CAP Talk

http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/UPDATED_ABU_wear_instruction_7_Jul__EEB893035EB1E.pdf (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/UPDATED_ABU_wear_instruction_7_Jul__EEB893035EB1E.pdf)

Where is the source page this is linked from?

Ah, the eservices RSS.

So in reading this, it appears that squadron patches are not authorized on the ABU.  Is that your interpretation as well?

Quote from: Toad1168 on July 13, 2016, 01:41:25 PM
So in reading this, it appears that squadron patches are not authorized on the ABU.  Is that your interpretation as well?

That is my interpretation. As well as no ES or Ranger patches.

And yet they still didn't bother to change the first paragraph so that it doesn't refer to wearing the uniform off base or having it issued.

"The best is a rigger-style belt with a hook and loop buckle." Opinion. Facts not in evidence.

"The ABU cap is the only authorized headgear with this uniform." and then goes on to discuss "Additional Items that may be Authorized." Kind of negates that "only authorized headgear" statement.

Quote from: jeders on July 13, 2016, 01:53:19 PM
And yet they still didn't bother to change the first paragraph so that it doesn't refer to wearing the uniform off base or having it issued.

So no 5 star restaurants or bars (rats  :-\), check.  The AAFES statement makes sense, but definitely not the issued part.  Unless they are referring to those issued through the wings.

Quote from: stillamarine on July 13, 2016, 01:47:08 PM

Quote from: Toad1168 on July 13, 2016, 01:41:25 PM
So in reading this, it appears that squadron patches are not authorized on the ABU.  Is that your interpretation as well?

That is my interpretation. As well as no ES or Ranger patches.

No ES or Ranger TABS. The School patch is still a go.

Quote from: THRAWN on July 13, 2016, 01:56:44 PM
"The best is a rigger-style belt with a hook and loop buckle." Opinion. Facts not in evidence.

"The ABU cap is the only authorized headgear with this uniform." and then goes on to discuss "Additional Items that may be Authorized." Kind of negates that "only authorized headgear" statement.

But those refer specifically to special activities, on-site only.  If it is worn in public, its ABU cap only.

Quote from: THRAWN on July 13, 2016, 01:59:49 PM

Quote from: stillamarine on July 13, 2016, 01:47:08 PM

Quote from: Toad1168 on July 13, 2016, 01:41:25 PM
So in reading this, it appears that squadron patches are not authorized on the ABU.  Is that your interpretation as well?

That is my interpretation. As well as no ES or Ranger patches.

No ES or Ranger TABS. The School patch is still a go.

Thank God they are getting rid of the ES patches.  One word, ugly  ;D

Quote from: Toad1168 on July 13, 2016, 01:58:27 PM

Quote from: jeders on July 13, 2016, 01:53:19 PM
And yet they still didn't bother to change the first paragraph so that it doesn't refer to wearing the uniform off base or having it issued.

So no 5 star restaurants or bars (rats  :-\), check.  The AAFES statement makes sense, but definitely not the issued part.  Unless they are referring to those issued through the wings.

It's cut and paste form the AFMAN. Somebody did a lousy editing job on this.

And it looks like the Model Rocketry patch is gone as well. 

Transmitted via my R5 astromech.

Quote from: Toad1168 on July 13, 2016, 01:59:52 PM

Quote from: THRAWN on July 13, 2016, 01:56:44 PM
"The best is a rigger-style belt with a hook and loop buckle." Opinion. Facts not in evidence.

"The ABU cap is the only authorized headgear with this uniform." and then goes on to discuss "Additional Items that may be Authorized." Kind of negates that "only authorized headgear" statement.

But those refer specifically to special activities, on-site only.  If it is worn in public, its ABU cap only.

But that's not what it says. It clearly states that the ABU cap is the only authorized headgear. S better choice of words would have been "The ABU cap is the only authorized headgear with this uniform, WITH THE FOLLOWING TEMPORARY EXCEPTIONS:"

And what encampments are out of view of the public?

Quote from: winterg on July 13, 2016, 02:03:27 PM
And it looks like the Model Rocketry patch is gone as well. 

Transmitted via my R5 astromech.

And Honor Guard.

Quote from: winterg on July 13, 2016, 02:03:27 PM
And it looks like the Model Rocketry patch is gone as well. 

Transmitted via my R5 astromech.

I'm good with limiting the number of patches and especially getting rid of the gaudy ones.  Too many members look like Boy Scouts with everything they put on the uniform.  It ends up looking very unprofessional.

Quote from: THRAWN on July 13, 2016, 02:05:10 PM

Quote from: Toad1168 on July 13, 2016, 01:59:52 PM

Quote from: THRAWN on July 13, 2016, 01:56:44 PM
"The best is a rigger-style belt with a hook and loop buckle." Opinion. Facts not in evidence.

"The ABU cap is the only authorized headgear with this uniform." and then goes on to discuss "Additional Items that may be Authorized." Kind of negates that "only authorized headgear" statement.

But those refer specifically to special activities, on-site only.  If it is worn in public, its ABU cap only.

But that's not what it says. It clearly states that the ABU cap is the only authorized headgear. S better choice of words would have been "The ABU cap is the only authorized headgear with this uniform, WITH THE FOLLOWING TEMPORARY EXCEPTIONS:"

And what encampments are out of view of the public?

Plus the squadron commander can, with wing, approve ball caps. Yes?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Quote from: DakRadz on July 13, 2016, 02:21:40 PM

Quote from: THRAWN on July 13, 2016, 02:05:10 PM

Quote from: Toad1168 on July 13, 2016, 01:59:52 PM

Quote from: THRAWN on July 13, 2016, 01:56:44 PM
"The best is a rigger-style belt with a hook and loop buckle." Opinion. Facts not in evidence.

"The ABU cap is the only authorized headgear with this uniform." and then goes on to discuss "Additional Items that may be Authorized." Kind of negates that "only authorized headgear" statement.

But those refer specifically to special activities, on-site only.  If it is worn in public, its ABU cap only.

But that's not what it says. It clearly states that the ABU cap is the only authorized headgear. S better choice of words would have been "The ABU cap is the only authorized headgear with this uniform, WITH THE FOLLOWING TEMPORARY EXCEPTIONS:"

And what encampments are out of view of the public?

Plus the squadron commander can, with wing, approve ball caps. Yes?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

In any conservative color but red.....again, bad editing and apparently no review before it was pushed out.

Quote from: THRAWN on July 13, 2016, 02:24:48 PM

Quote from: DakRadz on July 13, 2016, 02:21:40 PM

Quote from: THRAWN on July 13, 2016, 02:05:10 PM

Quote from: Toad1168 on July 13, 2016, 01:59:52 PM

Quote from: THRAWN on July 13, 2016, 01:56:44 PM
"The best is a rigger-style belt with a hook and loop buckle." Opinion. Facts not in evidence.

"The ABU cap is the only authorized headgear with this uniform." and then goes on to discuss "Additional Items that may be Authorized." Kind of negates that "only authorized headgear" statement.

But those refer specifically to special activities, on-site only.  If it is worn in public, its ABU cap only.

But that's not what it says. It clearly states that the ABU cap is the only authorized headgear. S better choice of words would have been "The ABU cap is the only authorized headgear with this uniform, WITH THE FOLLOWING TEMPORARY EXCEPTIONS:"

And what encampments are out of view of the public?

Plus the squadron commander can, with wing, approve ball caps. Yes?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

In any conservative color but red.....again, bad editing and apparently no review before it was pushed out.

"Baseball Caps. Unit Commanders may authorize the wear of unit Baseball Caps for wear with
the ABU, when approved by the Wing Commander. These caps will be conservative in color, and will not be worn
outside of unit activities. Red baseball caps may not be authorized since this color baseball cap is reserved by the
Air Force for specific special duty units."

Again. This was a perfect opportunity to inject some uniformity and proper definitions. What is a conservative color? What is acceptable to put on the caps? Embroidered or printed?

Transmitted via my R5 astromech.

Quote from: Toad1168 on July 13, 2016, 02:27:32 PM

Quote from: THRAWN on July 13, 2016, 02:24:48 PM

Quote from: DakRadz on July 13, 2016, 02:21:40 PM

Quote from: THRAWN on July 13, 2016, 02:05:10 PM

Quote from: Toad1168 on July 13, 2016, 01:59:52 PM

Quote from: THRAWN on July 13, 2016, 01:56:44 PM
"The best is a rigger-style belt with a hook and loop buckle." Opinion. Facts not in evidence.

"The ABU cap is the only authorized headgear with this uniform." and then goes on to discuss "Additional Items that may be Authorized." Kind of negates that "only authorized headgear" statement.

But those refer specifically to special activities, on-site only.  If it is worn in public, its ABU cap only.

But that's not what it says. It clearly states that the ABU cap is the only authorized headgear. S better choice of words would have been "The ABU cap is the only authorized headgear with this uniform, WITH THE FOLLOWING TEMPORARY EXCEPTIONS:"

And what encampments are out of view of the public?

Plus the squadron commander can, with wing, approve ball caps. Yes?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

In any conservative color but red.....again, bad editing and apparently no review before it was pushed out.

"Baseball Caps. Unit Commanders may authorize the wear of unit Baseball Caps for wear with
the ABU, when approved by the Wing Commander. These caps will be conservative in color, and will not be worn
outside of unit activities. Red baseball caps may not be authorized since this color baseball cap is reserved by the
Air Force for specific special duty units."

Unit activities? Like meetings? Unit SAREXs? Car wash? Can shake? Parades? The simple fix is to make the doggone hat the bloody ABU cap and leave it the heck alone. Daggum why is every simple thing complicated by idiocy like this?

Thrawn. If it were simple, it wouldn't be CAP. 

I'm with you.  Make it the ABU cap and That. Is.  It.  No exceptions. Period. 

Transmitted via my R5 astromech.

Quote from: THRAWN on July 13, 2016, 02:33:16 PM

Quote from: Toad1168 on July 13, 2016, 02:27:32 PM

Quote from: THRAWN on July 13, 2016, 02:24:48 PM

Quote from: DakRadz on July 13, 2016, 02:21:40 PM

Quote from: THRAWN on July 13, 2016, 02:05:10 PM

Quote from: Toad1168 on July 13, 2016, 01:59:52 PM

Quote from: THRAWN on July 13, 2016, 01:56:44 PM
"The best is a rigger-style belt with a hook and loop buckle." Opinion. Facts not in evidence.

"The ABU cap is the only authorized headgear with this uniform." and then goes on to discuss "Additional Items that may be Authorized." Kind of negates that "only authorized headgear" statement.

But those refer specifically to special activities, on-site only.  If it is worn in public, its ABU cap only.

But that's not what it says. It clearly states that the ABU cap is the only authorized headgear. S better choice of words would have been "The ABU cap is the only authorized headgear with this uniform, WITH THE FOLLOWING TEMPORARY EXCEPTIONS:"

And what encampments are out of view of the public?

Plus the squadron commander can, with wing, approve ball caps. Yes?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

In any conservative color but red.....again, bad editing and apparently no review before it was pushed out.

"Baseball Caps. Unit Commanders may authorize the wear of unit Baseball Caps for wear with
the ABU, when approved by the Wing Commander. These caps will be conservative in color, and will not be worn
outside of unit activities. Red baseball caps may not be authorized since this color baseball cap is reserved by the
Air Force for specific special duty units."

Unit activities? Like meetings? Unit SAREXs? Car wash? Can shake? Parades? The simple fix is to make the doggone hat the bloody ABU cap and leave it the heck alone. Daggum why is every simple thing complicated by idiocy like this?

My guess would be to appease all those units who have invested money into such items.  I'm sure there was some level of complaining about this.  I wouldn't be surprised if there are further changes to incorporate unit patches and the such.

I hope big Air Force doesn't go for all the whining. Want to recoup your money on patches and the like? Sell them. There are plenty of collectors who would pay for them. Don't want to sell them? Hand them out as "morale" patches/hats/placemats...Donate them to a local aviation museum. Donate them to the USAF Museum. Set up a patch swap. Plenty of alternatives to hosing up the uniform.

IMHO, my recommendation would be to go with an overall streamlined approach to uniforms, ALL uniforms.  Get rid of the extra patches, only name, branch, and qualification badges.  Lose the national, region, wing and squadron patches as well.  Everyone looks the same.  Dare I say uniformity?  Use the new style ABU grade insignia on the FDU and authorize the sand t-shirt there as well.  In the end, it cuts the cost of having to buy different insignia for different uniforms. 

I'd go a step further and put everybody in the CFU. Be done with the cammies.

Every Wing should be in a digital camo appropriate for their region.  3:)

Transmitted via my R5 astromech.

Quote from: winterg on July 13, 2016, 03:01:23 PM
Every Wing should be in a digital camo appropriate for their region.  3:)

Transmitted via my R5 astromech.

YOU JUST MADE THE LIST, PAL!

Quote from: THRAWN on July 13, 2016, 03:07:21 PM

Quote from: winterg on July 13, 2016, 03:01:23 PM
Every Wing should be in a digital camo appropriate for their region.  3:)

Transmitted via my R5 astromech.

YOU JUST MADE THE LIST, PAL!

Worth it. [emoji12]

Transmitted via my R5 astromech.

How about the fact that ABU guidance lacks the "badge-to-badge,  not blue-to-blue" measurement specification that is similarly applied to BDUs and  BBDU

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Quote from: NIN on July 13, 2016, 05:37:47 PM
How about the fact that ABU guidance lacks the "badge-to-badge,  not blue-to-blue" measurement specification that is similarly applied to BDUs and  BBDU

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

One would hope, and I know that is saying a lot, that members would realize that this is a basic description and that the actual requirements such as that are outlined in 39-1.

Quote from: Toad1168 on July 13, 2016, 05:42:59 PM

Quote from: NIN on July 13, 2016, 05:37:47 PM
How about the fact that ABU guidance lacks the "badge-to-badge,  not blue-to-blue" measurement specification that is similarly applied to BDUs and  BBDU

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

One would hope, and I know that is saying a lot, that members would realize that this is a basic description and that the actual requirements such as that are outlined in 39-1.

