CAP Talk

I decided to take this to another thread since this is off topic for LTC White's Uniform Committee changes.

Quote from: BillB on December 11, 2007, 09:34:38 PM
Maj Piersall's idea will cost the cadets about $200. and means no more free USAF uniforms for cadets. Great idea we don't need cadets in CAP's flying club anyway.

$200 Golf shirts?  Wow, where do you shop?  :o
ES is an optional activity.  Cadets are not required to buy the BBDUs or the Nomex Flight suit, AND Last time I checked you can fly o-flights in the golf shirt. 

I estimate it would cost about $30 for the shirt and $30 for the pants.  That is a lot cheaper than the current system.  And they could wear the pants outside of CAP too!

If a cadet was in ES, a full set of BBDUs are about $90 from the hock.  So for less than the price of 1 service jacket ($165 from the hock) , cadets can have 2 out of 3 combos, and still participate in all activity except ES flying missions.

To be clear, since many did not 'get it' before, I am putting this out there for us to determine why we even need AF uniforms at all, not because I think it is a good idea. 

What purpose do they serve that cannot be filled with a cheaper civilian alternative? And is this purpose worth the extra cost to members?
Do military uniforms help/hurt our mission?
Do military uniforms help/hurt recruiting/retaining seniors/cadets?

In my opinion, we cannot have discussion on changing uniforms in meaningful ways until these fundamental questions have been answered.

Part of the goal of the cadet program is to introduce them to military careers and prepare them for military training, should that be there choice. Wearing the uniform plays a pretty vital role in that, if you ask me.

We are still an auxiliary service of the USAF, at least last I checked.

'nuff said.

Quote from: Cobra1597 on December 12, 2007, 03:12:15 PM
Part of the goal of the cadet program is to introduce them to military careers and prepare them for military training, should that be there choice.

I'll have to disagree with that.  From CAPR 52-16:

1-1. GENERAL. The mission of the Civil Air Patrol Cadet Program is to provide the youth of our nation a quality program that enhances their leadership skills through an interest in aviation, and simultaneously provide services to the United States Air Force and the local community.

So, the mission is not to get cadets ready for military training.  I'm afraid if it were, there would be several parents pulling their children out of the program tomorrow.

Now, we do operate in a military style environment, so it can transfer over pretty easily.  But, we wouldn't have to have Air Force uniforms for that.  It could be done with any type of uniform.

What purpose does it serve to be associated with the Air Force, and not wear a uniform that is remotely similar?

Why should cadets have to purchase a uniform when the Air Force will actually provide them one for free? It may take a few months, but it's still a free uniform.

Do military uniforms help our mission? In ways. Having an association with Big Blue goes a long way when you're trying to run a mission. Wearing their uniform (or a variation of it) when you have to go turn off an ELT gives a lot of weight when someone doesn't want to let you in. That mission is a Federal one, administered by the Air Force. Impeding a CAP member in the course of his duties is asking for trouble.

Do they help when recruiting? Yes. Cadets eat it up. Three quarters of the cadets in my unit want to go military, and they are their to learn about it from us. I see a lot more cadets join CAP than the Explorers. It's also the same reason that the various JROTC's are successful. We give up miiltary uniforms, we may as well give up cadets. Some of them have done the Boy Scout thing, they're with us for something new.

On the senior side, some join for the military aspect. Our DCC didn't take the opportunity to go to the Academy when she had the chance, but she's getting the opportunity to serve in the AF uniform now. And she is very good at it.

Either way, we're associated with the Air Force. If we don't choose to wear theirs, they don't really have any need for us when the most obvious association is gone.

Also, doing away with AF uniforms is not even under consideration. We would be better served discussing other things.

Quote from: davedove on December 12, 2007, 03:19:47 PMNow, we do operate in a military style environment, so it can transfer over pretty easily.  But, we wouldn't have to have Air Force uniforms for that.  It could be done with any type of uniform.

No, it couldn't. Military style environment requires military uniforms. Saying your military when you don't wear an associated uniform isn't straightforward to some. Outright lying to others.

Go ask a cadet if he would have joined without the AF uniforms. I would be seriously doubtful if many said yes.

Quote from: Eclipse on December 12, 2007, 03:15:07 PM
We are still an auxiliary service of the USAF, at least last I checked.

'nuff said.

Not quite...

So we are sometimes acting as an auxiliary during AFAMs.  Ok, 99% of the time we are not.  And what effect does this have on what uniforms we should be wearing??

Quote from: Hawk200 on December 12, 2007, 03:25:43 PM
What purpose does it serve to be associated with the Air Force...?

So we get their money when we do things for them - ES, AFROTC O-rides, etc

Quote from: Hawk200 on December 12, 2007, 03:25:43 PM
Saying your military when you don't wear an associated uniform isn't straightforward to some. Outright lying to others.

I thought we'd already hashed out the "CAP is not the military" issue.

Quote from: Hawk200 on December 12, 2007, 03:25:43 PM
Why should cadets have to purchase a uniform when the Air Force will actually provide them one for free? It may take a few months, but it's still a free uniform.

Well, sort of.  They still need to buy uniform shoes, and insignia.  And that is just the service uniform, no outerwear, and still no BDUs or equivalent. I need to go back and see how much that extra stuff costs again

Do military uniforms help our mission? In ways. Having an association with Big Blue goes a long way when you're trying to run a mission. Wearing their uniform (or a variation of it) when you have to go turn off an ELT gives a lot of weight when someone doesn't want to let you in. That mission is a Federal one, administered by the Air Force. Impeding a CAP member in the course of his duties is asking for trouble.

I agree with you there

Do they help when recruiting? Yes. Cadets eat it up. Three quarters of the cadets in my unit want to go military, and they are their to learn about it from us. I see a lot more cadets join CAP than the Explorers. It's also the same reason that the various JROTC's are successful. We give up miiltary uniforms, we may as well give up cadets. Some of them have done the Boy Scout thing, they're with us for something new.

Agreed, cadets like the military uniforms

On the senior side, some join for the military aspect.

And some would not be caught dead in a military uniform

Our DCC didn't take the opportunity to go to the Academy when she had the chance, but she's getting the opportunity to serve in the AF uniform now. And she is very good at it.

Good for her...

Either way, we're associated with the Air Force. If we don't choose to wear theirs, they don't really have any need for us when the most obvious association is gone.

What about all our ES missions? Do they suddenly not need us because of the shirt we wear?

Also, doing away with AF uniforms is not even under consideration. We would be better served discussing other things.

I disagree.  In my original post I explained that if we cannot justify the wear of the uniform, then why do we go through all this gnashing of teeth over it.  Just drop them and be done with it.  I say, lets consider it. 

Quote from: davedove on December 12, 2007, 03:19:47 PMNow, we do operate in a military style environment, so it can transfer over pretty easily.  But, we wouldn't have to have Air Force uniforms for that.  It could be done with any type of uniform.

No, it couldn't. Military style environment requires military uniforms. Saying your military when you don't wear an associated uniform isn't straightforward to some. Outright lying to others.

I agree with you, but the military environment is not in the mission of the cadet program.

Go ask a cadet if he would have joined without the AF uniforms. I would be seriously doubtful if many said yes.
Again, I agree that the uniform helps recruit cadets

Wow.

CAP cadets not wearing USAF type uniforms would be like AFJROTC not wearing USAF type uniforms; Sea Cadets not wearing uniforms.

I guess we could do with out military drill and ceremonies, customs and courtesies.  Hmmmm...  I guess that leaves us with building model rockets and cadets spending 4 to 7 years in CAP to go on 6 free orientation flights.  AWESOME PROGRAM!!!

I guess there's always the Boy Scouts with their Aviation Merit Badge.

Quote from: cnitas on December 12, 2007, 03:28:01 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on December 12, 2007, 03:15:07 PM
We are still an auxiliary service of the USAF, at least last I checked.

'nuff said.

Not quite...

So we are sometimes acting as an auxiliary during AFAMs.  Ok, 99% of the time we are not.  And what effect does this have on what uniforms we should be wearing??

Which is why I said >an<, not >the<.

CAP is what it is, the only organization of its kind in the US, offering unique opportunities for service, education and growth.

Accept it for what it is, and understand that its split personality is what affords some of the unique opportunities, and join, serve, or move on to the next booth and serve somewhere else.

I know its only a few people here, but I have a real problem with people who read the same brochures as everyone else (or worse, don't actually read them at all), join an organization, and then start complaining about the requirements, uniforms or missions.

The fact that we have a non-military uniform option at all is a >PLUS< people, not a requirement. It allows for a much larger pool to be presented the opportunity to serve.

Quote from: Hawk200 on December 12, 2007, 03:25:43 PM

Quote from: davedove on December 12, 2007, 03:19:47 PMNow, we do operate in a military style environment, so it can transfer over pretty easily.  But, we wouldn't have to have Air Force uniforms for that.  It could be done with any type of uniform.

No, it couldn't. Military style environment requires military uniforms. Saying your military when you don't wear an associated uniform isn't straightforward to some. Outright lying to others.

Go ask a cadet if he would have joined without the AF uniforms. I would be seriously doubtful if many said yes.

When I joined as a cadet I left Boy Scouts for CAP for two reasons.  Real world ES training and mission opportunities and the military aspect of the program.  At the same time, I found out about Sea Cadets.  But CAP, still had the ES program.  That, and CAP is more military than Sea Cadets.  And the Navy for that matter  :)

Quote from: Trung Si Ma on December 12, 2007, 03:33:42 PM
I thought we'd already hashed out the "CAP is not the military" issue.

Not military, but paramilitary. We use miltary organization and chain of command. We have squadrons that report to groups (sometimes) that report to wings that report to regions that report to HQ. Same concept as the Air Force, just different terms at some levels.

Who's going to believe you if your whole organization wears something obiously non-military claims to be associated with the military? Some people want their funded flying club, and to be able to call on the Air Force name, but without any of the associated responsibilities.

CAP started on a military model. Now, there are many that don't want to even acknowledge its history.

Quote from: Eclipse on December 12, 2007, 03:44:56 PM

Which is why I said >an<, not >the<.

Ok, but that does not answer the question...
So 1% of the time we are 'AN" Aux of the Air Force... so what? Should we wear AF uniforms while on AFAMs? Is that what you are trying to say?

Quote from: cnitas on December 12, 2007, 03:41:46 PM

Quote from: Hawk200 on December 12, 2007, 03:25:43 PM
Why should cadets have to purchase a uniform when the Air Force will actually provide them one for free? It may take a few months, but it's still a free uniform.

Well, sort of.  They still need to buy uniform shoes, and insignia.  And that is just the service uniform, no outerwear, and still no BDUs or equivalent. I need to go back and see how much that extra stuff costs again

So it's OK to just can those uniforms because a cadet has to buy insignia? Pretty flimsy justification.

Quote from: cnitas on December 12, 2007, 03:41:46 PM

Quote from: Hawk200 on December 12, 2007, 03:25:43 PM
On the senior side, some join for the military aspect.

And some would not be caught dead in a military uniform

So the ones that do have no voice, no say in the matter?

Quote from: cnitas on December 12, 2007, 03:41:46 PM

Quote from: Hawk200 on December 12, 2007, 03:25:43 PM
Either way, we're associated with the Air Force. If we don't choose to wear theirs, they don't really have any need for us when the most obvious association is gone.

What about all our ES missions? Do they suddenly not need us because of the shirt we wear?

So they won't need us if we're wearing Air Force uniforms? Your argument can go both ways.

Quote from: cnitas on December 12, 2007, 03:41:46 PM

Quote from: Hawk200 on December 12, 2007, 03:25:43 PMAlso, doing away with AF uniforms is not even under consideration. We would be better served discussing other things.

I disagree.  In my original post I explained that if we cannot justify the wear of the uniform, then why do we go through all this gnashing of teeth over it.  Just drop them and be done with it.  I say, lets consider it. 

As Col White has related in his thread, dropping the AF uniforms is not even under consideration. Some people would call that a denial of your demand to consider it. They're not going to, why demand something that will be ignored?

Quote from: cnitas on December 12, 2007, 03:41:46 PM

Quote from: Hawk200 on December 12, 2007, 03:25:43 PM

Quote from: davedove on December 12, 2007, 03:19:47 PMNow, we do operate in a military style environment, so it can transfer over pretty easily.  But, we wouldn't have to have Air Force uniforms for that.  It could be done with any type of uniform.

No, it couldn't. Military style environment requires military uniforms. Saying your military when you don't wear an associated uniform isn't straightforward to some. Outright lying to others.

I agree with you, but the military environment is not in the mission of the cadet program.

Yes it is. It's not the mission, but it's part of it.

Quote from: cnitas on December 12, 2007, 03:49:52 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on December 12, 2007, 03:44:56 PM

Which is why I said >an<, not >the<.

Ok, but that does not answer the question...
So 1% of the time we are 'AN" Aux of the Air Force... so what? Should we wear AF uniforms while on AFAMs? Is that what you are trying to say?

Who cares about the AUX ON/OFF thing?  Do cadets really care whether or not, at any specific time, that we're AFAUX or not?  I know I don't.  To me, it's only an ES thing that doesn't affect me or the program in any other way.  So far, I have felt no change down at the squadron level regarding the AF AUX ON/OFF thing having come about.

As has been said...we are the USAF Auxiliary (most of the time); and truth be told, it is only because of lawyers and legal hair-splitting that the silly double distinction came about.

Get rid of the uniform, get rid of the USAF association, and CAP is done, period.

I just do not get the aversion, sometimes the downright hostility to the military aspect of CAP. Do not like it? Do not join....

CAP's use of the AF-style uniform is means to satisfy many people's psychological needs.  We tend to wrap those needs around concepts and ideas (sometimes to the best of our ability, sometimes not so much).

---Some people NEED to know that others SEE them as special; it's comforting for many
---Some people NEED to have a symbol around which to rally; a flag, a shoulder patch, etc.
---Some people NEED to feel that they're making up for what could have been, but either (a) didn't happen, (b) couldn't happen, or (c) should've happened
---Some people NEED to feel motivations and rewards embodied through materialistic awards, such as pins and badges, hats and belts.

NONE OF THESE are bad, condescending, or the like......and this sort of thing is a continuum, upon which some folks lean more one way or the other vs. being extreme end or extreme opposite end.


Fact is fact – some folks have to find their true motivation in materialism, others' association, or  through the works of others in which they had no role, 60+ years ago(e.g., "tradition")

If all people didn't really care about what others thought of their contributions or inclusions (sort of like what most of us heard as lessons from our parents), if all people were more inspired by association through concept verses an object, if folks were pretty well at peace for having never become a military officer or leader of a charge over San Juan Hill, and if we weren't so materialistic in terms of measuring success with "stuff"......

......well, we'd probably not be having this conversation in the first place.

;)

Quote from: Stonewall on December 12, 2007, 03:52:37 PM

Quote from: cnitas on December 12, 2007, 03:49:52 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on December 12, 2007, 03:44:56 PM

Which is why I said >an<, not >the<.

Ok, but that does not answer the question...
So 1% of the time we are 'AN" Aux of the Air Force... so what? Should we wear AF uniforms while on AFAMs? Is that what you are trying to say?

Who cares about the AUX ON/OFF thing?  Do cadets really care whether or not, at any specific time, that we're AFAUX or not?  I know I don't.  To me, it's only an ES thing that doesn't affect me or the program in any other way.  So far, I have felt no change down at the squadron level regarding the AF AUX ON/OFF thing having come about.

Correct, its a nuance of liability insurance and little else.

I would argue that the cadet program is 100% of the time a USAF auxiliary, and regardless all members should comport themselves as if the represent not only the USAF, but the USA as well.

The color of my shirt has no bearing to that.

And while everyone has their reasons and right to an opinion, I have absolutely no idea what motivates people to join a military auxiliary, and then proudly declare they would not be caught dead in a military uniform.

If CAP did not have a cadet program, I would not give a second thought about not wearing a uniform.  But then again, I wouldn't give a second thought about joining another group, be it a VFD, Volunteer SAR, Scouts, or whatever.  Just so happens, several of the types of organizations I'd be a part of have uniforms.  If I found an interest in something that didn't have a uniform associated with it, I'd do it. 

Quote from: Active Monty on December 12, 2007, 03:55:57 PM
CAP's use of the AF-style uniform is means to satisfy many people's psychological needs.  We tend to wrap those needs around concepts and ideas (sometimes to the best of our ability, sometimes not so much).

---Some people NEED to know that others SEE them as special; it's comforting for many
---Some people NEED to have a symbol around which to rally; a flag, a shoulder patch, etc.
---Some people NEED to feel that they're making up for what could have been, but either (a) didn't happen, (b) couldn't happen, or (c) should've happened
---Some people NEED to feel motivations and rewards embodied through materialistic awards, such as pins and badges, hats and belts.

NONE OF THESE are bad, condescending, or the like......and this sort of thing is a continuum, upon which some folks lean more one way or the other vs. being extreme end or extreme opposite end.


Fact is fact – some folks have to find their true motivation in materialism, others' association, or  through the works of others in which they had no role, 60+ years ago(e.g., "tradition")

If all people didn't really care about what others thought of their contributions or inclusions (sort of like what most of us heard as lessons from our parents), if all people were more inspired by association through concept verses an object, if folks were pretty well at peace for having never become a military officer or leader of a charge over San Juan Hill, and if we weren't so materialistic in terms of measuring success with "stuff"......

......well, we'd probably not be having this conversation in the first place.

;)

Whooooaa....talk about condescending, no matter how you tried to explain that it is not.

So someone just doing something for no reason but to do it is somehow noble but no one else is? BTW...those associations ARE important. Even if it was just the CAP uniform, it would still be an association with THAT group.

So it's OK to just can those uniforms because a cadet has to buy insignia? Pretty flimsy justification.

Well, if the total cost for the uniform after it is given for 'free' is greater than the cost of a golf shirt...YES! it is OK to 'can' the uniform.  How is that flimsy?

Insignia and other required items:
Hat device 5.25
CAP cutouts 3.25
Name plate 2.75
Belt 3.50
Shoes $46
All current prices from the Hock.

So your 'free' uniform actually costs $60.75 for the required items for a C/AB.  This does not include service jacket, any cold weather outerwear, additional rank, ribbons, etc.  The total cost spent for just the service uniform could easily reach several hundred dollars as a cadet gets their Mitchell with shoulder boards, epaulet sleeves, etc.

Quote from: Stonewall on December 12, 2007, 04:02:07 PM
If CAP did not have a cadet program, I would not give a second thought about not wearing a uniform.  But then again, I wouldn't give a second thought about joining another group, be it a VFD, Volunteer SAR, Scouts, or whatever.  Just so happens, several of the types of organizations I'd be a part of have uniforms.  If I found an interest in something that didn't have a uniform associated with it, I'd do it. 

I would agree. Been thinking about the Red Cross for a couple of years now. Seems like I can never find the time. I may still someday.

Quote from: Active Monty on December 12, 2007, 03:55:57 PM

......well, we'd probably not be having this conversation in the first place.

;)

SMUG ALERT!

Quote from: cnitas on December 12, 2007, 04:03:28 PM
So it's OK to just can those uniforms because a cadet has to buy insignia? Pretty flimsy justification.

Well, if the total cost for the uniform after it is given for 'free' is greater than the cost of a golf shirt...YES! it is OK to 'can' the uniform.  How is that flimsy?

