliary MUST be allowed to wear the Air Force-style uniform, but the Air Force Academy can't? I'm sorry, but that's a weak argument.
Re-read the entire thread. I am not the one proposing different treatment for cadets and senior members.
Nor did I started this part of the discussion. As to your specific question,
yes!!! If the service academies decide their cadets should not wear the military-style uniform,
it is on them and their officers. That is why I keep saying the CAP is not the real military, nor it is a service academy.
Different organization, different procedures.
Zigzag was the one that suggested military-style uniforms for cadets, other for seniors.
Quote from: Ned on July 08, 2014, 10:52:32 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 08, 2014, 10:26:14 PM
This is not a "Unit CC's" problem when it is ignored by the leadership, whether local or national. People emulate the example,
and do the least required, most painful (when ignored) thing they have to do, unless you have some way to abrogate human nature
because it fits the assertion.
Bob, we know that isn't true, and you yourself are the proof of it.
You didn't shirk your duties even when you thought that others above you in the chain were perhaps not as diligent.
You had those "difficult conversations" when necessary.
Why do you think your fellow commanders are somehow more easily discouraged than you?
Is it possible that you are letting your "post command" cynicism color your views?
Seriously? You're going to assert that people >don't< emulate the example? That people don't drop
to LCD, especially when they know nothing else and no one around them cares? Have you read most
of the time-wasting, ticket-punching SUI and CI reports? I have. One big cluster of no one really
cares as long as we know where the planes are and the money is.
How about we >not< make every conversation where you run out of gas about the two people
talking and address the actual subject?
I don't know >why< a significant part of our leadership, including wing, region, and national
staffers choose to forgo enforcement and just let things go. I didn't. I don't. I can't fix the whole organization,
not that I haven't tried.
The response you get is everything from "Lighten up" to "Why do you care?" Tinged with "mind your own business."
and the cherry on top of "Who made you king?" I fixed the things I could and watched around me as the
foundations I laid were eroded by people with personal agendas and nearsightedness.
That doesn't address the issue, nor does deflection fix anything.
The only thing that fixes a systemic problem is someone with the authority putting a stake in the ground
and saying "no mas!", followed up by reminders and reminders and reminders and reminders.
What CAP needs are stake holders becoming stake drivers
®.
"stake holders becoming stake drivers®" is a registered trademark of eClipseco Mining and Heavy Machinery Consortium. All Rights Reserved. Let eClipseco service all of your rhetoric and propaganda needs!
Which is why I have the items listed that that I do. It would provide written policy and give commanders written grounds to take action. You don't want to weigh in, you DON'T wear AF style uniforms and you DON'T fly if your A/C. You won't meet a suspense with a uniform recommendation then you'll be noticed. A CC at any level doesn't want to enforce policy you're gone period.
While we are all volunteers yes and time, dedication and effort should be recognized and appreciated if you can't or won't adhere to simple guidelines and standards, you don't need to be flying, being a commander etc.
Putting policy out in clear speak, get rid of the excess, and giving commanders and memtbership something solid to stand on will go a long way to fixing our issues. Also by taking action on those who don't comply will go along way to improving our image and our credibility with other agencies.
Quote from: Ned on July 08, 2014, 09:32:21 PM
Quote from: Alaric on July 08, 2014, 09:15:54 PM
if a Wing Commander is at a Wing conference and sees someone outside the guidelines, he needs to correct it, then and there and have the person change or go home.
We mostly agree on this (assuming you can accept a woman as wing commander and the notion that there may be other options besides "fix it or go home.")
Again, commanders at all level share the responsibility with individual members to ensure the proper wearing of the uniform. As a practical matter, that means that local commanders have the lion's share of work to do, since something like 95% of the members are at the squadron level.
I know that when my uniform has a glitch, I genuinely appreciate someone quietly touching my elbow and giving me a clue. For some reason, not all the members apparently feel the same way.
He is commonly accepted as including both as you well know. I do not agree however that there is an option other than fix it (wear a uniform your are within requirements for) or leave
Leadership comes from the top down for this sort of thing; if the CEO acts unethically in a company, generally speaking he (or she) is encouraging an unethical corporate environment. If the most senior leaders (Nat/CC; Region Commanders; Wing Commanders) are not enforcing and demonstrating at every opportunity obedience to the uniform regulations, they are encouraging a similar environment in their subordinates.
This needs a direct response.
Quote from: Ned on July 08, 2014, 09:32:21 PMAs a practical matter, that means that local commanders have the lion's share of work to do, since something like 95% of the members are at the squadron level.
And what does >any< viable organization do when their directives are ignored by their subordinate managers?
Saying this is a squadron CC's problem is like an "Answer" from Microsoft Support. It's technically correct, and of
no value to the fix whatsoever.
The Unit CC's have clearly abdicated their responsibility in this regard, so the fix needs to come from on high, and
further who's responsibility is it to fix the other, much more visible "5%"?
Quote from: Eclipse on July 08, 2014, 11:58:18 PM
Seriously? You're going to assert that people >don't< emulate the example?
Seriously? You're going to assert that people don't emulate your good example? 8)
Bob, you can't have it both ways.
You were a good commander, and enforced the standards.
Just like hundreds of other good commanders out there. It's not easy, of course, and often a thankless job.
But unless you are making yourself out to be some sort of uber-commander, there is no reason to expect that other commanders are not able to do what you did -- have the difficult conversations when necessary.
Obviously, not everyone will have a successful command tour. But almost all of our commanders do.
And for the sake of argument (is there any other reason here on CT?) what percentage of members are walking around today who are (to use your terminology) "clearly, from 50k feet, not even close to being in weight?"
2%? 5%?
(remember, only a minority of members are too large for AF-style to begin with, and a sizeable majority of them follow the rules - with or without help from their commanders.)
95% compliance with h/w is not exactly "Unit CC's clearly abdicating their responsibility in this regard." We can and should aim a little higher, but it is important to keep the issue in perspective.
I went to this link, scrolled not even a third of the way down I saw at least a half a dozen seniors that didn't look like they made height weight and they certainly don't make a military, well groomed appearance.
https://www.google.com/search?q=civil+air+patrol+california+wing+conference+2013+pictures&espv=2&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=dKC8U8mUG8yzyASP1YLICQ&ved=0CBwQsAQ&biw=1093&bih=515 (https://www.google.com/search?q=civil+air+patrol+california+wing+conference+2013+pictures&espv=2&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=dKC8U8mUG8yzyASP1YLICQ&ved=0CBwQsAQ&biw=1093&bih=515)
Quote from: Ned on July 09, 2014, 01:39:45 AM
Bob, you can't have it both ways.
I don't want it both ways, but NHQ apparently does.
Quote from: Ned on July 09, 2014, 01:39:45 AM
But unless you are making yourself out to be some sort of uber-commander, there is no reason to expect that other commanders are not able to do what you did -- have the difficult conversations when necessary.
Able? Sure. Willing?
Nope.
And why should they be?
"Jim's a good guy, and he helps out a lot. I know he's put on a few and his jacket's a little tight, but what's the big deal?
Besides, he was at the Wing Conference last month and got an award and no one said anything. I don't need the
hassle. I don't like to discourage people or cost them money, and I can't afford to lose Jim, so I'm not going to say anything...."
Etc. Etc.
Quote from: Ned on July 09, 2014, 01:39:45 AM
And for the sake of argument (is there any other reason here on CT?) what percentage of members are walking around today who are (to use your terminology) "clearly, from 50k feet, not even close to being in weight?"
2%? 5%?
95% compliance with h/w is not exactly "Unit CC's clearly abdicating their responsibility in this regard." We can and should aim a little higher, but it is important to keep the issue in perspective.
95%?
No.
Way.
95% was your number of how many members are the responsibility of a Unit CC for compliance (because apparently Group and Wing CCs
are absolved of the collective responsibility for those under their command).
Quote from: Ned on July 09, 2014, 01:39:45 AM
(remember, only a minority of members are too large for AF-style to begin with, and a sizeable majority of them follow the rules - with or without help from their commanders.)
I will continue to assert that at >least< 50% of the adult membership is too heavy to wear the USAF-Style uniforms.
As to the percentage of members wearing USAF-Style uniforms out of compliance?
I would hazard at >least< 20-30% of the adult membership are wearing a uniform out of compliance.
Remember "compliance", contrary to popular belief, is not "looks good" or "pulls it off" it's based on a number
on a scale.
There are plenty "pulling it off" who would be non-compliant if forced to reveal that number, and far too many
who needn't bother with the scale.
You've said it yourself, when NHQ tried to restrict photos to compliance only, they couldn't do it.
You've also said there was a "wailing and gnashing of teeth" for the idea of weigh-ins being codified in 39-1,
and yet you want to assert that a single-digit percentage of members are non-compliant?
Google Image search, not to mention the NHQ Flicker pool, disagrees.
Quote from: Ned on July 08, 2014, 09:07:03 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 08, 2014, 06:44:03 PM
Then what more "evidence" does anyone need that this is a serious problem?
Oh, I quite agree. When nitpicking on uniforms clouds proper recognition of members' successes and takes focus from our missions, clearly things have gone too far. It is indeed a serious problem.
Reflected right here on CT where we spend far more time discussing uniforms than missions or members.
(That's what you meant, right?)
So, Colonel, what I'm taking away here is "if I do my CAP job well, and my CC doesn't make a stink about it, I can pretty much wear whatever uniform I want."
After all, hey, it's not really a big deal. As long as the mission is accomplished.
Quote from: flyboy1 on July 08, 2014, 11:22:56 AM
Years ago, the first sergeant of the Combat Support Squadron at my AF Reserve base was redlined at a drill and then processed for retirement because he didn't meet the weight standard.
As pointed out many, many times, we are not military personnel. We are civilians.
Unpaid civilian volunteers. As such, this is completely irrelevant to the discussion.
Quote from: Panache on July 09, 2014, 03:36:38 AM
Quote from: Ned on July 08, 2014, 09:07:03 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 08, 2014, 06:44:03 PM
Then what more "evidence" does anyone need that this is a serious problem?
Oh, I quite agree. When nitpicking on uniforms clouds proper recognition of members' successes and takes focus from our missions, clearly things have gone too far. It is indeed a serious problem.
Reflected right here on CT where we spend far more time discussing uniforms than missions or members.
(That's what you meant, right?)
So, Colonel, what I'm taking away here is "if I do my CAP job well, and my CC doesn't make a stink about it, I can pretty much wear whatever uniform I want."
After all, hey, it's not really a big deal. As long as the mission is accomplished.
Excellent point, also, to the bold above.
Perhaps we don't have enough of either of those, so therefore what's left to discuss?
Quote from: Panache on July 09, 2014, 03:41:22 AM
Quote from: flyboy1 on July 08, 2014, 11:22:56 AM
Years ago, the first sergeant of the Combat Support Squadron at my AF Reserve base was redlined at a drill and then processed for retirement because he didn't meet the weight standard.
As pointed out many, many times, we are not military personnel. We are civilians. Unpaid civilian volunteers. As such, this is completely irrelevant to the discussion.
The point is that everybody responsible for meeting standards, especially the folks responsible for enforcing the standards.
Which is very relevant to badly led, unpaid, civilian volunteers.
Quote from: PHall on July 09, 2014, 03:56:49 AM
Quote from: Panache on July 09, 2014, 03:41:22 AM
Quote from: flyboy1 on July 08, 2014, 11:22:56 AM
Years ago, the first sergeant of the Combat Support Squadron at my AF Reserve base was redlined at a drill and then processed for retirement because he didn't meet the weight standard.
As pointed out many, many times, we are not military personnel. We are civilians. Unpaid civilian volunteers. As such, this is completely irrelevant to the discussion.
The point is that everybody responsible for meeting standards, especially the folks responsible for enforcing the standards.
Which is very relevant to badly led, unpaid, civilian volunteers.
Not contesting that. Just pointing out that his story about the first sergeant has no relevance to us.
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on July 07, 2014, 03:00:08 AM
No uniformity is possible if cadets are wearing one uniform and senior members another!!!!!!!!
D'uh!!!!!!!!!!!! :o
Really? Let's see at all the US Military Academies, most State and Private Military Institutes and almost every police academy the students are in one uniform and the instructors are in another. The analogy between CAP Senior Members and Cadet Members applies.
It kinda of one quick way to tell who's in charge.
Quote from: arajca on July 07, 2014, 03:19:41 AM
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on July 07, 2014, 03:00:08 AM
No uniformity is possible if cadets are wearing one uniform and senior members another!!!!!!!!
D'uh!!!!!!!!!!!! :o
But it's a whole lot closer than what we have now.
Exactly.
Quote from: PHall on July 08, 2014, 04:46:46 AM
Quote from: Panache on July 08, 2014, 04:15:36 AM
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on July 07, 2014, 11:34:34 PM
A fallacy. We are not the US Military Academy.
We are also not RealMilitary™, so that point is moot.
Some would argue that West Point isn't either.
They're drawing pay and benefits and are issued a CAC that states otherwise.
Unfortunately, we argue that we're not the military or the Air Force when we want to do things differently from our parent service, but then complain when we can't wear particular military uniforms, insignias or awards. We can't have it both ways.
Quote from: shuman14 on July 09, 2014, 11:50:40 AM
Quote from: PHall on July 08, 2014, 04:46:46 AM
Quote from: Panache on July 08, 2014, 04:15:36 AM
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on July 07, 2014, 11:34:34 PM
A fallacy. We are not the US Military Academy.
We are also not RealMilitary™, so that point is moot.
Some would argue that West Point isn't either.
They're drawing pay and benefits and are issued a CAC that states otherwise.
He means that what happens at the West Point and Zoom U.....have very little resemblance to what happens in the "real military". Just like Basic Training and Tech School are not the "real Air Force".
i.e. it was a joke.
Lighten up Frances.
Quote from: lordmonar on July 09, 2014, 12:30:10 PM
Quote from: shuman14 on July 09, 2014, 11:50:40 AM
Quote from: PHall on July 08, 2014, 04:46:46 AM
Quote from: Panache on July 08, 2014, 04:15:36 AM
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on July 07, 2014, 11:34:34 PM
A fallacy. We are not the US Military Academy.
We are also not RealMilitary™, so that point is moot.
Some would argue that West Point isn't either.
They're drawing pay and benefits and are issued a CAC that states otherwise.
He means that what happens at the West Point and Zoom U.....have very little resemblance to what happens in the "real military". Just like Basic Training and Tech School are not the "real Air Force".
i.e. it was a joke.
Lighten up Frances.
(http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/2H-Cs-fi5tA/maxresdefault.jpg)
;D
Quote from: Ned on July 08, 2014, 09:32:21 PM
I know that when my uniform has a glitch, I genuinely appreciate someone quietly touching my elbow and giving me a clue. For some reason, not all the members apparently feel the same way.
I don't mind it a bit; in fact, I welcome it, especially when I know that they are right. I got corrected on a slight error on my uniform gently-but-firmly by a CMSgt and thanked him...if anyone knows what they're talking about, it would certainly be a CMSgt.
If, however, the person seems off base to me I respectfully ask them to show me in 39-1 where I am incorrect.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 09, 2014, 02:14:25 AM
. Willing?
Nope.
And why should they be?
"Jim's a good guy, and he helps out a lot. I know he's put on a few and his jacket's a little tight, but what's the big deal?
Besides, he was at the Wing Conference last month and got an award and no one said anything. I don't need the
hassle. I don't like to discourage people or cost them money, and I can't afford to lose Jim, so I'm not going to say anything...."
So your position is that no other commanders are "willing" to do what you yourself have done so successfully?
And as a group commander, you were lucky enough to have the only squadron commanders in CAP that would follow your lead in this area and step up?
Really?
You were able to do it, but no one else can / will?
Really?
Ummm. OK, then.
QuoteI will continue to assert that at >least< 50% of the adult membership is too heavy to wear the USAF-Style uniforms.
As to the percentage of members wearing USAF-Style uniforms out of compliance?