Maybe. But if you're going to put out a directive instruction, make it complete and not full of "refer to" references. Otherwise, just create an addendum to the regulation. Or, even better in this case, use chapter 7 to provide a complete regulatory guidance.

But there I am thinking like someone who uses regs on an hourly basis...

Quote from: THRAWN on July 13, 2016, 05:58:42 PM

Quote from: Toad1168 on July 13, 2016, 05:42:59 PM

Quote from: NIN on July 13, 2016, 05:37:47 PM
How about the fact that ABU guidance lacks the "badge-to-badge,  not blue-to-blue" measurement specification that is similarly applied to BDUs and  BBDU

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

One would hope, and I know that is saying a lot, that members would realize that this is a basic description and that the actual requirements such as that are outlined in 39-1.

Maybe. But if you're going to put out a directive instruction, make it complete and not full of "refer to" references. Otherwise, just create an addendum to the regulation. Or, even better in this case, use chapter 7 to provide a complete regulatory guidance.

But there I am thinking like someone who uses regs on an hourly basis...

True.  It just seems to me that this was meant as a stop gap to enable the wear of the uniform until 39-1 can be revised.  But I do agree with you.

Quote from: Toad1168 on July 13, 2016, 06:07:35 PM

Quote from: THRAWN on July 13, 2016, 05:58:42 PM

Quote from: Toad1168 on July 13, 2016, 05:42:59 PM

Quote from: NIN on July 13, 2016, 05:37:47 PM
How about the fact that ABU guidance lacks the "badge-to-badge,  not blue-to-blue" measurement specification that is similarly applied to BDUs and  BBDU

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

One would hope, and I know that is saying a lot, that members would realize that this is a basic description and that the actual requirements such as that are outlined in 39-1.

Maybe. But if you're going to put out a directive instruction, make it complete and not full of "refer to" references. Otherwise, just create an addendum to the regulation. Or, even better in this case, use chapter 7 to provide a complete regulatory guidance.

But there I am thinking like someone who uses regs on an hourly basis...

True.  It just seems to me that this was meant as a stop gap to enable the wear of the uniform until 39-1 can be revised.  But I do agree with you.

Who has 15 years to wait around for that?

Transmitted via my R5 astromech.

Quote from: winterg on July 13, 2016, 06:08:34 PM

Quote from: Toad1168 on July 13, 2016, 06:07:35 PM

Quote from: THRAWN on July 13, 2016, 05:58:42 PM

Quote from: Toad1168 on July 13, 2016, 05:42:59 PM

Quote from: NIN on July 13, 2016, 05:37:47 PM
How about the fact that ABU guidance lacks the "badge-to-badge,  not blue-to-blue" measurement specification that is similarly applied to BDUs and  BBDU

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

One would hope, and I know that is saying a lot, that members would realize that this is a basic description and that the actual requirements such as that are outlined in 39-1.

Maybe. But if you're going to put out a directive instruction, make it complete and not full of "refer to" references. Otherwise, just create an addendum to the regulation. Or, even better in this case, use chapter 7 to provide a complete regulatory guidance.

But there I am thinking like someone who uses regs on an hourly basis...

True.  It just seems to me that this was meant as a stop gap to enable the wear of the uniform until 39-1 can be revised.  But I do agree with you.

Who has 15 years to wait around for that?

Transmitted via my R5 astromech.

It should take 15 minutes. Chapter 7 is empty and it is the only change that is being made. Thought the whole idea was to do away with the massive amount of trash that is generated by ICLs, policy memos, policy letters, instructions and the like....

Unless they want to ensure they have all the details hammered out with USAF, so that Chapter 7 can exist once rather than updating the entire manual 3 times- an entire manual, or even chapter, is a lot more paper.

ICLs were overused, not useless. They still have a place.

QuoteExamples  of  these  items  would  be  Baseball  caps,  berets (Blue  Beret  activity  only)...

(http://i.imgur.com/d4aXiNo.jpg)

Took less than a month for the authorization of berets to sneak back in. I wonder how long will it take before it's fully authorized for the ABU outside of special activities?  ::)

Quote from: Toad1168 on July 13, 2016, 02:48:06 PM
IMHO, my recommendation would be to go with an overall streamlined approach to uniforms, ALL uniforms.  Get rid of the extra patches, only name, branch, and qualification badges.  Lose the national, region, wing and squadron patches as well.  Everyone looks the same.  Dare I say uniformity?  Use the new style ABU grade insignia on the FDU and authorize the sand t-shirt there as well.  In the end, it cuts the cost of having to buy different insignia for different uniforms.

They got rid of the Wing Patches by making them optional.

Quote from: MSG Mac on July 14, 2016, 12:07:43 AM

Quote from: Toad1168 on July 13, 2016, 02:48:06 PM
IMHO, my recommendation would be to go with an overall streamlined approach to uniforms, ALL uniforms.  Get rid of the extra patches, only name, branch, and qualification badges.  Lose the national, region, wing and squadron patches as well.  Everyone looks the same.  Dare I say uniformity?  Use the new style ABU grade insignia on the FDU and authorize the sand t-shirt there as well.  In the end, it cuts the cost of having to buy different insignia for different uniforms.

They got rid of the Wing Patches by making them optional.

Read it a little closer. Your Wing Commander is the one who makes the choice about Wing Patches.

Quote from: Hyperion on July 13, 2016, 10:27:05 PM

QuoteExamples  of  these  items  would  be  Baseball  caps,  berets (Blue  Beret  activity  only)...

(http://i.imgur.com/d4aXiNo.jpg)

Took less than a month for the authorization of berets to sneak back in. I wonder how long will it take before it's fully authorized for the ABU outside of special activities?  ::)

Those are only authorized at the events themselves.  So no funny hats once folks leave WI, and no funny hats in WI except for one week.

Quote from: Hyperion on July 13, 2016, 10:27:05 PM

QuoteExamples  of  these  items  would  be  Baseball  caps,  berets (Blue  Beret  activity  only)...

(http://i.imgur.com/d4aXiNo.jpg)

Took less than a month for the authorization of berets to sneak back in. I wonder how long will it take before it's fully authorized for the ABU outside of special activities?  ::)

As soon as I get into the regs and figure out how I'd like to submit a proposal to ban the blue beret period. I know it won't go anywhere but it thoroughly irks me that it's even a thing.

Quote from: stillamarine on July 13, 2016, 01:47:08 PM

Quote from: Toad1168 on July 13, 2016, 01:41:25 PM
So in reading this, it appears that squadron patches are not authorized on the ABU.  Is that your interpretation as well?

That is my interpretation. As well as no ES or Ranger patches.

Aren't the ES patches listed in attachment 8-1 and the ranger tabs in 8-2?  It looks like you can still wear the ranger tab, but now on the center of the pocket instead of above it, which  really sounds like a mistake.

For the BBDU and for the BDU.

They do NOT carry to the ABU. For the ABU you have to look at the wear instructions. Which appear to say NO to ES patches, and Ranger tabs. A few other patches or badges may be worn with the name, CAP, and Wing.

For complete list and correct wear see http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/UPDATED_ABU_wear_instruction_7_Jul__EEB893035EB1E.pdf (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/UPDATED_ABU_wear_instruction_7_Jul__EEB893035EB1E.pdf)

Quote from: PHall on July 14, 2016, 12:40:55 AM

Quote from: MSG Mac on July 14, 2016, 12:07:43 AMThey got rid of the Wing Patches by making them optional.

Read it a little closer. Your Wing Commander is the one who makes the choice about Wing Patches.

Ok, let's read a little closer:

Quote from: Updated ABU Wear InstructionsWing Commanders may make wear of the wing patch mandatory for members of their wings.

It says the Wing King/Queen may make the patch mandatory. So the important word there is may. That means the Wing Commander may decide against making the wing patch mandatory. If it's not mandatory, it stands to reason it is optional. Otherwise the line would say the Wing Commander decides if the wing patch is worn for members of their wings.

At least, that's how clear instructions would work.

Quote from: Fubar on July 14, 2016, 04:58:36 AM

Quote from: PHall on July 14, 2016, 12:40:55 AM

Quote from: MSG Mac on July 14, 2016, 12:07:43 AMThey got rid of the Wing Patches by making them optional.

Read it a little closer. Your Wing Commander is the one who makes the choice about Wing Patches.

Ok, let's read a little closer:

Quote from: Updated ABU Wear InstructionsWing Commanders may make wear of the wing patch mandatory for members of their wings.

It says the Wing King/Queen may make the patch mandatory. So the important word there is may. That means the Wing Commander may decide against making the wing patch mandatory. If it's not mandatory, it stands to reason it is optional. Otherwise the line would say the Wing Commander decides if the wing patch is worn for members of their wings.

At least, that's how clear instructions would work.

If your Wing Commander made the Wing Patch mandatory it will hopefully be in your wing's Supplement to CAPM 39-1.

Quote from: Jester on July 14, 2016, 12:43:49 AM

As soon as I get into the regs and figure out how I'd like to submit a proposal to ban the blue beret period. I know it won't go anywhere but it thoroughly irks me that it's even a thing.

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/-KNa8b99HIg/hqdefault.jpg)

Quote from: PHall on July 14, 2016, 06:01:26 AM

Quote from: Fubar on July 14, 2016, 04:58:36 AM

Quote from: PHall on July 14, 2016, 12:40:55 AM

Quote from: MSG Mac on July 14, 2016, 12:07:43 AMThey got rid of the Wing Patches by making them optional.

Read it a little closer. Your Wing Commander is the one who makes the choice about Wing Patches.

Ok, let's read a little closer:

Quote from: Updated ABU Wear InstructionsWing Commanders may make wear of the wing patch mandatory for members of their wings.

It says the Wing King/Queen may make the patch mandatory. So the important word there is may. That means the Wing Commander may decide against making the wing patch mandatory. If it's not mandatory, it stands to reason it is optional. Otherwise the line would say the Wing Commander decides if the wing patch is worn for members of their wings.

At least, that's how clear instructions would work.

If your Wing Commander made the Wing Patch mandatory it will hopefully be in your wing's Supplement to CAPM 39-1.

Our Wing King, also head of the NUC, sent a survey to all our members regarding the wear of the wing patch as it pertains to our wing. Half of us were torn between making it mandatory and leaving it optional on the ABU, and the majority supported leaving it mandatory on the BDU. So, end result for us was optional for ABU and mandtory for BDU until, of course, it phases out.

Quote from: N6RVT on July 14, 2016, 01:17:13 AM

Quote from: stillamarine on July 13, 2016, 01:47:08 PM

Quote from: Toad1168 on July 13, 2016, 01:41:25 PM
So in reading this, it appears that squadron patches are not authorized on the ABU.  Is that your interpretation as well?

That is my interpretation. As well as no ES or Ranger patches.

Aren't the ES patches listed in attachment 8-1 and the ranger tabs in 8-2?  It looks like you can still wear the ranger tab, but now on the center of the pocket instead of above it, which  really sounds like a mistake.

Update authorizes patches in 8.1-3, excluding ES and Ranger tabs.  Other than this exclusion, there is no further mention of Ranger tabs, so not authorized.  Honor Guard and Rocket patch are in 8.4, so not authorized.   No mention of Squadron patches, not authorized.

Quote from: winterg on July 14, 2016, 11:09:04 AM

Quote from: Jester on July 14, 2016, 12:43:49 AM

As soon as I get into the regs and figure out how I'd like to submit a proposal to ban the blue beret period. I know it won't go anywhere but it thoroughly irks me that it's even a thing.

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/-KNa8b99HIg/hqdefault.jpg)

NEVER

Quote from: Damron on July 14, 2016, 02:54:30 PM

Quote from: N6RVT on July 14, 2016, 01:17:13 AM

Quote from: stillamarine on July 13, 2016, 01:47:08 PM

Quote from: Toad1168 on July 13, 2016, 01:41:25 PM
So in reading this, it appears that squadron patches are not authorized on the ABU.  Is that your interpretation as well?

That is my interpretation. As well as no ES or Ranger patches.

Aren't the ES patches listed in attachment 8-1 and the ranger tabs in 8-2?  It looks like you can still wear the ranger tab, but now on the center of the pocket instead of above it, which  really sounds like a mistake.

Update authorizes patches in 8.1-3, excluding ES and Ranger tabs.  Other than this exclusion, there is no further mention of Ranger tabs, so not authorized.  Honor Guard and Rocket patch are in 8.4, so not authorized.   No mention of Squadron patches, not authorized.

Squadron patches remain authorized, as are comm and special activities for the left pocket. If they removed auth for squadron patches, there would be a massive (IMO) revolt.

Quote from: Garibaldi on July 14, 2016, 04:15:25 PM

Quote from: Damron on July 14, 2016, 02:54:30 PM

Quote from: N6RVT on July 14, 2016, 01:17:13 AM

Quote from: stillamarine on July 13, 2016, 01:47:08 PM

Quote from: Toad1168 on July 13, 2016, 01:41:25 PM
So in reading this, it appears that squadron patches are not authorized on the ABU.  Is that your interpretation as well?

That is my interpretation. As well as no ES or Ranger patches.

Aren't the ES patches listed in attachment 8-1 and the ranger tabs in 8-2?  It looks like you can still wear the ranger tab, but now on the center of the pocket instead of above it, which  really sounds like a mistake.

Update authorizes patches in 8.1-3, excluding ES and Ranger tabs.  Other than this exclusion, there is no further mention of Ranger tabs, so not authorized.  Honor Guard and Rocket patch are in 8.4, so not authorized.   No mention of Squadron patches, not authorized.

Squadron patches remain authorized, as are comm and special activities for the left pocket. If they removed auth for squadron patches, there would be a massive (IMO) revolt.

Until the wear instructions are updated, the squadron patch does not appear to be currently authorized on the ABU. Not to say it won't be. If someone is reading it different than I please correct me. 

Transmitted via my R5 astromech.