Insignia and other required items:
Hat device 5.25
CAP cutouts 3.25
Name plate 2.75
Belt 3.50
Shoes $46
All current prices from the Hock.

So your 'free' uniform actually costs $60.75 for the required items for a C/AB.  This does not include service jacket, any cold weather outerwear, additional rank, ribbons, etc.  The total cost spent for just the service uniform could easily reach several hundred dollars as a cadet gets their Mitchell with shoulder boards, epaulet sleeves, etc.

OK, you've pointed that out. Now show me how you're going to teach attention to detail with just a golf shirt.

"Gee cadet, you're out of uniform. You're shirt is on inside out."

Come to think of it, shoes have been included for all the cadets in my unit. Not sure why you're not getting yours.

That aside, let's get down to the basic issue. Why don't you like the Air Force uniforms? Your dislike is obvious. Why? Why are you part of an organization associated with the Air Force when you don't like their clothes?

Quote from: LittleIronPilot on December 12, 2007, 04:03:17 PM

Quote from: Active Monty on December 12, 2007, 03:55:57 PM
CAP's use of the AF-style uniform is means to satisfy many people's psychological needs.  We tend to wrap those needs around concepts and ideas (sometimes to the best of our ability, sometimes not so much).

---Some people NEED to know that others SEE them as special; it's comforting for many
---Some people NEED to have a symbol around which to rally; a flag, a shoulder patch, etc.
---Some people NEED to feel that they're making up for what could have been, but either (a) didn't happen, (b) couldn't happen, or (c) should've happened
---Some people NEED to feel motivations and rewards embodied through materialistic awards, such as pins and badges, hats and belts.

NONE OF THESE are bad, condescending, or the like......and this sort of thing is a continuum, upon which some folks lean more one way or the other vs. being extreme end or extreme opposite end.


Fact is fact – some folks have to find their true motivation in materialism, others' association, or  through the works of others in which they had no role, 60+ years ago(e.g., "tradition")

If all people didn't really care about what others thought of their contributions or inclusions (sort of like what most of us heard as lessons from our parents), if all people were more inspired by association through concept verses an object, if folks were pretty well at peace for having never become a military officer or leader of a charge over San Juan Hill, and if we weren't so materialistic in terms of measuring success with "stuff"......

......well, we'd probably not be having this conversation in the first place.

;)

Whooooaa....talk about condescending, no matter how you tried to explain that it is not.

So someone just doing something for no reason but to do it is somehow noble but no one else is? BTW...those associations ARE important. Even if it was just the CAP uniform, it would still be an association with THAT group.

Smug...condescending...maybe so.  I'm part of it also.

Shoot, can't be part of the issue if I can't admit it too.  I have stuff that I want folks to see and covet - not necesarilly CAP stuff, but sure...

Thing is, I can admit that.  I don't think many can, due to the weird feeling we get from our culture where we're taught that vanity ain't cool, but we do it anyway.

Shoot, I can admit it and mean it.

If that makes me smug or condescending, then I'm guilty.

Ok, so we have the following reasons:

1. Cadets and many Seniors like the uniform (for various reasons)

2. We are associated with the AF, so we should wear them as a show of solidarity with them.

3.  The cadet program would be Boy Scouts-lite without the military trappings/environment

4.  The uniform adds a sense of authority while on ES missions.


Any other good reasons to wear AF uniforms?

Quote from: Hawk200 on December 12, 2007, 03:47:03 PM
Who's going to believe you if your whole organization wears something obiously non-military claims to be associated with the military?

I have to take issue with that statement.  There are thousands of people who do it everyday, myself included.  They are called DoD civilians.  They are an integral part of the military workforce, some even deployed.  You don't have to wear a uniform to be associated with the military.

Quote from: davedove on December 12, 2007, 04:13:55 PM

Quote from: Hawk200 on December 12, 2007, 03:47:03 PM
Who's going to believe you if your whole organization wears something obiously non-military claims to be associated with the military?

I have to take issue with that statement.  There are thousands of people who do it everyday, myself included.  They are called DoD civilians.  They are an integral part of the military workforce, some even deployed.  You don't have to wear a uniform to be associated with the military.

I'm fully aware of DOD civilians, and am very respectful of their service. And I don't know anyone that has ever asked a DOD civilian where their uniform is when they know what they are. Key word there is "civilian". We're talking a paramilitary organization associated with a branch of the military.

Now if a DOD civilian just told someone "I'm with the Army" without clarifying thier civilian status, they probably would be asked where their uniform was.

However, there are situations where DOD civilians wear military uniforms. Even AAFES members going to the desert get them. I've seen the photos, and will probably see them while I'm there.

Quote from: cnitas on December 12, 2007, 04:13:42 PM
Ok, so we have the following reasons:

1. Cadets and many Seniors like the uniform (for various reasons)

2. We are associated with the AF, so we should wear them as a show of solidarity with them.

3.  The cadet program would be Boy Scouts-lite without the military trappings/environment

4.  The uniform adds a sense of authority while on ES missions.


Any other good reasons to wear AF uniforms?

To be honest, I like the team aspect. We're all part of one. It's not just solidarity with the Air Force, it's solidarity with each other. I have a proper sense of pride when I teach others the same attention to detail that I've learned.

Be it a BDU/ABU, and blue BDU's, the insignia is still the same (for the most part). It says "Civil Air Patrol" on both styles of uniforms. It's all part of the same team. There are reasons why we have some separate ones. The problem is too many separate ones.

Quote from: cnitas on December 12, 2007, 04:03:28 PM
Well, if the total cost for the uniform after it is given for 'free' is greater than the cost of a golf shirt...YES! it is OK to 'can' the uniform.  How is that flimsy?

Insignia and other required items:
Hat device 5.25
CAP cutouts 3.25
Name plate 2.75
Belt 3.50
Shoes $46
All current prices from the Hock.

So your 'free' uniform actually costs $60.75 for the required items for a C/AB.  This does not include service jacket, any cold weather outerwear, additional rank, ribbons, etc.  The total cost spent for just the service uniform could easily reach several hundred dollars as a cadet gets their Mitchell with shoulder boards, epaulet sleeves, etc.

Playing high school football is "free" too.  But find a high school football player that doesn't fork out $100+ for all the stuff the school doesn't give them.

Quote from: Stonewall on December 12, 2007, 04:37:05 PM
Playing high school football is "free" too.  But find a high school football player that doesn't fork out $100+ for all the stuff the school doesn't give them.

Another of my peeves - life is choice, make yours and go with it, but don't complain "x" is too expensive when you spend all your money on "y".

Quote from: Hawk200 on December 12, 2007, 04:31:44 PM

Quote from: davedove on December 12, 2007, 04:13:55 PM

Quote from: Hawk200 on December 12, 2007, 03:47:03 PM
Who's going to believe you if your whole organization wears something obiously non-military claims to be associated with the military?

I have to take issue with that statement.  There are thousands of people who do it everyday, myself included.  They are called DoD civilians.  They are an integral part of the military workforce, some even deployed.  You don't have to wear a uniform to be associated with the military.

I'm fully aware of DOD civilians, and am very respectful of their service. And I don't know anyone that has ever asked a DOD civilian where their uniform is when they know what they are. Key word there is "civilian". We're talking a paramilitary organization associated with a branch of the military.

Now if a DOD civilian just told someone "I'm with the Army" without clarifying thier civilian status, they probably would be asked where their uniform was.

However, there are situations where DOD civilians wear military uniforms. Even AAFES members going to the desert get them. I've seen the photos, and will probably see them while I'm there.

Yep, I've seen AAFES employees in BDUs in full battle rattle.  I've got pictures of some friends (fellow DOD employees) in DCUs with their nametapes that say "DOD CIVILIAN" on them.   Now, on a regular basis, no, you won't find the DOD HR lady on base wearing a uniform, but again, they're civilians.  They didn't have to go to boot camp, qualify on weapons, march, use customs and courtesies, etc.

Quote from: Eclipse on December 12, 2007, 04:40:02 PM

Quote from: Stonewall on December 12, 2007, 04:37:05 PM
Playing high school football is "free" too.  But find a high school football player that doesn't fork out $100+ for all the stuff the school doesn't give them.

Another of my peeves - life is choice, make yours and go with it, but don't complain "x" is too expensive when you spend all your money on "y".

I've been in CAP for a long time.  As a senior, I've always worked with cadets, either as CC, DCC, or Leadership Officer.  I can count on 1 hand the amount of genuine cost issues that have come up.  Without shining a spotlight on that cadet and their family, we took care of our own.  Just as a high school football coach, teammate, or "football parent" would.

If a member does not want to conform to the rules of the organization they could convert to senior member with out rank, They could become a parton member and not have to worry about any uniforms. They could wear their hair long, gain as much weight as they wish, and have a ZZ-Top beard. BUT NOT WHILE THEY HAVE TO WEAR A MILITARY UNIFORM. It is each members choice. Don't say your a Maj. or Lt. Col. walking around out of uniform. This is my opinion,

Quote from: cnitas on December 12, 2007, 03:08:11 PM

If a cadet was in ES, a full set of BBDUs are about $90 from the hock.  So for less than the price of 1 service jacket ($165 from the hock) , cadets can have 2 out of 3 combos, and still participate in all activity except ES flying missions.

1)  Who said they had to be in nomex anyways

2)  Cadets under 18 can't be Mission Aircrew qualified.

Quote from: Hawk200 on December 12, 2007, 04:35:13 PM
To be honest, I like the team aspect. We're all part of one. It's not just solidarity with the Air Force, it's solidarity with each other.

Best answer I've seen and one that fits my personal definition of the reasons for CAP to wear any uniform.

I'm not anti-uniform, just don't particularly want to wear one if I have another choice.  I'll be in Gray & Whites or Blue & Whites (depending on which one I grab first) for the Squadron Christmas party next week and I do own Blue Nomex and the utility uniform.  I just LIKE the golf shirt, particularly when traveling for other business.

Quote from: RogueLeader on December 12, 2007, 06:01:56 PM

Quote from: cnitas on December 12, 2007, 03:08:11 PM

If a cadet was in ES, a full set of BBDUs are about $90 from the hock.  So for less than the price of 1 service jacket ($165 from the hock) , cadets can have 2 out of 3 combos, and still participate in all activity except ES flying missions.

1)  Who said they had to be in nomex anyways

2)  Cadets under 18 can't be Mission Aircrew qualified.

Not to mention the fact that the Hock is by no means the cheapest / best place to buy uniforms, and IMHO  CADETS should be buying >new< service jackets.

They are fairly plentiful on the secondary market, and considering how some grow, are not worth the expense.  A lot of units have exchange programs with like-new jackets dating back to the Major Nelson era.

Quote from: Eclipse on December 12, 2007, 04:40:02 PM
Another of my peeves - life is choice, make yours and go with it, but don't complain "x" is too expensive when you spend all your money on "y".

I knew I should have bought "x" when the price was down.  "Y" just dropped a half percent and E-Trade is telling me I lost everything.  Is it a recession......perhaps. 

Oh wrong thread sorry, but if anyone wants to buy some "y" the going rate is good.
:D

Quote from: Stonewall on December 12, 2007, 04:37:05 PM
Playing high school football is "free" too.  But find a high school football player that doesn't fork out $100+ for all the stuff the school doesn't give them.

So it goes like this:

Me: I have a uniform solution that would cost $60 for cadets to be in uniform.
- But they get Free uniforms now

Me:  Um, there not totally free, in fact cadets often spend lots of money on all the uniform, acessories and parts.

- Well, HS Football players spend over $100 on a free program

Me:  I have a uniform solution that would only cost $60.

Quote from: davedove on December 12, 2007, 03:19:47 PM

Quote from: Cobra1597 on December 12, 2007, 03:12:15 PM
Part of the goal of the cadet program is to introduce them to military careers and prepare them for military training, should that be there choice.

I'll have to disagree with that.  From CAPR 52-16:

1-1. GENERAL. The mission of the Civil Air Patrol Cadet Program is to provide the youth of our nation a quality program that enhances their leadership skills through an interest in aviation, and simultaneously provide services to the United States Air Force and the local community.

So, the mission is not to get cadets ready for military training.  I'm afraid if it were, there would be several parents pulling their children out of the program tomorrow.

Now, we do operate in a military style environment, so it can transfer over pretty easily.  But, we wouldn't have to have Air Force uniforms for that.  It could be done with any type of uniform.

We use the military as a tool to teach leadership. SO, that being the case, the military environment is very important to the success of our mission.

You never answered the question; Why are you so against the military or more specifically the Air Force uniforms? And please, don't say cost, I don't buy that reasoning.

 When you joined, did you know CAP is a Auxiliary to the United States Air Force? if you are not really into the military aspect then why did you join CAP? I'm asking an honest question here.

 You obviously care something about rank or else you wouldn't have worked a little to get promoted to Major, why do you use rank at all?

 Mark, what I'm getting at is that your posts seem to reflect a lack of desire to be a part of a military service, you are completely ready to dump the Air Force uniforms but a large part of me keeps thinking that cost can't be the only issue with this. I'm not criticising you Mark, I'm just making an observation based on the language you have used in your posts.

  As for being only the AF aux 1% of the time, I actually think that number is a bit higher, perhaps around 90% of the time. Most of the flying I do are AFAM missions, from flying CAP cadets and AFROTC cadets, to flying in SAREXs and in performing other AFAM flying missions that come up. come to think of it, I don't think I have logged any flight time this past year that wasn't an AFAM.

Quote from: cnitas on December 12, 2007, 09:11:14 PM

Quote from: Stonewall on December 12, 2007, 04:37:05 PM
Playing high school football is "free" too.  But find a high school football player that doesn't fork out $100+ for all the stuff the school doesn't give them.

So it goes like this:

Me: I have a uniform solution that would cost $60 for cadets to be in uniform.
- But they get Free uniforms now

Me:  Um, there not totally free, in fact cadets often spend lots of money on all the uniform, acessories and parts.

- Well, HS Football players spend over $100 on a free program

Me:  I have a uniform solution that would only cost $60.

You: I have a "solution" . . .

Me:  There can't be a "solution" unless there is a "problem."

Me:  AF-style uniforms work just fine for cadets, thank you very much.

Ned Lee
DCP, PCR

Ok, I think we all agree that military style uniforms are mission critical for the cadet program.

What about the Officer side of the house? 

What about putting everyone (Officers and Cadets) into Corporate blues? We all would match across the board.

Quote from: cnitas on December 12, 2007, 09:41:08 PM
Ok, I think we all agree that military style uniforms are mission critical for the cadet program.

What about the Officer side of the house? 

What about putting everyone (Officers and Cadets) into Corporate blues? We all would match across the board.

Mark,

I don't mean to be difficult here, but again it seems as if you are proposing solutions without establishing there is a problem.

If we agree that AF-style uniforms for cadets are not a "problem," why should we talk about spending over a hundred thousand dollars (20,000 cadets times your $60 figure) to fix a non-existant problem?  If I had a spare hundred grand to spend on cadets, I'll bet I can come up with a better way to spend it.

If you want to engage in "what-ifs" and "wouldn't be nice" thoughts about how seniors should dress, you'll have a lot of company.

Just leave the cadet program out of your discussions. 

We may have our problems, but wearing USAF-style uniforms is not one of them.

Peace.

Ned Lee
DCP, PCR

Quote from: cnitas on December 12, 2007, 09:11:14 PM

Quote from: Stonewall on December 12, 2007, 04:37:05 PM
Playing high school football is "free" too.  But find a high school football player that doesn't fork out $100+ for all the stuff the school doesn't give them.

So it goes like this:

Me: I have a uniform solution that would cost $60 for cadets to be in uniform.
- But they get Free uniforms now

Me:  Um, there not totally free, in fact cadets often spend lots of money on all the uniform, acessories and parts.

- Well, HS Football players spend over $100 on a free program

Me:  I have a uniform solution that would only cost $60.

My point is that nothing is free, even a free uniform.  Regardless, money will be spent.  The costs of uniforms for cadets is not that bad.  It's certainly worth maintaining a decorum of a military atmosphere.  But of course, you're not in to that.

Posted by: DrJbdm

You never answered the question; Why are you so against the military or more specifically the Air Force uniforms? And please, don't say cost, I don't buy that reasoning.

When did I ever say I was against the military or AF uniforms?  In fact, I am a former member of the US Army, former cadet, and wear a military style uniform at almost all CAP activities I attend.
I am asking people to justify why we wear them and I believe the results to show us a lot.  Try to think outside the box a little.

 When you joined, did you know CAP is a Auxiliary to the United States Air Force? if you are not really into the military aspect then why did you join CAP? I'm asking an honest question here.
Yes I did.  That is what brought me in as a cadet over 15 yrs ago.

 You obviously care something about rank or else you wouldn't have worked a little to get promoted to Major, why do you use rank at all?
Good question, maybe we should get rid of that too  >:D

 Mark, what I'm getting at is that your posts seem to reflect a lack of desire to be a part of a military service, you are completely ready to dump the Air Force uniforms but a large part of me keeps thinking that cost can't be the only issue with this. I'm not criticising you Mark, I'm just making an observation based on the language you have used in your posts.

My posts are an academic exercise in trying to come up with a valid set of reasons for us to wear AF uniforms. If we cannot come up with good reasons why, how can we ask the AF to allow us continued use of their uniform? Or make changes that bring us more in line with their uniform?

Cost is often the reason used for making change to the uniforms.  In fact it is one of the major premises that the national uniform committee is using in their uniform alignment they are currently working on; therefore I was using cost as a barrier for the reasoning to overcome.  It should be easy to overcome the cost argument...like we would have no more cadets if we got rid of their military uniforms.  I believe we have made that point. We have not made it on the officer side.

  As for being only the AF aux 1% of the time, I actually think that number is a bit higher, perhaps around 90% of the time. Most of the flying I do are AFAM missions, from flying CAP cadets and AFROTC cadets, to flying in SAREXs and in performing other AFAM flying missions that come up. come to think of it, I don't think I have logged any flight time this past year that wasn't an AFAM.

Yes, but how many meetings do you attend between AFAMs? Airshows? Recruiting drives? Wing training? Other local activities?  Are you ghost member unless there is an AFAM? There are units who do not have aircraft and never go on AFAMs.

Quote from: cnitas on December 12, 2007, 03:08:11 PMWhat purpose do they serve that cannot be filled with a cheaper civilian alternative?

Attention to detail, esprit, participation as color guards, national cadet competition(s) & similar activities,
parity with other paramilitary youth program.

Quote from: cnitas on December 12, 2007, 03:08:11 PM
And is this purpose worth the extra cost to members?

Yes

Quote from: cnitas on December 12, 2007, 03:08:11 PM
Do military uniforms help/hurt our mission?

Help.

Quote from: cnitas on December 12, 2007, 03:08:11 PM
Do military uniforms help/hurt recruiting/retaining seniors/cadets?

Help.

We are not the BSA, B&G Clubs, or the local rec center.  One big reason for the military style uniforms is to intentionally set off and separate our cadets from the rest of the world.  The honor of the uniform is intended to reward and convey the extra work and effort these young people invest in themselves and their futures.  For centuries a military uniform was (and IMHO still is) considered the height of honor and pride.

I have no idea why you've got "sand" about this, but the majority of the cadets in my units get the lion's share of their uniform parts issued from their unit supplies, spend about $50 total on insignia and accessories for >all< their uniforms, and would bolt for the door if directed to participate in a golf shirt.

As would many seniors.