I would hazard at >least< 20-30% of the adult membership are wearing a uniform out of compliance.
Remember "compliance", contrary to popular belief, is not "looks good" or "pulls it off" it's based on a number
on a scale.
OK, let's take a look at your "guesstimates" for a moment.
If you are correct in your unsubstantiated assertion that a
majority of seniors are obese (using the standards on the CDC's BMI website (http://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/assessing/bmi/adult_bmi/index.html?s_cid=tw_ob064)) such that they cannot wear the AF-style uniform, and of those, "20-30%" are improperly wearing the AF style uniform, let's look at how that breaks down.
As of 30 JUN, we had a little over 24k cadets and 34k seniors.
Assuming you are correct and 60% of seniors are obese, and of them, 30% improperly wear AF-style uniforms, then we are talking about a little over 6 thousand members out of 58k.
(34,000 *.60 *.30 = 6,120)
Or a hair over 10% of the membership. So even using your "worst case scenario" numbers, we still have a 89 - 90% h/w compliance rate. Which was sort my point. We can and should do better, but 90% "worst case" compliance sounds like commanders are working the issue with "the majority of obese seniors" some success.
(It bears repeating that the CDC numbers for adult males are not as pessimistic as your guesstimate, and show that "only" a minority of our adult male members are unable to wear the AF-style uniforms. My own guesstimate based on the CDC numbers puts the rate at or under 40% and further estimate that the compliance rate for overweight members is more like 95%. A problem, to be sure, but one that can be better addressed by local commanders rather than some new NHQ mandate that you seem to favor.)
Quote
You've said it yourself, when NHQ tried to restrict photos to compliance only, they couldn't do it.
True, but as I mentioned, it wasn't just h/w -- much of it had to do with badges, insignia, devices, and some of the othe details contained in the other 147 pages of the 39-1.
Even if it is only 5-10% of the membership, it's a very visible 5-10% and many are at wing and higher levels. Additionally, I have had member respond to polite reminders with "Why are you busting my chops when that region guy is doing the same thing." with said region guy obviously outside the h/w standards.
Makes it kind of hard to enforce the rules. Of course, a squadron commander has no authority to make a wing, region, or national staffer follow the rules. Which means the appropriate level of commander, which would be wing/region/national, would need to enforce the rules AT THEIR LEVEL to demonstrate the concept that the rules apply to ALL members regardless of level, which is what we don't see happening.
Quote from: Ned on July 09, 2014, 05:04:37 PM
You were able to do it, but no one else can / will?
Really?
So we're dealing in absolutes now?
No one? Of course not.
Too may? Yes, by a long shot.
Quote from: Ned on July 09, 2014, 05:04:37 PM
And as a group commander, you were lucky enough to have the only squadron commanders in CAP that would follow your lead in this area and step up?
I had some great people working for me, and a few clinkers, as did / do many of the other Group CCs in my wing.
I set the tone, and did what I could, many times it was more then an uphill battle, including, I know,
people correcting things in my presence and going back to "SOP" when I left.
It didn't help, even a little, to have conversations where I was espousing the party line and have the
person being addressed point to local or national leaders, or wing+ activities and say "if they don't, why should we"?
You've said several times that NHQ was not capable of getting this done, but somehow a tired, poorly trained Unit CC at FLyover Composite is going to impact meaingful change that outlives his term? How does that work,
exactly?
Quote from: Ned on July 09, 2014, 05:04:37 PM
As of 30 JUN, we had a little over 24k cadets and 34k seniors.
No, we don't. we have 34k adults who have
some form of ID card, not 34k members.
Not even by a long shot.
You have to filter out all the empty shirts, patrons, 000s, and legislative members, for starters.
That peels at least 15-20% off the 34K.
It's also, frankly, nearly impossible to do actual math as NHQ doesn't publish the numbers properly.
We don't know who is active, and we have no meaningful statistics on member height / weight.
Also, when you consider many wings are at a less then 50% participation rate, saying
"5% of total membership is out of compliance, when those are the only guys showing up, doesn't paint the proper picture,
nor does it address the impact having guys with two jackets sewn together as commanders or staff
has on CAP's external image and recruiting.
We can only look around at what we see in person and what is published by NHQ.
And it's a lot higher then 10%.
A lot.
Its very disappointing that you want to take the tack of "statistically this area doesn't flood much"
vs. accepting the reality of "the water in your basement".
Just looking in random photos around the web you'll find 2-3 people in just about every photo
that are out of weight. Ignore it if you like. That's apparently the solution.
It's against the policy of this site to be linking to photos of people with uniform issues,
but anyone with Google can do their own math on this.
Quote from: Ned on July 09, 2014, 05:04:37 PM
A problem, to be sure, but one that can be better addressed by local commanders rather than some new NHQ mandate that you seem to favor.)
The mandate already exists, what doesn't exist is command imperative to enforce existing regulations.
That can and will only come from the top.
So then the question is
why isn't it being addressed?
Also, and what about the highly visible, example-setting members assigned above the Group level?
Who fixes that?
Quote from: Eclipse on July 09, 2014, 05:28:33 PM
So then the question is why isn't it being addressed?
Perhaps because
Quote from: EclipseThe mandate already exists,
And the great majority of members are in compliance.
Quote
what doesn't exist is command imperative to enforce existing regulations. That can and will only come from the top.
So we're back to the "we can't / won't enforce the existing regulations unless NHQ really, really tells us to do it, and they have to do it louder (or something.)"
Yeah, that'll fix it. ::)
"Command imperative" comes from commanders. Like you and couple hundred other CAP leaders. But most regulation compliance comes from members and subordinate leaders following the guidance contained in our publications. It is just silly to suggest that you won't require compliance in your subordinates unless and until your boss repeatedly tells you to do so.
QuoteAlso, and what about the highly visible, example-setting members assigned above the Group level?
Who fixes that?
All of us. By gently and professionally reminding each other about uniform infractions. I've done it; you've done it. It's not mysterious, it's just leadership.
Quote from: Ned on July 09, 2014, 06:00:08 PM"Command imperative" comes from commanders. Like you and couple hundred other CAP leaders. But most regulation compliance comes from members and subordinate leaders following the guidance contained in our publications.
Command imperative comes, first and foremost, from THE Commander, who sets the tone and the example, and then expects and demands compliance.
CAP is adrift on a sea of self-actualization instead of strategic planning and leadership, and until NHQ starts pressing the issue(s), no one else feels any
pressure to do anything but what they feel they need or want to, and making people "sad" about uniforms, or anything else for
that matter, clearly isn't something the average commander feels like doing.
Quote from: Ned on July 09, 2014, 06:00:08 PM
It is just silly to suggest that you won't require compliance in your subordinates unless and until your boss repeatedly tells you to do so.
And yet, they aren't demanding compliance. >WHY?<
A: Because no one cares enough to press the issue to making anyone "sad".
It's called leading - setting a proper tone AND EXAMPLE and then expecting the same from your subordinates,
with ramifications for non compliance.
We get it, status quo is preferable to fixing things.
Message received.
Quote from: Ned on July 08, 2014, 09:07:03 PM
If your point was something to effect that "Although NHQ has clearly articulated the standards (39-1) and clearly fixed the responsibility on commanders (and members) to ensure the proper wear of the uniforms, they need to tell us again -- maybe louder or something -- to make us do our jobs. 'Cuz otherwise we won't. And it's their fault that we are not doing our jobs here at the squadron," then I really don't have a response that will satisfy you.
I'm sure you're not surprised.
I suspect the point was that senior leadership needs to lead by personal example...which may mean those with the authority to do so tell some wing or region CCs to get out of USAF style and into corporate...no discussion!
BTW, for those who don't understand "analogy" I was comparing the senior/cadet roles in CAP with the service academies, where the service and dress uniforms (but not field, I realize that) differ vastly from the parent service.
It was a basis for comparison...never said it matched our situation precisely...just a starting point for conversation.
I absolutely agree that wearing the Air Force uniform is a privilege...but I still believe that it is one we, as an organization, should give up (for our seniors) because of the reality of our demographics not generally matching those of the active or reserve USAF personnel...doing this would unify our senior membership.
Certainly many will disagree...but I hope they will try to remain civil about, especially since none of us have the final word on the subject!
Seeing both sides of this view i can agree to both, but in the long change has to start somewhere. In that aspect I agree with Eclipse that the change and enforcement needs to start from the top down. This will send the message that regulations will be enforced period. Lower membership can attempt to enforce things all day long but I'll bet that it falls on deaf ears 90% of the time.
As I have stated if your 18 and above you weigh in and pending your weight you'll be allowed to wear the AF style uniform. You don't weigh in and don't want to weigh in you're stuck in corp uniform and I as the CC will not allow you to participate in an activity where weight is an issue. And don't cry about it being in eservices either. How many people actually update their info there.
I went to a Wg CC call shortly after I arrived in AZ and could not believe some of the uniform violations I saw. Hard grade on a white long sleeve shirt with no tie, some folks in blues who were outside of H/W etc.
Attended the Wg conference a couple of weeks ago and it was much better from what I saw. At least there was more uniform appearance across the board.
I have seen this in other avenues as well not just uniforms, but let's be honest it's that initial impression that people have that can and often times make or break you. Many members here cry and whine that we are not taking seriously as a legit SAR agency well how can we be if you have some people showing in in flight suits, some in bdus, some in bbdu and some in the golf shirt. If I was a country sheriff and saw that I'd tell us to get to packing regardless of the capability we brought to the table. One of my items as noted was to find a common uniform for all. Now this would be an PIA and definitely have its struggles but it would go along way in establishing our identity. Personally I do not wear anything AF related(US and nametag are not included) on my CAP uniform, not my blues, not my service dress the one time I wore it and not on my bdus and now bbdu. Could I yes I don't because they are two separate entities.
We talk about activities, I have made it known that if I as the activity director set a uniform of the day and it's not followed you can definitely expect to be packing especially if there was no prior coordination. Would it be popular probably not but it would send a message that there are directors that will toe the line when it comes to policies and enforcement.
We start from the top down on enforcing our uniform issues and this will lend us more credibility with outside agencies and our own host service.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 09, 2014, 06:12:19 PM
Command imperative comes [ . . .] from THE Commander, who sets the tone and the example,
I can only agree that command imperative comes from all commanders, including Gen Carr. Are you saying he has somehow set an improper example in the uniform arena?
He actually managed to get a 39-1 published, which previous national commanders had struggled with. This required significant emphasis and resource allocation.
Should he have not done that?
His uniforms have always been worn properly. I have seen him wear both AF and corporate style uniforms, and he wears them well.
Should be doing something else besides setting a good example to "set a good example?"
I have seen him correct others' uniforms at national conferences, and heard him give guidance to the Command Chief to do so as well.
Should he not be doing that?
QuoteCAP is adrift on a sea of self-actualization instead of strategic planning and leadership, and until NHQ starts pressing the issue(s), no one else feels any
pressure to do anything but what they feel they need or want to, and making people "sad" about uniforms, or anything else for
that matter, clearly isn't something the average commander feels like doing.
"Adrift on a sea of self-actualization." I think you are trying a little too hard here. CAP is not "them," it is you and me (and all the other volunteers). If you are doing a little too much "self-actualization," by all means stop doing it.
QuoteAnd yet, they aren't demanding compliance. >WHY?<
So, your theory is that Gen Carr and subordinate commanders have to "demand compliance" with each specific regulation or requirement, othewise that means they somehow "don't care" about that particular regulation and therefore non-compliance by local unit commanders is OK?
Bob, how many regulations does CAP have? How many requirements are contained in each of them?
Should Gen Carr take each one in turn and say
Quote from: Gen CarrThis week, my command imperative is on CAPR 10-2. I want to emphasize how important File Maintenance is and hereby demand compliance from each unit. I know in the past I might have seemed to coddle some of the region headquarters on their file systems and that bred apathy and disrespect from the local unit commanders. I've heard local units say "After all, if Region HQ dosen't have to maintain the records required by the regulation, why should I." But now I am serious about this."
And then move through all the regulations in turn?
That seems a little . . . cumbersome.
Does he correct those who report to him when he sees them obviously out of h/w wearing the AF style uniforms? Does he have those "uncomfortable" conversations? If not, why should subordinate commanders do so when it is apparent the Nat/CC doesn't care about it?
Quote from: arajca on July 09, 2014, 10:48:21 PM
Does he correct those who report to him when he sees them obviously out of h/w wearing the AF style uniforms? Does he have those "uncomfortable" conversations? If not, why should subordinate commanders do so when it is apparent the Nat/CC doesn't care about it?
Are you stating as a matter of fact that he doesn't? Or merely asking the question?
There's no question that many CAP members commit uniform violations. I've seen members do so at wing, region and national events with my own eyes. But I wouldn't go as far as to blame Maj Gen Carr for it, as I haven't seen him wear his uniform improperly and I don't know for a fact that he looks the other way when others do.
I firmly believe that the command imperative is there, although I've seen many commanders ignore it. So what is missing then? I would have to say 'consequences'. Without consequences, command imperatives can be easily ignored by those who either disagree with them or find then difficult or inconvenient.
The biggest problem, as I see it, is that because we're a volunteer organization, many are afraid of losing members by having those difficult conversations or sending then home for not complying. Very few commanders are willing to suspend or terminate a member based on uniform violations alone. So what do we do then?
I believe that most commanders and members do the best they can. It's certainly not an easy task; not when CAP has so many regulations and requirements to enforce. And let's not forget that we still have a mission to accomplish.
At the end, the most practical solution is to continue presenting a good example, educating our members, making corrections when needed, and recognizing those who make an effort to comply and present a professional image.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 09, 2014, 11:20:36 PM
Quote from: arajca on July 09, 2014, 10:48:21 PM
Does he correct those who report to him when he sees them obviously out of h/w wearing the AF style uniforms? Does he have those "uncomfortable" conversations? If not, why should subordinate commanders do so when it is apparent the Nat/CC doesn't care about it?
Are you stating as a matter of fact that he doesn't? Or merely asking the question?
There's no question that many CAP members commit uniform violations. I've seen members do so at wing, region and national events with my own eyes. But I wouldn't go as far as to blame Maj Gen Carr for it, as I haven't seen him wear his uniform improperly and I don't know for a fact that he looks the other way when others do.
I firmly believe that the command imperative is there, although I've seen many commanders ignore it. So what is missing then? I would have to say 'consequences'. Without consequences, command imperatives can be easily ignored by those who either disagree with them or find then difficult or inconvenient.
The biggest problem, as I see it, is that because we're a volunteer organization, many are afraid of losing members by having those difficult conversations or sending then home for not complying. Very few commanders are willing to suspend or terminate a member based on uniform violations alone. So what do we do then?
I believe that most commanders and members do the best they can. It's certainly not an easy task; not when CAP has so many regulations and requirements to enforce. And let's not forget that we still have a mission to accomplish.
At the end, the most practical solution is to continue presenting a good example, educating our members, making corrections when needed, and recognizing those who make an effort to comply and present a professional image.
It has been put forth that by merely wearing his uniform properly, he's doing what he needs to do about it. I don't know if has had those conversations or not, but when you see the same thing happening at those high levels time and time again, you have to wonder if the Nat/CC is taking any
EFFECTIVE ACTIONS to correct the problem. It appears he is not, but I do not have the facts one way or the other. In an ideal world, merely setting the example would be sufficient, however, we do not live in an ideal world.
The problem is that part about making corrections when needed doesn't seem to happen above the squadron level.
Quote from: Ned on July 09, 2014, 10:37:47 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 09, 2014, 06:12:19 PM
Command imperative comes [ . . .] from THE Commander, who sets the tone and the example,
I can only agree that command imperative comes from all commanders, including Gen Carr. Are you saying he has somehow set an improper example in the uniform arena?
He actually managed to get a 39-1 published, which previous national commanders had struggled with. This required significant emphasis and resource allocation.
Should he have not done that?