Quote from: Garibaldi on July 14, 2016, 04:15:25 PM

Quote from: Damron on July 14, 2016, 02:54:30 PM

Quote from: N6RVT on July 14, 2016, 01:17:13 AM

Quote from: stillamarine on July 13, 2016, 01:47:08 PM

Quote from: Toad1168 on July 13, 2016, 01:41:25 PM
So in reading this, it appears that squadron patches are not authorized on the ABU.  Is that your interpretation as well?

That is my interpretation. As well as no ES or Ranger patches.

Aren't the ES patches listed in attachment 8-1 and the ranger tabs in 8-2?  It looks like you can still wear the ranger tab, but now on the center of the pocket instead of above it, which  really sounds like a mistake.

Update authorizes patches in 8.1-3, excluding ES and Ranger tabs.  Other than this exclusion, there is no further mention of Ranger tabs, so not authorized.  Honor Guard and Rocket patch are in 8.4, so not authorized.   No mention of Squadron patches, not authorized.

Squadron patches remain authorized, as are comm and special activities for the left pocket. If they removed auth for squadron patches, there would be a massive (IMO) revolt.

As of July 7 update, squadron patches are not authorized.   They were not authorized in the May 4 update either.

Quote from: Fubar on July 14, 2016, 04:58:36 AM

It says the Wing King/Queen may make the patch mandatory. So the important word there is may. That means the Wing Commander may decide against making the wing patch mandatory. If it's not mandatory, it stands to reason it is optional. Otherwise the line would say the Wing Commander decides if the wing patch is worn for members of their wings.

At least, that's how clear instructions would work.

I agree.  The "may" appears to apply to the member.   I think the regulation should be "wear will be mandatory or prohibited by the wing commander", for sake of uniformity.


Left Sleeve. One full color, wing/region/national patch may be sewn to the coat on the left sleeve
½ inch below the shoulder seam reflecting the individual's current unit of assignment. Wing Commanders may
make wear of the wing patch mandatory for members of their wings.

The updated guidance isn't much more helpful. It may even muddy the waters of the original guidance some.

A number of things are  referred to without the same degree of qualification that they are refer to in the 39-1 chapters for BBDUs and BDUs.

For example:

Quote from: the updated guidance says
Left Breast Pocket. One full color patch authorized in Attachment 8-1 through 8-3, with the exception of the Emergency Services patches and Ranger tabs, may be sewn to the shirt centered on the lower portion of the left breast pocket between left and right edges and bottom of flap and pocket of ABU shirt.p

[my emphasis here represents grey-shaded text denoting changed material in the original document]

A) There is no ATTACHMENT 8-1 through 8-3. There are FIGURES 8-1, 8-2, 8-3, 8-4, etc in Attachment 8.

B) Figures 8-1 though 8-3 in attachment 8 SHOW the patches, they don't AUTHORIZE the patches.  That comes from Chapter 10, and the guidance in Attachment 4.

C) Wear / don't wear guidance is found in Attachment 4, where the table lists the specific authorized locations for patches (and also badges) on the locations of uniforms. But it specifically mentions that it is just a quick reference for Chapter 10 and other specific uniform guidance found in the paragraphs describing the wear methods for each uniform (ie. chapters 3, 4 & 5)

D) Under the various chapters describing wear instructions for specific uniforms, they reference the specific wear instructions for things like patches on the sleeves and pockets.  Example:

Quote from: CAPM 39-1, chapter 5
5.2.1.4.4. Left Breast Pocket. One full color patch as authorized by Attachment 4 may be sewn to the shirt centered on the lower left portion of the left breast pocket between left and right edges and bottom of flap and pocket of BDU shirt.
5.2.1.4.5. Right Breast Pocket. One full color patch as authorized by Attachment 4 may be sewn to the shirt centered on the lower portion of the right breast pocket between left and right edges and bottom of flap and pocket of BDU shirt.

The current 39-1 guidance for specific uniforms references Attachment 4, which then references Attachment 8 for the specific patch design but not the authority. The authority to wear is actually derived by Chapter 10, which further specifies that the specifics for each uniform's badge & patch wear are found in the individual wear instructions (ie. Chapter 3, 4 or 5) for that uniform.

E) There is ZERO reference in the new ABU guidance to Chapter 10, where certain patches and such are authorized, in particular unit patches.  Guess units are out of luck.

F) Apparently the rocketry patch and honor guard patch are also relegated to the dustbin of progress, as they are found in Figure 8-4.

Unrelated to the pocket & sleeve patch issues, the guidance for aviation and qualification badge placement in all other instances in 39-1 states, in part:

Quote from: 39-1, para 5.1.1.3.6.[...]All ultramarine blue insignia will have 1/8 inch of blue showing at the widest and tallest point of the insignia. When placing multiple insignia in the same area, measure from the insignia-to-insignia not blue to blue.

Emphasis mine

However, the originally published ABU guidance and the newly updated guidance for ABUs completely leave that out:

Quote from: updated ABU guidance, para on Aviation badgesAll light silver on dark blue insignia will have 1/8 inch of blue showing at the widest and tallest point of the insignia.

I'm officially confused. I'll stick to sewing on tapes and insignia, then wait for the dust to settle before sewing on any patches.

Quote from: Starfleet Auxiliary on July 14, 2016, 05:03:21 PM
I'm officially confused. I'll stick to sewing on tapes and insignia, then wait for the dust to settle before sewing on any patches.

You and me both, bubba.

All those color patches don't look good in the ABUs. If I get a set of ABUs, it will only have tapes, grade insignia, wings, and badges.

Retired military, advisor to commander and squadron NCO. So the ABU is supposed to be worn with sleeves down.  CAP is following ABU policy with cut and paste from the AFM. I'm ok with this and understand that.  Most are not reading this as intent but what they want. There are many in my area that don't understand that the word "may" in the wear policy.  "May" authorize, is not authority to wear up all the time.  There is no date for guidance for dates in the year to wear up/down.   Wing guidance has not been established or a Wing supplement to 39-1.  I know it is earlier in the game with changes and guidance forth coming.  Has anyone heard anything or received guidance?

I see AD Air Force with sleeves rolled up all the time. 

Transmitted via my R5 astromech.

I can say the same for down.  You didn't answer the question.

Yup. All the services have gone back to rolling sleeves up.

Quote from: Wanda on July 14, 2016, 05:40:25 PM
Retired military, advisor to commander and squadron NCO. So the ABU is supposed to be worn with sleeves down.  CAP is following ABU policy with cut and paste from the AFM. I'm ok with this and understand that.  Most are not reading this as intent but what they want. There are many in my area that don't understand that the word "may" in the wear policy.  "May" authorize, is not authority to wear up all the time.  There is no date for guidance for dates in the year to wear up/down.   Wing guidance has not been established or a Wing supplement to 39-1.  I know it is earlier in the game with changes and guidance forth coming.  Has anyone heard anything or received guidance?

Commanders may authorize sleeves to be rolled up on the ABU coat; however, the cuffs will remain visible and the sleeve will rest at, or within 1 inch of, the forearm when the arm is bent at a 90-degree angle. Regardless as to whether the sleeves are rolled up or unrolled, the cuffs will remain visible at all times. Reference AFI 36-2903, paragraph 5.1.1.

Quote from: Wanda on July 14, 2016, 05:40:25 PM
So the ABU is supposed to be worn with sleeves down. 

Just curious where this statement comes from.  I have never seen that in an USAF guidance and Airman have been wearing rolled sleeves since ABUs were authorized years ago.

Quote from: Wanda on July 14, 2016, 05:44:06 PM
I can say the same for down.  You didn't answer the question.

Wasn't answering your question. I was commenting on your statement that ABU was intended to be worn sleeves down. My observation has been the opposite.  That's all.

Transmitted via my R5 astromech.

Thank you for replies and I'm familiar with Reference AFI 36-2903, paragraph 5.1.1.
As no "official" guidance has presented, no more replies needed.
Thank you again.
////Nothing Follows////

Quote from: Wanda on July 14, 2016, 06:01:55 PM
Thank you for replies and I'm familiar with Reference AFI 36-2903, paragraph 5.1.1.
As no "official" guidance has presented, no more replies needed.
Thank you again.
////Nothing Follows////

Oh something follows. You came in and made a statement which was refuted WITH official guidance from the EXACT manual that gives said guidance and think you get off with a smart aleck comment? You must be new here.

Quote from: Wanda on July 14, 2016, 05:40:25 PM
Retired military, advisor to commander and squadron NCO. So the ABU is supposed to be worn with sleeves down.  CAP is following ABU policy with cut and paste from the AFM. I'm ok with this and understand that.  Most are not reading this as intent but what they want. There are many in my area that don't understand that the word "may" in the wear policy.  "May" authorize, is not authority to wear up all the time.  There is no date for guidance for dates in the year to wear up/down.   Wing guidance has not been established or a Wing supplement to 39-1.  I know it is earlier in the game with changes and guidance forth coming.  Has anyone heard anything or received guidance?

Quote from: The guidance from NHQ on ABUsCommanders may authorize sleeves to be rolled up on the ABU coat; however, the cuffs will remain visible and the sleeve will rest at, or within 1 inch of, the forearm when the arm is bent at a 90-degree angle. Regardless as to whether the sleeves are rolled up or unrolled, the cuffs will remain visible at all times.

Quote from: AFMAN 36-2903, para 5.1.1Commanders may authorize sleeves to be rolled up on the ABU coat; however, the cuffs will remain visible and the sleeve will rest at, or within 1 inch of, the forearm when the arm is bent at a 90-degree angle. Regardless as to whether the sleeves are rolled up or unrolled, the cuffs will remain visible at all times.

The wear policy for CAP is a direct lift from the Air Force Uniform manual. That is the official guidance from NHQ.

If you're the advisor to the commander, you know how this works.  "You're never wrong if you wear the uniform your commander specifies."

Commander: "Next week's meeting will be ABUs utllity or equivalent with the sleeves rolled up." [Edit: my bad, not everybody can wear USAF style]
Members: "Roger!"

As a commander, I personally published the statement that when specified, uniform sleeves would be uniformly worn up or down across the squadron. That way the barracks lawyers were kept at bay.

Quote from: Wanda on July 14, 2016, 05:40:25 PM
Retired military, advisor to commander and squadron NCO. So the ABU is supposed to be worn with sleeves down.  CAP is following ABU policy with cut and paste from the AFM. I'm ok with this and understand that.  Most are not reading this as intent but what they want. There are many in my area that don't understand that the word "may" in the wear policy.  "May" authorize, is not authority to wear up all the time.  There is no date for guidance for dates in the year to wear up/down.   Wing guidance has not been established or a Wing supplement to 39-1.  I know it is earlier in the game with changes and guidance forth coming.  Has anyone heard anything or received guidance?

If the Commander authorizes the sleeves to be rolled and doesn't give any restrictions like "between 15 Apr and 15 Oct", then the way I read it you can roll them anytime you want.

And I'm retired Air Force, so I do know how the game is played.

And welcome to CAPTalk.

Thank you all for responses and passion.  I took a chance with posting (and a miss post) for clarification trying to avoid the ABU interpretation and "Barracks Lawyers" during the current change over.  I guess it didn't workout.  I will wait for the new 39-1 to be published.  Thank you.

Quote from: Wanda on July 14, 2016, 07:18:56 PM
Thank you all for responses and passion.  I took a chance with posting (and a miss post) for clarification trying to avoid the ABU interpretation and "Barracks Lawyers" during the current change over.  I guess it didn't workout.  I will wait for the new 39-1 to be published.  Thank you.

I don't understand.

The guidance has been published.

You said

QuoteRetired military, advisor to commander and squadron NCO. So the ABU is supposed to be worn with sleeves down.  CAP is following ABU policy with cut and paste from the AFM. I'm ok with this and understand that.  Most are not reading this as intent but what they want. There are many in my area that don't understand that the word "may" in the wear policy.  "May" authorize, is not authority to wear up all the time.  There is no date for guidance for dates in the year to wear up/down.   Wing guidance has not been established or a Wing supplement to 39-1.  I know it is earlier in the game with changes and guidance forth coming.  Has anyone heard anything or received guidance?

What is your specific question or concern?

Are you worried that some commanders will say "No, in this squadron we go sleeves down all the time?"

You said: "Most are not reading this as intent but what they want."

Are you speaking of the commander's intent? If so, I believe it is clear that the commander's intent (that being the National Commander, the guy who signed the memo) is that we follow the general USAF wear pattern.  And the general USAF wear pattern is "Commanders may authorize sleeves to be rolled up on the ABU coat;[...]" (lifted straight out of the AFMAN)

Meaning that commanders (that being commanders below the echelon producing the publication) have some leeway on specifying when and where sleeves are rolled.

80 degrees in Tuscon, Arizona on the 1st of November?  "Sleeves up, folks."
45 degrees in Ogden, Utah on the 1st of November? "Sleeves down, folks."

Previously, the manual didn't specifically say "Commanders may authorize ..."  But commanders did anyway.  I know I stated in my unit's uniform policy "Sleeves will be up or down uniformly" meaning "if we said 'sleeves up' then everybody did so." 

Now CAP's rules reflects the AF guidance on the subject.

You also said "There are many in my area that don't understand that the word "may" in the wear policy.  "May" authorize, is not authority to wear up all the time. There is no date for guidance for dates in the year to wear up/down. "

I think I see what you're getting at here.

CAP for many years (dating back to the time, while the earth was cooling and airplanes had two wings: one on the top and one on the bottom) followed the old USAF pattern of "winter uniforms and summer uniforms" that dated back to the 1970s and before.  When things like Combination 3 and Tropical Worsted were still worn.

So it stood to reason that people still kept arbitrary guidelines like "summer uniforms after April 15th" or whatever. It was an easy way to keep everybody on the same page.  And these things got passed down as gospel wear patterns year after year.  I know I did it for a long time.  I still hear cadets who's parents weren't even born WIWAC say "Sir, I need winter blues."

But maybe, where you're at, some commanders say "OK, everybody, sleeves up from now until 15 October" or "in this squadron, we're totally hard core, so sleeves down all the time, no exceptions, I don't care if its 800 degrees out there.."