Why? Because of the shirt? No, because it would mark a SIGNIFICANT change in the timbre and attitude of an organization which has represented something for over 60 years, and has fought tooth and nail to maintain a level of standard and expectation of performance.

Religquishing our ability to wear military uniforms, with anything less than full-on effort to retain them, would mean that we are guilty of EXACTLY what we are constantly being accused of - that our service is somehow second-class and that we do not deserve the honor of the garment.

Quote from: Ned on December 12, 2007, 09:53:39 PM
Mark,

I don't mean to be difficult here, but again it seems as if you are proposing solutions without establishing there is a problem.

If we agree that AF-style uniforms for cadets are not a "problem," why should we talk about spending over a hundred thousand dollars (20,000 cadets times your $60 figure) to fix a non-existant problem?  If I had a spare hundred grand to spend on cadets, I'll bet I can come up with a better way to spend it.

If you want to engage in "what-ifs" and "wouldn't be nice" thoughts about how seniors should dress, you'll have a lot of company.

Just leave the cadet program out of your discussions. 

We may have our problems, but wearing USAF-style uniforms is not one of them.

Peace.

Ned Lee
DCP, PCR

You guys sure do get defensive about these uniforms...

Ok here is the problem:
We have 1000 uniform variations and 'we' are working to cut them down to just a few, while at the same time minimizing the cost to the individual member.

How can we prioritize what needs to get cut, what needs to stay, and what needs to change?

Well, we do that by establishing the fundamental reasons why we wear uniforms in CAP and then make our changes based upon those principals.

If we do not establish the principals, then we are shooting from the hip, making changes because someone thought it was a good idea at the time and without any thought as to wheather the changes help, or hurt the mission (or the cost).

For instance, should we wear flags on our sleeves.  Or, remove wing patches from BDUs.  What about golf shirts? Corporate grays or Blues, or both? All of these have been hashed out on this very board ad nausem, but what without a core set of uniform principals, we are just engaging in "what-ifs" and "wouldn't be nice" thoughts.

And no, I will not leave the cadet program out of my discussions.  I will discuss cadet uniforms if I believe it needs discussing.  In fact, the major argument was that without AF uniforms, we would have a poor program (as in no cadets).  Does not speak very highly of the program now does it?

"We may have our problems, but wearing USAF-style uniforms is not one of them."

I respectfully disagree and so does the Air Force.  We cannot seem to get many of our members to wear the uniform correctly.  Why cant we wear the same color epaulet sleeves? Or hard rank, or same color name tapes?  The Air Force wants us to be different....why?  Maybe because we have not given them a good enough reason to be the same.

Quote from: cnitas on December 12, 2007, 10:38:55 PM"We may have our problems, but wearing USAF-style uniforms is not one of them."

I respectfully disagree and so does the Air Force. 

People make this statement all the time - please cite facts that this is the case.

Thanks for the clarifications Mark, it helps when we know what you are asking. Your posts seemed to point in the direction that you wanted to dump the AF uniforms and that normally relates to wanting to dump the strong military aspect of CAP. We do, as you have mentioned have members who wouldn't dare be caught dead wearing a military uniform, and that raises the issue of why did they join in the first place?

  I get more AFAMS then I get squadron meetings/training ect only because of the availability of AFAMS in my area.

Quote from: cnitas on December 12, 2007, 09:41:08 PM
Ok, I think we all agree that military style uniforms are mission critical for the cadet program.

What about the Officer side of the house? 

What about putting everyone (Officers and Cadets) into Corporate blues? We all would match across the board.

In CAP, for the SM's, we have two standards

1)  The "high and tight" ie- meet AF W&G standards, and
2) "Fat and/or Fuzzies" those who do not meet above.

I am a firm believer in meeting the higher standard.  I wear the AF style uniforms because I meet the standard.  If I chose to grow a beard- my choice- go to the corporates.  I also well understand that not all people can meet that standard. That is the way the whole world runs.  Should we try to change it, sure; but do it for the right reasons.

Quote
Ok here is the problem:
We have 1000 uniform variations and 'we' are working to cut them down to just a few, while at the same time minimizing the cost to the individual member.

From the CP perspective, this simply isn't true.  As a practical matter well over 98% of our cadets exclusively wear the USAF-style uniforms.

And although we could manage the distribution better, new cadets get their first uniform free upon application.

Sure most cadets (and almost all seniors) wind up paying for most of their uniforms over the course of their career, but this has never been identified as significant problem in recruiting or retention over the last 60 years or so.

Quote

How can we prioritize what needs to get cut, what needs to stay, and what needs to change?

See, that's just the problem -- this "mission statement" assumes some sort of problem that needs fixing, and you have yet to suggest a problem with CP uniforms.

Quote
And no, I will not leave the cadet program out of my discussions.  I will discuss cadet uniforms if I believe it needs discussing.  In fact, the major argument was that without AF uniforms, we would have a poor program (as in no cadets).  Does not speak very highly of the program now does it?

That's a fairly odd statement coming from a DCC.  Do you honestly believe that?

If so, why.  If not, why are you bad-mouthing the cadet program you are supporting?

Further, it does not seem very logical to me.  Assuming that the USAF-uniform is a tool for teaching leadership and developing espirit, is it really surprising that depriving CP of an important tool would hurt the program?

Is it any different than speculating what might happen to SAR if we eliminate one of their important tools -- the airplane -- and then being shocked that the number of members participating might decrease?

Quote[re my assertion that within CP the wearing of AF style uniforms is not a problem]

I respectfully disagree and so does the Air Force.  We cannot seem to get many of our members to wear the uniform correctly.  Why cant we wear the same color epaulet sleeves? Or hard rank, or same color name tapes?  The Air Force wants us to be different....why?  Maybe because we have not given them a good enough reason to be the same.

Again, it sounds like your concerns go entirely to the senior members and the various combinations authorized by the USAF and our volunteer leaders.

And as I said, you will not be lonely whilst tilting against this particular windmill.  I have a pool going trying to guess the date that LtCol White's NHQ Uniform Committee thread will go over 1,000 replies.

Want in? ;)

Quote from: Eclipse on December 12, 2007, 10:44:51 PM

Quote from: cnitas on December 12, 2007, 10:38:55 PM"We may have our problems, but wearing USAF-style uniforms is not one of them."

I respectfully disagree and so does the Air Force. 

People make this statement all the time - please cite facts that this is the case.

I thought I did...just after that line. But since you missed it...
-The AF makes us wear Ultramarine nametapes, rank, badges, etc.
-We wear grey epaulet slides as continued 'punishment' for something that happened 20 years ago
-We only this year were authorized rank on hats
These are by my understanding, AF decrees.  In fact, in in the uniform committee thread, the idea of using the same colors as the AF was shot down immediately with a "AF will not approve".
They make us so different in BDU, that we look more like a central American defence force than an USAF Aux...hence the flag.

If these are wrong, please let me know.  If they are right, then it is evident that the AF has a some problem with us wearing an AF uniform that they did not have when we wore fatigues, and when when the only difference on the service uniform was the 3 line nameplate and CAP cutouts.  It would be interesting to see an AF position paper on the topic, but none has been forthcoming that I am aware of.

Quote from: Ned on December 12, 2007, 11:41:30 PM

Quote
Ok here is the problem:
We have 1000 uniform variations and 'we' are working to cut them down to just a few, while at the same time minimizing the cost to the individual member.

From the CP perspective, this simply isn't true.  As a practical matter well over 98% of our cadets exclusively wear the USAF-style uniforms.

And although we could manage the distribution better, new cadets get their first uniform free upon application.

Sure most cadets (and almost all seniors) wind up paying for most of their uniforms over the course of their career, but this has never been identified as significant problem in recruiting or retention over the last 60 years or so.

Quote

How can we prioritize what needs to get cut, what needs to stay, and what needs to change?

See, that's just the problem -- this "mission statement" assumes some sort of problem that needs fixing, and you have yet to suggest a problem with CP uniforms.

Quote
And no, I will not leave the cadet program out of my discussions.  I will discuss cadet uniforms if I believe it needs discussing.  In fact, the major argument was that without AF uniforms, we would have a poor program (as in no cadets).  Does not speak very highly of the program now does it?

That's a fairly odd statement coming from a DCC.  Do you honestly believe that?

If so, why.  If not, why are you bad-mouthing the cadet program you are supporting?

Further, it does not seem very logical to me.  Assuming that the USAF-uniform is a tool for teaching leadership and developing espirit, is it really surprising that depriving CP of an important tool would hurt the program?

Is it any different than speculating what might happen to SAR if we eliminate one of their important tools -- the airplane -- and then being shocked that the number of members participating might decrease?

Quote[re my assertion that within CP the wearing of AF style uniforms is not a problem]

I respectfully disagree and so does the Air Force.  We cannot seem to get many of our members to wear the uniform correctly.  Why cant we wear the same color epaulet sleeves? Or hard rank, or same color name tapes?  The Air Force wants us to be different....why?  Maybe because we have not given them a good enough reason to be the same.

Again, it sounds like your concerns go entirely to the senior members and the various combinations authorized by the USAF and our volunteer leaders.

And as I said, you will not be lonely whilst tilting against this particular windmill.  I have a pool going trying to guess the date that LtCol White's NHQ Uniform Committee thread will go over 1,000 replies.

Want in? ;)

Did you read my previous posts?  I do NOT actually believe that taking the AF uniform away is a good thing. It is an acedemic exercise called debate.

We agree, there is no current problem with Cadets in AF uniforms. 
But...
would there be one if they were not in uniforms?  What if they were in golf shirts? 

If you think so (which I think you do), then we still need a mission statement on why cadets wear AF uniforms and NOT golf shirts, or the blue corporate uniform.  Call it a justification statement if you prefer, but that is just semantics.  I am asking WHY do we do things this way (in CAP not just the cadet program), and should we change.  So far all I am getting is NO change!.  I am not getting much 'why'. 

About the CP...you guys said that was why many cadets joined and that they would all leave if we dumped the uniforms...not me.  I was restating a summary of the comments.  If you are being intelectually honest, that seems to indicate some problem with our core program. That problem is a topic for another discussion.  And fwiw identifying problems is not bad-mouthing.

Eclipse wrote:
One big reason for the military style uniforms is to intentionally set off and separate our cadets from the rest of the world.  The honor of the uniform is intended to reward and convey the extra work and effort these young people invest in themselves and their futures.  For centuries a military uniform was (and IMHO still is) considered the height of honor and pride.

So far this is the best reason I have seen for cadets to wear AF uniforms.  Followed with teaching attention to detail.  I agree with both.

Are there any reasons for Officers to wear the uniform?

Quote from: cnitas on December 13, 2007, 12:25:47 AM
Are there any reasons for Officers to wear the uniform?

You are not serious are you?  Ask the 85 year old CAP Colonel who flew during the Second World War.  Ask the wife of the guy who died after his CAP plane crashed while he was carrying donor organs.  Ask the woman who joined CAP to help inner-city youth.  Ask the pilot who has flown every search mission in Colorado since 1956.  Ask yourself "why wouldn't I want to wear my organizations uniform?"  That is the real question.

Quote from: cnitas on December 12, 2007, 11:56:34 PM
[I thought I did...just after that line. But since you missed it...
-The AF makes us wear Ultramarine nametapes, rank, badges, etc.

Let me see if I can help here.

The AF "decree" that we wear blue tapes, etc. was made while the USAF wore the exact same tapes on their own uniforms.  We looked just like them.  Later, the AF changed to subdued, but we didn't need to do that, so we continued to wear the same colors the USAF wore for over 20 years.

Maybe it's just me, but it doesn't sound like this supports the notion that the USAF has a problem with our uniforms.  Kinda the opposite.

Quote

-We wear grey epaulet slides

Absolutely true.

Quote
as continued 'punishment' for something that happened 20 years ago

This is, or course, an Urban Legend.  It might be true, it might not.  Some folks swear it is true, others point out that there is absolutely no documents that suggest the reason, or authenticated statements of USAF officers who participated in the decisions.

And it is worth remembering, that before the grey slides, we wore the maroon-colored ones for several years.  The greys were, IMHO, an improvement.

If the USAF really hated us, they probably would have left us in the maroon slides.

Quote
-We only this year were authorized rank on hats

Not true.  We wore metal rank on our utility and baseball caps for many years.

That was changed for a period of years and recently we have been allowed to put grade back on some, but not all, or our uniform caps.

Quote
In in the uniform committee thread, the idea of using the same colors as the AF was shot down immediately with a "AF will not approve".

I think I read that somewhere in the 650 or so messages in that thread.

But ultimately, that's obviously just the author's opinion.

Quote
They make us so different in BDU, that we look more like a central American defence force than an USAF Aux...hence the flag.

Lot's of opinion, no facts.

Quote

If these are wrong, please let me know.

You're welcome.

QuoteIt would be interesting to see an AF position paper on the topic, but none has been forthcoming that I am aware of.

Assuming such a thing exists, I agree that it would make for interesting reading.

Ned Lee

Quote from: cnitas on December 13, 2007, 12:18:21 AM

Did you read my previous posts?  I do NOT actually believe that taking the AF uniform away is a good thing. It is an acedemic exercise called debate.

If you think so (which I think you do), then we still need a mission statement on why cadets wear AF uniforms and NOT golf shirts, or the blue corporate uniform. 

I am asking WHY do we do things this way (in CAP not just the cadet program), and should we change.  So far all I am getting is NO change!.  I am not getting much 'why'. 

Because we have a fairly successful program at this point.

As a DCC, you must agree or I suspect you would spend your time and efforts elsewhere.

And it is the proponent of change that must bear the burden of justifying a change; not the reverse.

Otherwise it is less of an academic "debate" than a run of the mill BS session typically held in a freshman dorm accompanied by a lot of beer.

"Dude, why do we have to take so many classes that we are never gonna use?"

"Hey, Mr. Dean , you have to justify to us why we need to take history classes, man."

QuoteAnd fwiw identifying problems is not bad-mouthing.

Mark, what you said was "without AF uniforms, we would have a poor program (as in no cadets). "

I dunno, but implying that cadets are so shallow that what they wear is the most important factor in retention sounds like bad-mouthing to me.

Or did I misread your statement?

Quote from: cnitas on December 12, 2007, 11:56:34 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on December 12, 2007, 10:44:51 PM

Quote from: cnitas on December 12, 2007, 10:38:55 PM"We may have our problems, but wearing USAF-style uniforms is not one of them."

I respectfully disagree and so does the Air Force. 

People make this statement all the time - please cite facts that this is the case.

I thought I did...just after that line. But since you missed it...
-The AF makes us wear Ultramarine nametapes, rank, badges, etc.
-We wear grey epaulet slides as continued 'punishment' for something that happened 20 years ago
-We only this year were authorized rank on hats
These are by my understanding, AF decrees.  In fact, in in the uniform committee thread, the idea of using the same colors as the AF was shot down immediately with a "AF will not approve".
They make us so different in BDU, that we look more like a central American defence force than an USAF Aux...hence the flag.

If these are wrong, please let me know.  If they are right, then it is evident that the AF has a some problem with us wearing an AF uniform that they did not have when we wore fatigues, and when when the only difference on the service uniform was the 3 line nameplate and CAP cutouts.  It would be interesting to see an AF position paper on the topic, but none has been forthcoming that I am aware of.

They are factually correct, but don't necessarily support the argument that the USAF has a problem with us wearing a variant of their uniform.

The fact of the matter is that by law, we must have distinctive elements to our uniforms, and the things you mention above are what has >EVOLVED< over a 20-30 year period for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is our own behavior in how and when we ask for updates, and how things were handled at important times in the evolution. 

What we have today, works, for beter worse or other, and to chage something which works, even if its not the most aesthetically benevolent, requires more than just "because", for not the least of the reasons being the cost incurred by our membership.

If BigBlue decided they didn't want us wearing their uniform, we wouldn't be.

Wow, you guys are always good for some interesting  ??? reading!   

"We're military"  "What about this bling" "We not military"  "Cadets are great"  "Gotta have the bling!"  "Cadets are a pain"  "What about that bling"  Yep, if nothing else, it's all an interesting read!

Virtually 100% of the ACA membership (Officers and Cadets) is involved because of the regimented structure, personal challenges and gung-ho military culture of the program.  If we didn't use the uniform as a tool, the structure of the program would unravel (good or not, that's true) and we'd be the BSA (with Expert marksman badges and sharp haircuts!  ;D ).   

Sir,

I am not up to speed on ACA uniforms and how close they are to parent services.
Does the ACA have a written justification of any sort as to why the uiniform is used?

Quote from: Ned on December 13, 2007, 01:01:17 AM
And it is the proponent of change that must bear the burden of justifying a change; not the reverse.

Otherwise it is less of an academic "debate" than a run of the mill BS session typically held in a freshman dorm accompanied by a lot of beer.

Look, change of some sort is inevitable.  I would personally like us to remain in AF uniforms, and in fact I would like us to become less distinctive.  I would also like to justify this point of view.  What I am seeing when I (and others) try to justify it with real solid reasons, is that it is not so easy.   

By coming up with good solid reasons why we wear the uniform, and putting it on paper in I dunno a new version of 39-1, we can strive as an organization to align our uniform decisions with the fundamental justifications.  This should have the long term effect of making the uniform a non-issue.  Something it has not been in the last several years.

And what is up with the drunk freshman comments? They seem a little out of place when we are trying to have a discussion.  If the discussion is beneath you, please feel free to go on to the next uniform thread.

Quote from: Ned on December 13, 2007, 01:01:17 AM

QuoteAnd fwiw identifying problems is not bad-mouthing.

Mark, what you said was "without AF uniforms, we would have a poor program (as in no cadets). "

I dunno, but implying that cadets are so shallow that what they wear is the most important factor in retention sounds like bad-mouthing to me.

Or did I misread your statement?

Ok, do you think a cadet program with no cadets is high speed or poor?
Again, I was reiterating what people had said already when they were against golf shirts for cadets, and like it or not, without the military environment the uniform creates, the cadet program as we know it is gone:

"Go ask a cadet if he would have joined without the AF uniforms. I would be seriously doubtful if many said yes."

"I guess we could do with out military drill and ceremonies, customs and courtesies.  Hmmmm...  I guess that leaves us with building model rockets and cadets spending 4 to 7 years in CAP to go on 6 free orientation flights.  AWESOME PROGRAM!!!"

"I guess there's always the Boy Scouts with their Aviation Merit Badge."

Quote from: cnitas on December 13, 2007, 04:27:08 AM
Does the ACA have a written justification of any sort as to why the uniform is used?

"Why" is the uniform is used?   Because we are a militarily-structured program, which is patterned after the Armed Forces.   Remembering that we are a totally different culture (no necessarily better, just different), most of us can't relate to the idea of having pseudo-military (corporate) uniforms.   We're pretty black and white, either you're in uniform, or you're not.   The written justification can be found throughout several of our regulations, found at www.acacadets.org .