His uniforms have always been worn properly. I have seen him wear both AF and corporate style uniforms, and he wears them well.
Should be doing something else besides setting a good example to "set a good example?"
I have seen him correct others' uniforms at national conferences, and heard him give guidance to the Command Chief to do so as well.
Should he not be doing that?
QuoteCAP is adrift on a sea of self-actualization instead of strategic planning and leadership, and until NHQ starts pressing the issue(s), no one else feels any
pressure to do anything but what they feel they need or want to, and making people "sad" about uniforms, or anything else for
that matter, clearly isn't something the average commander feels like doing.
"Adrift on a sea of self-actualization." I think you are trying a little too hard here. CAP is not "them," it is you and me (and all the other volunteers). If you are doing a little too much "self-actualization," by all means stop doing it.
QuoteAnd yet, they aren't demanding compliance. >WHY?<
So, your theory is that Gen Carr and subordinate commanders have to "demand compliance" with each specific regulation or requirement, othewise that means they somehow "don't care" about that particular regulation and therefore non-compliance by local unit commanders is OK?
Bob, how many regulations does CAP have? How many requirements are contained in each of them?
Should Gen Carr take each one in turn and say
Quote from: Gen CarrThis week, my command imperative is on CAPR 10-2. I want to emphasize how important File Maintenance is and hereby demand compliance from each unit. I know in the past I might have seemed to coddle some of the region headquarters on their file systems and that bred apathy and disrespect from the local unit commanders. I've heard local units say "After all, if Region HQ dosen't have to maintain the records required by the regulation, why should I." But now I am serious about this."
And then move through all the regulations in turn?
That seems a little . . . cumbersome.
Ned, I'm sorry, but there is so much wrong with this I don't know how to start. I understand you need to espouse the "half full" line,
but some of your responses are really starting to show that you are either disconnected from CAP reality, or just don't want to admit the
situation CAP is really in.
Proper uniform wear is >clearly< not a priority for the national command staff, if it was, it would be fixed.
Anything else is deflection, abdication, or just a poor excuse for not holding people accountable.
In a simple question.
When commanders, at all levels, abdicate or ignore their responsibilities, as they are clearly and demonstrably doing
in regards to proper uniform wear, who holds them accountable?Last I checked, the actual chain is only 5 clicks deep, at the most.
Quote from: Ned on July 09, 2014, 10:37:47 PM
Bob, how many regulations does CAP have? How many requirements are contained in each of them?
If CAP has "too many" regulations, that would also be an NHQ problem to fix, however in the absence
of that fix, if you could point us to the table indicating which of the regulations are actually "suggestions"
that would really help the units.
Last I checked, compliance with 39-1 was mandatory.
In fact, last I checked, compliance with >all< regulations was mandatory.
Okay.....let's put this to the test.
Can anyone emphatically state an instance during Gen Carr's tenure that they saw an NHQ staffer or a regional commander NOT in uniform standards.....and that infraction was brought to the attention of the General and it was not fixed?
Likewise.....for any regional staffer or Wing commander who was out of regs and the regional commander was notified and it was not fixed?
Or a wing staffer and a squadron commander....brought to the attention of the wing commander....and it was not fixed?
and so on and so forth.
I as a squadron staffer.....police my squadron. I encourage my peer in my squadron and in other squadrons to do the same.
COMMAND IMPERATIVE is already there.
Just because you may not see General Carr dressing down one of his staffers or a regional commander......or maybe even passing on to a regional commander that WING XYZ CC needs to look into getting some corporates.....does not mean it is not being done.
I can state from my point of view down here at a squadron staff position......we are keeping our people in compliance.
I don't get bent out of shape when some cadet from another squadron is sporting a boonie or a cool ranger crush......I pass that information up the chain and let them take care of it.
And yes.......I whole heartily believe that uniform compliance is not on the top of most wing commander's and above's TO DO list.
So I don't sweat it.
I do what I can do and move on.
Maybe if we had a corps of members who job it was to care.....really care about uniforms.....we may see a shift in this situation. 8)
Quote from: lordmonar on July 10, 2014, 03:34:50 AM
Okay.....let's put this to the test.
Can anyone emphatically state an instance during Gen Carr's tenure that they saw an NHQ staffer or a regional commander NOT in uniform standards.....and that infraction was brought to the attention of the General and it was not fixed?
Or a wing staffer and a squadron commander....brought to the attention of the wing commander....and it was not fixed?
How about the wing admin officer in full view of area commanders, sq commanders and the wing commander wearing hard grade on a white long sleeve shirt and no tie. This occurred during the wing commanders call. And this was an all day event.
Quote from: abdsp51 on July 10, 2014, 03:39:52 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on July 10, 2014, 03:34:50 AM
Okay.....let's put this to the test.
Can anyone emphatically state an instance during Gen Carr's tenure that they saw an NHQ staffer or a regional commander NOT in uniform standards.....and that infraction was brought to the attention of the General and it was not fixed?
Or a wing staffer and a squadron commander....brought to the attention of the wing commander....and it was not fixed?
How about the wing admin officer in full view of area commanders, sq commanders and the wing commander wearing hard grade on a white long sleeve shirt and no tie. This occurred during the wing commanders call. And this was an all day event.
Did he do it again?
If not.....then I am going to assume that someone straighten him out.
If he did do it again....then we have a failure of leadership.
Quote from: lordmonar on July 10, 2014, 03:41:56 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on July 10, 2014, 03:39:52 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on July 10, 2014, 03:34:50 AM
Okay.....let's put this to the test.
Can anyone emphatically state an instance during Gen Carr's tenure that they saw an NHQ staffer or a regional commander NOT in uniform standards.....and that infraction was brought to the attention of the General and it was not fixed?
Or a wing staffer and a squadron commander....brought to the attention of the wing commander....and it was not fixed?
How about the wing admin officer in full view of area commanders, sq commanders and the wing commander wearing hard grade on a white long sleeve shirt and no tie. This occurred during the wing commanders call. And this was an all day event.
Did he do it again?
If not.....then I am going to assume that someone straighten him out.
If he did do it again....then we have a failure of leadership.
Don't know didn't see the person outside of the event again.
Quote from: abdsp51 on July 10, 2014, 03:45:15 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on July 10, 2014, 03:41:56 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on July 10, 2014, 03:39:52 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on July 10, 2014, 03:34:50 AM
Okay.....let's put this to the test.
Can anyone emphatically state an instance during Gen Carr's tenure that they saw an NHQ staffer or a regional commander NOT in uniform standards.....and that infraction was brought to the attention of the General and it was not fixed?
Or a wing staffer and a squadron commander....brought to the attention of the wing commander....and it was not fixed?
How about the wing admin officer in full view of area commanders, sq commanders and the wing commander wearing hard grade on a white long sleeve shirt and no tie. This occurred during the wing commanders call. And this was an all day event.
Did he do it again?
If not.....then I am going to assume that someone straighten him out.
If he did do it again....then we have a failure of leadership.
Don't know didn't see the person outside of the event again.
Not true, you saw them at the wing conference just the other weekend, and remarked on the proper wear of the uniform they were exhibiting.
I'd imagine that if we started posting photos with date stamps, we'd have all the evidence we need.
The very fact that someone who gets to the point where they are wearing field grade of any kind,
and still have to be corrected by anyone is the core of the problem, worse still that they would
ever get to the point where someone with stars has to provide the correction. Those people
are supposed to be leaders and mentors, not skirting regs and hoping no one says anything.
None of us have any way of knowing if corrective action is being directed or taken, we only know what we see
posted and around us.
Those who are sitting CCs and doing all they can, good on 'ye, there's a lot of your colleagues that need to
emulate your example.
But anyone who is asserting that CAP doesn't have a problem in this area, or that is requires top-down pressure
to correct, is simply denying the evidence of the situation, and the way organizations like CAP work.
Quote from: Tim Medeiros on July 10, 2014, 03:50:21 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on July 10, 2014, 03:45:15 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on July 10, 2014, 03:41:56 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on July 10, 2014, 03:39:52 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on July 10, 2014, 03:34:50 AM
Okay.....let's put this to the test.
Can anyone emphatically state an instance during Gen Carr's tenure that they saw an NHQ staffer or a regional commander NOT in uniform standards.....and that infraction was brought to the attention of the General and it was not fixed?
Or a wing staffer and a squadron commander....brought to the attention of the wing commander....and it was not fixed?
How about the wing admin officer in full view of area commanders, sq commanders and the wing commander wearing hard grade on a white long sleeve shirt and no tie. This occurred during the wing commanders call. And this was an all day event.
Did he do it again?
If not.....then I am going to assume that someone straighten him out.
If he did do it again....then we have a failure of leadership.
Don't know didn't see the person outside of the event again.
Not true, you saw them at the wing conference just the other weekend, and remarked on the proper wear of the uniform they were exhibiting.
True. Should have stated after that event.
My point is that.....as simple as it seems some times......a lot of our uniform violations are simpley because the individual just doesn't know better.
The rules change...."someone" told him that is the way it was done......My commander said it was okay.....it's the way we did it in the Marines back in Korea........I thought I heard this was okay.....this was the closest I could get at the surplus store.....I could not find my hat this morning.
That is the primary reason why we have uniform violations......simple ignorance and "Stuff" happens.
We fix it and move on. No panties in a bunch.
Simple ignorance is acceptable at the squadron. It should not be acceptable above that level. Especially not at region and higher.
When people start holding these bad examples up as a justification for their bad uniforms, it becomes an issue at lower levels.
Quote from: lordmonar on July 10, 2014, 03:53:57 AM
My point is that.....as simple as it seems some times......a lot of our uniform violations are simpley because the individual just doesn't know better.
I have to call shenanigans on this reply.
Eclipse is right. If you're Captain or higher, who should already "know better".
Quote from: arajca on July 10, 2014, 04:11:56 AM
Simple ignorance is acceptable at the squadron. It should not be acceptable above that level. Especially not at region and higher.
When people start holding these bad examples up as a justification for their bad uniforms, it becomes an issue at lower levels.
Okay....now I ask you.
Where and who's job is it to make sure all your Captains know how to wear the uniform correctly?
No really?
Some squadrons....are.....unfortunately...... polo shirt wearing we don't do uniforms here type units....now some Capt is on wing staff and at a wing event....trying to do his best.
Not good.....I agree......but if it corrected...."dude you can't wear that badge".....or...."we stopped wearing wing patch on blues ages ago"........and the individual learns and does not repeat his mistake.......the "Command Imperative" is working.
I agree....that there a systemic problems......we don't formally teach our new senior members how to wear the uniform. We don't test them, we don't have anything in our PD that emphatically says "this is how you wear the unfirom and we will now test you on your knowledge and your ability to perform".
We don't usually promote an individual to a staff position based on his ability wear a uniform.....usually it is he know the job (a little at least) and he has got the time to do it.
Not saying it is right.....just saying.
But Sgt Harris, that's just not right......I hear you say. And I agree to a point.
First line of defense......all our us.....each and every member.....tries to wear their uniform right. Each and every member takes the time to correct our subordinate and peers.....with respect. We let our supriors know about things that are happening outside our AORs. We challenge (respectfully) when our superiors deviate from the regulations....and we report violations up the chain if/when necessary.
Finally......we keep things in perspective.
It is just the uniform.
Yes, yes I know all the arguments.....attention to detail, the slipper slope, the "if they can't do this, How can I expect them to fight a war".
And they are all valid to a point. But we need to keep things in perspective.
So uniforms are not number one on the CAP/CC's to do list.
So Squadron CC is too timid to tell Lt Col Oldtimer to take off his Afganistani Jump wings.
So the PAWG encampment had a C/CCMSgt.
these are all "bad" things....but the world is not going to end. We correct and move on. We support and mentor our leaders and we move on.
Quote from: Panache on July 10, 2014, 04:19:03 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on July 10, 2014, 03:53:57 AM
My point is that.....as simple as it seems some times......a lot of our uniform violations are simpley because the individual just doesn't know better.
I have to call shenanigans on this reply.
Eclipse is right. If you're Captain or higher, who should already "know better".
Show me one time in the PD progression of a CAP SM to CAP Captain where he needs to wear a particular uniform. That he needs to show knowledge of the general uniform regulations including all the variations and when it is proper and right to wear XYZ uniform?
There's the fallacy - that something has to be "#1" to get done.
It doesn't have to be "#1" on the list, it just has to be on the list
Quote from: lordmonar on July 10, 2014, 04:31:53 AM
Show me one time in the PD progression of a CAP SM to CAP Captain where he needs to wear a particular uniform. That he needs to show knowledge of the general uniform regulations including all the variations and when it is proper and right to wear XYZ uniform?
Level 1.
Another fallacy "all the variations" are not necessary, only the MBU and/or anything else the member chooses to wear.
These
excuses all point back to command failure of all 5 clicks.
Someone doesn't comply? Command failure.
Someone isn't trained properly? Command failure.
The details of which tire is flat are irrelevant to the failure of the vehicle, and the responsibility of
the commander to fix.
If he won't do it, then his boss is next in line.
That's how this works.
The most common uniform infractions I see fall into two categories:
- Members who are clearly over the height & weight requirements for the USAF-style uniform
- Contested parts of the uniform manual that are left to field interpretation
The former is an easy fix that isn't happening - the uncomfortable conversation by the member's commander letting them know it's time to go corporate. The latter is commander's commanding - telling their members how to handle the grey areas. I can live with that.
Agree on both, with the caveat that there should be no need on a "uniform" for "interpretation".
Anywhere there is that room, the reg is poorly written.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 10, 2014, 04:38:16 AM
Agree on both, with the caveat that there should be no need on a "uniform" for "interpretation".
Anywhere there is that room, the reg is poorly written.
True, but it is what it is. I suspect regulation writing is harder than it sounds, especially when you have folks adept at mental-gymnastics to get the outcome they prefer.
Fair enough - another reason 39-1 shouldn't be treated like stone tablets.
I've always said that any question asked more then once should be clarified by whomever has the authority so
it never has to be asked again.
NHQ seems happy enough to have national, non-volunteer, staffers interpreting regulations, fine,
just codify that authority and treat 39-1 like a live document.
Ask a question, get an answer, publish the fix.
Uniforms are important and a pet peeve of mine. And the fact that many members either don't know how to wear the uniform properly or choose not do so is a problem. That said, I agree with Lordmonar here. We educate our people, make the corrections and move on. Our mission can't stop while we get everyone in uniform compliance, as some seem to suggest. If we have to fix every single CAP problem (uniforms, recruiting, retention, PD, etc.) before we can get anything done, how can we survive as an organization?
For some, the glass will always be half empty. Others prefer to see it half full and are doing what they can to continue to fill it. We have problems; no doubt about it. But the solutions can't always be someone else's responsibility (NHQ, CAP/CC, etc.). When is it our turn to start fixing things at our level? Maj Gen Carr stating that we need to wear our uniform properly "or else" won't prevent someone from wearing the uniform incorrectly at a local event; we are.
I wonder all we could accomplish in CAP if we used a fraction of all the wasted energy spent here in CAP Talk complaining about issues instead of rolling up our sleeves and start working on a solution. We're CAP officers (and NCOs); that's our job!
Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 10, 2014, 12:23:27 PMWe educate our people, make the corrections and move on.
Let me know when that starts happening
consistently and as a matter of course, not an anomaly.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 10, 2014, 12:23:27 PM
Our mission can't stop while we get everyone in uniform compliance, as some seem to suggest. If we have to fix every single CAP problem (uniforms, recruiting, retention, PD, etc.) before we can get anything done, how can we survive as an organization?
How can CAP survive if it
doesn't fix those problems? (especially the last one?)
The answer is, "we can't". It's "death by a thousand cuts" as all the things which are "not that important" are summarily ignored, until
there isn't enough left of the organization to care about.
Also, the mission, whatever is left of it, doesn't have to stop while people are pulled into compliance.
You say that as if every every CAP moment was laser-focused on mission work with not a moment to spare.