Your wing may or may not issue guidance on that. Note that it said "Commanders may..."  Your wing commander may not feel that sleeve rolling is as important of a deal to actually write a policy, or specify in a supplement, but instead will rely on his/her commanders to dictate the need as local conditions exist.

I still don't quite see where the concern for barracks lawyering comes in.

"Are you wearing the uniform your commander has specified?"

Thats pretty straightforward.

Thank you sir! That's a answer that I was looking for.  I guess guidance was a bad choice of words and should of said the standard for guidance. 

It says, may authorize sleeves up. Not, may authorize sleeves down.  To me that is worn down until a standard/guidance is stated for sleeves up???  (half empty or half full)
Reasons for sleeves up are what? Dates, temperature, Commander authority, wing authority or safety?! 

Some CAP commanders choose to dictate if sleeves can be rolled or not.  Most USAF commanders do not.  In my nearly 30 years in the USAF the only time I experienced sleeve rolling guidance was in BMT, Tech School, and situations where sleeves needed to be down for valid mission reasons.  As a squadron commander I choose not to dictate sleeves up or down.  I only say that if the sleeves are rolled then it better be correctly done. 

Some people do not want to ever roll their sleeves for various reasons (personal preference, tattoos, medical condition, etc.) so I don't want to force them to roll sleeves and at the same time I don't want to not allow people to roll sleeves just because a couple of members can't/don't want to roll them.  There are more important things to worry about and not having everyone with their sleeves in the same position has zero effect on training, moral, effectiveness.

Default is down. Commanders have authority to go sleeves up for any number of reasons including temperature, phase of the moon, etc...

Quote from: Wanda on July 14, 2016, 10:17:40 PM
Reasons for sleeves up are what? Dates, temperature, Commander authority, wing authority or safety?!

Yes to all of these WITH commander authority. Basically anything the commander deems necessary.


Also, I read your initial post as most of the others seem to have. If your previous post is what you originally meant, it makes more sense.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Sleeves are rolled up, default is down, for whatever the commander deems necessary.

Safety:

Sleeves down may get caught up in something, sleeves could be ordered up.
Sleeves are up and the member is on a mission in a wooded area where mosquitoes, scratches with bush, other insects are possible, commander may say "sleeves down."
Sleeves are down commander feels that sleeves up may induce comfort from heat, sleeves can go up.
Sleeves are up commander feels it is too sunny and member may get sunburnt, sleeves go down.

Looks:

Commander likes the looks of sleeves rolled up, (s)he has the leeway to say "up sleeves."
Commander likes the looks of sleeves down, (s)he has the leeway to say "sleeves down."

Of all the things I have to care about as a Commander, sleeves up or down is not even on the list.

Considering the state of CAP's multiform, and that there are currently five variants of a field uniform,
not to mention the golf shirt as another option in the room, "uniformity" as an argument holds zero weight.

If you literally care about whether sleeves are up or down, or more humorously think it's a "safety issue", you need to refocus your attention.

Yeah, yeah, "I'm from Fontucky, GA Hell's Swampland Missourssipi, where the sun is only 100' feet away and the bugs
qualify for credit cards".  Whatever - BTW, a hat's not required with the CFU, so good luck with the sleeves.

If someone is warm in January, and wants them up, have at it.

Seriously, FIMO.

OK so we know default sleeve position is down.  Then Commanders may authorize sleeves to be rolled.  That is different than may require sleeves to be rolled correct?    If not how would that interact with members such as myself who are not allowed, by 39-1 to roll our sleeves do to tattoos that cover more than the maximum allowed area on an exposed appendage?

Quote from: Ground_Pounder on July 14, 2016, 11:29:45 PM
OK so we know default sleeve position is down.  Then Commanders may authorize sleeves to be rolled.  That is different than may require sleeves to be rolled correct?    If not how would that interact with members such as myself who are not allowed, by 39-1 to roll our sleeves do to tattoos that cover more than the maximum allowed area on an exposed appendage?

This is another reason why I don't dictate that my squadron members roll their sleeves or make everyone keep them down.  The how uniformity argument concerning rolling sleeves doesn't hold much for me as a USAF member.  It is so rare that a USAF commander bothers ordering sleeves up or down.  There are more important things to worry about.

To directly answer your question, a commander could say everyone must keep their sleeves down because there are some who can't roll their sleeves due to tattoos or medical reasons.  Since you can't roll your sleeves because of your tattoos, a commander can't order you to roll sleeves since that would make you out of compliance with 39-1.

I can only think of a few situations where I care whether sleeves are up or down.  I want my color guard's sleeves down when presenting colors at a meeting, we present colors at least twice a month. I would like uniformity for public drill such as a parade and when posing for group photos for publication.

Beyond that, I'm more concerned about the task at hand than sleeves.  By the time my cadet commander asks if it's okay to roll sleeves, I'm ready to go to t-shirts.

I tell you in the 17 years I have been in the AF there have only been a few times I couldn't roll my sleeves. 

1) BMT
2) Tech School round 1
3) Guard Mount
4) Deployed
5) RTC's
6) PME
7) Tech School round 2
8) Misc formations

I have seen more angst in this org about sleeve rolling than my entire AF career.  And most of the angst has come from cadets who for some reason have this fascination with rolling their sleeves. 

I have worn sleeves down in my ABUs since I started wearing them in 2008 to current.  Personally I would rather have my sleeves down because that's where my pens are, plus it has helped keep me cool during the hot summers in here in CA, the hot summers in AZ and in Korea. 

Quote from: abdsp51 on July 15, 2016, 02:12:51 AM

I have seen more angst in this org about sleeve rolling than my entire AF career.  And most of the angst has come from cadets who for some reason have this fascination with rolling their sleeves. 

I have worn sleeves down in my ABUs since I started wearing them in 2008 to current.  Personally I would rather have my sleeves down because that's where my pens are, plus it has helped keep me cool during the hot summers in here in CA, the hot summers in AZ and in Korea.

^ This x 1000

Everyone needs to relax. Is there really a two page discussion about the intent of sleeve rolls?

Quote from: Wanda on July 14, 2016, 10:17:40 PM
Reasons for sleeves up are what? Dates, temperature, Commander authority, wing authority or safety?!

All of the above?

- Dates
- Temp
- Season
- Safety
- Commander's prerogative
- Higher echelon commander's authority
- Personal preference (of the commander)
- etc

The commander may authorize.. he also may not.

"Up, down, I don't care."

Quote from: Garibaldi on July 14, 2016, 04:15:25 PM

Quote from: Damron on July 14, 2016, 02:54:30 PM

Quote from: N6RVT on July 14, 2016, 01:17:13 AM

Quote from: stillamarine on July 13, 2016, 01:47:08 PM

Quote from: Toad1168 on July 13, 2016, 01:41:25 PM
So in reading this, it appears that squadron patches are not authorized on the ABU.  Is that your interpretation as well?

That is my interpretation. As well as no ES or Ranger patches.

Aren't the ES patches listed in attachment 8-1 and the ranger tabs in 8-2?  It looks like you can still wear the ranger tab, but now on the center of the pocket instead of above it, which  really sounds like a mistake.

Update authorizes patches in 8.1-3, excluding ES and Ranger tabs.  Other than this exclusion, there is no further mention of Ranger tabs, so not authorized.  Honor Guard and Rocket patch are in 8.4, so not authorized.   No mention of Squadron patches, not authorized.

Squadron patches remain authorized, as are comm and special activities for the left pocket. If they removed auth for squadron patches, there would be a massive (IMO) revolt.

Well arm yourself for the revolution they took them off


Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Quote from: PHall on July 14, 2016, 12:40:55 AM

Quote from: MSG Mac on July 14, 2016, 12:07:43 AM

Quote from: Toad1168 on July 13, 2016, 02:48:06 PM
IMHO, my recommendation would be to go with an overall streamlined approach to uniforms, ALL uniforms.  Get rid of the extra patches, only name, branch, and qualification badges.  Lose the national, region, wing and squadron patches as well.  Everyone looks the same.  Dare I say uniformity?  Use the new style ABU grade insignia on the FDU and authorize the sand t-shirt there as well.  In the end, it cuts the cost of having to buy different insignia for different uniforms.

They got rid of the Wing Patches by making them optional.

Read it a little closer. Your Wing Commander is the one who makes the choice about Wing Patches.

I'm actually in a Wing that never made the Wing Patch mandatory and then came out with a new Wing Patch. In that case it truly is optional.

It's my constitutional right to bare arms!

(https://d26horl2n8pviu.cloudfront.net/pictures/images/000/015/773/for_gallery_v2/rolled_sleeves.jpeg?1418094162)

Quote from: NIN on July 14, 2016, 06:10:19 PM

Quote from: Wanda on July 14, 2016, 05:40:25 PM
Retired military, advisor to commander and squadron NCO. So the ABU is supposed to be worn with sleeves down.  CAP is following ABU policy with cut and paste from the AFM. I'm ok with this and understand that.  Most are not reading this as intent but what they want. There are many in my area that don't understand that the word "may" in the wear policy.  "May" authorize, is not authority to wear up all the time.  There is no date for guidance for dates in the year to wear up/down.   Wing guidance has not been established or a Wing supplement to 39-1.  I know it is earlier in the game with changes and guidance forth coming.  Has anyone heard anything or received guidance?

Quote from: The guidance from NHQ on ABUsCommanders may authorize sleeves to be rolled up on the ABU coat; however, the cuffs will remain visible and the sleeve will rest at, or within 1 inch of, the forearm when the arm is bent at a 90-degree angle. Regardless as to whether the sleeves are rolled up or unrolled, the cuffs will remain visible at all times.

Quote from: AFMAN 36-2903, para 5.1.1Commanders may authorize sleeves to be rolled up on the ABU coat; however, the cuffs will remain visible and the sleeve will rest at, or within 1 inch of, the forearm when the arm is bent at a 90-degree angle. Regardless as to whether the sleeves are rolled up or unrolled, the cuffs will remain visible at all times.

The wear policy for CAP is a direct lift from the Air Force Uniform manual. That is the official guidance from NHQ.

If you're the advisor to the commander, you know how this works.  "You're never wrong if you wear the uniform your commander specifies."

Commander: "Next week's meeting will be ABUs utllity or equivalent with the sleeves rolled up." [Edit: my bad, not everybody can wear USAF style]
Members: "Roger!"

As a commander, I personally published the statement that when specified, uniform sleeves would be uniformly worn up or down across the squadron. That way the barracks lawyers were kept at bay.

May authorize is not the same as can mandate. The standard way of wearing the ABU is with sleeves down. I stopped rolling my sleeves up years ago. And unless I was part of a formation or taking a group picture were uniformity was crucial, I would not roll them up. As a commander, I'm not a fan of making optional things mandatory. We have enough of that in CAP.

Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 15, 2016, 11:33:20 AM
May authorize is not the same as can mandate. The standard way of wearing the ABU is with sleeves down. I stopped rolling my sleeves up years ago. And unless I was part of a formation or taking a group picture were uniformity was crucial, I would not roll them up. As a commander, I'm not a fan of making optional things mandatory. We have enough of that in CAP.

OK, I see your point. I *can* say "you may roll your sleeves up", but if Cadet Timmy is always cold and prefers his down, well, then...

I think pretty much everybody takes "may authorize" to mean, basically, "The commander can say 'OK, everybody, sleeves up'."  I know thats probably not the way its interpreted in the Air Force based on what you're saying.

OTOH, I was in the Army, and when you were told "sleeves up" it was a mandate, not an invitation for choice :)

Quote from: NIN on July 15, 2016, 11:43:50 AM

Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 15, 2016, 11:33:20 AM
May authorize is not the same as can mandate. The standard way of wearing the ABU is with sleeves down. I stopped rolling my sleeves up years ago. And unless I was part of a formation or taking a group picture were uniformity was crucial, I would not roll them up. As a commander, I'm not a fan of making optional things mandatory. We have enough of that in CAP.

OK, I see your point. I *can* say "you may roll your sleeves up", but if Cadet Timmy is always cold and prefers his down, well, then...

I think pretty much everybody takes "may authorize" to mean, basically, "The commander can say 'OK, everybody, sleeves up'."  I know thats probably not the way its interpreted in the Air Force based on what you're saying.

OTOH, I was in the Army, and when you were told "sleeves up" it was a mandate, not an invitation for choice :)

The Army and the Air Force have different cultures. I see a lot from the Army and other services carrying over to CAP (calling hats/caps "cover" or insisting that NCOs can't be called sir but only sergeant comes to mind). But while CAP can and does benefit from the wealth of experience and training that our Army, Navy, Marine, and Coast Guard brethren bring, we can't forget that we're the Air Force Auxiliary and Air Force culture, traditions, terminology, etc. should take precedence from those of other services.

Quote from: NIN on July 15, 2016, 11:43:50 AM

Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 15, 2016, 11:33:20 AM
May authorize is not the same as can mandate. The standard way of wearing the ABU is with sleeves down. I stopped rolling my sleeves up years ago. And unless I was part of a formation or taking a group picture were uniformity was crucial, I would not roll them up. As a commander, I'm not a fan of making optional things mandatory. We have enough of that in CAP.

OK, I see your point. I *can* say "you may roll your sleeves up", but if Cadet Timmy is always cold and prefers his down, well, then...

I think pretty much everybody takes "may authorize" to mean, basically, "The commander can say 'OK, everybody, sleeves up'."  I know thats probably not the way its interpreted in the Air Force based on what you're saying.

OTOH, I was in the Army, and when you were told "sleeves up" it was a mandate, not an invitation for choice :)

I think that goes to the "obey my officers" point. Stop arguing just because you're uncomfortable and do what you're told. It's not an unjust order. If CC says roll sleeves, roll them. If he/she says everyone lace your boots inboard-to-outboard, do it.

The amount of times I've heard cadets in other units be told to adjust their uniform and hear some form of snide remark back. Until you're in the position of authority to decide what the SOP is, shut up and just do it.