Back to your question, I suppose the reason "why" is  driven by:

   a.   When hanging out with Romans, dress like a Roman.   Our attitude is that members of the ACA Officers' Corps are "non-paid professionals" and that we should be as professional at our mission as our active duty, reserve and guard colleagues are at their mission.  (The term "volunteer" is pretty well taboo in ACA...it's a cultural thing...it prevents the common nonsense of "...uh, I'm a volunteer, what are they gonna do? Fire me?"  We don't use the fact that we are volunteers as an excuse to be half-way about anything).  To be accepted as military professionals, we have to look and act like military professionals.

   b.   One Corps, one image.  We set the uniform (Uni- =  singular   form =  image or look) of the day, and that's what everyone wears.   This includes utility, PT and dress uniforms, based on DoD standards.   We even have a standardized PT uniform (summer and winter) which is required for all personnel.   When you see an ACA unit in PT formation, all hands are wearing the same thing, including the officers.   With the exception of the required modifications (nametapes, patches, etc.), most of our folks fit in and look like our active duty, guard and reserve colleagues while in dress and utility uniforms.   That goes a long way towards acceptance by military folks, and it's been proven time and time again.

   c.   Force Multipliers.   We are not the official "auxiliary" of the Army.   However, our officers, and even Cadet NCOs have been called upon several times to augment various community relations functions for the Army.  We're generally seen as "part of the team."   In part, because they look "like Romans."   8)

I'm sure there are other reasons, but you get the idea.

Respectfully,

Mark,

I think the reason you having trouble with your "academic exercise" is probably because it appears that you are not really asking questions seeking an answer.

Whether you see it or not, you have already indicated that you think there is a "problem" (too many uniform combinations), and have already arrived at a "solution" (making us less distinctive, "prioritizing what to cut", etc), and are now looking for us to give you the reasons for your pre-determined solution to your self-defined problem.

And when others have given you reasons, you have agreed with some, disagreed with others, and made unsupported assertions (e.g what the Air Force thinks about CAP uniforms.)

This is most assuredly not a debate, academic or otherwise.

A debate is a reasoned discourse or argument or an attempt to pursuade by logic.

This is reason that these kinds of uniform discussions go on for ever and resolve nothing.

Hence the comparison to the freshman dorm debates.

(In which I've participated in more than my fair share, BTW)


The really sad part is how these uniform discussions distract us from improving the substance of our program. 

No really, look at the stats here on CAP Talk.

The "Uniform and Awards" section has more posts -- over 18,000 -- than the entire Operations and Cadet Programs sections added together.

QuoteIf the discussion is beneath you, please feel free to go on to the next uniform thread.

Offer accepted.


Ned Lee
DCP, PCR

The very fact that there is currently a committee working on uniform issues shows that there is something to "fix" with the uniforms.

What Mark is trying to do is come up with the underlying reason that CAP is wearing uniforms, specifically Air Force style.  In that way, any decisions about the uniform will have a directing force.

That way, any changes will be directed to fulfilling that reason, instead of just "I feel the uniform needs to be more like this."

Examining why we do things is never a bad idea.  Otherwise we are doomed to always do things "because that's the way it's done."

And maybe if the the direction is defined, the number of uniform discussions will reduce.

To see what it said about uniforms, I went back and read the Constitution and Bylaws.  Here is what I found in Article XVIII:

2. Except as otherwise restricted by law, the Corporation may develop and adopt such insignia, uniforms, emblems and badges, descriptive and designating marks, and words and phrases for use by the members of the Civil Air Patrol as it may consider necessary or advisable in carrying out the objects and purposes of the Corporation.

So, the Corporation may adopt uniforms, etc. to complete its purposes, but it doesn't say anything about the Air Force uniform.  So, it is a valid question to ask why any particular uniform was adopted if one is trying to make any uniform changes.

Quote from: Dragoon on December 13, 2007, 02:50:52 PM
We don't wear uniforms for us.  We wear them for people who look at us.

Pulled this from 'is it a uniform if nobody can see it' thread.  I think this idea has some merit.  

Ummmm....am I just dense, or do we not wear the USAF style uniform because we spend a good bit of our time (and all of it before the stupid lawyer-driven split personality crude) as the Auxiliary of the Air Force?

Quote from: LittleIronPilot on December 13, 2007, 03:49:06 PM
Ummmm....am I just dense, or do we not wear the USAF style uniform because we spend a good bit of our time (and all of it before the stupid lawyer-driven split personality crude) as the Auxiliary of the Air Force?

Well, technically, we COULD do our entire mission, Auxiliary portion included, without any uniforms whatsoever.  The uniforms are a tool, and I think an important one, used to fulfill our missions.  And has been stated before, one reason for the Air Force uniform is to show solidarity with big brother blue.

Some thoughts.

Our cadet program is very much a military style program.  To remove military style uniforms would require a total rewrite.  To go to a non-USAF uniform that is still military style would probably cost a lot more.  Plus, the uniforms help in recruiting (kids wanna feel like warriors).

On the senior side, it's not anywhere near as critical.  We don't run a military style program - ask any cadet.  We don't respect the authority of grade - only position.   In spite of our titles, we run pretty much like most non-profits.

We do pick up some seniors because they specifically like to wear USAF suits.  On the other hand, since we've got even more members who DON'T want to wear USAF uniform (count the golf shirts at a SAR) or can't (grooming and weight), we only end up with SOME of our folks in USAF suits.  The non-USAF suit wearers seem to do just fine in terms of duties.  

I don't buy the "solidarity with USAF"argument, I'm afraid.  USAF personnel deal with the blazer/golf shirt crowd the same way they deal with the Service Dress/BDU crown - to them it really doesn't matter.  USAF is fine dealing with USAF civilians without uniforms - they get the concept fully, and could easily deal with us the same way. You don't need a uniform to be on the Air Force Team.  In fact, when you wear one without the resident street cred (you know, like actually being in the military) you draw more attention to your "non-AirForciness."

Soo..I can only think of three useful reasons for seniors to wear USAF uniforms.

1.  Some will be able to pick 'em up cheap at DRMO, thrift shops etc.

2.  If you're a CP guy or gal, it makes you look like the cadets, which is a benefit in interoperating with them.

3.  It makes some folks feel good, which affects their personal morale and perhaps recruiting/retention.

The big reason against wearing them is the public just ain't never gonna understand a "military" organization where the military uniform is optional.  It looks rather odd, and requires constant explaining.

Making the corporate suits more like the USAF suits would limit this negative.

Well, as far as we can tell, the AF, or at least the part in charge, doesn't care.  The Statement of Work says we can wear AF or Corp uniforms and does not indicate a preference.

Having been an inmate Airman at CENTAF, I can tell you that if AF has a beef about your uniform, they'll be only too eager to let you know.

So far we have:

1.  To show solidarity with USAF
2.  If you're a CP guy or gal, it makes you look like the cadets, which is a benefit in interoperating with them.
3.  It makes some folks feel good, which affects their personal morale and perhaps recruiting/retention.
4.  I will add another : We have a history of wearing military uniforms.


Are there any others we have missed?  So far this is not exactly a mandate.

"Dragon's" post is excellent. 

I'll add just one thing without rehashing what people have said already: My main issue with our uniforms is that we do not have a uniform.  We need to pick one uniform that everyone can wear (one formal, one utility).  If that, by definition, means that the USAF-style uniform won't be an option, then so be it. All the reasons folks have given for keeping the senior USAF-style uniforms (solidarity, professionalism, image, etc) I would turn around and say they are the exact reasons we should have one uniform.

The conclusion we are coming to is that cadets ought to be in AF uniforms, and there are good reasons for seniors to wear exclusivly the corporates.  Is this an acceptable alternative to our current situation?  Is it better or worse?

I agree that cadets should be in AF style uniforms.  However, I'm not so sure that "requiring" ANY uniform for Seniors is appropriate.  I think it's fine and dandy for seniors to wear AF style uniforms, as long as they satisfy regulations.  I think it's fine for a senior to wear corporate uniform (although, I agree there should be fewer options), I also believe that the golf shirt/slacks is as good an alternative as any for senior members.  What we should insist on for seniors in or out of uniform performing CAP functions is: 1. Be clean, pressed and professional.  2.  Be appropirately attired for function and surroundings.  Just my .02.

Quote from: DogCollar on December 13, 2007, 06:02:12 PM
I agree that cadets should be in AF style uniforms.  However, I'm not so sure that "requiring" ANY uniform for Seniors is appropriate.  I think it's fine and dandy for seniors to wear AF style uniforms, as long as they satisfy regulations.  I think it's fine for a senior to wear corporate uniform (although, I agree there should be fewer options), I also believe that the golf shirt/slacks is as good an alternative as any for senior members.  What we should insist on for seniors in or out of uniform performing CAP functions is: 1. Be clean, pressed and professional.  2.  Be appropirately attired for function and surroundings.  Just my .02.

The downside is there is no "uniform" involved in having everyone wear what they want.  The focus becomes on the individual (look at me) rather than the team (look at us).

Part and parcel of the military culture we claim to emulate is unit before self.  Uniforms are one way to subtley reinforce that concept - both to ourselves and to our customers.

Quote from: cnitas on December 13, 2007, 05:09:07 PM
The conclusion we are coming to is that cadets ought to be in AF uniforms, and there are good reasons for seniors to wear exclusivly the corporates.  Is this an acceptable alternative to our current situation?  Is it better or worse?

I must have missed where that was the general consensus.  I have done polls on CAPTalk in the past that showed extremely strong support for AF-style uniforms among the people here. 

Quote from: Dragoon on December 13, 2007, 03:58:49 PM
I don't buy the "solidarity with USAF"argument, I'm afraid.  USAF personnel deal with the blazer/golf shirt crowd the same way they deal with the Service Dress/BDU crown - to them it really doesn't matter.  USAF is fine dealing with USAF civilians without uniforms - they get the concept fully, and could easily deal with us the same way. You don't need a uniform to be on the Air Force Team.  In fact, when you wear one without the resident street cred (you know, like actually being in the military) you draw more attention to your "non-AirForciness."

I think the AF recently changed how almost 1/5 of their civilian employees dress for work.  The Reservists who are also AF civilians are now required to wear their uniforms if I am not mistaken.  I am not in the AF......someone there will have to fill me in exactly, but they did run a piece on it in AF-Army-Navy-MC-Times a few months back.

Quote from: mikeylikey on December 13, 2007, 09:53:27 PM

Quote from: Dragoon on December 13, 2007, 03:58:49 PM
I don't buy the "solidarity with USAF"argument, I'm afraid.  USAF personnel deal with the blazer/golf shirt crowd the same way they deal with the Service Dress/BDU crown - to them it really doesn't matter.  USAF is fine dealing with USAF civilians without uniforms - they get the concept fully, and could easily deal with us the same way. You don't need a uniform to be on the Air Force Team.  In fact, when you wear one without the resident street cred (you know, like actually being in the military) you draw more attention to your "non-AirForciness."

I think the AF recently changed how almost 1/5 of their civilian employees dress for work.  The Reservists who are also AF civilians are now required to wear their uniforms if I am not mistaken.  I am not in the AF......someone there will have to fill me in exactly, but they did run a piece on it in AF-Army-Navy-MC-Times a few months back.

What you are talking about are "Air Technicians."

In the Guard and Reserve, they have a lot of full time employees.  Some of them are Active Guard/Reserve, or AGR's.  These people are the same as AD types except they always stay with their unit as opposed to PCS'ing every few years.

The other category are Air Technicians.  They are Traditional Guardsmen/Reservists who also have a full time job at the unit as civilian employees.  When they are not drilling or on AD, they are treated just like civilian employees for purposes such as pay and benefits - they earn overtime and things like that.

Traditionally, Air Tech's in the Guard wear uniforms to work even as civilians.  AFRes, OTOH, wore civilian clothes when they weren't on orders.  Commander AFRes decided a few months ago to change it to uniforms all the time.

Air Tech's are a weird bunch - like when my old boss, wearing an E-6 suit but acting as the Local Shop Steward (they're unionized) has to go in to the O-6 office to resolve problems w/management.

So yes, civilians who are Reservists have to wear their uniforms to their "civilian" work, but only to a narrow category of civilians who are working as Air Technicians.

Why do we need AF uniforms? Short answer: we don't.  I would concede the USAF uniforms are appropriate for cadets but seniors could get along quite well without them.

As CAP moves towards serving new 'customers' (HLS, BICE, state/local agencies), one could argue that some form of standalone CAP uniform would be more appropriate. I suspect this move towards new missions is largely responsible for the recent changes to aircraft/vehicle markings and probably the new command patch.

Aside from the above, the only way to get everyone in the same uniforms is to go corporate. It's the only common category for fit, fat, and fuzzies. One team, one uniform.

When you get right down to it, the Air Force doesn't really NEED uniforms for a lot of its tasks either, especially in CONUS.  That Airman doing computer data entry at Whiteman AFB doesn't need woodland camo BDUs any more than I do to do a ground SAR, but yet he is wearing them. 

Its a matter primarily of tradition and that should be good enough for us just like it is for them. 

Quote from: Eclipse on December 12, 2007, 03:44:56 PM

Quote from: cnitas on December 12, 2007, 03:28:01 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on December 12, 2007, 03:15:07 PM
We are still an auxiliary service of the USAF, at least last I checked.

'nuff said.

Not quite...

So we are sometimes acting as an auxiliary during AFAMs.  Ok, 99% of the time we are not.  And what effect does this have on what uniforms we should be wearing??

Which is why I said >an<, not >the<.

But we are THE, no other group serves as AN auxiliary to the Air Force. We ARE the Air Force Auxiliary. Need proof, just look at your ID Cards.

And for crying out loud...
The CAP is component of the Air Force, folks from the military have said so for years.
Its called the Total Force Concept. - AD, Res, Guard, Auxiliary, Civilian, Contractor
Every branch of the military uses it. If you go into an AFROTC class they tell you CAP is part of the Air Force, being the AF Aux. They dont say its the 'sometimes Aux'
I also know for a fact that NROTC refers to it the same way, not sure about Army ROTC. - Mikeylikey?

The preceding is my primary justification for wearing the USAF uniform. My secondary justification is our cadet program.
The definition of "cadet' is: one in training for a [military] career

^ You won't get any argument from me on the sentiment, but unfortunately the legal reality is that this is not the case.

Did not mean to yell or offend.  :) However the lawyers are ignoring the reality of the situation.  ::)

Quote from: RiverAux on December 14, 2007, 04:21:40 AM
When you get right down to it, the Air Force doesn't really NEED uniforms for a lot of its tasks either, especially in CONUS.  That Airman doing computer data entry at Whiteman AFB doesn't need woodland camo BDUs any more than I do to do a ground SAR, but yet he is wearing them. 

Its a matter primarily of tradition and that should be good enough for us just like it is for them. 

My point wasn't that CAP doesn't need uniforms. My point is that CAP does not need USAF uniforms.

For the traditionalists, the closest CAP has been to traditional uniforms was the berry-board era. When CAP oversight moved from the Office of Civilian Defense (CAP's true roots) to the US Army in 1943, CAP wore Army uniforms with red shoulderboards. I don't see people clamoring for a return to red/burgundy boards though -- being traditionally correct and all.

The original question was why do we need Air Force uniforms, not why do we need (any) uniforms. IMO the answer still remains that CAP doesn't need USAF uniforms. Please explain how CAP wearing the blue/white aviator combo, BBDU, or blue bag makes CAP less effective, less professional, or any less THE Auxiliary of the USAF? Personally, if we went with these three we would appear more uniform because everyone can wear them.

Well, the reverse of that question is just as legitimate:  Why do we need "civilian" uniforms? 

There is a simple solution to the only answer to that question -- drop the fat/fuzzies.

Quote from: RiverAux on December 14, 2007, 02:00:48 PM
Well, the reverse of that question is just as legitimate:  Why do we need "civilian" uniforms? 

There is a simple solution to the only answer to that question -- drop the fat/fuzzies.

How many people would we lose?  How many critical skillsets?

You seem to forget that the mission on CAP is not "look really good in AF uniforms."  We're here to leverage civilian volunteers to assist the AF.  They're not meant to be Parade Deck airmen.

I didn't say it wouldn't sting a big, just that it was the simple, and obvious solution.  Keep in mind that any move away from the AF uniform will also lose some number of folks.  If for no other reason in that they will see it as a move by the AF to distance themselves from CAP. 

Quote from: RiverAux on December 14, 2007, 02:29:35 PM
I didn't say it wouldn't sting a big, just that it was the simple, and obvious solution.  Keep in mind that any move away from the AF uniform will also lose some number of folks.  If for no other reason in that they will see it as a move by the AF to distance themselves from CAP. 

Yes, but those are "jumps" as opposed to "pushes."  If we decide on uniforms, is should be because it adds to the mission, not because it meets some member's deep seated need to wear sage zippered PJ's.

Again comes the presumption that anyone who actually wants to wear the military uniform is somehow a deeply flawed individual only in it for the bling. 

Quote from: RiverAux on December 14, 2007, 02:52:51 PM
Again comes the presumption that anyone who actually wants to wear the military uniform is somehow a deeply flawed individual only in it for the bling. 

No it means if we went "all AF," we would be forcing people out.  If we went "all corp," no one would be forced out - if they left, it would be because they wanted to.

And if things stayed more or less the way they are we wouldn't lose anybody either.  So why do it?

Quote from: RiverAux on December 14, 2007, 03:09:50 PM
And if things stayed more or less the way they are we wouldn't lose anybody either.  So why do it?

Because, IMHO, it would be better for CAP is we had one suit - "One Team, One Fight, One Uniform" as I keep repeating.

The AF used to allow everyone to wear their suit, at least WIWAC.  Now they don't.  The only way to get everyone in one suit is to go corporate.

Hopefully, the new uniform proposal will allow us to get the two sides of our uniform "close enough for jazz."

Since CAP members can perform their actual duties equally well in any uniform, all we're talking about is a public relations issue.  I agree it would look better if we were all in the same uniform, but it wouldn't have any real impact on our ability to carry out the mission and really would only have a minor impact in terms of public relations.  Hardly a reason to ditch 60+ years of heritage. 

Quote from: RiverAux on December 14, 2007, 03:20:28 PM
Since CAP members can perform their actual duties equally well in any uniform, all we're talking about is a public relations issue.  I agree it would look better if we were all in the same uniform, but it wouldn't have any real impact on our ability to carry out the mission and really would only have a minor impact in terms of public relations.  Hardly a reason to ditch 60+ years of heritage. 

Unfortunately, most of that heritage was when we were allowed to use the AAF/USAF suit without restriction.  The original sub hunters didn't have to worry about height/weight.

If we could get a weight waiver and a medical exemption for those who couldn't shave, I'd say we move to the AF suits and be done with it.  But I don't see it happening.

One uniform is not just a PA matter, it's also an internal matter of branding.  We have the choice of two sets of uniforms, either one of which has some negative stereotypes attached to it.  People are viewed as either slacktards or wannabes depending on their uniform.

Is there a way to fix it, given that the AF is unlikely to change ht/wt?

The vast majority of people in the US will probably never see a live CAP member in a uniform so branding isn't really an issue.  A few AF types will see us and a few members of the local emergency response community will see us.  Since most of them also have multiple uniforms, seeing CAP members in multiple uniforms won't blow their minds. 

Most people today can't tell the difference between the uniforms of the various military services anyway and if the AF can't brand itself differently from the others services, the chances of us coming up with anything that will ever make a distinct impression on the public is slim. 

I agree that the old style "no rank insignia for fatties" system worked just fine and wouldn't hurt the AF a bit.  Since our BDUs, which is what those who see CAP are most likely to see us wearing (except for cadets in parades) don't have one single thing on them that links us with the AF, having the fatties in them won't hurt their reputation one bit. 