Seriously, 1/2-organization takes the summer off, 1/4 takes the Christmas holidays off, and 1/3+ of the membership
are empty shirts.
There's plenty of time to focus on fixing things without impacting the mission even a smidge.
Baseline, baseline, baseline.
Right now, we don't know what CAP "does", we don't know who are people "are", and we have no idea where CAP is "going".
Those are the top three issues facing the organization RIGHT NOW.
In among that as both cause and symptom are the uniform and retention issue, among others, not the least of which
is a particularly nasty lack of personal ownership and responsibility I'm seeing lately in a lot of members.
If its not fixed soon, the inertia will simply increase.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 10, 2014, 12:23:27 PMWhen is it our turn to start fixing things at our level? Maj Gen Carr stating that we need to wear our uniform properly "or else" won't prevent someone from wearing the uniform incorrectly at a local event; we are.
Right now, all the time. And who enforces things for the other 1/2 who don't care?
If our esteemed unit and wing CCs are "capable of doing it without being told" why do we have SUIs and CIs?
And who enforces the remediation there? The next higher HQ, and when things don't get fixed, there's 5 clicks of pressure.
But of course much of the SUI / CI process is about money, property, and liability.
Maj Gen Carr's saying "do it" sets the tone, members seeing x-commanders and x-members reinforces that play time is over.
And that gets back to retention, because right now CAP is so desperate for members, it's scared to make anyone sad, especially
a unit CC, and the circle is complete.
Further to that is mission and purpose - people who >want< to be members, will comply with simple, clear rules, people >want<
to be members when their time is well spent and not wasted on admisitrivia and running in a circle. Right now we have a lot of
people who are members, or doing jobs, at 1/2-speed because "no one else will do it" or "I got roped into it", and that happened
because the numbers are getting so low that there's no one to help.
Baseline, baseline, baseline.
CAP is paramilitary corporation serving as a military auxiliary. It needs to start managing itself like at least >one< of those things,
and stop running things like a condo association / flight-club with a rec center attached.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 10, 2014, 03:16:43 PM
not the least of which
is a particularly nasty lack of personal ownership and responsibility I'm seeing lately in a lot of members.
Preach it brother. Don't you just hate it when members just love to complain and how it is always someone else's responsibility to fix things?
Quote from: Ned on July 10, 2014, 03:26:41 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 10, 2014, 03:16:43 PM
not the least of which
is a particularly nasty lack of personal ownership and responsibility I'm seeing lately in a lot of members.
Preach it brother. Don't you just hate it when members just love to complain and how it is always someone else's responsibility to fix things?
That doesn't fly, not even a little, not when you're talking to someone who tried to be a part of the solution
and was effectively blocked at every turn by people abdicating their responsibilities.
Ned, you have refused to answer the simple question.
When the commanders fail to uphold their mandate, who's responsibility is it to fix that?
Quote from: Eclipse on July 10, 2014, 03:22:03 PM
why do we have SUIs and CIs? And who enforces the remediation there? The next higher HQ, and when things don't get fixed, there's 5 clicks of pressure. But of course much of the SUI / CI process is about money, property, and liability...
...people >want< to be members when their time is well spent and not wasted on admisitrivia and running in a circle.
And here you have two opposing forces.
The SUI/CI process is just about the single biggest drain on morale on this organization. Talk about a waste of time and energy.
The number of regulations we have is absurd but the items the SUI/CI teams choose to focus on bring it beyond absurd. There is way too much focus on non-value add items. Do we need an audit process? Yes, but the current process needs a complete overhaul. There is no reason why 95+% of the info "needed" can't be ascertained from regular online uploads at any time with little to no interaction from units.
Quote from: A.Member on July 10, 2014, 04:48:21 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 10, 2014, 03:22:03 PM
why do we have SUIs and CIs? And who enforces the remediation there? The next higher HQ, and when things don't get fixed, there's 5 clicks of pressure. But of course much of the SUI / CI process is about money, property, and liability...
...people >want< to be members when their time is well spent and not wasted on admisitrivia and running in a circle.
And here you have two opposing forces.
The SUI/CI process is just about the single biggest drain on morale on this organization. Talk about a waste of time and energy.
The number of regulations we have is absurd but the items the SUI/CI teams choose to focus on bring it beyond absurd. There is why too much focus on non-value add items. Do we need an audit process? Yes, but the current process needs a complete overhaul. There is no reason why 95+% of the info "needed" can't be ascertained from regular online uploads at any time with little to no interaction from units.
Have you seen the new SUI process?
A lot of members make themselves "unavailable" during the SUI process. I have been through a couple myself. It is not that the reason behind it is bad; but as it stands it is so overblown that it is like using a guillotine to cure a headache.
Add onto that the fact that members who don't make themselves "unavailable" during an SUI have to carry the water for those who do.
Even the forms themselves are enough to induce a migraine, especially in a new(ish) member.
Quote from: Tim Medeiros on July 10, 2014, 04:56:34 PM
Quote from: A.Member on July 10, 2014, 04:48:21 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 10, 2014, 03:22:03 PM
why do we have SUIs and CIs? And who enforces the remediation there? The next higher HQ, and when things don't get fixed, there's 5 clicks of pressure. But of course much of the SUI / CI process is about money, property, and liability...
...people >want< to be members when their time is well spent and not wasted on admisitrivia and running in a circle.
And here you have two opposing forces.
The SUI/CI process is just about the single biggest drain on morale on this organization. Talk about a waste of time and energy.
The number of regulations we have is absurd but the items the SUI/CI teams choose to focus on bring it beyond absurd. There is why too much focus on non-value add items. Do we need an audit process? Yes, but the current process needs a complete overhaul. There is no reason why 95+% of the info "needed" can't be ascertained from regular online uploads at any time with little to no interaction from units.
Have you seen the new SUI process?
Yes.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 10, 2014, 03:28:56 PM
Ned, you have refused to answer the simple question.
When the commanders fail to uphold their mandate, who's responsibility is it to fix that?
Bob, as a former commander, do you really not understand how the chain of command and assignment of responsibilities in CAP work? That could explain a lot of your confusion on this topic.
Or are you trying to make some sort of point? If so, please speak plainly.
You might start by explaining what it means to "fail to uphold a mandate" in this context.
Surely it has to mean more than "some of the members of the command did not wear their uniforms properly." Because if that meets your standard of "failing to uphold a mandate," then no commander in the history of CAP has ever been able to "meet their mandate."
Quote from: A.Member on July 10, 2014, 05:14:21 PM
Quote from: Tim Medeiros on July 10, 2014, 04:56:34 PM
Quote from: A.Member on July 10, 2014, 04:48:21 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 10, 2014, 03:22:03 PM
why do we have SUIs and CIs? And who enforces the remediation there? The next higher HQ, and when things don't get fixed, there's 5 clicks of pressure. But of course much of the SUI / CI process is about money, property, and liability...
...people >want< to be members when their time is well spent and not wasted on admisitrivia and running in a circle.
And here you have two opposing forces.
The SUI/CI process is just about the single biggest drain on morale on this organization. Talk about a waste of time and energy.
The number of regulations we have is absurd but the items the SUI/CI teams choose to focus on bring it beyond absurd. There is why too much focus on non-value add items. Do we need an audit process? Yes, but the current process needs a complete overhaul. There is no reason why 95+% of the info "needed" can't be ascertained from regular online uploads at any time with little to no interaction from units.
Have you seen the new SUI process?
Yes.
Would you not agree that it is much improved from the old process? Especially considering that it is scaled back by a large degree and most of it is based on those online reports. The main portion of the inspectors coming to the unit now is for the needed Eye-On Hand-On items like vehicle inspections and those without online records management.
Quote from: Ned on July 10, 2014, 05:31:48 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 10, 2014, 03:28:56 PM
Ned, you have refused to answer the simple question.
When the commanders fail to uphold their mandate, who's responsibility is it to fix that?
Bob, as a former commander, do you really not understand how the chain of command and assignment of responsibilities in CAP work? That could explain a lot of your confusion on this topic.
Or are you trying to make some sort of point? If so, please speak plainly.
You might start by explaining what it means to "fail to uphold a mandate" in this context.
Surely it has to mean more than "some of the members of the command did not wear their uniforms properly." Because if that meets your standard of "failing to uphold a mandate," then no commander in the history of CAP has ever been able to "meet their mandate."
Seems like that is true, but it is the mandate; from CAPM 39-1 Note that the emphasis is mine and that correcting uniform errors seems to stop at the Wing level, or at least being spelled out.
2.10. Commanders below Wing. In this context, region, wing, and group commanders act in this role for members of their headquarters units. Commanders may delegate these responsibilities to local activity directors for the duration of a particular activity.
2.10.1. Ensure that all members, individually and collectively, present a professional, well-groomed appearance, which will reflect credit upon CAP as the auxiliary of the United States Air Force. They will ensure all members are uniformed in accordance with the provisions of this manual,
uniform violations are promptly corrected, and that members are regularly educated as to the proper wear of the uniform.
2.10.2. Enforces dress and personal appearance standards and defines "conservative", "faddish", and other terms not specifically defined in this publication or applicable supplements.
2.10.3. Ensures uniform items are consistent and standardized throughout the organization, and designates the appropriate uniform authorized in this manual to be worn at unit activities and events. To maintain uniformity and good order, commanders determine their members' compliance and understanding of this manual.
2.10.4. Determines acceptable civilian clothing for wear at CAP activities and may prohibit clothing that is offensive for moral, legal, or safety reasons.
2.10.5. May prohibit wear of optional items during formations, ceremonies, or other events when uniformity is required. Commanders may mandate wear of optional clothing if provided at no cost to the member, or if participation at an event is voluntary.
16 CAPM 39-1 26 JUNE 2014
2.10.6. Commanders do not have authority to waive personal grooming standards.
2.8. Wing Commanders. Oversees the wear of CAP uniforms within their wing's geographical boundaries and by the members of units assigned to their wing.
2.8.1. Wing commanders will ensure that all members, individually and collectively, present a professional, well-groomed appearance, which will reflect credit upon CAP as the auxiliary of the United States Air Force. They will ensure all members are uniformed in accordance with the provisions of this manual,
that uniform violations are promptly corrected, and that members are continually informed as to the proper wear of the uniform.
2.8.2. The wing commander, or the commander to whom such authority is delegated by the wing commander such as directors of wing-sponsored activities, will 1) prescribe the appropriate uniform authorized in this manual to be worn by members while flying, 2) prescribe the appropriate uniform authorized in this manual to be worn by members while not in a flying status and 3) determine appropriate attire for wear during organized recreational activities.
2.8.3. The wing commander is the approval authority for organizational patches worn by subordinate units within the wing and will ensure that new patches meet the intent of the USAF heraldic guidelines published by the Air Force Historical Research Agency and the CAP National Historian Program. Patches approved for wear will be full color and not "subdued" in their composition.
2.7. Region Commanders. Oversees the uniform wear of personnel assigned to region headquarters. The region commander will 1) prescribe the appropriate uniform authorized in this manual to be worn by members while flying and 2) determine appropriate attire for wear during organized recreational activities. Region commanders oversee the uniform supplements prepared by subordinate wings, and may supplement this manual with guidance specific to their headquarters staff, personnel participating in designated region activities, and personnel assigned to wings within their region.
2.1. National Commander (CAP/CC). Responsible for the CAP uniform program. Establishes dress and personnel appearance policy. Acts as the final approval authority for uniform changes or new uniform designs. Ensures compliance with appropriate USAF directives and ensures compliance with legal requirements.
Quote from: Ned on July 10, 2014, 05:31:48 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 10, 2014, 03:28:56 PM
Ned, you have refused to answer the simple question.
When the commanders fail to uphold their mandate, who's responsibility is it to fix that?
Bob, as a former commander, do you really not understand how the chain of command and assignment of responsibilities in CAP work? That could explain a lot of your confusion on this topic.
Or are you trying to make some sort of point? If so, please speak plainly.
You might start by explaining what it means to "fail to uphold a mandate" in this context.
Surely it has to mean more than "some of the members of the command did not wear their uniforms properly." Because if that meets your standard of "failing to uphold a mandate," then no commander in the history of CAP has ever been able to "meet their mandate."
This is my last orbit.
Plainly.
It is a commander's mandate to enforce the regulations, as written, without filter.
When they fail to do so, it is the next higher HQ's mandate to either induce the failing CC to do their job or replace them.
Further, a commander of a given echelon is personally responsible for the mandate
of all of their subordinate commanders.
A unit CC, failing his mandate, is ultimately the responsibility of the national CC to fix, because ultimately all 5 clicks have
failed or abdicated.
The way the National CC fixes the problem is first and foremost by example, in both his personal behavior and in his dealing
with subordinates, and second by either inducement or replacement of those in his span of control until such time as
compliance is achieved.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 10, 2014, 06:01:48 PM
A unit CC, failing his mandate, is ultimately the responsibility of the national CC to fix, because ultimately all 5 clicks have failed or abdicated.
So the National Commander is directly responsible for uniform infractions that a unit commander failed to correct? :o
Quote from: Tim Medeiros on July 10, 2014, 05:34:07 PM
Quote from: A.Member on July 10, 2014, 05:14:21 PM
Quote from: Tim Medeiros on July 10, 2014, 04:56:34 PM
Have you seen the new SUI process?
Yes.
Would you not agree that it is much improved from the old process? Especially considering that it is scaled back by a large degree and most of it is based on those online reports. The main portion of the inspectors coming to the unit now is for the needed Eye-On Hand-On items like vehicle inspections and those without online records management.
No. I'd say it's
different from the old process. However, the scope is still too broad and a significant amount of member engagement is still required, including phone and in person interviews; not to mention a lot of prep time.
The entire SUI/CI effort is significant waste of time for nearly all members involved. As I mentioned previously, there is no reason the audit team can't get 95+% of the info they need from online resources/reports. Updates to WMIRS and eServices should support such action.
As an organization, we spend way more time on non-value exercises like this than we do on activities that actually bring value to our communities and membership. This must change. It's overly burdensome with an overly punitive tone; not unlike our regs related to flying. It kills morale. No successful business I'm aware of operates in such a manner, we shouldn't either.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 10, 2014, 06:10:15 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 10, 2014, 06:01:48 PM
A unit CC, failing his mandate, is ultimately the responsibility of the national CC to fix, because ultimately all 5 clicks have failed or abdicated.
So the National Commander is directly responsible for uniform infractions that a unit commander failed to correct?
Yes. That is why it is referred to as the "weight of command" - those stars are very heavy.
Those who want and choose to wear the CC's badge, take on that weight for their entire AOR.
The specific duty is to insure that he maintains a chain of command which will induce compliance in the rank and file membership.
Whether that inducement is ultimately the carrot or the stick is irrelevant to the conversation regarding responsibility.
When a unit CC fails in his duties, it is the wing commander (even in wings with groups) who is ultimately responsible for
the remediation. When that remediation is not done, the Region CC is next responsible, and after that HEADCAP.
A significant number of unit and activity commanders have shown a pattern of ignorance, disinterest, and/or disregard for
any number of regulations, including, but not limited to, the uniform. To say that remediation of this issue is the sole responsibility
of inconsistently trained and inexperienced unit CCs, and failing that "what else can you do, right?" is completely disingenuous and
ignoring the reality of the situation.
We have poorly and inconsistently trained unit CCs because of a history of poor retention, lack of command and staff development,
lowest common denominator policies, failure to hold people responsible for infractions, and a general lack of good example and mentorship.
For every A-Team commander who could fix things, there are any number of door-holders who don't have the experience or where-with-all for
the job, many who took it as a last resort to folding the charter, and who are not all that interested in "fixing" anything. The good ones are surrounded
by people constantly eroding the progress they are trying to make, with per projects, fiefdoms, and petty personal concerns while ignoring the
needs of their members.
The responsibility for that is squarely on the leadership and can only be fixed by them.
Apathy can and will kill an organization just as dead as any overt active negative actions.