Quote from: TheSkyHornet on July 15, 2016, 05:43:11 PM

Quote from: NIN on July 15, 2016, 11:43:50 AM

Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 15, 2016, 11:33:20 AM
May authorize is not the same as can mandate. The standard way of wearing the ABU is with sleeves down. I stopped rolling my sleeves up years ago. And unless I was part of a formation or taking a group picture were uniformity was crucial, I would not roll them up. As a commander, I'm not a fan of making optional things mandatory. We have enough of that in CAP.

OK, I see your point. I *can* say "you may roll your sleeves up", but if Cadet Timmy is always cold and prefers his down, well, then...

I think pretty much everybody takes "may authorize" to mean, basically, "The commander can say 'OK, everybody, sleeves up'."  I know thats probably not the way its interpreted in the Air Force based on what you're saying.

OTOH, I was in the Army, and when you were told "sleeves up" it was a mandate, not an invitation for choice :)

I think that goes to the "obey my officers" point. Stop arguing just because you're uncomfortable and do what you're told. It's not an unjust order. If CC says roll sleeves, roll them. If he/she says everyone lace your boots inboard-to-outboard, do it.

The amount of times I've heard cadets in other units be told to adjust their uniform and hear some form of snide remark back. Until you're in the position of authority to decide what the SOP is, shut up and just do it.

In 20 years of military service, a commander has never ordered me to roll up my sleeves, yet CAP commanders somehow know better about these things. Again, there may be circumstances that require it, but I can't think of many.

As a CAP commander, I have better things to do than to tell my members how to lace their boots or roll their sleeves. We don't have to get to that level of detail when prescribing a UOD, yet I see it all the time. From requiring that everyone rolls up their sleeves, to mandating ribbons on the USAF-style short sleeve service uniform, we want to make optional things mandatory. And most of the time, it's based on someone's opinion about what's proper or needed.

~sidebar~
Fort Gordon, GA, 2010

Home of the Signal Corps.

Our encampment was told until they received permission from the base commander (or designee for this type of issue, whomever that is), we could not roll our sleeves because the Army had purchased uniforms specifically designed for airflow- the ACUs. We were to follow the base/service/regulation rule of no rolled sleeves.



In the end (of day 1 or 2), someone actually looked up their old BDU regulation and found that BDUs can be rolled, so they would allow it.

~sidebar~

I would imagine that the same airflow argument would work with ABUs, but I don't know for sure. I know I prefer ACUs sleeves down- I've worn ACUs when my buddys drill sergeant dad snuck (sort of) us two teenagers into his training platoon at Benning so we could do the confidence course (and yes, I realize that sounds made-up, but boy was it fun), and now wear jet black ACUs for my EMS job everyday (company policy...........) The airflow does actually work, at least for me, if I let the wrist velcro all the way out. If I'm in the ambulance I tend to take the top off and go T-shirt.
The EMS job isn't comparable to the military, but the amount of time I spend in vehicles, outdoors, office environments, and standing around in the sun waiting on someone to do something is VERY comparable to Civil Air Patrol.





REGARDLESS: Do what the commander says, and if you're a commander- plenty of others have chimed in on that note.

Personally, I don't like the way they look sleeves-up. It's not like the BDU, though they are kinda made to roll up. Just my opinion, but they don't look....right.

Quote from: winterg on July 15, 2016, 10:14:28 AM
It's my constitutional right to bare arms!

(https://d26horl2n8pviu.cloudfront.net/pictures/images/000/015/773/for_gallery_v2/rolled_sleeves.jpeg?1418094162)

Suns out, Guns out 8) 8) 8)

The one week a year I wear BDUs also happens to be the one week a year where I have some influence over the environment. My rule has always been that seniors do what they feel works best for them and the cadet leadership decides for themselves (I've yet had to have a cadet follow my lead on leaving it to personal choice. Oh well.).

And yes, I've a senior or two give me some grief for not forcing "conformity" amongst the seniors. Never to my face though.

I did see one conflict in the latest (July) update.   The rocket patch appears in the ABU graphic but is excluded in the text, as it is in 8-4.   I am guessing they retained the graphic without noticing the conflict.

Quote from: Damron on July 16, 2016, 04:44:01 AM
I did see one conflict in the latest (July) update.   The rocket patch appears in the ABU graphic but is excluded in the text, as it is in 8-4.   I am guessing they retained the graphic without noticing the conflict.

I am highly confident we will see another update within the next 30 days. Hence why I'm putting on tapes and insignia only.

Quote from: Starfleet Auxiliary on July 16, 2016, 11:10:25 PM

Quote from: Damron on July 16, 2016, 04:44:01 AM
I did see one conflict in the latest (July) update.   The rocket patch appears in the ABU graphic but is excluded in the text, as it is in 8-4.   I am guessing they retained the graphic without noticing the conflict.

I am highly confident we will see another update within the next 30 days. Hence why I'm putting on tapes and insignia only.

One could certainly conjecture that these rushed ICLs are based on affected upcoming activities.

No berets, printed shirts or customs hats... ... ... AIRVENTURE!!!!  NESA!!!!

Authorized.

Quote from: Eclipse on July 17, 2016, 03:08:38 AM

Quote from: Starfleet Auxiliary on July 16, 2016, 11:10:25 PM

Quote from: Damron on July 16, 2016, 04:44:01 AM
I did see one conflict in the latest (July) update.   The rocket patch appears in the ABU graphic but is excluded in the text, as it is in 8-4.   I am guessing they retained the graphic without noticing the conflict.

I am highly confident we will see another update within the next 30 days. Hence why I'm putting on tapes and insignia only.

One could certainly conjecture that these rushed ICLs are based on affected upcoming activities.

No berets, printed shirts or customs hats... ... ... AIRVENTURE!!!!  NESA!!!!

Authorized.

Authorized or not, putting any bright colored patches on the uniform destroys the effect the new color insignia gives you, so Im leaving it off anyway.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Quote from: winterg on July 13, 2016, 02:30:28 PM
Again. This was a perfect opportunity to inject some uniformity and proper definitions. What is a conservative color? What is acceptable to put on the caps? Embroidered or printed?

Transmitted via my R5 astromech.

Maryland Wing uses black caps with the unit embroidered on the front. Units place an order thru the Wing Administrator. Cost s about $6/Cap.

Saw a cadet wearing the SARDOG just now in a video piece, same feature had another with the !@#$ luggage tag
as the branch tape.

Not going to narc them out here, but look around at your people and SAY SOMETHING.

Quote from: Eclipse on July 24, 2016, 08:49:32 PM
Saw a cadet wearing the SARDOG just now in a video piece, same feature had another with the !@#$ luggage tape
as the branch tape.

Not going to narc them out here, but look around at your people and SAY SOMETHING.

:o

Looks like units are going to have to start policing themselves. My unit has about 0 interest, maybe 2 cadets out of 38, who want them right now. The others are either ageing out or have just purchased new BDUs, so they're not real interested in change. But I've made it clear on what to wear and what not to wear, so there should be no issues on our end. If there are, we'll deal with it. Our unit already has a moratorium on the SARDOG patch.

I was at a SAREX this last weekend where another senior member who was at the group level stated that the wear updates for both ABU's and anything else preclude using the new tapes on the BDU's and Blue utilities. This came from the wording seemingly having not being updated with any of the other uniforms.

My impression is that CAP is moving completely away from UM Blue tapes and specialty/aviation badges and that it's been ok to switch over. Obviously I think we've all seen the new tapes on BDU's and Blue Utilities, and I'm sure the intention is to move away completely from the UM blue, but can anyone chime in on specifics regarding wear of new tapes on the Blue Utility Uniform or BDU's? Not trying to rock the boat but I'd love some specifics if possible that we can use regarding all uniforms until the new 39-1 is finalized.

This is from the original change announcement. The later updates are ABU specific.


3. The phase in period for wear of the ABU will begin on 15 June 2016. Members will wear
the ABU with the dark blue tapes and insignia as outlined in the attached wear instructions.
Vanguard will begin accepting orders for the new devices on 15 June 2016. The Battle Dress
Uniform (BDU) may continue to be worn until the mandatory phase out date of 15 June 2021.
CAP will also begin to transition to dark blue tapes on the Corporate field uniform and BDUs
with a mandatory wear date of 15 June 2021. Members are not required to change the tapes
on existing uniforms until the mandatory wear date; however, all devices on the uniform must
match. The attached wear instructions will constitute regulatory guidance on the wear of the
ABU until a revision to CAP Manual 39-1 is released.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Quote from: Garibaldi on July 24, 2016, 09:21:35 PM

:o

Looks like units are going to have to start policing themselves. My unit has about 0 interest, maybe 2 cadets out of 38, who want them right now. The others are either ageing out or have just purchased new BDUs, so they're not real interested in change. But I've made it clear on what to wear and what not to wear, so there should be no issues on our end. If there are, we'll deal with it. Our unit already has a moratorium on the SARDOG patch.

+1.  Zero immediate interest, for Senior Members and cadets alike.  I don't understand the reluctance to self-police.  It's quite easy and there's no need to be offensive, merely firm.

What was the deal about the ES patch?

http://www.newspressnow.com/news/local_news/article_a412d7f6-d4cf-5725-a40c-952cd7343c67.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=user-share (http://www.newspressnow.com/news/local_news/article_a412d7f6-d4cf-5725-a40c-952cd7343c67.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=user-share)


And, that is a CAP c/Capt to the left, yes?

Quote from: LTC Don on July 25, 2016, 01:46:38 PM
What was the deal about the ES patch?

http://www.newspressnow.com/news/local_news/article_a412d7f6-d4cf-5725-a40c-952cd7343c67.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=user-share (http://www.newspressnow.com/news/local_news/article_a412d7f6-d4cf-5725-a40c-952cd7343c67.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=user-share)


And, that is a CAP c/Capt to the left, yes?

ES patch is not authorized on ABU per current guidance. 

Not trying to shame any cadets pictured. But for photos like this to make it into the public, the member has to set up their uniform after (ideally) consulting policy. Every member SHOULD have a supervisor or mentor that SHOULD be responsible for their members.  Especially when rolling out a new uniform.  That member wears the uniform at a CAP event around other members that would presumably have one member that was familiar with said policy not being followed. And photographs being taken at CAP events not being vetted by anyone before being put into public domain.  It is business as usual. But if you bring up these issues, then you are just focusing too much on uniforms and not the mission.

Edited because I accidentally hit send before I was finished. 

Transmitted via my R5 astromech.

Quote from: winterg on July 25, 2016, 01:48:36 PM

Quote from: LTC Don on July 25, 2016, 01:46:38 PM
What was the deal about the ES patch?

http://www.newspressnow.com/news/local_news/article_a412d7f6-d4cf-5725-a40c-952cd7343c67.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=user-share (http://www.newspressnow.com/news/local_news/article_a412d7f6-d4cf-5725-a40c-952cd7343c67.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=user-share)


And, that is a CAP c/Capt to the left, yes?

ES patch is not authorized on ABU per current guidance. 

Not trying to shame any cadets pictured. But for photos like this to make it into the public, the member has to set up their uniform after (ideally) consulting policy. Every member SHOULD have a supervisor or mentor that SHOULD be responsible for their members.  Especially when rolling out a new uniform.  That member wears the uniform at a CAP event around other members that would presumably have one member that was familiar with said policy not being followed. And photographs being taken at CAP events not being vetted by anyone before being put into public domain.  It is business as usual. But if you bring up these issues, then you are just focusing too much on uniforms and not the mission.

Edited because I accidentally hit send before I was finished. 

Transmitted via my R5 astromech.

Concur 100% that it's BAU in many squadrons on up.

Quote from: CAPR 20-1
Squadron commanders... shall:

Ensure proper wear of the uniform and that violations are promptly corrected.

Quote from: winterg on July 25, 2016, 01:48:36 PM

Quote from: LTC Don on July 25, 2016, 01:46:38 PM
What was the deal about the ES patch?

http://www.newspressnow.com/news/local_news/article_a412d7f6-d4cf-5725-a40c-952cd7343c67.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=user-share (http://www.newspressnow.com/news/local_news/article_a412d7f6-d4cf-5725-a40c-952cd7343c67.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=user-share)


And, that is a CAP c/Capt to the left, yes?

ES patch is not authorized on ABU per current guidance. 

Not trying to shame any cadets pictured. But for photos like this to make it into the public, the member has to set up their uniform after (ideally) consulting policy. Every member SHOULD have a supervisor or mentor that SHOULD be responsible for their members.  Especially when rolling out a new uniform.  That member wears the uniform at a CAP event around other members that would presumably have one member that was familiar with said policy not being followed. And photographs being taken at CAP events not being vetted by anyone before being put into public domain.  It is business as usual. But if you bring up these issues, then you are just focusing too much on uniforms and not the mission.

Edited because I accidentally hit send before I was finished. 

Transmitted via my R5 astromech.

The PAO also should not have allowed a picture with personnel wearing the uniform incorrectly.

Quote from: LTC Don on July 25, 2016, 01:46:38 PM
What was the deal about the ES patch?

http://www.newspressnow.com/news/local_news/article_a412d7f6-d4cf-5725-a40c-952cd7343c67.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=user-share (http://www.newspressnow.com/news/local_news/article_a412d7f6-d4cf-5725-a40c-952cd7343c67.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=user-share)


And, that is a CAP c/Capt to the left, yes?

The cadet was likely told to set up the ABU same as the BDU. I will pick on the C/Capt for wearing his grade insignia incorrectly.

How do you police individuals who believe this organization is nothing more than a voluntary chaperone gig? I was told that the CAPR 39-1 is more of a guideline and suggestion, than it is a regulation.

Quote from: grunt82abn on July 25, 2016, 03:07:49 PM
How do you police individuals who believe this organization is nothing more than a voluntary chaperone gig? I was told that the CAPR 39-1 is more of a guideline and suggestion, than it is a regulation.

Even volunteer organizations have rules.

Quote from: grunt82abn on July 25, 2016, 03:07:49 PM
How do you police individuals who believe this organization is nothing more than a voluntary chaperone gig? I was told that the CAPR 39-1 is more of a guideline and suggestion, than it is a regulation.

The "R" in CAPR 39-1 stands for Regulation. Commanders need to do their jobs -- educate and enforce.