Quote from: riffraff on December 14, 2007, 03:56:57 AM
Aside from the above, the only way to get everyone in the same uniforms is to go corporate. It's the only common category for fit, fat, and fuzzies. One team, one uniform.

Since there are advocates for going corporate, how about just going corporate all the way? No more Air Force money, we go find "customers" for pay. We run our own operations with our own acquired funding. No more Congressional support either. And we move all CAP units and operations off miltary installations. Shut down the overseas units. No reason to even have the Air Force name associated with CAP any longer. Members will also pay for their own proficiency flights, and ground pounders will pay their own way to FEMA and any other certification courses.

Keep in mind, it's unreasonable to not wear an Air Force uniform, and still expect funding from them. Without any identification with Big Blue, there's no reason for it either.

Many people want that Air Force money, space on military installations, free courses, tax writeoffs, cheap flying and all those other things, but having a uniform chafes them. This puzzles me to no end. Seems similar to having a wife for certain benefits, but denying you know her in public.

Quote from: ddelaney103 on December 14, 2007, 02:11:06 PM
How many people would we lose?  How many critical skillsets?

You seem to forget that the mission on CAP is not "look really good in AF uniforms."  We're here to leverage civilian volunteers to assist the AF.  They're not meant to be Parade Deck airmen.

It's not the mission of airmen to just "look good in uniforms". And doing away with AF uniforms just seems to be a way to lower the bar for everyone. In a way, it's a discrimination against those that do meet weight/grooming standards to wear blues. They have to go buy something new because someone else doesn't meet a certain standard. Either way, it's a standoff. Someone has to spend money.

Having military and corporate uniforms is not the issue it's being made out to be. We could stand to make them similar for uniformity purposes, and we don't need three different options. But distancing ourselves from the Air Force is a sure way to lose their support.

The reason behind the maroon epaulets of the late 80s to mid 90s is no Urban Legend.....during that time a CAP National CC got the NB to promote him to Maj Gen over the objections of USAF....which responded by withdrawing permision for us to wear dark blue embroidered epaulets that resembled USAF officer epaulets in every way except "CAP" lettering.

Quote from: Hawk200 on December 14, 2007, 06:53:57 PM

Quote from: riffraff on December 14, 2007, 03:56:57 AM
Aside from the above, the only way to get everyone in the same uniforms is to go corporate. It's the only common category for fit, fat, and fuzzies. One team, one uniform.

Since there are advocates for going corporate, how about just going corporate all the way? No more Air Force money, we go find "customers" for pay. We run our own operations with our own acquired funding. No more Congressional support either. And we move all CAP units and operations off miltary installations. Shut down the overseas units. No reason to even have the Air Force name associated with CAP any longer. Members will also pay for their own proficiency flights, and ground pounders will pay their own way to FEMA and any other certification courses.

Keep in mind, it's unreasonable to not wear an Air Force uniform, and still expect funding from them. Without any identification with Big Blue, there's no reason for it either.

Many people want that Air Force money, space on military installations, free courses, tax writeoffs, cheap flying and all those other things, but having a uniform chafes them. This puzzles me to no end. Seems similar to having a wife for certain benefits, but denying you know her in public.

Quote from: ddelaney103 on December 14, 2007, 02:11:06 PM
How many people would we lose?  How many critical skillsets?

You seem to forget that the mission on CAP is not "look really good in AF uniforms."  We're here to leverage civilian volunteers to assist the AF.  They're not meant to be Parade Deck airmen.

It's not the mission of airmen to just "look good in uniforms". And doing away with AF uniforms just seems to be a way to lower the bar for everyone. In a way, it's a discrimination against those that do meet weight/grooming standards to wear blues. They have to go buy something new because someone else doesn't meet a certain standard. Either way, it's a standoff. Someone has to spend money.

Having military and corporate uniforms is not the issue it's being made out to be. We could stand to make them similar for uniformity purposes, and we don't need three different options. But distancing ourselves from the Air Force is a sure way to lose their support.

Well, I'd say we're already shopping for outside customers -- FEMA, DHS, Border Patrol, DEA. All of these were (IMO) likely driving factors for our recent 'rebranding'. Doesn't anyone else think it strange that everything bearing reference to Auxiliary of the USAF has been removed (aircraft, vans, command patch)? Seems to me that CAP -- presumably with a nod from USAF -- are setting the stage to preclude Posse Comitatus legal issues regarding our Auxiliary status in light of the increasing work we're now doing for other agencies. Just my opinion but that's how I see it. I wouldn't be surprised to see CAP shifted to Homeland Security at some future point -- much as the Coast Guard was. Last I checked, USCG didn't lose funding when they left DOT. I doubt CAP would lose funding if the same occurred to us. Again, my two cents worth.

Funding: Do you seriously think USAF would drop CAP funding because we went with uniforms unique to CAP? I hardly think so. Again, in my opinion, I think USAF would probably breath a sign of relief if we went to separate uniforms. The perceived 'poser' problem would be instantly gone and CAP members would be readily identifiable as CAP. Uniforms would be, well.... uniform.

I would offer this to those of the "ditch the fat and fuzzies" crowd: What will you think if you become one?  Just because you might be within height/weight now, how are you going to feel if you fall outside the standards when you're older?  I'm all for standards but my preference would be for standards that contribute to mission effectiveness. A USAF-uniform wearing guy/gal who doesn't participate is hardly worth keeping over a guy who contributes but has a beard or falls outside the height/weight standards.

Quote from: riffraff on December 14, 2007, 11:39:49 PM
Funding: Do you seriously think USAF would drop CAP funding because we went with uniforms unique to CAP? I hardly think so. Again, in my opinion, I think USAF would probably breath a sign of relief if we went to separate uniforms. The perceived 'poser' problem would be instantly gone and CAP members would be readily identifiable as CAP. Uniforms would be, well.... uniform.

Would they drop us just because of the uniforms? No, and it's foolish to think that such a single factor would be cause.

But it's a beginning. First, CAP tells the Air Force: "We don't want your clothes!".

What else will eventually go? Something will, it's a given. Then something else. CAP members already want the Air Force money with no accountability or control. It's obvious with people that always reply to Air Force standards with "We're not the Air Force!"

Dropping the AF uniforms just starts the downward slide.

Quote from: RiverAux on December 13, 2007, 07:36:23 PM

Quote from: cnitas on December 13, 2007, 05:09:07 PM
The conclusion we are coming to is that cadets ought to be in AF uniforms, and there are good reasons for seniors to wear exclusively the corporates.  Is this an acceptable alternative to our current situation?  Is it better or worse?

I must have missed where that was the general consensus.  I have done polls on CAPTalk in the past that showed extremely strong support for AF-style uniforms among the people here. 

I never said it was a consensus.  I said it was the conclusion we were coming to based upon the responses to my questions (ignoring the off topic stuff).  I realize that there are a lot of members who would like to wear the AF uniform. Possibly the majority of our members.  Hopefully more come here and post good reasons why we should keep it.

Quote from: cnitas on December 15, 2007, 05:45:25 PM
I never said it was a consensus.  I said it was the conclusion we were coming to based upon the responses to my questions (ignoring the off topic stuff).  I realize that there are a lot of members who would like to wear the AF uniform. Possibly the majority of our members.  Hopefully more come here and post good reasons why we should keep it.

Col White told us that the Air Force has said we'll keep them. Is that good enough?

Quote from: riffraff
I would offer this to those of the "ditch the fat and fuzzies" crowd: What will you think if you become one?  Just because you might be within height/weight now, how are you going to feel if you fall outside the standards when you're older?  I'm all for standards but my preference would be for standards that contribute to mission effectiveness. A USAF-uniform wearing guy/gal who doesn't participate is hardly worth keeping over a guy who contributes but has a beard or falls outside the height/weight standards.

Won't happen. I workout, eat right, and basically WORK at staying fit.

I am all "for the mission" but I will not fall into the trap of "the mission only, everything else, including our uniforms and standards secondary". However dumping the fat/fuzzies IS an option, to be honest. One that seems to bother you, just like losing the USAF uniform bothers a LOT of us.

Sorry..it is the total package....I, for one, would love to see PT done by Senior's as well. However I KNOW that will not happen.

Referring to people as "fat and fuzzy" and suggesting the organization would do just fine without them shows complete disregard for the Core Value of Respect. And these statements come from those who believe they deserve to wear the uniform?

Quote"fat and fuzzy"

If I recall correctly that term was first used here by someone who was fat and fuzzy. 

Quote from: Hawk200 on December 15, 2007, 05:56:11 PM
Col White told us that the Air Force has said we'll keep them. Is that good enough?

Actually, no. I doubt very much the USAF told CAP we're keeping their uniforms. It probably more accurate to say that CAP has no plans to cease wearing them and USAF continues to allow it. Very big difference. If USAF told us we were wearing USAF uniforms, we'd all be in them and the whole corporate uniform debate would be a non-issue.

Quote from: riffraff on December 15, 2007, 09:13:24 PM

Quote from: Hawk200 on December 15, 2007, 05:56:11 PM
Col White told us that the Air Force has said we'll keep them. Is that good enough?

Actually, no. I doubt very much the USAF told CAP we're keeping their uniforms. It probably more accurate to say that CAP has no plans to cease wearing them and USAF continues to allow it. Very big difference. If USAF told us we were wearing USAF uniforms, we'd all be in them and the whole corporate uniform debate would be a non-issue.

The Air Force mandated alternate wear for those not meeting the standards to wear the blues. I doubt it was an attempt to allow dropping them entirely in the future, and going corporate. And I doubt they want us to eliminate them.

Maybe Col White can chime in and actually tell us whether or not the Air Force wants us to keep them. He probably knows.

Quote from: Hawk200 on December 15, 2007, 09:52:21 PM
The Air Force mandated alternate wear for those not meeting the standards to wear the blues. I doubt it was an attempt to allow dropping them entirely in the future, and going corporate. And I doubt they want us to eliminate them.

I agree with nearly all of your statement.

My earlier post was theoretical and meant to explore the topic of this thread -- Why do we need AF uniforms?

With CAP exploring partnerships with more federal/state/local government agencies, combined with the relatively recent removal of all outward vestiges of association with USAF (aircraft, vehicles, command patch) is it possible that very preliminary moves are underway to internally move CAP away from USAF and into another agency such as DHS? If such a move was to happen, would we continue with USAF uniforms? A bit of drift and probably worthy of a new thread.

Quote from: riffraff on December 15, 2007, 10:10:45 PM
With CAP exploring partnerships with more federal/state/local government agencies, combined with the relatively recent removal of all outward vestiges of association with USAF (aircraft, vehicles, command patch) is it possible that very preliminary moves are underway to internally move CAP away from USAF and into another agency such as DHS?

I think that would be a sad thing. I wouldn't want to work for DHS, and if CAP moved under them there would be a very radical change for the organization. Our Cadet Program and Aerospace Ed missions would go away. DHS needs neither.

IF such a move did occur, then I imagine AF uniforms would fall too. Their would be no place for them.

All in all, I think there is a major problem with people joining an organization, but not wanting to have the appearance of it. That's what this all boils down too. People want all the benefits, but don't want to look like the Air Force. We are an Air Force organization. I think that people that want no part of that relationship don't belong in it.

Quote from: Hawk200 on December 15, 2007, 10:24:12 PM
We are an Air Force organization. I think that people that want no part of that relationship don't belong in it.

We are absolutely NOT an Air Force Organization.  We are crazy to think any differently.  We are an instrument of the Federal Govt on Air Force Assigned Missions Only.  The only part of CAP that is a part of the Air Force is that building were the CAP-USAF commander sits.  Heck, the State Directors are not even part of the AF.  They are GS guys and ladies.

We once in the past could have considered our organization as part of the AF, but since the wordings of the laws were changed, we no longer can say that.

Even though the Cadets get uniforms, they are not part of the AF either. 

Show me where it says the Non-Profit CAP corporation is part of the AF.  We have never been included as part of the "total AF team".

Getting money from them is one thing, getting recognition as a part of their set-up and organization is another. 

Quote from: Hawk200 on December 15, 2007, 10:24:12 PM
I think that would be a sad thing. I wouldn't want to work for DHS, and if CAP moved under them there would be a very radical change for the organization. Our Cadet Program and Aerospace Ed missions would go away. DHS needs neither.

IF such a move did occur, then I imagine AF uniforms would fall too. Their would be no place for them.

All in all, I think there is a major problem with people joining an organization, but not wanting to have the appearance of it. That's what this all boils down too. People want all the benefits, but don't want to look like the Air Force. We are an Air Force organization. I think that people that want no part of that relationship don't belong in it.

Again, I wouldn't disagree with you on most of your points. However I would disagree on your premise that nobody wants to look like the AF. I think people do. But the quandry is how to do it so that everyone wears does? The real issue is whether people would opt for uniformity via a corporate uniform that's all-inclusive or stick with the USAF uniforms for those who can wear them and maintain the status quo.

As to my theory on a move away from USAF. It's exactly that -- a theory. However, CAP has changed agencies in the past and has survived just fine. We started as part of Civil Defense -- nothing really to do with the military other than a military style organizational model. We then moved to the US Army and again to the USAF. Granted we've been under USAF for the majority of our existence. I'll start this as a new topic since it's drifted considerably.

((*))

Quote from: magoo on December 15, 2007, 08:45:31 PM
Referring to people as "fat and fuzzy" and suggesting the organization would do just fine without them shows complete disregard for the Core Value of Respect. And these statements come from those who believe they deserve to wear the uniform?

Of course my statements were provocative. So I ask in return, where is the respect for the uniform and the standards to wear it?

This is not the Glee Club and I, for one, am tired of todays thinking of making everyone feel good, everyone gets a trophy, standards do not matter.

Look....I have no issue with those who are overweight or choose to wear a beard, as a matter of fact I have met many in CAP that are great assets to our organization. Not ONE of them has expressed anger at not wearing the AF-style uniform. As a matter of fact many have gone on diets so they can, they see it as an honor to wear it to the standards it demands.

I am just tired of hearing those who cannot meet the standard whine and then toss out the uniform as a result. Respect ME and my ability to wear it and I will respect those that cannot. Start trying to yank it away because someone else cannot meet the standard and my dander gets all in a duff!

Tag spacing - MIKE

Quote from: LittleIronPilot on December 16, 2007, 03:26:43 PM
Of course my statements were provocative. So I ask in return, where is the respect for the uniform and the standards to wear it?

Respect ME and my ability to wear it and I will respect those that cannot.

Respect for the uniform is certainly important.

However, respect for people is even more important!

And maintaining respect for the individual who disagrees with you, even while utterly rejecting that person's opinion, is perhaps the most important thing of all!

Quote from: LittleIronPilot on December 16, 2007, 03:26:43 PMI am just tired of hearing those who cannot meet the standard whine and then toss out the uniform as a result. Respect ME and my ability to wear it and I will respect those that cannot. Start trying to yank it away because someone else cannot meet the standard and my dander gets all in a duff!

I hadn't figured out how to say that, but then again it doesn't matter. Someone finally did.

Quote from: ZigZag911 on December 16, 2007, 04:03:51 PM
Respect for the uniform is certainly important.

However, respect for people is even more important!

And maintaining respect for the individual who disagrees with you, even while utterly rejecting that person's opinion, is perhaps the most important thing of all!

A lot of people say this, but they don't live it. It's OK if they disagree with you, then you need to respect their opinion. If you disagree with them, then it doesn't seem to work both ways.

This little dispute is getting rather obvious lately when it comes to corporates vs blues.

If you wear corporates or advocate them, you're a golden child (even if you're completely worthless).

If you wear or advocate Air Force uniforms, you're only here for bling, attention, some type of personal gain, glory, sensationalism, or some other egotistical reason. And because you're in something that isn't civilian flavored, you're not entitled to respect.

Who's gonna be the first to post here and tell me "Oh, that's preposterous!It's not like that!" ?

I would love to see one person here that wants to eliminate the Air Force uniforms have the guts to explain why they don't like them. If you want to eliminate them, explain your reasons for the dislike. And the BS phrase of  "It's all for uniformity! We'd all look the same!" doesn't cut it. Pass a gutcheck.

Quote from: mikeylikey on December 15, 2007, 10:41:41 PM

Quote from: Hawk200 on December 15, 2007, 10:24:12 PM
We are an Air Force organization. I think that people that want no part of that relationship don't belong in it.

We are absolutely NOT an Air Force Organization.  We are crazy to think any differently.  We are an instrument of the Federal Govt on Air Force Assigned Missions Only.  The only part of CAP that is a part of the Air Force is that building were the CAP-USAF commander sits.  Heck, the State Directors are not even part of the AF.  They are GS guys and ladies.

We once in the past could have considered our organization as part of the AF, but since the wordings of the laws were changed, we no longer can say that.

Even though the Cadets get uniforms, they are not part of the AF either. 

Show me where it says the Non-Profit CAP corporation is part of the AF.  We have never been included as part of the "total AF team".

Getting money from them is one thing, getting recognition as a part of their set-up and organization is another. 

Amazing how many times this comes up when people want to lose the Air Force in general. You want to get rid of AF uniforms, too, don't you?

We've got a corporate side of the house so that we can get paid for operations for other agencies. It's easy and convenient, and doesn't conflict with Posse Commitatus. Can you think of any other legimate reason for a corporate side?

Quote from: Hawk200 on December 16, 2007, 09:37:06 PM

Quote from: mikeylikey on December 15, 2007, 10:41:41 PM

Quote from: Hawk200 on December 15, 2007, 10:24:12 PM
We are an Air Force organization. I think that people that want no part of that relationship don't belong in it.

We are absolutely NOT an Air Force Organization.  We are crazy to think any differently.  We are an instrument of the Federal Govt on Air Force Assigned Missions Only.  The only part of CAP that is a part of the Air Force is that building were the CAP-USAF commander sits.  Heck, the State Directors are not even part of the AF.  They are GS guys and ladies.

We once in the past could have considered our organization as part of the AF, but since the wordings of the laws were changed, we no longer can say that.

Even though the Cadets get uniforms, they are not part of the AF either. 

Show me where it says the Non-Profit CAP corporation is part of the AF.  We have never been included as part of the "total AF team".

Getting money from them is one thing, getting recognition as a part of their set-up and organization is another. 

Amazing how many times this comes up when people want to lose the Air Force in general. You want to get rid of AF uniforms, too, don't you?

We've got a corporate side of the house so that we can get paid for operations for other agencies. It's easy and convenient, and doesn't conflict with Posse Commitatus. Can you think of any other legimate reason for a corporate side?

Complete opposite actually.  I want to be closer with the AF.  I want them to allow the AF-style uniform for all members as well. 

If you read back through the past of CAP, you will see the AF controlled the organization SO MUCH MORE.  (the National Commander was an AF Officer, the AF was in direct control of all money....etc.  It is the past 20 years that CAP Corporate has taken over.

Quote from: Hawk200 on December 16, 2007, 08:00:06 PM

Quote from: LittleIronPilot on December 16, 2007, 03:26:43 PMI am just tired of hearing those who cannot meet the standard whine and then toss out the uniform as a result. Respect ME and my ability to wear it and I will respect those that cannot. Start trying to yank it away because someone else cannot meet the standard and my dander gets all in a duff!

I hadn't figured out how to say that, but then again it doesn't matter. Someone finally did.

Quote from: ZigZag911 on December 16, 2007, 04:03:51 PM
Respect for the uniform is certainly important.

However, respect for people is even more important!