If you think it's that simple, maybe you should run for National Commander.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 10, 2014, 07:08:58 PM
If you think it's that simple, maybe you should run for National Commander.
The fixes for CAP's issues are painfully simple, and already exist in the programs and curriculum.
Someone just needs to work what CAP already has.
You also have to be willing to accept the consequences of what is needed, which are going to be painful.
CAP is notoriously averse to anything which may cause pain to its members, even if it is ultimately for everyone's best interest.
Historically there are only three things that can be done to ensure that Wings enforce some particular regulation or that individual members follow some particular regulation
-- Ground the Wing's airplanes until the problem is fixed.
-- Freeze any supplies that may come to Wing from National or the Air Force
--Suspend the member's flying privileges or 101 card until they come into compliance
CAP has been more than willing to do this on all sorts of issues, including making individual members waste time on silly safety briefings that are often about non-CAP topics. That is what CAP does and has to do when they think something is important enough to really emphasize.
Having the National Commander send an email out to Wing Commanders saying, "enforce those uniform regs" will not make it happen.
The only way this particular problem is solved is through mandated weigh-ins on some regular basis that are input into e-services only by the commander and if the height/weight don't match imprinting something on their 101 card that says "May only wear corporate uniforms". That will at least stop non-compliant people from wearing AF uniforms during missions where they may come into contact with the public and once it becomes well known that is the only uniform they may wear due to height/weight, they probably won't try to wear them to meetings either.
Quite frankly I am shocked at Ned's point of view that this problem should not be addressed by some sort of NHQ action and that squadron commanders, on their own (and despite any inclination to do it in the past on a large scale), will fix it. Yes, the more explicit language about weigh-ins will give a tool to those who actually care, but not many fit in that category.
Quote from: RiverAux on July 10, 2014, 07:23:05 PMQuite frankly I am shocked at Ned's point of view that this problem should not be addressed by some sort of NHQ action and that squadron commanders, on their own (and despite any inclination to do it in the past on a large scale), will fix it. Yes, the more explicit language about weigh-ins will give a tool to those who actually care, but not many fit in that category.
Well stated.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 10, 2014, 07:11:47 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 10, 2014, 07:08:58 PM
If you think it's that simple, maybe you should run for National Commander.
The fixes for CAP's issues are painfully simple, and already exist in the programs and curriculum.
Someone just needs to work what CAP already has.
You also have to be willing to accept the consequences of what is needed, which are going to be painful.
CAP is notoriously averse to anything which may cause pain to its members, even if it is ultimately for everyone's best interest.
So what is stopping you from doing something about it?
A new CAP/CC was appointed, yet you don't seem to have much faith that things are going to change. Well, if no one else will do what you know needs to be done, then why don't you work yourself into a position in which you can then fix CAP?
Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 10, 2014, 07:32:07 PM
So what is stopping you from doing something about it?
A new CAP/CC was appointed, yet you don't seem to have much faith that things are going to change. Well, if no one else will do what you know needs to be done, then why don't you work yourself into a position in which you can then fix CAP?
Yes, by all means, let's marginalize the issue by aiming at one specific person who pushed a rock up a hill for about 15 years.
CAP has made it very clear they are not interested in people who would bring disruptive change to the organization.
I tried, I held the waters as long as I could.
But I guess if eclipse can't do it, why should anyone else, right? Or even acknowledge there's a problem?
Every unit CC is responsible for their AOR, but no one unit CC, awash in a sea of apathy, can "fix CAP" that has to come from Maxwell.
I just merely suggested a solution. You're saying that others need to fix the problem. You're also saying that those who need to fix the problem either don't know how to do it or are unwilling to do it. Well, how do you fix that?
If you know what to do, then I challenge you to do it. If you're calling it quits after 15 years, then complaining about it in CAP Talk is not going to change anything either.
We do have problems in CAP. Many here agree with you. But your way of approaching it won't do anything to fix them. It's hard to be inspired to do anything when most of what you're saying is negative. If we need leaders who are willing to take action, then be one and contribute to the solution. If not, then step out of the way and let others do so.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 10, 2014, 08:01:27 PM
I just merely suggested a solution.
You suggested no "solution", unless your quip about running for National CC is what you consider a "solution".
I no longer qualify for the job, for starters, nor is it likely that anyone with as strong opinions, who espouses disruptive
change will ever be able to climb that high even if I was.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 10, 2014, 08:01:27 PM
If you know what to do, then I challenge you to do it. If you're calling it quits after 15 years, then complaining about it in CAP Talk is not going to change anything either.
How,
exactly?
No one said I was quitting, however I am not currently in any position of influence or authority.
Knowing what needs to be done does not mean you have the authority or influence to make it happen.
FWIW, I did what needed to be done for most of the tie I was a CC, those who had to listen did, those
who didn't need to pay me any attention, did so,
actively, to everyone's detriment, which is the
problem with indicating this is a Unit CC's problem to fix. At the micro, sure it is. In the current
state of CAP, absent national action, it will only get worse.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 10, 2014, 06:01:48 PM
It is a commander's mandate to enforce the regulations, as written, without filter.
When they fail to do so, it is the next higher HQ's mandate to either induce the failing CC to do their job or replace them.
Further, a commander of a given echelon is personally responsible for the mandate of all of their subordinate commanders.
A unit CC, failing his mandate, is ultimately the responsibility of the national CC to fix, because ultimately all 5 clicks have
failed or abdicated.
The way the National CC fixes the problem is first and foremost by example, in both his personal behavior and in his dealing
with subordinates, and second by either inducement or replacement of those in his span of control until such time as
compliance is achieved.
So, Bob, in your world, how many uniform violations in a given unit are required to define the commander as having "failed their mandate" and have to be fired?
One? Three? A dozen?
Does the size of the unit matter? (Does the wing commander get fired because a single new cadet wore her/his uniform improperly?)
While we agree that commanders have a responsibility to enforce uniform regulations, we may well disagree signifcantly on how to measure success in this area. You seem to suggest that "regulations are regulations, and any discrepancy is a violation, and any violation means the commander has 'failed.'"
If that is really your position, it seems rather unhelpful. One of those "perfection is the enemy of success" situations. It actually begins to sound like a "zero defects leadership" paradigm which has been pretty thoroughly discredited, particularly by the armed forces.
Quote from: RiverAux
Quite frankly I am shocked at Ned's point of view that this problem should not be addressed by some sort of NHQ action and that squadron commanders, on their own (and despite any inclination to do it in the past on a large scale), will fix it. Yes, the more explicit language about weigh-ins will give a tool to those who actually care, but not many fit in that category.
Initially, it sounds like you shock pretty easily. But if it helps ease your discomfort, this is not even close to my position(s) on the matter at hand. If it helps, I'll recap:
1.
No one had been able to clearly articulate the scope of the "uniform compliance problem" beyond anecdotal observations like "I say some really big guys at wing conference. No way that they were in height / weight." Or "Even some of the senior leaders may be out of standard. Look, here's a picture from 2009 - the guy in the back row looks too large."
So, we are not even sure that there is a significant problem in the first place. And it is probably not helpful to say things like "
any uniform violations are a problem that the senior leadership needs to focus on."
2. Even if we could get some sense of how many members actually have significant uniform violations, here on CAP Talk
we probably won't be able to agree on what a "good rate of compliance" would be. If 95% of the membership meets the standards are we doing a good job or a bad job? 98%? 90%? Does it really have to be 100% or nothing?
3.
Local unit commanders have all of the guidance, authority, and tools they need to enforce the uniform regulations. If a commander wants to have a weigh-in, they can have a weigh-in. If all they need is to have a "difficult conversation," then they can and should do so.
4.
All of us share a responsibility to help each other look professional. I appreciate it when others remind me that I can't wear my Guyaberra shirt any more, or that my IACE ribbon is outdated. Indeed, we are shirking our duties when we walk by someone at the wing conference who needs some help. It is hypocritical for each of us to complain about those "other people" if we had an opportunity to help, but did not. It is all too easy for 'arm chair generals" and Monday-morning quarterbacks to yelp about how "those guys" at higher aren't doing their jobs, when all it would take is literally 10 seconds of our time to help a member wear their uniform properly.
5.
Be extremely careful what you wish for. Every single one of us who complains about having to watch safety powerpoints instead of doing meaningful training should think not twice, but at least three times, before asking "higher" to "do something about the uniform problem."
Restated, there is nothing to suggest that anything done from above could measurably improve uniform wear beyond what can and should be done in the local units where well over 95% of the membership resides. And some substantial experience to suggest that any such efforts -- however well intended -- may well result in tedious briefings, on line "education," and mandatory classes. And since the great majority of members already wear their uniforms correctly, it will all be a wasted effort for the (pick a number) 80%, 90%, 95% of the membership.
6.
If you insist that Gen Carr needs to focus additional command emphasis on uniform compliance, you are going to need to identify what items he can take off his plate. If we are raising the time and efforts devoted to uniform compliance by Gen Carr and his staff, exactly what items should they begin to ignore? I've never met a commander or staff officer who reacted well to "do more with less. Here's an 'additional #1 priority' for you. But be sure to keep doing everything else you are doing."
So, the short version is "While there are undoubtedly members who wear their uniforms improperly, there is nothing beyond anecdotal evidence to suggest that this is a significant problem that affects our ability to perform our missions or to recruit and train our members as we always have. Even if we could establish that it was a problem, intervention by NHQ is among the most "unlikely to be successful" solutions for several reasons, including the 3-4 echelons between Gen Carr and Joe/Josephine Pilot and our substantial history of bureaocratic responses to similar issues in the past."
(And remember, I personnally support weigh-ins. I drafted the language that was included in a (non-approved) draft of the 39-1. Heck, I've even conducted weigh-ins at an NCSA.)
Ned, well said. I agree 100%.
Quote from: Ned on July 10, 2014, 10:29:55 PM
So, we are not even sure that there is a significant problem in the first place.
(https://my.usajobs.gov/Account/SendEmailRedirect/42795ec7-4e4d-430a-ba12-d8f6a4f999aa/0)
Quote from: shuman14 on July 10, 2014, 10:55:41 PM
Quote from: Ned on July 10, 2014, 10:29:55 PM
So, we are not even sure that there is a significant problem in the first place.
(https://my.usajobs.gov/Account/SendEmailRedirect/42795ec7-4e4d-430a-ba12-d8f6a4f999aa/0)
Whatever you are trying to show isn't
Quote from: Ned on July 10, 2014, 10:29:55 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 10, 2014, 06:01:48 PM
It is a commander's mandate to enforce the regulations, as written, without filter.
When they fail to do so, it is the next higher HQ's mandate to either induce the failing CC to do their job or replace them.
Further, a commander of a given echelon is personally responsible for the mandate of all of their subordinate commanders.
A unit CC, failing his mandate, is ultimately the responsibility of the national CC to fix, because ultimately all 5 clicks have
failed or abdicated.
The way the National CC fixes the problem is first and foremost by example, in both his personal behavior and in his dealing
with subordinates, and second by either inducement or replacement of those in his span of control until such time as
compliance is achieved.
So, Bob, in your world, how many uniform violations in a given unit are required to define the commander as having "failed their mandate" and have to be fired?
One? Three? A dozen?
Does the size of the unit matter? (Does the wing commander get fired because a single new cadet wore her/his uniform improperly?)
While we agree that commanders have a responsibility to enforce uniform regulations, we may well disagree signifcantly on how to measure success in this area. You seem to suggest that "regulations are regulations, and any discrepancy is a violation, and any violation means the commander has 'failed.'"
If that is really your position, it seems rather unhelpful. One of those "perfection is the enemy of success" situations. It actually begins to sound like a "zero defects leadership" paradigm which has been pretty thoroughly discredited, particularly by the armed forces.
Quote from: RiverAux
Quite frankly I am shocked at Ned's point of view that this problem should not be addressed by some sort of NHQ action and that squadron commanders, on their own (and despite any inclination to do it in the past on a large scale), will fix it. Yes, the more explicit language about weigh-ins will give a tool to those who actually care, but not many fit in that category.
Initially, it sounds like you shock pretty easily. But if it helps ease your discomfort, this is not even close to my position(s) on the matter at hand. If it helps, I'll recap:
1. No one had been able to clearly articulate the scope of the "uniform compliance problem" beyond anecdotal observations like "I say some really big guys at wing conference. No way that they were in height / weight." Or "Even some of the senior leaders may be out of standard. Look, here's a picture from 2009 - the guy in the back row looks too large."
So, we are not even sure that there is a significant problem in the first place. And it is probably not helpful to say things like "any uniform violations are a problem that the senior leadership needs to focus on."
2. Even if we could get some sense of how many members actually have significant uniform violations, here on CAP Talk we probably won't be able to agree on what a "good rate of compliance" would be. If 95% of the membership meets the standards are we doing a good job or a bad job? 98%? 90%? Does it really have to be 100% or nothing?
3. Local unit commanders have all of the guidance, authority, and tools they need to enforce the uniform regulations. If a commander wants to have a weigh-in, they can have a weigh-in. If all they need is to have a "difficult conversation," then they can and should do so.
4. All of us share a responsibility to help each other look professional. I appreciate it when others remind me that I can't wear my Guyaberra shirt any more, or that my IACE ribbon is outdated. Indeed, we are shirking our duties when we walk by someone at the wing conference who needs some help. It is hypocritical for each of us to complain about those "other people" if we had an opportunity to help, but did not. It is all too easy for 'arm chair generals" and Monday-morning quarterbacks to yelp about how "those guys" at higher aren't doing their jobs, when all it would take is literally 10 seconds of our time to help a member wear their uniform properly.
5. Be extremely careful what you wish for. Every single one of us who complains about having to watch safety powerpoints instead of doing meaningful training should think not twice, but at least three times, before asking "higher" to "do something about the uniform problem."
Restated, there is nothing to suggest that anything done from above could measurably improve uniform wear beyond what can and should be done in the local units where well over 95% of the membership resides. And some substantial experience to suggest that any such efforts -- however well intended -- may well result in tedious briefings, on line "education," and mandatory classes. And since the great majority of members already wear their uniforms correctly, it will all be a wasted effort for the (pick a number) 80%, 90%, 95% of the membership.
6. If you insist that Gen Carr needs to focus additional command emphasis on uniform compliance, you are going to need to identify what items he can take off his plate. If we are raising the time and efforts devoted to uniform compliance by Gen Carr and his staff, exactly what items should they begin to ignore? I've never met a commander or staff officer who reacted well to "do more with less. Here's an 'additional #1 priority' for you. But be sure to keep doing everything else you are doing."
So, the short version is "While there are undoubtedly members who wear their uniforms improperly, there is nothing beyond anecdotal evidence to suggest that this is a significant problem that affects our ability to perform our missions or to recruit and train our members as we always have. Even if we could establish that it was a problem, intervention by NHQ is among the most "unlikely to be successful" solutions for several reasons, including the 3-4 echelons between Gen Carr and Joe/Josephine Pilot and our substantial history of bureaocratic responses to similar issues in the past."
(And remember, I personnally support weigh-ins. I drafted the language that was included in a (non-approved) draft of the 39-1. Heck, I've even conducted weigh-ins at an NCSA.)
Rhetoric, Deflection, Excuses, & Abdication.
"First, pretend there is no problem, then acknowledge the problem but minimize the importance, then admit it is too big to fix, so just hope no one notices."
Maybe the BoG needs to start visiting units and doing spot uniform inspections. After all, they're ultimately "responsible for the mandate of all of their subordinate commanders." >:D
We know CAP has a problem; it's had it for years. But frankly, many (if not most) uniform infractions are due to ignorance (not that that's an excuse), not malice. Most commanders have a full plate as it is and, as much as they would like to fix every single uniform issue within their command, it's virtually impossible to get 100% compliance. That's not the same as abdicating their responsibility.
Ultimately, this is not just the commander's responsibility. Every member needs to do their part to ensure we comply with our regulations and present a professional image. After all, most of us are not just members, but officers (and NCOs). That has to mean something.