Senior members who join just to be a chaperone (and we do need them) should be in the Cadet Sponsor membership category, where the only uniform they need be concerned with is the polo shirt.

Quote from: grunt82abn on July 25, 2016, 03:07:49 PM
How do you police individuals who believe this organization is nothing more than a voluntary chaperone gig? I was told that the CAPR 39-1 is more of a guideline and suggestion, than it is a regulation.

1 - You set the tone and the expectation in your own wear and behavior.

2 - You don't avoid the uncomfortable conversations no matter who it is or what their grade.

3 - You direct corrections privately and discreetly, or in general all-hands type messages (after the visible issues are corrected).

"Cadet, I understand the confusion, but that insignia isn't authorized.  Luckily it'll be a quick fix to remove it, but it needs to
be done before you can participate today.  Next time ask before you sew things on which are optional."

"Colonel, I noticed you're still wearing a wing patch on your blues, those were removed over 10 years ago.  We all need to set the
example, and I promise you if I noticed, others already have as well..."

In the case noted, it could be corrected in the van on the way to the flight line.

Also, for the record, I specifically didn't link to the photo because it was a cadet, and we're not supposed to do that here anymore,
but I guess discretion was too much to ask in what only needed to be a general conversation?

Quote from: neummy on July 25, 2016, 03:20:36 PM

Quote from: grunt82abn on July 25, 2016, 03:07:49 PM
How do you police individuals who believe this organization is nothing more than a voluntary chaperone gig? I was told that the CAPR 39-1 is more of a guideline and suggestion, than it is a regulation.

The "R" in CAPR 39-1 stands for Regulation. Commanders need to do their jobs -- educate and enforce.

Senior members who join just to be a chaperone (and we do need them) should be in the Cadet Sponsor membership category, where the only uniform they need be concerned with is the polo shirt.

Well, to be fair, 39-1 is not regulation.  It is a manual, thus CAPM 39-1.  That being said, right at the beginning, it says Compliance with this publication is mandatory.

Quote from: RogueLeader on July 25, 2016, 03:22:43 PM

Quote from: neummy on July 25, 2016, 03:20:36 PM

Quote from: grunt82abn on July 25, 2016, 03:07:49 PM
How do you police individuals who believe this organization is nothing more than a voluntary chaperone gig? I was told that the CAPR 39-1 is more of a guideline and suggestion, than it is a regulation.

The "R" in CAPR 39-1 stands for Regulation. Commanders need to do their jobs -- educate and enforce.

Senior members who join just to be a chaperone (and we do need them) should be in the Cadet Sponsor membership category, where the only uniform they need be concerned with is the polo shirt.

Well, to be fair, 39-1 is not regulation.  It is a manual, thus CAPM 39-1.  That being said, right at the beginning, it says Compliance with this publication is mandatory.

Oops. Good catch, and thanks for the correction.

Quote from: Eclipse on July 25, 2016, 03:21:35 PM

Quote from: grunt82abn on July 25, 2016, 03:07:49 PM
How do you police individuals who believe this organization is nothing more than a voluntary chaperone gig? I was told that the CAPR 39-1 is more of a guideline and suggestion, than it is a regulation.

1 - You set the tone and the expectation in your own wear and behavior.

2 - You don't avoid the uncomfortable conversations no matter who it is or what their grade.

3 - You direct corrections privately and discreetly, or in general all-hands type messages (after the visible issues are corrected).

"Cadet, I understand the confusion, but that insignia isn't authorized.  Luckily it'll be a quick fix to remove it, but it needs to
be done before you can participate today.  Next time ask before you sew things on which are optional."

"Colonel, I noticed you're still wearing a wing patch on your blues, those were removed over 10 years ago.  We all need to set the
example, and I promise you if I noticed, others already have as well..."

In the case noted, it could be corrected in the van on the way to the flight line.

Also, for the record, I specifically didn't link to the photo because it was a cadet, and we're not supposed to do that here anymore,
but I guess discretion was too much to ask in what only needed to be a general conversation?

The issue is not/are not in my squadron, didn't deal with cadets, and both times I was in public, and I was on duty at my job. The points you made were all valid and spot on! I do lead by example when in uniform, and keep a very high standard of appearance, something I have carried over after 21 years in the military. I also know how to make an on the spot correction discreetly. I did try very discreetly on two separate occasions to make an on the spot correction. The first time I was informed by one of these individuals that " We are more relaxed in this squadron versus other squadrons." To which I left it at that, and went about my business. The other instance, the SM was in board shorts, a "Sex Wax" tank, and crocks. When I asked if he was one of the parent chaperones, he said," I'm what you would call a Senior Member" and continued like everything was cool. I couldn't say anything because it was during a tour at my job, and the last thing I needed was drama caused by making an on the spot correction. At least his cadets looked decent, and were in the proper uniform. 

No matter how hard the majority of squared away CAP members try and enforce the rules and regulations, some are just not going to follow. In my short tenure in CAP, I have seen some squadrons that are aces, and some that are total duds. Some people have no self pride, or discipline to wear a military uniform, but are allowed to continue as SM in CAP. At the end of the day, as a senior member, I really have no authority to do anything to SM in my unit or outside my unit. I can't demand to see an ID, I can't put people at parade rest, can't write counseling statements, and I can't force them to talk to me " Off to the side". The only thing I might be able to do, is discreetly get a name and run it up the my chain, and even then I would be surprised if any corrective action would be done.   

Quote from: Wanda on July 14, 2016, 05:44:06 PM
I can say the same for down.  You didn't answer the question.

That's what I see at Nellis AFB. I have never seen anyone wearing ABUs with the sleeves rolled up. It is darned hot here this time of year as well.

Quote from: RogueLeader on July 25, 2016, 03:22:43 PM
Well, to be fair, 39-1 is not regulation.  It is a manual, thus CAPM 39-1.  That being said, right at the beginning, it says Compliance with this publication is mandatory.

Oh, here we go again.

Quote from: NIN on July 25, 2016, 04:28:24 PM

Quote from: RogueLeader on July 25, 2016, 03:22:43 PM
Well, to be fair, 39-1 is not regulation.  It is a manual, thus CAPM 39-1.  That being said, right at the beginning, it says Compliance with this publication is mandatory.

Oh, here we go again.

No worries, at least I got the 39-1 part correct, and knew it dealt with wear and appearance of the CAP uniform

Quote from: neummy on July 25, 2016, 03:26:52 PM

Quote from: RogueLeader on July 25, 2016, 03:22:43 PM

Quote from: neummy on July 25, 2016, 03:20:36 PM

Quote from: grunt82abn on July 25, 2016, 03:07:49 PM
How do you police individuals who believe this organization is nothing more than a voluntary chaperone gig? I was told that the CAPR 39-1 is more of a guideline and suggestion, than it is a regulation.

The "R" in CAPR 39-1 stands for Regulation. Commanders need to do their jobs -- educate and enforce.

Senior members who join just to be a chaperone (and we do need them) should be in the Cadet Sponsor membership category, where the only uniform they need be concerned with is the polo shirt.

Well, to be fair, 39-1 is not regulation.  It is a manual, thus CAPM 39-1.  That being said, right at the beginning, it says Compliance with this publication is mandatory.

Oops. Good catch, and thanks for the correction.

It happens.  I hope that others would correct me when I'm wrong to.

Quote from: grunt82abn on July 25, 2016, 04:30:37 PM

Quote from: NIN on July 25, 2016, 04:28:24 PM

Quote from: RogueLeader on July 25, 2016, 03:22:43 PM
Well, to be fair, 39-1 is not regulation.  It is a manual, thus CAPM 39-1.  That being said, right at the beginning, it says Compliance with this publication is mandatory.

Oh, here we go again.

No worries, at least I got the 39-1 part correct, and knew it dealt with wear and appearance of the CAP uniform

???

Quote from: RogueLeader on July 25, 2016, 04:30:38 PM

Quote from: neummy on July 25, 2016, 03:26:52 PM

Quote from: RogueLeader on July 25, 2016, 03:22:43 PM

Quote from: neummy on July 25, 2016, 03:20:36 PM

Quote from: grunt82abn on July 25, 2016, 03:07:49 PM
How do you police individuals who believe this organization is nothing more than a voluntary chaperone gig? I was told that the CAPR 39-1 is more of a guideline and suggestion, than it is a regulation.

The "R" in CAPR 39-1 stands for Regulation. Commanders need to do their jobs -- educate and enforce.

Senior members who join just to be a chaperone (and we do need them) should be in the Cadet Sponsor membership category, where the only uniform they need be concerned with is the polo shirt.

Well, to be fair, 39-1 is not regulation.  It is a manual, thus CAPM 39-1.  That being said, right at the beginning, it says Compliance with this publication is mandatory.

Oops. Good catch, and thanks for the correction.

It happens.  I hope that others would correct me when I'm wrong to.

I appreciate it. At least the main point stands that it's not an optional "guideline." Unit commanders must know this and should be enforcing proper uniform wear.

Quote from: grunt82abn on July 25, 2016, 04:30:37 PM
No worries, at least I got the 39-1 part correct, and knew it dealt with wear and appearance of the CAP uniform

I wouldn't take this subject too seriously. The person wearing the uniform and what they bring to the program are more important.

Quote from: neummy on July 25, 2016, 03:20:36 PM

Quote from: grunt82abn on July 25, 2016, 03:07:49 PM
How do you police individuals who believe this organization is nothing more than a voluntary chaperone gig? I was told that the CAPR 39-1 is more of a guideline and suggestion, than it is a regulation.

The "R" in CAPR 39-1 stands for Regulation. Commanders need to do their jobs -- educate and enforce.

Senior members who join just to be a chaperone (and we do need them) should be in the Cadet Sponsor membership category, where the only uniform they need be concerned with is the polo shirt.

Except that CAPR 39-1 has not existed for many years. The regulatory publication for uniforms is, and has been for over 50 years, CAPM 39-1.

Quote from: Sketch on July 25, 2016, 05:42:43 PM

Quote from: grunt82abn on July 25, 2016, 04:30:37 PM
No worries, at least I got the 39-1 part correct, and knew it dealt with wear and appearance of the CAP uniform

I wouldn't take this subject too seriously. The person wearing the uniform and what they bring to the program are more important.

This attitude is why CAP is where it is, and has been for a decade+ of non-progress in this area.  Proper uniform wear is a baseline expectation of membership,
and a core component of the cadet program.  Everyone makes mistakes, mis-measures, or occasionally mis-interprets, but when units or whole wings
ignore simple rules, it points to larger issues with their level of adherence and execution.

It is not mutually exclusive, nor negated by "what you bring to the program".

Another opportunity to fix things most organizations settle before their charter is dry - "What members wear and how they wear it."
The new 39-1 is a mess and more confusing then the previous version, was broken upon publication despite errors and omissions that
were submitted and ignored on the OPRs desk for about 6 months, has remained broken for a year while other "emergency" directives
like emails signatures and historical wings are published, and now there's two rushed ICLs making it worse.

At a minimum the "manual" should have been redesignated a "regulation" to take the "guidance" nonsense off the table.

Quote from: Sketch on July 25, 2016, 05:42:43 PM

Quote from: grunt82abn on July 25, 2016, 04:30:37 PM
No worries, at least I got the 39-1 part correct, and knew it dealt with wear and appearance of the CAP uniform

I wouldn't take this subject too seriously. The person wearing the uniform and what they bring to the program are more important.

To clarify your point, as long as a person can bring something beneficial to the program, Board Shorts, inappropriate tank tops, and crocks are allowable, and/or a member wearing a trashed CAP polo and jeans is also acceptable?

Quote from: grunt82abn on July 25, 2016, 06:02:31 PM

Quote from: Sketch on July 25, 2016, 05:42:43 PM

Quote from: grunt82abn on July 25, 2016, 04:30:37 PM
No worries, at least I got the 39-1 part correct, and knew it dealt with wear and appearance of the CAP uniform

I wouldn't take this subject too seriously. The person wearing the uniform and what they bring to the program are more important.

To clarify your point, as long as a person can bring something beneficial to the program, Board Shorts, inappropriate tank tops, and crocks are allowable, and/or a member wearing a trashed CAP polo and jeans is also acceptable?

Pretty much. Git Er Don', or Go Home!

Quote from: grunt82abn on July 25, 2016, 06:02:31 PM

Quote from: Sketch on July 25, 2016, 05:42:43 PM

Quote from: grunt82abn on July 25, 2016, 04:30:37 PM
No worries, at least I got the 39-1 part correct, and knew it dealt with wear and appearance of the CAP uniform

I wouldn't take this subject too seriously. The person wearing the uniform and what they bring to the program are more important.

To clarify your point, as long as a person can bring something beneficial to the program, Board Shorts, inappropriate tank tops, and crocks are allowable, and/or a member wearing a trashed CAP polo and jeans is also acceptable?

Bingo. In fact, I'd send them home if they even thought about wearing their uniform properly.

Glad we aren't in the same squadron, I would be sent home every meeting!!! :clap:

Pretty simple folks; 39-1 says wear it this way. Not sure about specific wear instruction, send it up the chain for clarification. 

Regarding regs and manuals, from CAPR 5-4:

1.f. "Manuals" announce procedures and guidance for performing standard tasks and usually contain examples.

1. j. "Publication" means regulations, manuals, pamphlets, operating instructions, any other documented guidance and supplements thereto. A "directive publication" is a regulation or manual that establishes compliance standards.

1. l. "Regulations" announce policies, direct actions and prescribe standards.

And from CAPM 39-1:

1.1.2.1. COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY. This publication is the sole source for wear instructions and authorized items for various uniform combinations as prescribed within. Variation from this publication is not authorized. Items not listed in this publication are not authorized for wear with uniforms. Local commanders do not have the authority to waive grooming and appearance standards.

Seems pretty clear to me.

Quote from: SarDragon on July 25, 2016, 05:52:50 PM

Quote from: neummy on July 25, 2016, 03:20:36 PM

Quote from: grunt82abn on July 25, 2016, 03:07:49 PM
How do you police individuals who believe this organization is nothing more than a voluntary chaperone gig? I was told that the CAPR 39-1 is more of a guideline and suggestion, than it is a regulation.