And maintaining respect for the individual who disagrees with you, even while utterly rejecting that person's opinion, is perhaps the most important thing of all!

A lot of people say this, but they don't live it. It's OK if they disagree with you, then you need to respect their opinion. If you disagree with them, then it doesn't seem to work both ways.

This little dispute is getting rather obvious lately when it comes to corporates vs blues.

If you wear corporates or advocate them, you're a golden child (even if you're completely worthless).

If you wear or advocate Air Force uniforms, you're only here for bling, attention, some type of personal gain, glory, sensationalism, or some other egotistical reason. And because you're in something that isn't civilian flavored, you're not entitled to respect.

Who's gonna be the first to post here and tell me "Oh, that's preposterous!It's not like that!" ?

I would love to see one person here that wants to eliminate the Air Force uniforms have the guts to explain why they don't like them. If you want to eliminate them, explain your reasons for the dislike. And the BS phrase of  "It's all for uniformity! We'd all look the same!" doesn't cut it. Pass a gutcheck.

Oh, that's preposterous!  It's not like that!

(Do I win a prize?)

So, anyway...

I have no problem wearing AF uniforms.  I'm an ANG E-8 and have been wearing them for over 16 years.  I've racked up some decent bling and, while I'm not AFSOC, can be considered to have been there and done that.

However, the mission of CAP is better served by units who are uniform.  My successor as sqdn cc (an AD Army type currently on the O-6 list) wanted his new unit to be more operationally minded.  He also wanted to build up pride in the unit as a sqdn that was out there doing the job.  Therefore, he decided that the standard uniform for meetings and operations would be either the BBDU or the blue jumpsuit.

This served two purposes.  First, everyone was dressed in the same shade and everyone could display the sqdn patch.  The patch was a distinctive cartoon style patch (I had it designed while sqdn cc).  When we showed up, all looking alike and sporting the same "winged turtle with a Lewis Gun" patch, we made an impression on the Wing.

It may not be the sole reason, but I think that bit of esprit de corps help us rack up a record as the "go to sqdn" for ES in the Wing.  I think that urge to get out of a warm bed and chase down an "0-dark-thirty" ELT might have been a little weaker if we had two sets of membership based on weight.

Would I rather wear AF?  Sure - I've got a lot of it around.  But that's the AF's call - and they said "no."  The AF doesn't care what whether we wear CAP or AF, according to the Statement of Work - which is the document which defines what the AF wants of us.

Since that's off the table, the alternative is going corporate.  We are CAP and our choice of uniform should be based on adding to the mission and looking uniform helps the unit spirit, which helps the mission.

I'm sorry you think my beliefs are BS, but the only gutcheck I'm planning on passing tonight involves the chili mac I had for dinner.

As an Army guy, I've seen the value of uniforms a lot.  Used correctly, they build team unity and morale.  Used incorrectly, they foster a "look at me" attitude, or divide folks unneccesarily.

CAP could benefit a lot from adopting a single uniform. Screw the "but I wanna look like a warrior" stuff - it simply doesn't matter.

We need to wear whatever uniform will have the maximum benefit to the corporation.  I personally believe that would be done by getting everyone into the same uniform.  One single, unifying look.  Make us all part of a single team, instead of a bunch of statements of individuality.

And if USAF won't let us all wear USAF suits, the best answer is to put us all in something else.   Those who would quit over that are, quite frankly, a little too concerned with their own image, instead of CAP's image.

A large number of USAF personnel don't wear ABUs or Service Dress. Thousands and thousands of USAF civilians, fer example (and truthfully, that's what we really are - volunteer USAF civilians - and that's something to be proud of.)

One important provision:

All of my opinions are directed at SM uniforms.  Cadets all wear the same suit now and I see no good reason to change it.

The one exception our sqdn had to the BBDU/jumpsuit rule was SM's working with Cadets at Cadet events.  Not that this was really needed - most people understand cadre wearing a different uniform from Cadets.  But, again, there is an advantage in everyone in the same suit.

Some in-depth responses that actually explain things. A great many of the "Do away with AF uniforms!" post seemed to be almost hatred of the Air Force. It's nice to know that some of the reasons are more practical, and not just simple hatred.

Some things to consider.

I have been in units where everyone wore the AF variant uniforms because everyone met the standards. Most of those were on military installations. The people most likely to show up at your meeting were military, ex-military, retired, or civil service. Those units are better served wearing military uniforms, and fitting in with the local military environment. And even most Army installations have some Air Force personnel on them, so blues around them isn't really that far out of place.

It seemed like whenever there was a unit on a military installation wearing AF uniforms, there was almost always a unit in the local town that didn't. The more military style unit seemed to get more support from the installation than the non-military style one. It could be surmised that it was due to their more military appearance, even when their commander wasn't military at all.

Personally, I think we ought to present options to the Air Force for the allowance of the ABU, and the green flightsuit for all our members. Does anyone remember when former SECAF Roche wore an ABU? He was actually larger than most of our members wearing alternate uniforms. Why can't our larger members wear some of that AF clothing when the former SECAF could? If we kept our blue nametapes (but preferably in a navy or midnite blue), we would still present a distinctive difference.

Our members not meeting standards could also wear flightsuits without rank insignia, like they used to. And overall, you can find a green flightsuit cheaper than a blue one. I'd give up rank insignia on my own flightsuit if it meant everyone could wear the same one.

For dress, I would modify the CSU a bit. The blue slacks with white shirt is similar enough that it would still show association with those wearing blue shirts. Maybe a black tie would be distinctive enough, but all the insignia needs to be the same. No blue tags here, and grey ones here. Maybe go with black epaulets and nametags across the board. Distinctive, but still similar color schemes.

When it comes to uniformity, wouldn't you rather look a little more associated with the Air Force, rather than a lot less?

If we have cadets in one kind, and seniors in other, then the uniformity is still lacking. Everyone one needs to wear the same, or stuff that is very similar, for "uniformity" to work.

Quote from: Hawk200 on December 17, 2007, 06:51:23 PMPersonally, I think we ought to present options to the Air Force for the allowance of the ABU, and the green flightsuit for all our members. Does anyone remember when former SECAF Roche wore an ABU? He was actually larger than most of our members wearing alternate uniforms. Why can't our larger members wear some of that AF clothing when the former SECAF could? If we kept our blue nametapes (but preferably in a navy or midnite blue), we would still present a distinctive difference.

Lots of USAF civilians wear BDUs/ABUs when deployed.  And many of them are fat or have beards.

But the insignia they wear  makes it extremely clear that they are not USAF.  No grade, fer example.  No wings or other skill badges.  You'll never mistake a USAF civilian for a USAF captain.

I'm sure USAF would have no problem with our members all wearing USAF utility suits if we removed all our military stuff.

We used to kind of do this by having fat guys remove grade insignia - but that wasn't good for us.  Because those folks were CAP officers and deserved the same recognition as other CAP officers - but they couldn't get it because of their weight.  (it wasn't as bad in the flight suit, as grade was still on the nametag)

I think we'd have no problems with USAF if we removed grade, but that's a non starter for lots of our members.

The only alternative would be to make it extremely clear that we weren't USAF military by making the uniform even more distinctive - keep the bright colored patches and putting rank somewhere other than the collar, for example.  They MIGHT go for that.

It doesn't bother me at all putting cadets in a different suit than seniors - that's how the service academies do it anyway.

Tags - MIKE

IIRC, it was the AF who said those not meeting the h/w standards were no longer allowed to wear the bdu/flightsuit without grade, not CAP.

Why does the AF have a problem with this? 
Why was it OK then and not now?
Don't we wear distinctive insignia on our uniforms? 

Why the need to single out some of our members if all of us are already differentiated from the AF by the insignia?

Quote from: Dragoon on December 17, 2007, 04:48:14 PM
As an Army guy, I've seen the value of uniforms a lot.  Used correctly, they build team unity and morale.  Used incorrectly, they foster a "look at me" attitude, or divide folks unneccesarily.

CAP could benefit a lot from adopting a single uniform. Screw the "but I wanna look like a warrior" stuff - it simply doesn't matter.

We need to wear whatever uniform will have the maximum benefit to the corporation.  I personally believe that would be done by getting everyone into the same uniform.  One single, unifying look.  Make us all part of a single team, instead of a bunch of statements of individuality.

And if USAF won't let us all wear USAF suits, the best answer is to put us all in something else.   Those who would quit over that are, quite frankly, a little too concerned with their own image, instead of CAP's image.

A large number of USAF personnel don't wear ABUs or Service Dress. Thousands and thousands of USAF civilians, fer example (and truthfully, that's what we really are - volunteer USAF civilians - and that's something to be proud of.)

So long as we admit then that the "uniformity" ends at the outer shell, the "uniform" only. If a gaggle of people are walking in the same uniform but one some a obese, others have beards and long hair and the others look like military recruits...how do they look uniform?

In the end, part of my "issue" is that some are so caught up in the attitude that NOTHING matters, absolutely NOTHING except being different than the USAF. It seems as if standards, of any sort, have no place in our organization for many people.

The hard reality is that a GTM should be physically fit, and that aircrew also should be fit (maybe not as much as a ground-pounder but fit none-the-less). We should all have the same uniform, and it should fit, be clean and correct. People should be at the meetings as much as humanly possible....I mean if the *mission* is that important one should put it at the front, not the back burner.

What *I* want is a more professional vibe in the group and for us to lose the "I am a volunteer" mentality. I have had people actually say "this is the CAP, I am a volunteer, I will be there or not if I feel like it". Hell their cat could barf and they choose not to show. Then a SAREX pops-up and they "want to play" and get huffy when others get the spots in the aircraft or on the ground team that are at the meetings, train, and take this SERIOUSLY.

I am a pilot and [darnit] I want this organization to be professional, sharp, trained, and high-speed....my life may depend on it. Not some barely-there, "volunteer" means I do not really care, this is for fun organization.

If a uniform change will do that, so be it, I am all for it. However instead I see this discussion as a reflection of a larger societal issue where people want everyone to "just get along", where everyone gets a ribbon for just being themselves, and each person is "special" instead of having standards and holding people to them and accountable to a higher level.

Quote from: LittleIronPilot on December 18, 2007, 11:06:29 PM
So long as we admit then that the "uniformity" ends at the outer shell, the "uniform" only. If a gaggle of people are walking in the same uniform but one some a obese, others have beards and long hair and the others look like military recruits...how do they look uniform?

You're right - if we cloned everyone we'd be more uniform.  If we only allowed blonde, blue eyed....ok, lets' end that one right there.   :)

Uniformity is a matter of degree.   Today, USAF has folks in uniform of several races and both sexes.  And yet they are a lot more uniform than we are.  BECAUSE THEY DRESS ALIKE.  Sure, if everyone was the same weight, or had the same hairstyle we'd be even MORE uniform.  But getting folks in the same garment is a big step in the right directions.

We can't be perfect - but we can be better.  Much better.

Quote from: LittleIronPilot on December 18, 2007, 11:06:29 PM
In the end, part of my "issue" is that some are so caught up in the attitude that NOTHING matters, absolutely NOTHING except being different than the USAF. It seems as if standards, of any sort, have no place in our organization for many people.

I can understand your frustration with that point.  But I have an equal problem with folks who believe that NOTHING matters, absolutely NOTHING except being the SAME as the USAF.

It's equally bad.

The real key is to get our act together.  To be one organization.  Looking alike.  Acting like a team.  With the same standards.  They don't have to USAF standards (those are probably not practical), but there should be a single set of standards.

Quote from: LittleIronPilot on December 18, 2007, 11:06:29 PM
The hard reality is that a GTM should be physically fit, and that aircrew also should be fit (maybe not as much as a ground-pounder but fit none-the-less). We should all have the same uniform, and it should fit, be clean and correct. People should be at the meetings as much as humanly possible....I mean if the *mission* is that important one should put it at the front, not the back burner.

I'm with you, especially on the single uniform and meeting attendance part.  As for fitness, we have to weigh the cost to the benefit.  For the vast majority of our ELT hunting, fer example, if you can waddle you can pull it off.  It's not like we're failing in our missions because our members are fat.

Quote from: LittleIronPilot on December 18, 2007, 11:06:29 PM
What *I* want is a more professional vibe in the group and for us to lose the "I am a volunteer" mentality. I have had people actually say "this is the CAP, I am a volunteer, I will be there or not if I feel like it". Hell their cat could barf and they choose not to show. Then a SAREX pops-up and they "want to play" and get huffy when others get the spots in the aircraft or on the ground team that are at the meetings, train, and take this SERIOUSLY.

Amen, brother.   If you're gonna do it, do it right.

Quote from: LittleIronPilot on December 18, 2007, 11:06:29 PM
If a uniform change will do that, so be it, I am all for it. However instead I see this discussion as a reflection of a larger societal issue where people want everyone to "just get along", where everyone gets a ribbon for just being themselves, and each person is "special" instead of having standards and holding people to them and accountable to a higher level.

Exactly.  It's the triumph of the individual over the group.  That's why I rail a bit against the USAF uniform junkies - they are putting their own personal preference ("I want to look like  real officer") over the team needs (we should all look alike, even if that means not looking like USAF).

I have to wear corporate, can't meet standards.

I can see a great value in all seniors wearing one uniform.

However, the unity and uniformity that move might bring about would cause a severe drop in morale to those who take justifiable pride in wearing USAF uniform.

I understand, I did myself back when I still could.

The trend to limit the combinations, and have the corporate mirror USAF as much as reasonably possible, is probably the most sensible compromise available in our real world situation.

It's important that visually we appear as a single CAP team.

It's just as important that we show the world that we are part of the AF family, even if only 2nd cousins once removed!

Agreed.  I just hope we can do the same with the utilities - bring the USAF and corporate stuff closer to gether.  CAP tends to focus on the service suits, which frankly are not what we where when we're doing a lot of our work.   Most SMs can do everything they joined CAP to do in BDUs or a jumpsuit.  THAT'S where we'd get the biggest "bang" for our uniform "buck."

We did our squadron Christmas dinner last night. Over 150 people in attendance. Most SM' and Cadets in USAF-style uniforms, several retirees in their uniforms (we had all four branches represented). Color Guard doing opening ceremonies, Rifle Team doing a demonstration, POW/MIA remembrance, 2-star AF General as a guest speaker.

It took that dinner for me to realize that CAP is more than even its three core missions. You know the saying...something is stronger than simply the sum of its parts.

CAP is part of the Air Force, in its traditions, its history, its culture. Sure we are civilians, but we are granted a great honor to wear AF-"light" uniforms and to represent ourselves as their kinsman.

You cannot take the AF out of the CAP and have it survive, period. My wife, who has never been to a CAP anything, was most impressed and stated she was happy that such an organization as CAP existed for me to serve in. She loved what it does for the Cadets and she knows its importance regarding SAR.

Oh and there were also several senior (wing and region) leaders in attendance, and many wore the CAP uniform and some (myself included) simply wore a civilian coat and tie. The amazing part was that regardless of the uniform, we were still all CAP and proud of what it does and its USAF history. Lets not lose sight of that fact when we have these discussions.

The question isn't "are we AF?" it's "how do we fit in the AF scheme?"

I was an AF civilian for a couple of years before moving on to DoD, and was an Army civilian for a few years before that.

I wore a uniform.  I traveled to war zones.  I was part of the team, and sometimes the guy in charge.  However, I wasn't a Soldier/Airman: no salutes given nor received.

When I'm CAP, I'm a member of the AF team.  However, I'm not an Airman.  Am I proud of the uniform?  Sure - but I'm prouder of what I have done for CAP, the AF, and my country.

CAP would be better served by being the best force of civilian volunteers it can be.  The "one team" concept is better served by "one uniform."  Personally, I think we could wear AF ABU's like civilians or CGAUX - either w/o grade or pin on "Auxiliarist" badge when working with the AF. 

If not, then we should go corporate.  One Team, One Fight, One Suit.

I have to say I am very conflicted on this issue.

I can fully understand Delaney's point about one team-one uniform.  I subscribed to that as a 14-year old cadet and as an Army officer.  Our meetings and missions now look like NATO conferences.  Normal people would think there are several different sub-groups in CAP, each with its own uniform.

This is not a good situation.  It is only acceptable because we have gotten used to this chaos.

But, I want to remind y'all about something else I posted once:

The Kachenmeister Law of Military Tradition...  "Whenever a policy, practice, procedure, or offhand comment survives combat, it becomes an Honored And Sacred Tradition."

So the tradition of CAP wearing AAF/USAF uniforms was born of the fact that we are the ONLY military auxiliary in World War II that saw actual combat.  That has earned us the right to wear the USAF uniform, and I'm not willing to throw that tradition into the dumpster.

But the Air Force has decided that some of our members are unworthy to wear the AF blue because they are too fat to fit the AF image.  We can't do anything about that decision except complain among ourselves about how unfair it is and how this decision does not affect fat members of state air militia units.

So, is the solution to pitch and ditch the tradition of wearing the USAF uniform and wear only the Corporate Clothes?  Or is there some middle ground that will permit both a close sartorial association with the Air Force for all CAP members, AND meet the Air Force requirement of only anorexics wearing their uniform?

We're all pretty smart guys here.  Well, MOST of us are, anyway.  The dummies have a way of being culled out.  If we can't come up with a solution, how can we expect the brain-dead folks at Maxwell to come up with something?

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 24, 2007, 04:55:09 PM

But the Air Force has decided that some of our members are unworthy to wear the AF blue because they are too fat to fit the AF image.  We can't do anything about that decision except complain among ourselves about how unfair it is and how this decision does not affect fat members of state air militia units.

So, is the solution to pitch and ditch the tradition of wearing the USAF uniform and wear only the Corporate Clothes?  Or is there some middle ground that will permit both a close sartorial association with the Air Force for all CAP members, AND meet the Air Force requirement of only anorexics wearing their uniform?

Well, I'm willing to bet that these State Air Guard guys have a worst relationship with the Air Force then we do, and I'm also willing to bet that they are even less known to Air Force command types then us. We're offical, are they?

Second, don't we have the middle ground solution now?

Quote from: JThemann on December 24, 2007, 08:07:45 PM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 24, 2007, 04:55:09 PM

But the Air Force has decided that some of our members are unworthy to wear the AF blue because they are too fat to fit the AF image.  We can't do anything about that decision except complain among ourselves about how unfair it is and how this decision does not affect fat members of state air militia units.

So, is the solution to pitch and ditch the tradition of wearing the USAF uniform and wear only the Corporate Clothes?  Or is there some middle ground that will permit both a close sartorial association with the Air Force for all CAP members, AND meet the Air Force requirement of only anorexics wearing their uniform?

If we has a SATISFACTORY middle ground solution, this thread would not have gone on for 7 pages.

Well, I'm willing to bet that these State Air Guard guys have a worst relationship with the Air Force then we do, and I'm also willing to bet that they are even less known to Air Force command types then us. We're offical, are they?

Second, don't we have the middle ground solution now?

I screwed up that quote again.  Sorry.  I need a drink!

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 24, 2007, 04:55:09 PM[H]ow can we expect the brain-dead folks at Maxwell to come up with something?

John,

Sorry, but in the holiday spirit, I cannot let a cheap shot like that go unchallenged, even if it was made in jest. 


First, the NHQ crew does NOT make uniform policy.  For better or worse, our volunteer leaders on the NEC and NB do that.  The poor NHQ crew does have responsiblity for trying to write the regulations and clarifications that implement the rapid changes dictated by our leaders.  I have great sympathy for anyone associated with having to write or revise a complex regulation like the 39-1.