^ That sounds very good on a t-shirt and has been demonstrated not to work in practice.
They'd get lost driving to the unit. . .or be late, having stopped to re-do an ORM form, on account of it got dark. Having driven past midnight, one of them would fall out of safety currency, requiring the offender to leave the vehicle. . .the unfortunate soul, abandoned on a dark country road, straining to read the applicable CAP Reg on his smart phone, steps onto the tarmac and is cut down by a passing CAP van. Driven by a CAP mom, she can't stop and render aid, as the other occupants include two male cadets, and a lone female cadet. Convicted of felony idiocy, she is 2B'ed, and as she is the last female SM, the unit CP program implodes, and the CC is fired. The D/CC is lost to a fatal paper cut while assembling a SUI binder. The Safety Officer, despondent, takes to binge eating, grows too stout for his AF blues, and hangs himself with a cord fashioned from strips torn from a polo shirt. The unit disolves, and NHQ releases a Polo Shirt Safety course to help prevent another such train of tragedy. After a few years, the squadron's pilots notice the unit no longer exists, but are able to shrug it off and keep flying.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 11, 2014, 03:24:12 AM
^ That sounds very good on a t-shirt and has been demonstrated not to work in practice.
So what do you propose? To fire everyone, since apparently no one is doing their jobs?
Eclipse wants people to do the right thing, and face consequnces if they don't. Ned and NHQ want to keep members.
Those can be mutually exclusive to a degree - it's a volunteer club you gotta pay to join. And it has a real need to appear at least as professional as the ARC or local VFD.
CC sends someone home for being fat in blues, maybe he comes back. Maybe not. Might have been smart to start moving away from the military style uniforms a long while back, for SMs, anyway.
Not rip the blues off snyones back, but grandfather and ohase the AF out over a long stretch. . .
Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 11, 2014, 03:43:15 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 11, 2014, 03:24:12 AM
^ That sounds very good on a t-shirt and has been demonstrated not to work in practice.
So what do you propose? To fire everyone, since apparently no one is doing their jobs?
Is is even possible anymore for people not to go from one extreme to another?
There's a world of pendulum swing from "ignore / do nothing" to "fire everyone" and the
swing starts when you do >something<>
Seriously, you, Ned, and couple others are responding like cadets reading from the pamphlet
when you ask them what they are supposed to do on CAC - we all know what the regs say
is >supposed< to happen, but it is easily demonstrated that those things >aren't happening.
Pretending CAP operates anywhere near the textbooks won't fix anything.
Quote from: SunDog on July 11, 2014, 03:54:17 AM
Eclipse wants people to do the right thing, and face consequnces if they don't. Ned and NHQ want to keep members.
That pretty much sums it up.
You know Sundog, you and I have gone at it pretty good, and I was thinking this morning that a lot of times
the intensity of my disagreement isn't because what you say isn't happening, but because it's true and
I don't want it to be.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 11, 2014, 03:54:45 AM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 11, 2014, 03:43:15 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 11, 2014, 03:24:12 AM
^ That sounds very good on a t-shirt and has been demonstrated not to work in practice.
So what do you propose? To fire everyone, since apparently no one is doing their jobs?
Is is even possible anymore for people not to go from one extreme to another?
There's a world of pendulum swing from "ignore / do nothing" to "fire everyone" and the
swing starts when you do >something<>
Seriously, you, Ned, and couple others are responding like cadets reading from the pamphlet
when you ask them what they are supposed to do on CAC - we all know what the regs say
is >supposed< to happen, but it is easily demonstrated that those things >aren't happening.
Pretending CAP operates anywhere near the textbooks won't fix anything.
And all you do is complain about everything. Unlike you, I do the best I can to improve things in my AOR. I also help other members, staff officers and commanders as much as I can. I don't blame others or put the responsibility elsewhere. I haven't given up. I'm a CAP officer and I take responsibility as such. Do you?
(And by the way, you can put that on a t-shirt.)
I wouldn't say that CAP doesn't make hard decisions that hurt/demoralise/otherwise piss off the membership.
After all - and I'm saying this because this is still nominally a uniform thread - CAP had no compunctions about taking the (generally) popular CSU away, with nary a word of explanation, and then sticking ever more firmly with a status quo "corporate" uniform that is disliked by not a few members of CAP. This maintains the division of the "cans" who can wear the AF type uniform and the "cannots" who can't...and don't even look like members of the same organisation.
Yes, Master Sergeant Harris, I know they weren't REQUIRED to do so and the opinion of a worker-bee Captain does not mean sweet shinola when compared to the august personages who made the "decision."
CAP has a very schizoid collective personality - those who want to receive funding from the Air Force, fly on their nickel but don't want them "interfering" in the operations of a "volunteer organisation" and don't think we should wear "their" uniforms...and those who want to receive funding from the Air Force, believe it an honour to be associated with them, are proud that we can wear a modified version of "their" uniform and want closer integration with them.
I wonder if the two can ever be reconciled.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 11, 2014, 04:19:53 AM
And all you do is complain about everything. Unlike you, I do the best I can to improve things in my AOR. I also help other members, staff officers and commanders as much as I can. I don't blame others or put the responsibility elsewhere. I haven't given up. I'm a CAP officer and I take responsibility as such. Do you?
(And by the way, you can put that on a t-shirt.)
You literally have no idea what you're talking about.
With that said, attacking the messenger is much easier then actually accepting the problem, and it's SOP for CAP.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 11, 2014, 04:30:00 AM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 11, 2014, 04:19:53 AM
And all you do is complain about everything. Unlike you, I do the best I can to improve things in my AOR. I also help other members, staff officers and commanders as much as I can. I don't blame others or put the responsibility elsewhere. I haven't given up. I'm a CAP officer and I take responsibility as such. Do you?
(And by the way, you can put that on a t-shirt.)
You literally have no idea what you're talking about.
And you do?
Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 11, 2014, 04:30:31 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 11, 2014, 04:30:00 AM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 11, 2014, 04:19:53 AM
And all you do is complain about everything. Unlike you, I do the best I can to improve things in my AOR. I also help other members, staff officers and commanders as much as I can. I don't blame others or put the responsibility elsewhere. I haven't given up. I'm a CAP officer and I take responsibility as such. Do you?
(And by the way, you can put that on a t-shirt.)
You literally have no idea what you're talking about.
And you do?
About my involvement in CAP? I would think so.
As usual, when the arguments run out of gas, thinks start to get personal.
Quote from: SunDog on July 11, 2014, 03:38:33 AM
They'd get lost driving to the unit. . .or be late, having stopped to re-do an ORM form, on account of it got dark. Having driven past midnight, one of them would fall out of safety currency, requiring the offender to leave the vehicle. . .the unfortunate soul, abandoned on a dark country road, straining to read the applicable CAP Reg on his smart phone, steps onto the tarmac and is cut down by a passing CAP van. Driven by a CAP mom, she can't stop and render aid, as the other occupants include two male cadets, and a lone female cadet. Convicted of felony idiocy, she is 2B'ed, and as she is the last female SM, the unit CP program implodes, and the CC is fired. The D/CC is lost to a fatal paper cut while assembling a SUI binder. The Safety Officer, despondent, takes to binge eating, grows too stout for his AF blues, and hangs himself with a cord fashioned from strips torn from a polo shirt. The unit disolves, and NHQ releases a Polo Shirt Safety course to help prevent another such train of tragedy. After a few years, the squadron's pilots notice the unit no longer exists, but are able to shrug it off and keep flying.
This is both the funniest and saddest thing I've read all day. Bravo.
Quote from: Panache on July 11, 2014, 04:35:57 AM
Quote from: SunDog on July 11, 2014, 03:38:33 AM
They'd get lost driving to the unit. . .or be late, having stopped to re-do an ORM form, on account of it got dark. Having driven past midnight, one of them would fall out of safety currency, requiring the offender to leave the vehicle. . .the unfortunate soul, abandoned on a dark country road, straining to read the applicable CAP Reg on his smart phone, steps onto the tarmac and is cut down by a passing CAP van. Driven by a CAP mom, she can't stop and render aid, as the other occupants include two male cadets, and a lone female cadet. Convicted of felony idiocy, she is 2B'ed, and as she is the last female SM, the unit CP program implodes, and the CC is fired. The D/CC is lost to a fatal paper cut while assembling a SUI binder. The Safety Officer, despondent, takes to binge eating, grows too stout for his AF blues, and hangs himself with a cord fashioned from strips torn from a polo shirt. The unit disolves, and NHQ releases a Polo Shirt Safety course to help prevent another such train of tragedy. After a few years, the squadron's pilots notice the unit no longer exists, but are able to shrug it off and keep flying.
This is both the funniest and saddest thing I've read all day. Bravo.
And bitingly true.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 11, 2014, 04:31:52 AM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 11, 2014, 04:30:31 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 11, 2014, 04:30:00 AM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 11, 2014, 04:19:53 AM
And all you do is complain about everything. Unlike you, I do the best I can to improve things in my AOR. I also help other members, staff officers and commanders as much as I can. I don't blame others or put the responsibility elsewhere. I haven't given up. I'm a CAP officer and I take responsibility as such. Do you?
(And by the way, you can put that on a t-shirt.)
You literally have no idea what you're talking about.
And you do?
About my involvement in CAP? I would think so.
As usual, when the arguments run out of gas, thinks start to get personal.
I wasn't trying to question your involvement with CAP during the past 15 years, but your current attitude towards the organization, which I believe is counterproductive.
Say what you will, but your experience with CAP is only a fraction of what the organization is. Yet you seem to think that your opinion is the only one that's valid; that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. Obviously, not every member feels the same way.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 11, 2014, 02:03:55 AM
Rhetoric, Deflection, Excuses, & Abdication.
(You seem to like that phrase . . . ;) )
Quote from: Inigo MontoyaI don't think those words mean what you think they mean.
For example, not responding to my question directed at you, or indeed to the substance of my post is indeed "deflection" (to change direction or course) but it is you who has chosen to pop smoke and retreat. Not I.
Quote"First, pretend there is no problem, then acknowledge the problem but minimize the importance, then admit it is too big to fix, so just hope no one notices."
OK, Colonel, in the real world the burden is on the person proclaiming the "problem" to establish the issue rather than insisting that the other side prove a negative. I can only "pretend" there is no problem, if indeed that you or anyone else can establish the issue at hand.
And so far, all you've been able to do is proclaim from your arm chair -- without any evidence or support whatsoever -- that we are in some sort of crisis that cannot be handled by local commanders, but instead requires some unspecified NHQ action to avert terrible, but unspecified consequences. Based solely on your personal belief that most seniors are obese and unwilling to follow uniform regulations concerning the AF style uniforms.
Others have asked you for some support that this is a significant issue requiring immediate attention. You've been unable or unwilling to provide anything beyond anecdotal evidence. After all, there are undoubtedly members in each of the armed services at this very moment who are wearing their uniforms incorrectly. And some of those are undoubtedly overweight. Yet the US armed forces do not think of themselves as in a crisis requiring immediate action. Are they in denial? (Or engaged in "rhetoric, deflection, excuses, and abdication?")
(For anyone not willing to read through the thread up to this point, there no doubt that some CAP members do not wear their uniforms properly. That is not the issue. Bob's issue has to do with the extent of the crisis, and whose fault it is.)
I stand ready to continue the discussion when you are willing to engage rather casting petty insults.
Quote from: EclipseSeriously, you, Ned, and couple others are responding like cadets reading from the pamphlet. . ."
(Although, personally, being called a "cadet" is still a complement, I don't think that was what you meant)
You could start by responding to my previous question:
QuoteSo, Bob, in your world, how many uniform violations in a given unit are required to define the commander as having "failed their mandate" and have to be fired?
One? Three? A dozen?
Does the size of the unit matter? (Does the wing commander get fired because a single new cadet wore her/his uniform improperly?)
While we agree that commanders have a responsibility to enforce uniform regulations, we may well disagree significantly on how to measure success in this area. You seem to suggest that "regulations are regulations, and any discrepancy is a violation, and any violation means the commander has 'failed.'"
If that is really your position, it seems rather unhelpful. One of those "perfection is the enemy of success" situations. It actually begins to sound like a "zero defects leadership" paradigm which has been pretty thoroughly discredited, particularly by the armed forces.
Or you could retreat and say that people are insulting you and continue to project doom and gloom about CAP in this and other threads.
Your call.
Ned Lee
Quote from: Ned on July 11, 2014, 05:59:55 AM
Quote from: Inigo MontoyaI don't think those words mean what you think they mean.
Eclipse killed your father, and should prepare to die?
Or the leadership could simply acknowledge the problem, stop encouraging and participating in it and actually fix it.
The more you type, the more apparent the R-D-E-A is.
Quote from: Ned on July 11, 2014, 05:59:55 AM
OK, Colonel, in the real world the burden is on the person proclaiming the "problem" to establish the issue rather than insisting that the other side prove a negative. I can only "pretend" there is no problem, if indeed that you or anyone else can establish the issue at hand.
And so far, all you've been able to do is proclaim from your arm chair -- without any evidence or support whatsoever --
We are no longer allowed to post those photos here. However I would direct your attention to the National RSS news feed as a start.
Quote from: Ned on July 11, 2014, 05:59:55 AM
Or you could retreat and say that people are insulting you and continue to project doom and gloom about CAP in this and other threads.
Or the leadership could simply acknowledge the problem, stop encouraging and participating in it, and actually fix it.
The more you type, the more apparent the R-D-E-A is.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 11, 2014, 03:56:25 AM
Quote from: SunDog on July 11, 2014, 03:54:17 AM
Eclipse wants people to do the right thing, and face consequnces if they don't. Ned and NHQ want to keep members.
That pretty much sums it up.
You know Sundog, you and I have gone at it pretty good, and I was thinking this morning that a lot of times
the intensity of my disagreement isn't because what you say isn't happening, but because it's true and
I don't want it to be.
Concur - I didn't want a lot of it to be true, either.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 11, 2014, 03:12:05 AM
We know CAP has a problem; it's had it for years. But frankly, many (if not most) uniform infractions are due to ignorance (not that that's an excuse), not malice.
I would say this is true regarding typical uniform infractions involving wearing the wrong badges, patches out of place, etc.
But, EVERYONE knows that there height/weight standards for wearing AF-style uniforms. Now, there may be some people that have never actually bothered to see if their height/weight is in compliance, but they know that there is something somewhere that they could look up.
Quote from: RiverAux on July 11, 2014, 04:36:44 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 11, 2014, 03:12:05 AM
We know CAP has a problem; it's had it for years. But frankly, many (if not most) uniform infractions are due to ignorance (not that that's an excuse), not malice.
I would say this is true regarding typical uniform infractions involving wearing the wrong badges, patches out of place, etc.
But, EVERYONE knows that there height/weight standards for wearing AF-style uniforms. Now, there may be some people that have never actually bothered to see if their height/weight is in compliance, but they know that there is something somewhere that they could look up.
Agree. And sometimes it takes a very uncomfortable, but needed conversation to correct the problem.
Unfortunately it goes deeper than the weight issue.
This goes back close to ten years -- a 1 Lt, squadron activities/transportation officer, wearing (AF style) BDUs at a training event...hair much too long...observed by wing CC...squadron CC not present...wing CC asked the member's group CC to counsel member (I was on the group staff at the time, which is how I found out about this).
Group CC politely explains to this officer that he has two choices: get a haircut or wear corporate (BBDU -- hair grooming not as strict for corporate back then).
Member declines to do either (very respectfully!).
Group CC contacts squadron CC, who "needs this member" and won't do anything.
Group CC and wing CC discuss relieving unit CC, 2Bing member...realize this is a symptom, not the only instance of uniform violations...continue to emphasize education and enforcement with squadron commanders, wing and group staffs...but wonder if they're fighting an uphill battle.
This is basically why I favor a single uniform style for all seniors...to simplify training and enforcement of standards.