The "R" in CAPR 39-1 stands for Regulation. Commanders need to do their jobs -- educate and enforce.

Senior members who join just to be a chaperone (and we do need them) should be in the Cadet Sponsor membership category, where the only uniform they need be concerned with is the polo shirt.

Except that CAPR 39-1 has not existed for many years. The regulatory publication for uniforms is, and has been for over 50 years, CAPM 39-1.

Thank you. Of course, while an embarrassing oversight on my part, this doesn't in even in the minutest way negate the point being made. The more times I'm corrected on this the better, though (see above).

Quote from: SarDragon on July 25, 2016, 06:38:39 PM
And from CAPM 39-1:

1.1.2.1. COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY. This publication is the sole source for wear instructions and authorized items for various uniform combinations as prescribed within. Variation from this publication is not authorized. Items not listed in this publication are not authorized for wear with uniforms. Local commanders do not have the authority to waive grooming and appearance standards.

Seems pretty clear to me.

As was earlier clarified.

Quote from: arajca on July 25, 2016, 02:54:53 PM
The cadet was likely told to set up the ABU same as the BDU.

There was quite the flamewar on Facebook when a couple of seniors popped up wearing the ES patch a few days after ABUs went live. Their argument was the wear instructions didn't mention the patch, so they assumed it would be like the BDU. It didn't occur to them that if it's not mentioned, it's not allowed. It was also interesting to see how brave some cadets are when addressing adults over the internet.

I suppose removing and moving things are the cost of doing business when you're rushing to be among the first in the new getup.

Quote from: Fubar on July 26, 2016, 03:09:18 AM

Quote from: arajca on July 25, 2016, 02:54:53 PM
The cadet was likely told to set up the ABU same as the BDU.

There was quite the flamewar on Facebook when a couple of seniors popped up wearing the ES patch a few days after ABUs went live. Their argument was the wear instructions didn't mention the patch, so they assumed it would be like the BDU. It didn't occur to them that if it's not mentioned, it's not allowed. It was also interesting to see how brave some cadets are when addressing adults over the internet.

I suppose removing and moving things are the cost of doing business when you're rushing to be among the first in the new getup.

I dunno. I didn't see a lot of "bravery" in the comments...  I'd say "bold."

(https://scontent.ftpa1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13754700_10209037601684683_2086974456352586760_n.jpg?oh=347f0982efb7b451875f2e7a4e208107&oe=581E3FC8)

Quote from: NIN on July 26, 2016, 10:42:11 AM

Quote from: Fubar on July 26, 2016, 03:09:18 AM

Quote from: arajca on July 25, 2016, 02:54:53 PM
The cadet was likely told to set up the ABU same as the BDU.

There was quite the flamewar on Facebook when a couple of seniors popped up wearing the ES patch a few days after ABUs went live. Their argument was the wear instructions didn't mention the patch, so they assumed it would be like the BDU. It didn't occur to them that if it's not mentioned, it's not allowed. It was also interesting to see how brave some cadets are when addressing adults over the internet.

I suppose removing and moving things are the cost of doing business when you're rushing to be among the first in the new getup.

I dunno. I didn't see a lot of "bravery" in the comments...  I'd say "bold."

You should read the email I got from the last 12 year old right before I banned him. All I asked that he not curse on the board.

Quote from: NIN on July 26, 2016, 10:42:11 AM

Quote from: Fubar on July 26, 2016, 03:09:18 AM

Quote from: arajca on July 25, 2016, 02:54:53 PM
The cadet was likely told to set up the ABU same as the BDU.

There was quite the flamewar on Facebook when a couple of seniors popped up wearing the ES patch a few days after ABUs went live. Their argument was the wear instructions didn't mention the patch, so they assumed it would be like the BDU. It didn't occur to them that if it's not mentioned, it's not allowed. It was also interesting to see how brave some cadets are when addressing adults over the internet.

I suppose removing and moving things are the cost of doing business when you're rushing to be among the first in the new getup.

I dunno. I didn't see a lot of "bravery" in the comments...  I'd say "bold."

It is always interesting to me how cadets act in those facebook groups. Including the one that went into eServices specifically to pull my information and put it on facebook. I was not amused.

Actually, I don't find that so amusing, sir!

Has that cadet been separated from CAP?

V/R
Spam

Quote from: stillamarine on July 26, 2016, 01:32:45 PM
It is always interesting to me how cadets act in those facebook groups. Including the one that went into eServices specifically to pull my information and put it on facebook. I was not amused.

Really?  Never mind things like OPSEC, Non-disclosure, etc...

People can't be bothered to read those bold warnings about what you're supposed to be using eServices for....

Quote from: NIN on July 26, 2016, 10:42:11 AM

Quote from: Fubar on July 26, 2016, 03:09:18 AM

Quote from: arajca on July 25, 2016, 02:54:53 PM
The cadet was likely told to set up the ABU same as the BDU.

There was quite the flamewar on Facebook when a couple of seniors popped up wearing the ES patch a few days after ABUs went live. Their argument was the wear instructions didn't mention the patch, so they assumed it would be like the BDU. It didn't occur to them that if it's not mentioned, it's not allowed. It was also interesting to see how brave some cadets are when addressing adults over the internet.

I suppose removing and moving things are the cost of doing business when you're rushing to be among the first in the new getup.

I dunno. I didn't see a lot of "bravery" in the comments...  I'd say "bold."

Which Facebook Group was this one?

PM if you do not prefer to post publicly. 

Publishing personally identifiable information about an individual for malicious intent is called doxing and it's illegal. It is a cowardly tactic used by people on the Internet.  I'm sure you handled it with much more grace and aplomb than I would have. 

Transmitted via my R5 astromech.

Eclipse was "exposed" on that "you know you're in cap when" group a few months back .

YKYICAPW is a horrible Facebook group.  I immediately regretted joining it when I did. 

Transmitted via my R5 astromech.

Quote from: NIN on July 26, 2016, 02:49:51 PM

Quote from: stillamarine on July 26, 2016, 01:32:45 PM
It is always interesting to me how cadets act in those facebook groups. Including the one that went into eServices specifically to pull my information and put it on facebook. I was not amused.

Really?  Never mind things like OPSEC, Non-disclosure, etc...

People can't be bothered to read those bold warnings about what you're supposed to be using eServices for....

Yeah I wasn't pleased at all. Someone that knew his SQCC contacted me and told me he was going to have a word with him.

Quote from: Капитан Хаткевич on July 26, 2016, 03:18:01 PM
Eclipse was "exposed" on that "you know you're in cap when" group a few months back .

hahaha. Yeah. "exposed."

"This guy named Eclipse on CAP-Talk was mean to me on the Internet** and I've been trying for YEARS to figure out who he is, and I finally have!"

(** by "mean to me on the Internet" I mean "I was shown to be incorrect")

After I saw that, I came over here and it took me literally 90 seconds to figure out who Bob was using the search function and restricting my search criteria to "back then"...

its not like Bob in *any* *way* ever hid who he is.

Quote from: NIN on July 26, 2016, 05:37:33 PMhahaha. Yeah. "exposed."

For a moment there I was worried there was a Men of captalk calendar that had been shared or something.

Quote from: Fubar on July 27, 2016, 01:32:00 AM

Quote from: NIN on July 26, 2016, 05:37:33 PMhahaha. Yeah. "exposed."

For a moment there I was worried there was a Men of captalk calendar that had been shared or something.

I'm July...in silkies.

Quote from: stillamarine on July 27, 2016, 01:54:57 AM
I'm July...in silkies.

I was September.... wearing squadron patch pasties.

ew

That degenerated quickly. :o

And now I need therapy.  Again. Thanks CAPTALK. 

Transmitted via my R5 astromech.

Bleach...eyes....pour....repeat....

Ruined a perfectly good uniform thread

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Quote from: NIN on July 27, 2016, 01:09:28 PM
Ruined a perfectly good uniform thread

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Remember this the next time a uniform thread gets out of hand. 

Transmitted via my R5 astromech.

Quote from: winterg on July 27, 2016, 10:13:46 AM
And now I need therapy.  Again. Thanks CAPTALK. 

Transmitted via my R5 astromech.

And I threw up in my mouth a bit  :-[

Remember, bleach does not help mental pictures, they are forever!

Since this has obviously gone off the rails can we please lock this thread

Nin,

What did you expect?

Non-uniform threads degenerate into uniform threads.

Uniform threads must degenerate into something. This one just... degenerated!

>:D

Quote from: Eclipse on July 25, 2016, 03:21:35 PM

Quote from: grunt82abn on July 25, 2016, 03:07:49 PM
How do you police individuals who believe this organization is nothing more than a voluntary chaperone gig? I was told that the CAPR 39-1 is more of a guideline and suggestion, than it is a regulation.

1 - You set the tone and the expectation in your own wear and behavior.

This popped up on the NHQ twitter feed:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CoTDuJZWIAAGR7T.jpg:large)

In case you don't know, that's our national commander in the middle. As the guy in charge, he sets the tone and expectations. Even if you don't like his tone or expectations.

Quote from: Fubar on July 27, 2016, 05:57:47 PM
In case you don't know, that's our national commander in the middle. As the guy in charge, he sets the tone and expectations. Even if you don't like his tone or expectations.

I honestly don't know what point you are trying to make here.

If everyone else is going to be in a non uniform polo, shouldn't we not attempt to draw divisions with others?

I don't see the issue in the given context.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Quote from: Eclipse on July 27, 2016, 06:11:54 PM

Quote from: Fubar on July 27, 2016, 05:57:47 PM
In case you don't know, that's our national commander in the middle. As the guy in charge, he sets the tone and expectations. Even if you don't like his tone or expectations.

I honestly don't know what point you are trying to make here.

He's pointing out that CAP/CC isn't in uniform. Not even official CAP polo.

Which, you know, he's not really at a CAP activity there.

Hope you are not referring to the other two guys in the picture.

I expect them to be the directors of AOPA and EAA, and not CAP members. Without words, we cannot be sure, but if I understand this photo, must have been taken during or at the end of Blue Beret...

Please identify the guys in the picture and when / where was it taken...

Pictured are EAA CEO & Chairman Jack J. Pelton (right) and AOPA President Mark Baker (left) who were presented
a CGM by Maj Gen Vasquez at the opening of Air Venture in recognition of both organization's support of CAP.

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=6c07aa65-fd8a-4e43-83f2-512e75759e0b (http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=6c07aa65-fd8a-4e43-83f2-512e75759e0b)

I have no idea how this is related to the comment about a commander setting the tone for his people, considering this
was not a CAP activity, nor did it involve members, per se.

Quote from: Eclipse on July 27, 2016, 06:40:22 PM
Pictured are EAA CEO & Chairman Jack J. Pelton (right) and AOPA President Mark Baker (left) who were presented
a CGM by Maj Gen Vasquez at the opening of Air Venture in recognition of both organization's support of CAP.

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=6c07aa65-fd8a-4e43-83f2-512e75759e0b (http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=6c07aa65-fd8a-4e43-83f2-512e75759e0b)

I have no idea how this is related to the comment about a commander setting the tone for his people, considering this
was not a CAP activity, nor did it involve members, per se.

+1, quite honestly.

Quote from: Eclipse on July 27, 2016, 06:40:22 PM
Pictured are EAA CEO & Chairman Jack J. Pelton (right) and AOPA President Mark Baker (left) who were presented
a CGM by Maj Gen Vasquez at the opening of Air Venture in recognition of both organization's support of CAP.

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=6c07aa65-fd8a-4e43-83f2-512e75759e0b (http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=6c07aa65-fd8a-4e43-83f2-512e75759e0b)

I have no idea how this is related to the comment about a commander setting the tone for his people, considering this
was not a CAP activity, nor did it involve members, per se.

If he is at the event as a representative of CAP (which seems to be the case), then he should be in a CAP uniform. 

Quote from: kwe1009 on July 27, 2016, 09:51:03 PM
If he is at the event as a representative of CAP (which seems to be the case), then he should be in a CAP uniform.

It's a valid argument, but as is pointed out regularly here, uniforms are actually only required within a fairly
narrow lane of activities, and as this is not a CAP activity, there's nothing really wrong with logowear that matches the
dress of the others in attendance.

He seems to be representing CAP positively, and would be setting an appropriate tone for other members in attendance (if there were any).

For those signed into Blue Beret, the precautionary SAR, or working recruiting, then certainly an actual uniform would be appropriate and required,
but in this case, I don't see the issue, nor how this fits the conversation regarding the tone set by commanders.

Since he was presenting an award to members of another organization, wearing a uniform, even the CAP polo would have been more appropriate.  He is representing CAP but is not wearing an approved CAP uniform so what kind of message does that send to the other members?  He is actually adding to the uniform problem.

A good test that I use of if a uniform is appropriate for an activity is this: Am I doing anything on behalf of CAP?  Yes (wear a uniform) / No (don't wear a uniform).  For me it is just that simple.  If I went to the event in that picture as a spectator I would either just wear regular clothing or something to identify that I am part of CAP (like a t-shirt or non-uniform polo).

How do YOU know the two other gentlemen are wearing a uniform, and not just informal clothing? It may be possible that Gen Vazquez knows they wear informal clothing and is following their tone...

???

To me this is no different then a member wearing a tuxedo to a CAP banquet, etc., where others
are in mess dress.

Uniform not required, proper tone set, and doing so in a way that doesn't violate the regs or core values.

Just an observation....the polo that Gen Vazquez is wearing happens to be the type of polo that you will find employees/members of NHQ staff wearing (you will see them worn at the upcoming conference).  That particular polo is not leisure wear easily obtained from Vanguard.

^ And as CEO in addition to National Commander, you could argue that is an appropriate uniform.

Though the counter would be that the CGM was awarded for war-time service, so a more martial appearance would be appropriate.

This is so exciting!