Second, even if the corporate team did make policy, it is worth noting that the current policy is a compromise designed to meet the often-conflicting concerns of uniformity, functionality, and externally-imposed standards by the USAF.  Like any compromise, pretty much everyone is unhappy with some part of it.  You and me included, I suspect.

Third, the corporate team deserves better than this.  I get to spend a couple of weeks each year in and around NHQ and have found the employees there without exception to be conscientious and well-meaning.  Most of them could get higher pay and better benefits working for Uncle Sam or in business, but have chosen to work for a non-profit.

Us.

Sure, every organization has a bad apple now and then.  And if that happens, the system almost always responds and corrects the situation.

But your comment -- even if made in jest -- is unfair when bad-mouthing folks behind their backs and who are unable to respond.



Tell you what: if you use your "edit" button, I'll use mine.

Merry Christmas.

Ned Lee

Duly chastised, Ned.

And you are right, I was kidding.

I'm not sure where the idea that SDF members are fatter than CAP members is coming from.  FYI, there are only two states with flying SDF units that I'm aware of (Virginia and Alaska).  California and Texas have ground-based SDF units supporting Air National Guard units. 

We have a middle ground: simply take the CAP items in use on the current AF-style uniform and use them on the corporates.   It's easily implemented, brings the uniforms in line with one another and means fewer items in the uniform box.

Unfortunately, it would mean dropping the idea of looking more like the AF: no metal grade or blue epaulet slides.  They harken back to some golden age when the uniforms looked really alike.  This is opposed to our glory years during the war when we wore military uniforms with differences like colored epaulets.  So, by adopting the current AF-style uniform for the corporates, we'd look more like our original idea of a uniform used during WWII.

By the time of the ABU changeover we could have:

AF-style service w/gray epaulets and TPU w/gray epaulets
ABU with blue on gray tapes/full color on gray grade and Gray BDU with blue on gray tapes/full color on gray grade
Sage flight suit with full color on gray grade and gray flight suit with full color on gray grade

Perfect?  No.  Everyone happy?  No.  But we'd look like one team - the CAP team.

Quote from: RiverAux on December 25, 2007, 03:11:14 PM
I'm not sure where the idea that SDF members are fatter than CAP members is coming from.  FYI, there are only two states with flying SDF units that I'm aware of (Virginia and Alaska).  California and Texas have ground-based SDF units supporting Air National Guard units. 

The aviation brigade in the VADF wears Army uniforms as allowed by AR 670-1.  I'm not sure what Texas wears.  I'd be willing to bet if the AF was aware that SDFs were using their uniforms (even with grooming and weight standards) they would have a problem with it.

Here's the section of AR 670-1 that allows SDFs to wear Army uniforms:

30–8. Wear of a uniform similar to the Army uniform
c. State defense forces (SDF) may adopt the Army service and BDU uniforms, provided all service uniform buttons,
cap devices, and other insignia differ significantly from that prescribed for wear by members of the U.S. Army. State
insignia will not include "United States," "U.S.," "U.S. Army," or the Great Seal of the United States. Personnel of the
SDF may wear a State-designed SDF distinguishing badge or insignia centered on the left pocket flap. The red
nametape or nameplate will include the full title of the SDF (for example, "Texas State Guard"). The utility uniforms
will contain a State SDF tape in lieu of "U.S. Army" over the left breast pocket. States wishing to adopt the Army
service and utility uniforms will register with the Chief, National Guard Bureau.

Individual SDFs can adopt grooming and height/weight standards at their option, but the Army does not mandate it.

Quote from: ddelaney103 on December 25, 2007, 03:52:46 PM
We have a middle ground: simply take the CAP items in use on the current AF-style uniform and use them on the corporates.   It's easily implemented, brings the uniforms in line with one another and means fewer items in the uniform box.

Unfortunately, it would mean dropping the idea of looking more like the AF: no metal grade or blue epaulet slides.  They harken back to some golden age when the uniforms looked really alike.  This is opposed to our glory years during the war when we wore military uniforms with differences like colored epaulets.  So, by adopting the current AF-style uniform for the corporates, we'd look more like our original idea of a uniform used during WWII.

By the time of the ABU changeover we could have:

AF-style service w/gray epaulets and TPU w/gray epaulets
ABU with blue on gray tapes/full color on gray grade and Gray BDU with blue on gray tapes/full color on gray grade
Sage flight suit with full color on gray grade and gray flight suit with full color on gray grade

Perfect?  No.  Everyone happy?  No.  But we'd look like one team - the CAP team.

Delaney:

I may not understand your post, because I'm a little confused.

The condition you are describing is a fairly close variation to the situation we have now.

The way I understand your post, you would still have 2 sets of uniforms... AF and CAP, but would take some steps to minimize the difference between the two?

Like I said, I am very conflicted.  I want to look like one team in one uniform, and I also do not want to throw out more than 60 years of tradition, which is about as much tradition as you can get in the Air Force.  I really don't have an opinion.

Here's my personal preferences, in order:

One uniform - AF style.  This was the uniform WIWAC, and no one seemed to have conniptions about large people in blues and fatigues.  However, Big Blue seems unwilling to go there.

One uniform - corporate.  If we can't look like the AF, we should look like CAP.  It's more important to our organization that we be uniform.  However, besides the expense, there is the simple fact that some people are in love with wearing the AF style uniform and consider corporates "fat boy suits."  So, we seem to be stuck with two uniforms.  If that's the case, then...

Two uniforms - but make them as similar to each other as possible.  If we used the mandatory items from the AF style suit (grey epaulets, CAP hat badge) and added them to the TPU, we would end up with suits that, while different, would at least give the impression that they were from the same org.  However, some people still chafe at the grey, even though we originally wore colored shoulder straps and braid to differentiate CAP from the AAF, and love wearing AF metal grade and blue epaulets.  So we end up with two uniforms, both different from the AF and distinct from each other.  That's the worst of both worlds.

If we're going to shape the future uniforms, we should try to get ahead of the curve and get a holistic solution to the polyform problem.

Makes sense.  As Dan points out, our tradition is to wear weird colored epaulets.  Red looked fine with OD, but looks like crap with blue.  Grey looks good with blue.

Go with the CAP hat badge, grey epaulets, a single nametag (whatever we can get away with on the corporate) on both uniforms.  Ditch the US's and put CAP on the lapels.

Remove the silver braid from the TPU and substitute dark blue.

In other words, focus on making the two uniforms as close together as possible.  Even if that means giving up a few USAF perks, like the U.S. collar insignia, and a few "get around USAF" perks, like metal grade on corporate suits.


But...

The utilities, I think, are actually MORE important.  Where we really need to bond as a team and to LOOK like a team, is in public doing our work.  The vast majority of which can be done in utilities. 

I can count on one hand the number of times I've worn service dress this year.  It's really not that big a deal.  But I've been in some form of utilities or flight gear around twice a week!

I really, really like thinking long term, and trying to find a way to bring corporate utilities in line with ABU/flight suits.  Perhaps switching to grey.  Or getting USAF to let everyone back in ABUs with some additional "I"m not USAF" insignia.   Failing that, putting all seniors in corporate utilities (let 'em keep their USAF Service Dress).

Thanks, Delaney.  I was confused by your earlier post.

But... is there a fourth option?

How about we have (for officers, not for cadets) ONE uniform.  But instead of following the course of the BDU, we convert to one corporate uniform that is a little closer to the Air Force uniform?  We could design a corporate uniform based on the AF Hap Arnold design, and get ahead of the changeover. 

Add in use of the BBDU and Blue flight suit, (Both of which have been AF uniforms in the past, and in the case of the BBDU, I think still is used) and we could create the "One Team" look without all of us nuts falling too far from  the Air Force tree.

I thought this was as good a uniform thread to throw this in as any -- my local paper recently ran a photo of a civilian employed by the Corps of Engineers in Iraq.  He was wearing the older style Army desert uniform with khaki nametapes with dark lettering (can't tell exactly what color).  The organization tape read "USACE CIVILIAN" and above that was a square khaki patch with a black triangle on it with white "US". 

I know we've talked about civilians wearing military uniforms in war zones before but I don't recall that particular combination being discussed.  Just thought it was interesting. 

Army Regulations have a provision for civilian insignia... a khaki patch worn over the left pocket of any uniform with a blue equalateral triangle and the letters "US" inside the triangle.  This has been a standard insignia since WWII, although some have the person's assignment above and below the triangle.

"War Correspondent" was a common one.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 27, 2007, 02:37:54 PM
Army Regulations have a provision for civilian insignia... a khaki patch worn over the left pocket of any uniform with a blue equilateral triangle and the letters "US" inside the triangle.  This has been a standard insignia since WWII, although some have the person's assignment above and below the triangle.

"War Correspondent" was a common one.

Army Officer's Guide, Edition 9, 1941 specify Civilians accompanying the Army will wear an Officer's uniform WITHOUT rank insignia and an arm brassard noting specialty. 

Overseas, the civilians I saw and worked with usually had on ACU's or Desert's (pre-ACU's) or wore cargo pants and a polo.  I rarely saw Civilians with the distinguishing insignia talked about above.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 27, 2007, 02:37:54 PM
Army Regulations have a provision for civilian insignia... a khaki patch worn over the left pocket of any uniform with a blue equalateral triangle and the letters "US" inside the triangle.  This has been a standard insignia since WWII, although some have the person's assignment above and below the triangle.

You can get an insignia like this for the ACU now. Goes on the rank insignia Velcro of the ACU. Don't know how many people are wearing it now, but it's available.

When I saw civilians in uniform few had the triangle patch.  Most has branch tapes that said "DOD CIVILIAN" or something similar.  I suspect it was because it was easier to get the tapes made than find that patch.  I found enough for my trip but it wasn't easy.

I did see an American Red Cross person with ARC cutouts on the collar and branch tape.

ARC has its own uniform regulations.  The "Donut Dollies" in Vietnam wore a light blue dress.

While I know it will never fly, one way to get EVERYONE, regardless of hair and weight, into USAF uniforms is to emulate deployed USAF civilians.

Meaning no officer grade.

It actually makes sense.  We are, after all volunteer USAF civilians (no UCMJ hear).  We aren't really part of the military grade  pecking order - our majors don't outrank their captains, but neither do their Lt Cols outrank our majors.  Our pecking order is based on position - either answering to a unit chain of command or an incident chain of command. 

A USAF civilian can supervise USAF Officers.  And a USAF Officer can supervise USAF civilians.  It's all based on position.  Just like the way we do business.

USAF civilians can be fat and fuzzy and long haired and STILL wear BDUs.  Because it's clear by the insignia that they aren't officers, or NCOs.  No comparision, no confusion. 

Full members of the USAF team, just not on the miltary side.

But my guess is that folks will give up their railroad tracks when you pry their cold, dead hands...etc. etc.

OK, need to drop my $.02 here.  And this is were I think we AND mother blue (especially) have lost sight of the big picture.

What is the whole point of an Auxiliary anyway?  Firstly, like any contract, there is consideration on both sides.  On the Air Force side, there is the expectation that they will a gain a certain amount of value (in our case labor) at no or little cost.  On the CAP side, we give our labor in return for a certain amount of respect and the opportunity to serve.

Now historically, auxiliaries are composed of those too old, too young, too infirm or otherwise unqualified for active service.

So how is the CAP-USAF relationship being conducted in light of this?  Well it seems to me that we have crime and punishment reversed here.  Frankly, those who are "Fit to Fight" have no business in an auxiliary.   They should be in the active Air Force, carrying out the missions of our great nation.  If anything, being "Fit to Fight" should EXCLUDE one from membership.

So how are those who are not "Fit to Fight" treated?  Instead of being rewarded for their sacrifices and commitment, they are told that they are in fact second-class citizens.  That they are not allowed to wear the uniform of "Full" membership.  Perhaps they should just be forced to wear a scarlet letter "U" for unfit.

The Air Force seems to argue that perception is reality.  And that some civilian who sees a fat CAPer will think the Air Force is a bunch of Fat Bodies.

Well, perception is reality, and the perception here is that what some ignorant civilian who doesn't know enough about the United States military to know the difference between CAP and the USAF is more important to impress than treating members of the USAF TEAM with honor and respect.

It seems to me that Mother Blue is not holding up her end of the bargain.  I realize that there are lots and lots of well meaning, well intentioned folks who work on both sides of the aisle.  And I also realize that there has been some historical reasons for CAP to lose credibility with Mother Blue.  But frankly, those reasons and those individuals do not excuse the institutional behavior of the organization as a whole.

Frankly, to paraphrase, rather than coming out here and telling our dedicated members that their sacrifice of time and money is not sufficient, and that they need to get skinny too; I'd rather just hear a simple "Thank You for your service."

Thus endeth the rant.

You make a very good point here, especially about weight. 

There was a time when there were no weight standards in CAP, and we seemed to do okay.   Of course, grooming standards are another issue - with the exception of the occasional religious or medical waiver, a person chooses to be long haired or fuzzy.  And can change that decision in 5 minutes with a gillette.

I really, really believe the current sticking point over the USAF uniform is based on CAP basically hopeing to be mistaken for real USAF military.  The whole fight over trying to get a CAC-look alike as an ID card, the attempts to minimize the CAP-ness of the uniform, pushing for metal rank and the like.  It's a cultural battle that doesn't need to be fought.

We aren't active, or reserve, or guard.  We're the Auxiliary.  We aren't in the military - we're civilians.

If both sides could embrace what we are  AND WHAT WE"RE NOT, I think we might be able to come up with a workable Auxiliary structure that actually gets us closer to USAF.  Because it would be a structure based on truth, and not on wishes or perceptions.

Quote from: Dragoon on January 03, 2008, 06:02:27 PM
You make a very good point here, especially about weight. 
There was a time when there were no weight standards in CAP, and we seemed to do okay. 

And then this happened...

http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2007/fit.nation/obesity.map/ (http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2007/fit.nation/obesity.map/)

^ Thats cool, thanks!

Quote from: Dragoon on January 03, 2008, 06:02:27 PM
You make a very good point here, especially about weight. 

There was a time when there were no weight standards in CAP, and we seemed to do okay.   Of course, grooming standards are another issue - with the exception of the occasional religious or medical waiver, a person chooses to be long haired or fuzzy.  And can change that decision in 5 minutes with a gillette.

I really, really believe the current sticking point over the USAF uniform is based on CAP basically hopeing to be mistaken for real USAF military.  The whole fight over trying to get a CAC-look alike as an ID card, the attempts to minimize the CAP-ness of the uniform, pushing for metal rank and the like.  It's a cultural battle that doesn't need to be fought.

We aren't active, or reserve, or guard.  We're the Auxiliary.  We aren't in the military - we're civilians.

If both sides could embrace what we are  AND WHAT WE"RE NOT, I think we might be able to come up with a workable Auxiliary structure that actually gets us closer to USAF.  Because it would be a structure based on truth, and not on wishes or perceptions.

Perception IS reality.

Personally, I think that it is entirely appropriate to have everyone in one uniform (the Air Force and us) with us auxiliary guys having a clear designator on the uniform that identifies us as the Air Force's volunteer auxiliary.

Now if you package that designator as a mark of second-class citizenship, it sucks.  "You are not as good as us, therefore you must wear this mark on your clothing."

BUT... If that designator is honored and respected as the mark of a citizen who chooses to serve his nation without compensation, a special force of volunteers with a great heritage and a lot to offer, it becomes a point of pride and puts some swagger into the step.

In order to accomplish that we have to:

1.  Accept out differences, and realize that we HAVE to do some things different since we are composed of all volunteers.

2.  QUIT BEATING OURSELVES UP!  Accept that we are, in fact and in law, a part of the Air Force, and that we serve our country as flyers as much as any Air Force guy does.  Except we don't have to stand in a pay line.

3.  Tell our story to the public loud and clear, and don't be embarrassed when someone wants to thank you for your service.  There is a reason that YOU are wearing your country's uniform, and he isn't.  Since it has nothing to do with age, physical qualification, or desire to not drop civilian employment for 6 months or more, there can ONLY be one explanation:  You are the better patriot.

As soon as the AF sees things my way, the better this world will be!   ::)

Quote from: Falshrmjgr on January 03, 2008, 05:32:06 PM
OK, need to drop my $.02 here.  And this is were I think we AND mother blue (especially) have lost sight of the big picture.

What is the whole point of an Auxiliary anyway?  Firstly, like any contract, there is consideration on both sides.  On the Air Force side, there is the expectation that they will a gain a certain amount of value (in our case labor) at no or little cost.  On the CAP side, we give our labor in return for a certain amount of respect and the opportunity to serve.

Now historically, auxiliaries are composed of those too old, too young, too infirm or otherwise unqualified for active service.

So how is the CAP-USAF relationship being conducted in light of this?  Well it seems to me that we have crime and punishment reversed here.  Frankly, those who are "Fit to Fight" have no business in an auxiliary.   They should be in the active Air Force, carrying out the missions of our great nation.  If anything, being "Fit to Fight" should EXCLUDE one from membership.

So how are those who are not "Fit to Fight" treated?  Instead of being rewarded for their sacrifices and commitment, they are told that they are in fact second-class citizens.  That they are not allowed to wear the uniform of "Full" membership.  Perhaps they should just be forced to wear a scarlet letter "U" for unfit.

The Air Force seems to argue that perception is reality.  And that some civilian who sees a fat CAPer will think the Air Force is a bunch of Fat Bodies.

Well, perception is reality, and the perception here is that what some ignorant civilian who doesn't know enough about the United States military to know the difference between CAP and the USAF is more important to impress than treating members of the USAF TEAM with honor and respect.

It seems to me that Mother Blue is not holding up her end of the bargain.  I realize that there are lots and lots of well meaning, well intentioned folks who work on both sides of the aisle.  And I also realize that there has been some historical reasons for CAP to lose credibility with Mother Blue.  But frankly, those reasons and those individuals do not excuse the institutional behavior of the organization as a whole.

Frankly, to paraphrase, rather than coming out here and telling our dedicated members that their sacrifice of time and money is not sufficient, and that they need to get skinny too; I'd rather just hear a simple "Thank You for your service."

Thus endeth the rant.

EXCUSE ME?

I HAVE served, have "fought" in actual combat, and am STILL "fit to fight". However I have other obligations and priorities, and desires, that preclude me from re-joining our Armed Forces. So now I am supposed to NOT join CAP because I could otherwise, based on fitness alone, be in the Armed Forces?

Man I have heard some doozies, but that takes the cake.

Don't get mad, L.I.P.

I see his point.

You have served in combat, as have I.  For me, the PT test got harder and harder to pass, so I took my 22 years and went home.  I later joined CAP

Your lack of fitness may not relate to your physical condition.  Your reason for not staying in the military could be financial, family-related, or simply a determination that you have done your job for Sam and now need to start working for Little Iron Pilot, and all the Little Iron Pilots to come.

I also think that an 18-20 year old cadet in good shape should serve his country on active duty before popping over to the CAP officer side.  That is the whole idea of "...prepare to be of service" in the Cadet Oath.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 03, 2008, 07:01:33 PM
Now if you package that designator as a mark of second-class citizenship, it sucks.  "You are not as good as us, therefore you must wear this mark on your clothing."

I think the reason it often gets packaged that way is because, frankly, we pretend to be more than we are.  So USAF gets a bit defensive. 