Quote from: RiverAux on July 11, 2014, 04:36:44 PM
But, EVERYONE knows that there height/weight standards for wearing AF-style uniforms. Now, there may be some people that have never actually bothered to see if their height/weight is in compliance, but they know that there is something somewhere that they could look up.
And plain old human nature is at work here as well. "Wishful thinking" and things like confirmation bias make members who might be close to the line simply avoid getting "bad news" by hopping back on that dreaded scale.
"Hey, I was two pounds under last month, so no need to check again so soon. (Despite some wonderful holiday parties and missed workouts.)"
And this is where gentle peer education and reminders can help. It can help us to stay (hopefully) on the right side of the line if we are close, and help us to wear the appropriate corporate uniforms if we are not.
And things like pre-announced, pre-sheduled unit weigh ins (conducted in a professional and respectful manner) also encourage each of us to be in the correct uniform well before someone else has to bring it to our attention.
When I put on my new-to-me BDUs last night, I realized that the blouse WAS ALMOST TOO TIGHT TO BUTTON. This is my litmus test. If it's starting to get tight, it's gonna look stupid, so I won't wear it. It enhanced my food bump. So, changed out the uniform, gave a quick impromptu uniform class to the cadets, made fun of my belleh, and a fun time was had by all.
It ain't hard to self-police, but you gotta wanna.
You know, this may be a very naive question, but I have been in several AF MCSS to buy uniform items.
I have seen things sized for those who, by both USAF and CAP standards, are way out of H/W regs. I believe I saw a pair of Air Force blue trousers sized 50.
If the H/W regs are to be followed, why are such "plus" sizes manufactured?
Quote from: Ned on July 11, 2014, 07:02:24 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on July 11, 2014, 04:36:44 PM
But, EVERYONE knows that there height/weight standards for wearing AF-style uniforms. Now, there may be some people that have never actually bothered to see if their height/weight is in compliance, but they know that there is something somewhere that they could look up.
And plain old human nature is at work here as well. "Wishful thinking" and things like confirmation bias make members who might be close to the line simply avoid getting "bad news" by hopping back on that dreaded scale.
"Hey, I was two pounds under last month, so no need to check again so soon. (Despite some wonderful holiday parties and missed workouts.)"
I really don't think that anyone is too worried about the folks that are bouncing around the max weight - even I don't think it is worth the effort to make sure that 100% of people are in full compliance at all times. Its the folks that are obviously very over that are the primary problem.
QuoteAnd things like pre-announced, pre-sheduled unit weigh ins (conducted in a professional and respectful manner) also encourage each of us to be in the correct uniform well before someone else has to bring it to our attention.
Yes, if a unit does make a practice of doing this, the bad problems will go away.
Quote from: CyBorg on July 11, 2014, 07:13:45 PM
You know, this may be a very naive question, but I have been in several AF MCSS to buy uniform items.
I have seen things sized for those who, by both USAF and CAP standards, are way out of H/W regs. I believe I saw a pair of Air Force blue trousers sized 50.
If the H/W regs are to be followed, why are such "plus" sizes manufactured?
The USAF does not have H/W standards any more. If a USAF member is really big...he is still in the USAF and still must wear his uniform.
Even if he is on his way out. But even then "on his way out" can be a process that takes up to a year or more depending on the actual circumstances.
That has always been my beef with the CAP H/W standard as imposed on us by the USAF. I can understand the concept of "we don't big people out there representing the USAF".......but they don't hold their own people to that same standard.
Like I have always advocated......we stick a big full color, very Visible, shoulder patch (use either the CAP command shield or the round Overseas Wing Patches) on the right shoulder of all our uniforms (except the Mess Dress we got the CAP seal for that one already).
That takes care of both close up and long distance day light recognition.
For ABUs.....we wear the patch....and we wear an Ultra Marine Blue Ball CAP with prop and triangle with our wing and unit numbers on it.
Now the USAF does not have to worry about "some one" mistaking a CAP member for an USAF member.....if they take a photo of a F&F member and go to the USAF "why is this guy got a beard and hair down his back?" they can say "Oh....see the patch that's a member of our civilian auxiliary".
Quote from: CyBorg on July 11, 2014, 07:13:45 PM
You know, this may be a very naive question, but I have been in several AF MCSS to buy uniform items.
I have seen things sized for those who, by both USAF and CAP standards, are way out of H/W regs. I believe I saw a pair of Air Force blue trousers sized 50.
If the H/W regs are to be followed, why are such "plus" sizes manufactured?
That's a good question. I don't know how long ago you saw that size 50, but I can tell you that the Air Force has been dealing with personnel who are overweight for years. Things are getting better since they started kicking people out for not being able to pass the physical fitness test repeatedly. One of the components is a waist measurement. Anything above 39 inches is an automatic fail, unless exempted. And that could only be done for medical reasons and only for a limited period of time.
That said, unlike in CAP where wearing the Air Force-style uniform is a privilege and there are corporate alternatives (yes, I know they're not quite equivalent), in the Air Force wearing a uniform is a requirement. There's no "corporate" equivalent for those who may be overweight. And while those members are dealt with in one way or the other, they have to continue wearing the uniform in the mean time. I suspect that's why you can find larger sizes in the MCSS. That said, I checked in the Exchange website and the largest size I could find was a 46 (admittedly too large for a service member).
Quote from: CyBorg on July 11, 2014, 07:13:45 PM
If the H/W regs are to be followed, why are such "plus" sizes manufactured?
Two sides to this.
AAFES will custom make just about any size you need, because as Lordmonor said, the USAF only wears one uniform,
regardless of being in compliance or not, and you may need a service coat for your terminal leave party.
The other piece is people just wearing the biggest thing they can find.
The 52L jacket was not intended for people who are 5'-5", but I bet if you ran the numbers CAP members buy a lot of those.
Quote from: lordmonar on July 11, 2014, 08:04:32 PM
The USAF does not have H/W standards any more. If a USAF member is really big...he is still in the USAF and still must wear his uniform.
I am familiar with that change (thanks to you, actually). It's certainly different than in my ANG days. I can still remember a senior NCO in Personnel who would not have fit into CAP H/W standards for wearing the uniform. He wasn't a traditional Guard member, either, I don't believe. I think he was AGR, but that was a looooooong time ago.
I doubt that even my recruiter (TSgt) would have passed, but I don't know what the rules were for females that far back.
Quote from: lordmonar on July 11, 2014, 08:04:32 PM
That has always been my beef with the CAP H/W standard as imposed on us by the USAF. I can understand the concept of "we don't big people out there representing the USAF".......but they don't hold their own people to that same standard.
To quote the late Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert...two thumbs up!
Quote from: lordmonar on July 11, 2014, 08:04:32 PM
Like I have always advocated......we stick a big full color, very Visible, shoulder patch (use either the CAP command shield or the round Overseas Wing Patches) on the right shoulder of all our uniforms (except the Mess Dress we got the CAP seal for that one already).
I have always liked the idea of the overseas-type patch as an identifier.
The enamelled Mess Dress emblem underneath the nameplate on the service coat would also be good.
Quote from: lordmonar on July 11, 2014, 08:04:32 PM
That takes care of both close up and long distance day light recognition.
You
hope. Some pedant will always find a way to narrow that silly, unenforceable, undefinable "rule."
Quote from: lordmonar on July 11, 2014, 08:04:32 PM
For ABUs.....we wear the patch....and we wear an Ultra Marine Blue Ball CAP with prop and triangle with our wing and unit numbers on it.
Of course the Master Sergeant is aware we don't get ABU's. 8)
Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 11, 2014, 08:05:21 PM
That's a good question. I don't know how long ago you saw that size 50, but I can tell you that the Air Force has been dealing with personnel who are overweight for years.
About two years ago, I believe.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 11, 2014, 08:05:21 PM
Quote from: CyBorg on July 11, 2014, 07:13:45 PM
You know, this may be a very naive question, but I have been in several AF MCSS to buy uniform items.
I have seen things sized for those who, by both USAF and CAP standards, are way out of H/W regs. I believe I saw a pair of Air Force blue trousers sized 50.
If the H/W regs are to be followed, why are such "plus" sizes manufactured?
That's a good question. I don't know how long ago you saw that size 50, but I can tell you that the Air Force has been dealing with personnel who are overweight for years. Things are getting better since they started kicking people out for not being able to pass the physical fitness test repeatedly. One of the components is a waist measurement. Anything above 39 inches is an automatic fail, unless exempted. And that could only be done for medical reasons and only for a limited period of time.
That said, unlike in CAP where wearing the Air Force-style uniform is a privilege and there are corporate alternatives (yes, I know they're not quite equivalent), in the Air Force wearing a uniform is a requirement. There's no "corporate" equivalent for those who may be overweight. And while those members are dealt with in one way or the other, they have to continue wearing the uniform in the mean time. I suspect that's why you can find larger sizes in the MCSS. That said, I checked in the Exchange website and the largest size I could find was a 46 (admittedly too large for a service member).
Unless they are around 6'8" tall maybe...
Quote from: Garibaldi on July 11, 2014, 08:21:55 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 11, 2014, 08:05:21 PM
Quote from: CyBorg on July 11, 2014, 07:13:45 PM
You know, this may be a very naive question, but I have been in several AF MCSS to buy uniform items.
I have seen things sized for those who, by both USAF and CAP standards, are way out of H/W regs. I believe I saw a pair of Air Force blue trousers sized 50.
If the H/W regs are to be followed, why are such "plus" sizes manufactured?
That's a good question. I don't know how long ago you saw that size 50, but I can tell you that the Air Force has been dealing with personnel who are overweight for years. Things are getting better since they started kicking people out for not being able to pass the physical fitness test repeatedly. One of the components is a waist measurement. Anything above 39 inches is an automatic fail, unless exempted. And that could only be done for medical reasons and only for a limited period of time.
That said, unlike in CAP where wearing the Air Force-style uniform is a privilege and there are corporate alternatives (yes, I know they're not quite equivalent), in the Air Force wearing a uniform is a requirement. There's no "corporate" equivalent for those who may be overweight. And while those members are dealt with in one way or the other, they have to continue wearing the uniform in the mean time. I suspect that's why you can find larger sizes in the MCSS. That said, I checked in the Exchange website and the largest size I could find was a 46 (admittedly too large for a service member).
Unless they are around 6'8" tall maybe...
The max waist size is 39 inches to pass the circumference portion of the physical fitness test, although I believe that the AF looks at BMI and body fat % if the member fails this part of the test.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 11, 2014, 09:06:06 PM
The max waist size is 39 inches to pass the circumference portion of the physical fitness test, although I believe that the AF looks at BMI and body fat % if the member fails this part of the test.
Correct, which was part of the problem for the big and tall crowd, but you don't get bounced the day you break the tape, and in the last year
there have been a number of articles indicating they have been relaxing the "GTFO" for airmen close to retirement, and I think I even read
certain critical MOS' might be eligible for "plans".
So if you get hurt and get fat but don't get bounced, you gotta wear sumpin'.
Correct.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 11, 2014, 09:28:49 PM
So if you get hurt and get fat but don't get bounced, you gotta wear sumpin'.
Make them wear CAP corporates >:D
Quote from: RiverAux on July 11, 2014, 09:36:36 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 11, 2014, 09:28:49 PM
So if you get hurt and get fat but don't get bounced, you gotta wear sumpin'.
Make them wear CAP corporates >:D
You would never have an airman break the tape ever again.
Quote from: lordmonar on July 11, 2014, 08:04:32 PM
The USAF does not have H/W standards any more. If a USAF member is really big...he is still in the USAF and still must wear his uniform.
Even if he is on his way out. But even then "on his way out" can be a process that takes up to a year or more depending on the actual circumstances.
That has always been my beef with the CAP H/W standard as imposed on us by the USAF. I can understand the concept of "we don't big people out there representing the USAF".......but they don't hold their own people to that same standard.
Really???
Ma Blue to CAP: "Do as I say, not as I do"????
I've been in CAP since 1970, WIWAC...really wondered about the integrity of some of the leadership on both sides of the house at times over those decades...but this one is beyond belief.
I can't think of the appropriate word to describe it -- since the late '80s CAP members have been hearing all kinds of sanctimonious drivel from the Air Force regarding this issue...and I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and presume for at least some of those years they followed it too...but to keep us to a standard they have allowed to lapse is sheer, unmitigated, unforgivable
HYPOCRISY!!!I'd say they should be ashamed of themselves (those responsible, obviously, not the entire USAF), but amoral, dishonorable people generally are not familiar with the concept of shame.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on July 12, 2014, 06:48:32 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on July 11, 2014, 08:04:32 PM
The USAF does not have H/W standards any more. If a USAF member is really big...he is still in the USAF and still must wear his uniform.
Even if he is on his way out. But even then "on his way out" can be a process that takes up to a year or more depending on the actual circumstances.
That has always been my beef with the CAP H/W standard as imposed on us by the USAF. I can understand the concept of "we don't big people out there representing the USAF".......but they don't hold their own people to that same standard.
Really???
Ma Blue to CAP: "Do as I say, not as I do"????
I've been in CAP since 1970, WIWAC...really wondered about the integrity of some of the leadership on both sides of the house at times over those decades...but this one is beyond belief.
I can't think of the appropriate word to describe it -- since the late '80s CAP members have been hearing all kinds of sanctimonious drivel from the Air Force regarding this issue...and I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and presume for at least some of those years they followed it too...but to keep us to a standard they have allowed to lapse is sheer, unmitigated, unforgivable HYPOCRISY!!!
I'd say they should be ashamed of themselves (those responsible, obviously, not the entire USAF), but amoral, dishonorable people generally are not familiar with the concept of shame.
The USAF used to have a H/W table, but hasn't for a long time. That table had more stringent requirements that the ones required of CAP members. I bet CAP is still using the same one that was approved many, many years ago and hasn't revise it since.
That said, last I checked CAP senior members are not required to do PT or get their waist measure or are required to be weighed one or twice a year like AF members are. CAP members are also not kicked out or disciplined when they don't meet this standard.
Finally, CAP members wear of the AF-style uniform is a privilege, not a right. The AF is not obligated to let CAP wear their uniform at all and have every right to impose any requirements they see fit. If CAP members don't like those requirements, they're free to wear CAP corporate-style uniforms or to leave CAP at any time.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on July 12, 2014, 06:48:32 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on July 11, 2014, 08:04:32 PM
The USAF does not have H/W standards any more. If a USAF member is really big...he is still in the USAF and still must wear his uniform.
Even if he is on his way out. But even then "on his way out" can be a process that takes up to a year or more depending on the actual circumstances.
That has always been my beef with the CAP H/W standard as imposed on us by the USAF. I can understand the concept of "we don't big people out there representing the USAF".......but they don't hold their own people to that same standard.
Really???
Ma Blue to CAP: "Do as I say, not as I do"????
I've been in CAP since 1970, WIWAC...really wondered about the integrity of some of the leadership on both sides of the house at times over those decades...but this one is beyond belief.
I can't think of the appropriate word to describe it -- since the late '80s CAP members have been hearing all kinds of sanctimonious drivel from the Air Force regarding this issue...and I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and presume for at least some of those years they followed it too...but to keep us to a standard they have allowed to lapse is sheer, unmitigated, unforgivable HYPOCRISY!!!
I'd say they should be ashamed of themselves (those responsible, obviously, not the entire USAF), but amoral, dishonorable people generally are not familiar with the concept of shame.
If CAP did the entire Air Force Fitness Program, on a required for membership basis, then they could get rid of the Height/Weight Tables too.
But that ain't happening, so we use the tables because they're easy for us to use.
Quote from: shuman14 on July 10, 2014, 10:55:41 PM
Quote from: Ned on July 10, 2014, 10:29:55 PM
So, we are not even sure that there is a significant problem in the first place.