There's also something known as "blending in." I've had conversations with the FAA Administrator or NTSB Chair in past years at Oshkosh while they were  wearing khakis or even shorts. Oshkosh is an extremely laid-back event. Showing up in Full Martial would have been unusual...

Got it. When representing the Civil Air Patrol, one does not have to wear a Civil Air Patrol uniform.

Sorry, I get confused easily. But at least now I know it's OK blend in as needed (not that our official polo is that attention getting, but sometimes my grey pants aren't clean).

si fueris Romae, Romano vivito more; si fueris alibi, vivito sicut ibi

Quote from: Eclipse on July 28, 2016, 04:44:03 AM
si fueris Romae, Romano vivito more; si fueris alibi, vivito sicut ibi

That's easy for you to say, Bob.   :)

Jack

Quote from: ColonelJack on July 28, 2016, 10:54:04 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on July 28, 2016, 04:44:03 AM
si fueris Romae, Romano vivito more; si fueris alibi, vivito sicut ibi

That's easy for you to say, Bob.   :)

Jack

I don't think that's easy for ANYONE to say Jack. ;)

There was probably a conversation had about appropriate attire for the event. In the past, I've seen national commanders or other visitors show up to NBB/Oshkosh in dress blues, or BDU's to meet with FAA, EAA guys, (not to mention driving around in rented yellow mustang GT's with CAP funds). Holy crap did that feel and look awkward amidst the cargo shorts and sweaty T-shirts or polos. I believe the Maj. Gen. did a very classy and respectable job choosing his attire, and people should probably lay off. lol

Those of you who were around during the dark ages know what and who I'm talking about. 8)

Aj

Quote from: DakRadz on July 25, 2016, 03:26:39 AM
This is from the original change announcement. The later updates are ABU specific.


3. The phase in period for wear of the ABU will begin on 15 June 2016. Members will wear
the ABU with the dark blue tapes and insignia as outlined in the attached wear instructions.
Vanguard will begin accepting orders for the new devices on 15 June 2016. The Battle Dress
Uniform (BDU) may continue to be worn until the mandatory phase out date of 15 June 2021.
CAP will also begin to transition to dark blue tapes on the Corporate field uniform and BDUs
with a mandatory wear date of 15 June 2021. Members are not required to change the tapes
on existing uniforms until the mandatory wear date; however, all devices on the uniform must
match. The attached wear instructions will constitute regulatory guidance on the wear of the
ABU until a revision to CAP Manual 39-1 is released.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

What is this from?

^ The original ABU announcement memo & ICL from NHQ in May 2016.

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=20996.0

If "blending" was a concern, how hard would it have been to wear the official CAP uniform polo? 

Quote from: Fubar on July 28, 2016, 04:25:10 AM
Got it. When representing the Civil Air Patrol, one does not have to wear a Civil Air Patrol uniform.

Sorry, I get confused easily. But at least now I know it's OK blend in as needed (not that our official polo is that attention getting, but sometimes my grey pants aren't clean).

If you are confused, ask your unit commander.  If you are the national commander, use your own judgement. 

Oshkosh in July can be brutal and captains of industry often wear t-shirts and shorts.  Our national commander was dressed appropriately, didn't violate any CAP regulations, and didn't upstage his peers. 

And for inquiring minds....the cadet (Jodie Gawthrop)  in the picture with Harrison Ford was wearing the polo that belongs to the National Commander's wife.  She won this flight with the Experimental Aircraft Association's Young Eagle program.  This tid-bit was shared during the National Conference.  Share this for two reasons:

1) the polo is not available to members through Vanguard.  It is a NHQ staff shirt;

2) CAP does take seriously the idea of branding.  Great photo op -- needed to get something CAP in the frame :)

Quote from: Chappie on September 14, 2016, 03:20:40 PM
2) CAP does take seriously the idea of branding. 

As someone involved in "branding" professionally.  I would have to disagree.

Quote from: Chappie on September 14, 2016, 03:20:40 PM
1) the polo is not available to members through Vanguard.  It is a NHQ staff shirt;

Musta missed that chapter in M39-1 that prescribes the NHQ uniform.

Quote
2) CAP does take seriously the idea of branding.  Great photo op -- needed to get something CAP in the frame :)

I look forward to our uniform being changed to this new polo that has CAP on it, since our other uniforms apparently don't contribute to the brand and CAP takes branding very seriously.

Quote from: Damron on September 14, 2016, 01:37:31 PM
If you are confused, ask your unit commander.  If you are the national commander, use your own judgement.

I'm pretty sure the CAP/CC outranks my unit commander. If it's good enough for the national commander, it's good enough for me. I have EOC duty coming up for a statewide exercise where a number of captains of industry, so to speak, will be located. I can easily follow the example being set by our leader.

Quote from: Fubar on September 14, 2016, 05:46:14 PM

Musta missed that chapter in M39-1 that prescribes the NHQ uniform.

Why would you think the 39-1 should address the clothing for non-member corporate employees?

I often travel in or attend community functions/various events wearing a CAP polo that I have received at National Staff College, a Chaplain Corps Region Staff College, or some other CAP event/activity that is not the uniform blue polo.   It is something that identifies me with CAP ... maybe I used the wrong term "branding"....but the polo worn both Gen Vazquez and the young cadet while at the Oshkosh EAA fly-in certainly displayed the distinctive CAP affiliation/identification.

Quote from: Fubar on September 14, 2016, 05:46:14 PM
Musta missed that chapter in M39-1 that prescribes the NHQ uniform.

When and if it becomes a uniform it will find a home in 39-1.

Quote from: Ned on September 14, 2016, 06:02:51 PM

Quote from: Fubar on September 14, 2016, 05:46:14 PM

Musta missed that chapter in M39-1 that prescribes the NHQ uniform.

Why would you think the 39-1 should address the clothing for non-member corporate employees?

Just to repeat what Ned said. Nat CC is not just a member. He's also corporate.

1st Lt Raduenz

Maybe because he thought, like I did, that Corporate Employees are to behave as members?

Ned, maybe it is clear to all those that have had NHQ, Region, and Wing responsibilities, but maybe the majority of us never heard that CE were NOT members!

Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on September 14, 2016, 09:05:19 PM
Maybe because he thought, like I did, that Corporate Employees are to behave as members?

Ned, maybe it is clear to all those that have had NHQ, Region, and Wing responsibilities, but maybe the majority of us never heard that CE were NOT members!

Why would you assume that someone referred to as Ms. Susie Parker, or any other staffer who goes by Mr/Ms/Mrs/Dr, and NEVER by grade, are members?

Some corporate employees are members, most are not.  They do not wear CAP uniforms while performing their work.  They wear appropriate corporate attire.  For things like conferences, they have some nifty shirts and jackets to help us identify them.  Like the polo illustrated earlier in this thread.

And yes, the National Commander / CEO is a member.


Normally there is not a great deal of confusion about who is a member and who is a corporate employee.

See Ned's reply. Some of them... ARE members! This is where the confusion starts...

Bottom line: there is a philosophy in play - "One CAP - One Team".  Either you are on NHQ staff (corporate employee or volunteer) or you're not.  No confusion there ....if you are a member of CAP and as a volunteer serve on the NHQ staff, just check your duty assignment and unit number in eServices.  It should read NHQ 001. 

Quote from: Ned on September 14, 2016, 06:02:51 PM

Quote from: Fubar on September 14, 2016, 05:46:14 PM

Musta missed that chapter in M39-1 that prescribes the NHQ uniform.

Why would you think the 39-1 should address the clothing for non-member corporate employees?

I didn't consider the national commander a non-member corporate employee. Was I wrong?

Quote from: Fubar on September 15, 2016, 06:00:52 AM

Quote from: Ned on September 14, 2016, 06:02:51 PM

Quote from: Fubar on September 14, 2016, 05:46:14 PM

Musta missed that chapter in M39-1 that prescribes the NHQ uniform.

Why would you think the 39-1 should address the clothing for non-member corporate employees?

I didn't consider the national commander a non-member corporate employee. Was I wrong?

The (current) National Commander is most certainly a member, and serves as the Chief Executive Officer of CAP.  He is a corporate officer, and NOT an employee.  He is the sole arbitrator of his wardrobe, and by virtue of his position, decides what is appropriate attire for CAP business.   It shouldn't be a heavy lift to figure this out....

Yes, RHIP!

8)

Quote from: FW on September 15, 2016, 12:50:46 PM

Quote from: Fubar on September 15, 2016, 06:00:52 AM

Quote from: Ned on September 14, 2016, 06:02:51 PM

Quote from: Fubar on September 14, 2016, 05:46:14 PM

Musta missed that chapter in M39-1 that prescribes the NHQ uniform.

Why would you think the 39-1 should address the clothing for non-member corporate employees?

I didn't consider the national commander a non-member corporate employee. Was I wrong?

The (current) National Commander is most certainly a member, and serves as the Chief Executive Officer of CAP.  He is a corporate officer, and NOT an employee.  He is the sole arbitrator of his wardrobe, and by virtue of his position, decides what is appropriate attire for CAP business.   It shouldn't be a heavy lift to figure this out....

The NHQ "Uniform" is in fact actually "Organizational Clothing" which exists in CAP in vast quantities.  Virtually every level of command and every major school issues or sells them.  They are not uniforms, but are frequently worn to a wide variety of activities as uniforms are only required under the following conditions:

1.2.4.2. Members are normally required to wear a CAP uniform (either USAF- or Corporate-style) when working with cadets, when flying in a CAP aircraft (Corporate or member owned aircraft used in a CAP flight activity), or when conducting business under a CAP mission number (A, B,or C).

Outside of the above, you can wear your  region staff college polo, your NESA T Shirt, or anything else you may have to anything you want.

General officers are also allowed to bend uniform rules and prescribe uniform mods within reasonable limits (no spiked helmets).
Why should GOs in the USAF's auxiliary be any different?

Quote from: FW on September 15, 2016, 12:50:46 PM
The (current) National Commander is most certainly a member, and serves as the Chief Executive Officer of CAP.  He is a corporate officer, and NOT an employee.  He is the sole arbitrator of his wardrobe, and by virtue of his position, decides what is appropriate attire for CAP business.   It shouldn't be a heavy lift to figure this out....

Quote from: USACAP on September 19, 2016, 03:20:36 AM
General officers are also allowed to bend uniform rules and prescribe uniform mods within reasonable limits (no spiked helmets).
Why should GOs in the USAF's auxiliary be any different?

CAP officers don't hold a commission, therefore they have no implied or extra-regulatory authority.

The entirety of a CAP member's authority come directly from the Constitution and By-Laws, if it's not in there, they
can't do it, any more then POTUS can just make things up on a whim.

There is also no legitimate reason to allow for whim-based action in a CAP context.

Quote from: Eclipse on September 19, 2016, 04:20:46 AM
There is also no legitimate reason to allow for whim-based action in a CAP context.

True that, Bob.  Look what happened the last time a National Commander did things on a whim ...

Jack

Gee guys, I hope we're not comparing "appropriate civilian attire" with doing things on a whim... 0:)

Okay, so what is the prescribed uniform for the CEO?

Anyone? Bueller?

Quote from: DakRadz on September 19, 2016, 07:07:23 PM
Okay, so what is the prescribed uniform for the CEO?

Anyone? Bueller?

CAPM 39-1 is full of options.  The CAP/CC is free to choose any of those as needs dictate.

Not the CC. The CEO. What is the uniform for the CEO?

It's an interesting distinction- is there a difference?

Quote from: DakRadz on September 19, 2016, 07:12:25 PM
Not the CC. The CEO.

1st Lt Raduenz

Same exact thing.  The CC is the CEO.  You can't separate the two.

Quote from: RogueLeader on September 19, 2016, 07:13:50 PM

Quote from: DakRadz on September 19, 2016, 07:12:25 PM
Not the CC. The CEO.

1st Lt Raduenz

Same exact thing.  The CC is the CEO.  You can't separate the two.

No, it's a "two hat" thing kinda like the ART's in the Air Force Reserve play.  Are you Maj Jones today or are you GS-14 Jones?
Same person, different Duty Status.

Quote from: PHall on September 20, 2016, 12:56:13 AM

Quote from: RogueLeader on September 19, 2016, 07:13:50 PM

Quote from: DakRadz on September 19, 2016, 07:12:25 PM
Not the CC. The CEO.

1st Lt Raduenz

Same exact thing.  The CC is the CEO.  You can't separate the two.

No, it's a "two hat" thing kinda like the ART's in the Air Force Reserve play.  Are you Maj Jones today or are you GS-14 Jones?
Same person, different Duty Status.

This.

This is what I was looking for. So is there actually anything definitive that states our CC/CEO is a similar two hat deal?

I mean, if I have to read the Bylaws I will, but...

1st Lt Raduenz

CAPR 20-1, Page 4
https://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/R020_001_73F1BA70FD9EB.pdf

"The National Headquarters consists of the National Commander who also serves as the Chief Executive Officer
(CEO), the Chief Operating Officer (CO) the National Staff, and NHQ-chartered units activated as directed by the
National Commander. "

"The National Commander is the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation and is primarily responsible for the
operational missions of the Corporation. The National Commander serves as a permanent advisor to the Board of
Governors,"

Hey...did anyone else notice today that the National Commander wore an uniform and not the polo shirt that has been object of discussion and debate for several weeks now????   >:D :clap: :D ;)  Time to put this to rest, doncha think????

Quote from: Chappie on September 20, 2016, 11:07:23 PM
Hey...did anyone else notice today that the National Commander wore an uniform and not the polo shirt that has been object of discussion and debate for several weeks now????   >:D :clap: :D ;)  Time to put this to rest, doncha think????

He wore his CAP uniform today because he was playing his "National Commander" role and wearing the uniform was appropriate for what he was doing today.

OK, folks - back to ABUs or we lock it up.  8)

Uh Oh the Dragon Moderator is out with his hand cuffs. What handcuffs does one use with the ABU, oh Great One >:D

Digital patterned fur?  >:D

Quote from: SarDragon on September 21, 2016, 03:29:04 AM
Digital patterned fur?  >:D

...ew...

 :o ??? :o ??? :o ???

where is the puking emoji when you need him?