(http://wales4u.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/baby-laughing.jpg)
I found this interesting. My wife and I were discussing the USAF, weight and height restrictions. It seems there is just one chart now that everyone has to meet for entrance to the USAF. If you don't meet this chart they move to the BMI index and BFA test.
http://www.airforce.com/height-weight/ (http://www.airforce.com/height-weight/)
Quote from: Salty on July 12, 2014, 10:39:14 PM
I found this interesting. My wife and I were discussing the USAF, weight and height restrictions. It seems there is just one chart now that everyone has to meet for entrance to the USAF. If you don't meet this chart they move to the BMI index and BFA test.
http://www.airforce.com/height-weight/ (http://www.airforce.com/height-weight/)
Yeah, that chart is for initial entry into the Air Force. Other then medical examinations, probably the last time you will get weighed in the Air Force.
Physical Fitness Test results and Waistline measurement is what they use today.
Yeah I was looking through the new program last night. They've come a long way since the days of the cycle ergometry tests during my time on active duty.
Quote from: RiverAux on July 11, 2014, 09:36:36 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 11, 2014, 09:28:49 PM
So if you get hurt and get fat but don't get bounced, you gotta wear sumpin'.
Make them wear CAP corporates >:D
Your cruelty in making such a statement is unbounded. Fie, fie on you, knave! >:D
Quote from: PHall on July 12, 2014, 10:59:17 PM
Quote from: Salty on July 12, 2014, 10:39:14 PM
I found this interesting. My wife and I were discussing the USAF, weight and height restrictions. It seems there is just one chart now that everyone has to meet for entrance to the USAF. If you don't meet this chart they move to the BMI index and BFA test.
http://www.airforce.com/height-weight/ (http://www.airforce.com/height-weight/)
Yeah, that chart is for initial entry into the Air Force. Other then medical examinations, probably the last time you will get weighed in the Air Force.
Physical Fitness Test results and Waistline measurement is what they use today.
Actually, you do get weighed every time you do the fitness test; twice a year for most and once a year for those who score 90 or higher. The weigh-in, however, is not used for scoring (the waist circumference measurement is), but to help compute the BMI. Also, it's not used to determine uniform wear eligibility, as every member is required to wear a uniform.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 13, 2014, 01:22:05 AM
Quote from: PHall on July 12, 2014, 10:59:17 PM
Quote from: Salty on July 12, 2014, 10:39:14 PM
I found this interesting. My wife and I were discussing the USAF, weight and height restrictions. It seems there is just one chart now that everyone has to meet for entrance to the USAF. If you don't meet this chart they move to the BMI index and BFA test.
http://www.airforce.com/height-weight/ (http://www.airforce.com/height-weight/)
Yeah, that chart is for initial entry into the Air Force. Other then medical examinations, probably the last time you will get weighed in the Air Force.
Physical Fitness Test results and Waistline measurement is what they use today.
Actually, you do get weighed every time you do the fitness test; twice a year for most and once a year for those who score 90 or higher. The weigh-in, however, is not used for scoring (the waist circumference measurement is), but to help compute the BMI. Also, it's not used to determine uniform wear eligibility, as every member is required to wear a uniform.
Maybe your unit did it, but in my unit, unless you exceeded 38 inches on your waist measurement you didn't get weighed.
No need to and not having to weigh everybody sped up the process.
Quote from: PHall on July 13, 2014, 07:15:14 AM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 13, 2014, 01:22:05 AM
Quote from: PHall on July 12, 2014, 10:59:17 PM
Quote from: Salty on July 12, 2014, 10:39:14 PM
I found this interesting. My wife and I were discussing the USAF, weight and height restrictions. It seems there is just one chart now that everyone has to meet for entrance to the USAF. If you don't meet this chart they move to the BMI index and BFA test.
http://www.airforce.com/height-weight/ (http://www.airforce.com/height-weight/)
Yeah, that chart is for initial entry into the Air Force. Other then medical examinations, probably the last time you will get weighed in the Air Force.
Physical Fitness Test results and Waistline measurement is what they use today.
Actually, you do get weighed every time you do the fitness test; twice a year for most and once a year for those who score 90 or higher. The weigh-in, however, is not used for scoring (the waist circumference measurement is), but to help compute the BMI. Also, it's not used to determine uniform wear eligibility, as every member is required to wear a uniform.
Maybe your unit did it, but in my unit, unless you exceeded 38 inches on your waist measurement you didn't get weighed.
No need to and not having to weigh everybody sped up the process.
I can't speak for what they used to do in your unit. But weigh-ins are now (and have been for several years) part of the Air Force physical fitness program.
Quote from: AFI 36-2905, Paragraph 3.4.3Body composition (height, weight, and AC [abdominal circumference]) must be the first component assessed in the FA [fitness assessment].
Quote from: AFI 36-2905, Paragraph 3.5.1.1Obtain height and weight IAW DoDI 1308.3. These measurements are not factored into the member's composite score.
Quote from: AFI 36-2905, Paragraph 3.6.2.1The [weight assessment] measurement will be made on a scale calibrated IAW TO 33K-1-100-1, Section 3, Technical Manual on Calibration Procedure for Maintenance Data Collection Codes and Calibration Measurement Summaries, and recorded to the nearest pound with the following guidance.
(http://www.dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/200000/20000/2000/900/222957/222957.strip.sunday.gif)
Right back at you, Bob. You think we should do weigh-ins, but don't think we need to go to the bother of doing them right. That's an amazing PoV.
Quote from: SarDragon on July 13, 2014, 07:11:15 PM
Right back at you, Bob. You think we should do weigh-ins, but don't think we need to go to the bother of doing them right. That's an amazing PoV.
The "bother of doing them right"? What?
There's nothing in the known universe as simple as weighing someone, or giving them the option
of not having to bother.
Only CAP could make something which is already technically required and over-complicate it to the point where it isn't doable.
Step on a scale, note the number, move on. Feel that the process isn't fair? Move on - "we're using the same scale for everybody".
No one.
Not a single member.
No one...
...who is within variance of a scale manufactured in the last 5 years would be effected by this in a negative way,
and those who we are looking to change, would be held out or simply self-select. There are also ways
to mitigate or address objections regarding the accuracy of said scale. As it stands today, we accept
everything from personal estimate to your bathroom scale.
Heck - here's a start. Review the medicals of the pilots and do some math. I'd bet there's plenty of "variance" there, and no dispute possible.
Lose the excuses and get it done.
Weigh in are yet another reason I favor a corporate style uniform for all seniors.
No arguments, no embarrassment, no nonsense!
Quote from: ZigZag911 on July 14, 2014, 10:40:27 PM
Weigh in are yet another reason I favor a corporate style uniform for all seniors.
No arguments, no embarrassment, no nonsense!
Qualified agreement - if it's not the current colourless abomination of a "uniform."
Quote from: Eclipse on July 13, 2014, 02:53:19 PM
(http://www.dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/200000/20000/2000/900/222957/222957.strip.sunday.gif)
Hmmm......you could just as easily be describing my last place of employment.... >:D
Often wondered why CAP doesn't simply create a military style uniform that is non-Air Force and move both the Cadets and SMs into it.
I don't mind wearing blue BDUs or an aviator shirt. But this would solve the overall uniforimty issue. My vote would be Kahkis as a service uniform. Draws a historic line back to former Air Force and CAP uniforms without directly stepping on the Air Forces toes. Hmmmm, now the expense.
Well maybe not.
Using the host services' uniform solves a major issue by tapping into an already existing supply chain. Otherwise you've got to pick something off the shelf commercially, and hope that it remains available, or create a cottage industry that could fold at any minute.
Quote from: catrulz on July 15, 2014, 03:40:14 PM
Often wondered why CAP doesn't simply create a military style uniform that is non-Air Force
It did. It was hated by some (mostly because of who created it) and loved by many. It has since been eliminated. If you want to know more, search CAPTalk for TPU or CSU.
Quote from: catrulz on July 15, 2014, 03:40:14 PMBut this would solve the overall uniforimty issue.
It would; but some, myself included, feel that it would distance us from the Air Force and we don't want that.
Quote from: catrulz on July 15, 2014, 03:40:14 PMMy vote would be Kahkis as a service uniform.
Shuman, is that you?
Quote from: catrulz on July 15, 2014, 03:40:14 PMHmmmm, now the expense.
There's the rub. By using AF uniforms as our primary uniform base, we can take advantage of economies of scale for new clothing items as well as large surplus stockpiles, particularly for blues. Of course BDUs are getting harder to find surplus in decent condition, so that argument is becoming less and less convincing, at least in regards to field uniforms. One compromise that has been floated in the past is to create/designate a single utility uniform (i.e. the Blue BDUs) but retain the AF-style service and dress uniforms.
Quote from: catrulz on July 15, 2014, 03:40:14 PM
Often wondered why CAP doesn't simply create a military style uniform that is non-Air Force and move both the Cadets and SMs into it.
Somebody did, but it wasn't non-Air Force enough... In some respects it was more "Air Force" than the Air Force style uniform.
IMO something that should have died in the updated CAPM 39-1, is the old style service dress for cadets and other obsolete components. Kill it with fire! Cadet Timmy does not need a service coat that bad.
I would have asked to authorize the black or some other color fleece with insignia with the BDU. A la the sage fleece for the ABU.
The problem with the "economies of scale" argument is that they fail when you have a single-source vendor.
Which if not necessarily the case with the Air Force-style service uniform.
Other than CAP cadets, the only ones wearing the old-style service dress jacket are Air Force Academy cadets.
Quote from: MIKE on July 15, 2014, 04:24:41 PM
I would have asked to authorize the black or some other color fleece with insignia with the BDU. A la the sage fleece for the ABU.
I'm actually surprised that the black fleece wasn't authorized with the BDUs. Apparently (I'm guessing), when worn with the BDUs, it wouldn't be "distinctive" enough. Because those white-on-ultramarine blue tapes that say "CIVIL AIR PATROL" can be pretty deceiving to Airman Timmy at low light and at a distance. Heck, he may salute you!
Quote from: Panache on July 16, 2014, 04:52:56 AM
Quote from: MIKE on July 15, 2014, 04:24:41 PM
I would have asked to authorize the black or some other color fleece with insignia with the BDU. A la the sage fleece for the ABU.
I'm actually surprised that the black fleece wasn't authorized with the BDUs. Apparently (I'm guessing), when worn with the BDUs, it wouldn't be "distinctive" enough. Because those white-on-ultramarine blue tapes that say "CIVIL AIR PATROL" can be pretty deceiving to Airman Timmy at low light and at a distance. Heck, he may salute you!
I would almost be willing to bet that CAP didn't ask the Air Force about it in the first place.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 16, 2014, 09:27:13 PM
Quote from: Panache on July 16, 2014, 04:52:56 AM
Quote from: MIKE on July 15, 2014, 04:24:41 PM
I would have asked to authorize the black or some other color fleece with insignia with the BDU. A la the sage fleece for the ABU.
I'm actually surprised that the black fleece wasn't authorized with the BDUs. Apparently (I'm guessing), when worn with the BDUs, it wouldn't be "distinctive" enough. Because those white-on-ultramarine blue tapes that say "CIVIL AIR PATROL" can be pretty deceiving to Airman Timmy at low light and at a distance. Heck, he may salute you!
I would almost be willing to bet that CAP didn't ask the Air Force about it in the first place.
I'll take a piece of that, too.
Other then the inexplicable request to remove the cutouts from the epaulets of the M-65, it appears that as soon
as ABUs were off the table, the tac was to leave the BDU as-is, and not request any additional parts or changes.
"Not asking the Air Force" seems to be the road most travelled by our leadership.
I wonder if any of our National CC's, NUC, BoG or whatever alphabet soup have ever raised any of the following with the Air Force:
- Returning the blue uniform to pre-1990 status (blue CAP rank marks, metal grade, blue nameplate, CAP cutouts). After all, I think the organisation has "done its penance."
- Asking if the BDU can be made "CAP-distinctive;" very, very, very few of the Armed Forces even use it anymore.
- Asking for a headgear for the G/W kit.
It has seemed to me that, after the decade-apart uniform implosions of Harwell/CSU, the organisation as a whole has taken a "let sleeping dogs lie" approach to broaching possible uniform changes with the Air Force.
What's the worst that could happen? The AF could say "no"...or they could say "yes." Like my mother used to say, you never know if you don't ask.
I wonder if anyone in CAP LAND has asked the NUC to ask the USAF?
On the black fleece for the BDU, I agree.....they probably were focused on the ABU and when the rug got pulled from under them...they did not have time to look at anything new.
I don't think anyone should be getting up in their grill about it.
Quote from: lordmonar on July 16, 2014, 11:53:50 PM
....they probably were focused on the ABU and when the rug got pulled from under them...they did not have time to look at anything new.
Focused in the wrong place, then no ability to change or add anything in 6+ months?
(http://www.game-changer.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/tunnel-vision.jpg)
It's a uniform manual, not the Magna Carta.
Sure.
It is not beyond the realm of possibilities.
They may have also just forgot.
The ABU's did not get canned 6 moths prior to issue. IIRC two months ago we saw a draft with the ABU's in it. I would not be suprised that they just said...."we don't need to worry about a fleece for the BDU...because the BDU's are going away and no one has been asking for them. We got one for the ABUs and we got one for the BBDUs....that's enough".
When the ABUs got pulled.....either the just forgot about it...because at this point they were focusing on correcting mistakes and looking at the feed back from the field (did anyone mention it during the draft phase?). Or.....they knew they had skipped it....but they were too close to the dead line to get it into this edition of the manual.
To Mike......now would be a good time to do a white paper suggesting adopting a fleece for the BDUs and sending it up the chain of command.
Quote from: lordmonar on July 17, 2014, 12:30:57 AM
Sure.
It is not beyond the realm of possibilities.
They may have also just forgot.
The ABU's did not get canned 6 moths prior to issue. IIRC two months ago we saw a draft with the ABU's in it. I would not be suprised that they just said...."we don't need to worry about a fleece for the BDU...because the BDU's are going away and no one has been asking for them. We got one for the ABUs and we got one for the BBDUs....that's enough".
When the ABUs got pulled.....either the just forgot about it...because at this point they were focusing on correcting mistakes and looking at the feed back from the field (did anyone mention it during the draft phase?). Or.....they knew they had skipped it....but they were too close to the dead line to get it into this edition of the manual.
2 Months? There hasn't been a draft that included ABUs this calendar year and the command council was informed in March that
CAP would not pursue ABUs. What was finally released as the new 39-1 had been languishing in in-boxes for most of 2014.
For the record, the USAF tacitly denied CAP the wear of ABUs going back to 2012, this is canonized in the NB minutes as per CAP-USAF.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 17, 2014, 12:59:53 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on July 17, 2014, 12:30:57 AM
Sure.
It is not beyond the realm of possibilities.
They may have also just forgot.
The ABU's did not get canned 6 moths prior to issue. IIRC two months ago we saw a draft with the ABU's in it. I would not be suprised that they just said...."we don't need to worry about a fleece for the BDU...because the BDU's are going away and no one has been asking for them. We got one for the ABUs and we got one for the BBDUs....that's enough".
When the ABUs got pulled.....either the just forgot about it...because at this point they were focusing on correcting mistakes and looking at the feed back from the field (did anyone mention it during the draft phase?). Or.....they knew they had skipped it....but they were too close to the dead line to get it into this edition of the manual.
2 Months? There hasn't been a draft that included ABUs this calendar year and the command council was informed in March that
CAP would not pursue ABUs. What was finally released as the new 39-1 had been languishing in in-boxes for most of 2014.
For the record, the USAF tacitly denied CAP the wear of ABUs going back to 2012, this is canonized in the NB minutes as per CAP-USAF.
Your are right....I saw a "Draft Draft" that came out in Jan or Feb that included the ABUs.
And you are right.....the March Draft sat around for a month collecting feed back, then it went to the committee then it was sent to the USAF where it sat for quite awhile.
My point is.....that the NUC....a volunteer committee.....did not have a lot of time to make changes after the draft hit the streets.