Adopting the uniform of the team makes sense - we ARE part of the Air Force, at least some of the time.

But adopting their officer titles and insignia that even the thousands of paid USAF civlians don't get is where I think the rub lies.

Since we want to have captains and majors, USAF goes to great length to point out that we aren't "real" colonels and generals.  I can't blame 'em - they don't want any of their uniformed guys thinking they have to answer to us.  And they don't want anyone on the outside thinking we are them, when our average training level is gonna be so much lower (in terms of hours spent doing it).

I think we'd actually interoperate better and be treated more as team members if we accepted our role as auxiliarists, donned their uniform and worked with them as USAF civilians. 

We could still have an internal grade structure (using CAP-specific insignia), and we could still be set up along para-military lines.  But we'd avoid direct comparisons about "who's second class and who's better" by making it clear that we aren't active or reserve - we are civilians who have volunteered our time and talent without pay to better our country and assist our air force.

I think we'd be respected for that.

So...to bring this full circle - do we NEED AF uniforms?  No.  Could they help?  Yes - if everyone wore them, and we used them to designate our place on the USAF team - and not invite unfair comparisons with our partners.

I know this is sacrilegious but...

I am in favor of foregoing the USAF uniform. We simply aren't USAF. That we're authorized to wear the uniform doesn't mean we have to or that it's a good idea.

I propose below in fact that it is not a good idea.

Don't get me wrong, I really like the USAF uniforms. I am chagrinned that I didn't enter the service when I was able to (too old now) and should have. I'd love to wear the uniform... but it isn't my uniform and that opportunity, like the opportunity to apologize to Bridget K for being an utter ass in college, is long, long gone. Let's let it go. Move on. Deal with what we are, not what we could (have) be(en).

CAP needs its own uniform. Just the one. And one that fits us.

I have several arguments, all of which are opinion and no attempt to represent fact is intended. You're entitled to your own opinion and rebuttals are welcome, though I'm not going to defend or pursue this any further:

1.   The uniform is not uniform.
a.   A substantial number of our members appear to be unable/unqualified to wear USAF uniforms, which results in at least two uniforms then being presented at an event... and often far more than two! Given this we look absurd, in my opinion, when "in uniform". This writer has yet to attend an event where a single, uniform look was presented. Whether the National Convention, courses at Region or Wing, or public events we, CAP, looked like several organizations hanging around together;
b.   Even wearing the USAF uniform we don't actually wear their uniform, our tapes, name plates, rank, etc are different. This would be fine if everybody wore the same uniform. It adds to the confusion and poor presentation when we're on an AFB though. Add (a) above and... ick!

2.   The USAF ABU/BDU and flightsuit are poorly suited to CAP's ES mission.
a.   Ground, flight line and air crews are ridiculously hard to see when wearing camouflage or camo colors and although that's the purpose of camo it's so antithetical to ES that the mind boggles;
i.   ES relies in part on seeing and being seen. Mitigating that disadvantages CAP, the mission, our partners and anybody trying to see us, like a person in need of ES or a tactical manager trying to identify assets;
ii.   The USAF uniforms do not allow for customary SAR markings. Reflective tape, large letters declaring affiliation and/or specialty, high-visibility devices, etc are denied CAP.
b.   SAR customary insignia / decorations are not authorized which sets CAP apart and is off-putting to other professional SAR responders. (At least in this writer's experiences with local sheriffs and other SAR posses. I'm sure others can share contrary histories.);
c.   Rather than appearing to civilians and disaster victims as ES we appear as military or worse para-military wannabes.
d.   Absent wearing additional and heretofore unauthorized USAF uniform items it is difficult to carry necessary radios, first-aid and/or survival equipment, signaling devices, target detection devices, etc.
i.   This leaves a choice between being non-compliant with USAF/CAP uniform strictures or leaving desirable equipment behind.

3.   Better alternatives exist, are equally cost effective / costly, and customary to CAP's three missions.
a.   We could replace the USAF flightsuit with a high-visibility, Nomex flightsuit having reflective tape and reflective patches, similar pockets, etc.
b.   The BDU might be more effectively replaced with 5.11 or similar tactical or BDU-style pants with subdued reflective accents, high-visibility shirt, optional gloves and headgear in high-visibility colors and with reflective tape, etc. (There are excellent "subdued" reflective materials, often seen in runners' clothing, to accent.)
c.   The CAP corporate uniform with white shirt and either the blue or gray pants (pick one, but only one) is a great alternative to the USAF blues. I'd even go so far as to say that I'd prefer black over gray, and blue over black. (The black would be a bit... ugh... Naval. And with the TPU coat, which I really hate, in black too we'd be welcome on a ship's bridge anywhere.)

4.   The USAF ABU/BDU and flightsuit compromise safety.
a.   CAP flightline crew can be difficult for pilots and others to see;
b.   CAP members are just generally hard to see. It puts members at risk when near traffic or anywhere that visual identification is important;
c.   The flightsuit is hard to see by potential rescuers of aircrews downed or landing off-airport. The ABU/BDU is hard to see by potential rescuers of lost, injured or other CAP assets in the field.

5.   There is a long and appropriate tradition of pride in the USAF uniform. CAP should invest in and build its own such traditions, and wear its own distinctive uniform with pride.
a.   I believe that too many proponents of the USAF uniform are "playing Air Force". That simply isn't CAP. We're not USAF. We're non-military, non-combatant, volunteers in a charitable organization with profoundly different missions than USAF. I am profoundly uncomfortable by discussions of wearing / utilizing / employing additional USAF gear, uniform elements, behaviors, etc. They *earned* the right to those things. Let's us build, designate, invest and value our own unique gear, etc. (I've got a similar rant on rank... betcha couldn't guess);
b.   Personally, I am far prouder of my salute to a USAF or other service member when I'm wearing a CAP "corporate" uniform than when I'm wearing a variant of his/her uniform. I feel it honors them, me and CAP more specifically and more deeply;
c.   CAP could stand distinct and bring more attention to itself by designating and employing its own, separate uniform;
d.   The CAP accents to coat, decorations, etc could borrow accenting USAF colors as an homage and recognition of our USAF affiliation.

Nothing personal intended herein. I'm glad to be affiliated with CAP no matter what we wear.

Interesting and certainly logical.

But, your post is 986 words long and contains not a single mention of cadets or the cadet program --  the single program that involves over 50% of our membership.

Would taking cadets into account alter your thoughts in any way?

Respectfully,

Ned Lee
DCP, PCR

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 03, 2008, 07:13:33 PM

I also think that an 18-20 year old cadet in good shape should serve his country on active duty before popping over to the CAP officer side.  That is the whole idea of "...prepare to be of service" in the Cadet Oath.

So I should pack in my CAP uniform and take my business (and membership dues) elsewhere?

Quote from: Ned on January 03, 2008, 09:11:19 PM
Interesting and certainly logical.

But, your post is 986 words long and contains not a single mention of cadets or the cadet program --  the single program that involves over 50% of our membership.

Would taking cadets into account alter your thoughts in any way?

Respectfully,

Ned Lee
DCP, PCR

I always believe the "conventional wisdom" has been to keep Cadets in AF uniforms, at least until 18.

The AF has given blanket permission to Cadets, regardless of weight to wear it - so we have none of the two classes problem the SM's have.

Further, there are fewer problems with Cadet wannabe's, since that's redundant.  Cadets are working on becoming something - we hope they have big dreams.  Also, the uniform is a recruiting tool.

Quote from: foriley on January 03, 2008, 08:58:13 PM
I am profoundly uncomfortable by discussions of wearing / utilizing / employing additional USAF gear, uniform elements, behaviors, etc. They *earned* the right to those things. Let's us build, designate, invest and value our own unique gear, etc.

Don't forget CAP members earned them as well.  For the past 60 years CAP has been earning the privilege to wear the AF uniform. 

What makes you so uncomfortable??  I never understood that position.  If you don't want to wear AF style, because you are not comfortable doing so, DON'T then!

I think your last sentence highlights one of the issues he's addressing.  If uniforms are optional, then they aren't uniforms. They become costumes.

I think it's not that he's uncomfortable with wearing it.  He's uncomfortable with all the emphasis on it when it will never be the true CAP uniform - since half our members aren't allowed to be in it.

He's going for uniformity - the team over the individual.  I get that.  He's going for what CAP actually is - civilians serving their country, over what some wish  it were - military officers serving their country.

Of course, besides forgetting cadets, he's also forgotten that some of us can get USAF stuff cheap or free.  Admittedly, that doesn't help half our members, but that little fact IS going to get drug into any conversation.

Yup.

Rather than earning the right to wear the USAF uniform I'd rather earn the right to wear the CAP uniform. And when wearing it be wearing the same uniform as you and the rest of gang.

My discomfort isn't with USAF or the USAF uniform per se, well aside from safety issues, but it's with wearing *their* uniform.

I like CAP. I think what I do has value. I don't like wearing someone else's uniform to demonstrate my esprit de corp. They earned their uniform. I'd like to earn mine rather than the right to wear theirs.

Ugh... I'm sounding shrill. I'll stop.

Yes, I didn't mention Cadets. It was intentional. They should wear the USAF uniform, except on ES missions and airport ops functions where those mitigate safety.

--F

Quote from: foriley on January 03, 2008, 08:58:13 PM
2.   The USAF ABU/BDU and flightsuit are poorly suited to CAP's ES mission.
a.   Ground, flight line and air crews are ridiculously hard to see when wearing camouflage or camo colors and although that's the purpose of camo it's so antithetical to ES that the mind boggles;
i.   ES relies in part on seeing and being seen. Mitigating that disadvantages CAP, the mission, our partners and anybody trying to see us, like a person in need of ES or a tactical manager trying to identify assets;
ii.   The USAF uniforms do not allow for customary SAR markings. Reflective tape, large letters declaring affiliation and/or specialty, high-visibility devices, etc are denied CAP.
b.   SAR customary insignia / decorations are not authorized which sets CAP apart and is off-putting to other professional SAR responders. (At least in this writer's experiences with local sheriffs and other SAR posses. I'm sure others can share contrary histories.);
c.   Rather than appearing to civilians and disaster victims as ES we appear as military or worse para-military wannabes.
d.   Absent wearing additional and heretofore unauthorized USAF uniform items it is difficult to carry necessary radios, first-aid and/or survival equipment, signaling devices, target detection devices, etc.

This argument is actually rather ironic. When the Air Force got BDU's, many people questioned the wisdom of wearing camoflage in an environment where it wouldn't hide. Camo stands out far more on a flightline than it does in the woods.

As for being wannabe's, I would disagree. During earthquake releife in California, people would walk up to us, wanting to shake our hands or hug us. Apparently, they didn't consider us wannabe's. Now that I think about it, I haven't heard of anyone not in CAP call us wannabe's. Some active duty may joke about the cadets "playing soldier", but most of them change their mind once they are told what the program entails.

Quote from: foriley on January 03, 2008, 08:58:13 PM
3.   Better alternatives exist, are equally cost effective / costly, and customary to CAP's three missions.
a.   We could replace the USAF flightsuit with a high-visibility, Nomex flightsuit having reflective tape and reflective patches, similar pockets, etc.
b.   The BDU might be more effectively replaced with 5.11 or similar tactical or BDU-style pants with subdued reflective accents, high-visibility shirt, optional gloves and headgear in high-visibility colors and with reflective tape, etc. (There are excellent "subdued" reflective materials, often seen in runners' clothing, to accent.)
c.   The CAP corporate uniform with white shirt and either the blue or gray pants (pick one, but only one) is a great alternative to the USAF blues. I'd even go so far as to say that I'd prefer black over gray, and blue over black. (The black would be a bit... ugh... Naval. And with the TPU coat, which I really hate, in black too we'd be welcome on a ship's bridge anywhere.)

A reflective flightsuit is a non-issue. It doesn't need to be. Noone looks for our pilots in the woods. The Nomex is a safety measure (which some argue is unnecessary), the color isn't relevant. As for cost, it's far cheaper to obtain a sage green flightsuit than it is any other color.

As for the TPU, most of the items are available in an AAFES military clothing. You're still buying Air Force pieces.

Quote from: foriley on January 03, 2008, 08:58:13 PM4.   The USAF ABU/BDU and flightsuit compromise safety.
a.   CAP flightline crew can be difficult for pilots and others to see;
b.   CAP members are just generally hard to see. It puts members at risk when near traffic or anywhere that visual identification is important;
c.   The flightsuit is hard to see by potential rescuers of aircrews downed or landing off-airport. The ABU/BDU is hard to see by potential rescuers of lost, injured or other CAP assets in the field.

If it's that hard to see someone in an orange vest, someone doesn't belong in the area. It is mandatory on the flightline, and in the field. If you can't see those crews, they're doing something wrong.

Second, it's rare that we are looking for our own aircrews in a downed situation. And the people you are looking for are probably wearing civvies.

As far the teams, no-one should be alone anyway. Ever. Injured "assets" probably wouldn't be in the field long, if at all.

Quote from: foriley on January 03, 2008, 08:58:13 PM5.There is a long and appropriate tradition of pride in the USAF uniform. CAP should invest in and build its own such traditions, and wear its own distinctive uniform with pride.

Our tradition is for people to wear a military uniform, with our own distinct insignia. Why change it after 65 years?

Quote from: foriley on January 03, 2008, 08:58:13 PM
a.   I believe that too many proponents of the USAF uniform are "playing Air Force". That simply isn't CAP. We're not USAF. We're non-military, non-combatant, volunteers in a charitable organization with profoundly different missions than USAF. I am profoundly uncomfortable by discussions of wearing / utilizing / employing additional USAF gear, uniform elements, behaviors, etc. They *earned* the right to those things. Let's us build, designate, invest and value our own unique gear, etc. (I've got a similar rant on rank... betcha couldn't guess);

I spent ten years active duty Air Force. Am I no longer acceptable because I don't wear it now? Has my right to wear an Air Force uniform expired?

Unique gear comes with a high cost. There is military gear available that suits the needs, and sometimes it's pretty inexpensive. No reason to design our own patterns for anything.

Quote from: foriley on January 03, 2008, 08:58:13 PMb.Personally, I am far prouder of my salute to a USAF or other service member when I'm wearing a CAP "corporate" uniform than when I'm wearing a variant of his/her uniform. I feel it honors them, me and CAP more specifically and more deeply;

If rendering a salute in a certain uniform gives you more pride than in others, I'd question the priority.

Quote from: foriley on January 03, 2008, 08:58:13 PM
c.   CAP could stand distinct and bring more attention to itself by designating and employing its own, separate uniform;
d.   The CAP accents to coat, decorations, etc could borrow accenting USAF colors as an homage and recognition of our USAF affiliation.

We have our own accents now. And this issue has really only exploded since a corporate service uniform was created. It was apparently an issue before, but it seems to be more of one now.

And if you want something completely unique, borrowing AF heritage doesn't meet that purpose.

Quote from: foriley on January 03, 2008, 10:02:25 PM
My discomfort isn't with USAF or the USAF uniform per se, well aside from safety issues, but it's with wearing *their* uniform.

We've been associated with the AF since they became a separate branch. We're a part of their heritage as much as they are part of ours.

Quote from: foriley on January 03, 2008, 10:02:25 PMI like CAP. I think what I do has value. I don't like wearing someone else's uniform to demonstrate my esprit de corp. They earned their uniform. I'd like to earn mine rather than the right to wear theirs.

Seems like a "mine and theirs" policy. Instead of ours. We are a part of a team.

Quote from: foriley on January 03, 2008, 10:02:25 PM
Yes, I didn't mention Cadets. It was intentional. They should wear the USAF uniform, except on ES missions and airport ops functions where those mitigate safety.

Any uniformity argument is self defeating when you mention keeping cadets in USAF uniforms. Uniformity includes everybody.

This discussion is in the wrong thread.  Split and merged.

Quote from: LittleIronPilot on January 03, 2008, 07:05:06 PM


EXCUSE ME?

I HAVE served, have "fought" in actual combat, and am STILL "fit to fight". However I have other obligations and priorities, and desires, that preclude me from re-joining our Armed Forces. So now I am supposed to NOT join CAP because I could otherwise, based on fitness alone, be in the Armed Forces?

Man I have heard some doozies, but that takes the cake.

Nodnod...  I confess to a bit of oversimplification there, and I had no intention of disparaging our dual-hatted members.   My point was to try and simplify the scenario and show where there is a logical disconnect.

CAP is a valuable national asset and a force multiplier and should be treated as such.  Not merely tolerated.  CAP has a long and distinguished history of service to this nation, and continues to do so.  While we may not (or in some cases no longer) be subject to the UCMJ, and be "military" as such, we are not just civilians either.  And portraying CAP as such is demeaning.  How many CAP members have died or been injured in the line of duty over the years fulfilling their mission in order to save the lives of others?  How many millions of man-hours and millions of dollars have been donated by our members over the years?  Military? maybe not de jure, but de facto.  Treating our members as a bunch of ne'er do wells who "just want to play Air Force" is disrespectful and demeaning.

Nothing is required to distinguish CAP members from "Real Military" other than distinctive insignia.  Requiring more is an act of "I'm better than you, and you don't deserve it."

Oh yeah, and just for the record, after I made it through SFAS, made E5, and served on the DMZ in Korea, I was an ROTC DMG, RA Infantry Officer in the 82d Airborne.  My EIB and Jump Wings didn't come out of a box of Cracker Jacks either.  ;)

QuoteBut adopting their officer titles and insignia that even the thousands of paid USAF civlians don't get is where I think the rub lies.

We did not "adopt" AF rank and titles.  CAP had those ranks and titles from the very beginning of the organization.  The Army adopted CAP, along with those ranks, titles, and uniforms and we've continued to use them.  They knew they were getting old, oftentimes overweight, civilians wearing Army-style uniforms, with Army ranks, unit nomenclature, etc. from the beginning.  The Army (and now the AF) didn't give us those things -- we had them before joining with them. 

Quote from: RiverAux on January 03, 2008, 11:23:12 PM

QuoteBut adopting their officer titles and insignia that even the thousands of paid USAF civlians don't get is where I think the rub lies.

We did not "adopt" AF rank and titles.  CAP had those ranks and titles from the very beginning of the organization.  The Army adopted CAP, along with those ranks, titles, and uniforms and we've continued to use them.  They knew they were getting old, oftentimes overweight, civilians wearing Army-style uniforms, with Army ranks, unit nomenclature, etc. from the beginning.  The Army (and now the AF) didn't give us those things -- we had them before joining with them. 

Didn't CAP start off with position based titles?

CAP had position titles worn on the uniform such as Squadron Commander, Flight Commander etc. However, the position titles had nothing to do with member grades. I note one error in the posts above. The War Department (Army Air Corp) in 1942 authorized CAP wear army style uniforms with distintive insignia. Prior to that CAP wore uniforms, but they were authorized by the Office Civilian Defense. CAP wore Army grade insignia from PFC to Major, later LtCol and Col were authorized. CAP didn't ask the War Department for authority to wear the grade insignia, it was the War Departments idea.

CAP members from day one were using military ranks and titles. 

Quote from: BillB on January 03, 2008, 11:47:25 PM
The War Department (Army Air Corp) in 1942 authorized CAP wear army style uniforms with distinctive insignia.

Actually it's "US Army Air Forces".  A common mistake.  During the war, the Army (most likely those already envisioning a separate AF service) pushed everyone to use "Air Corps".  However those assigned to the aviation branch in the Army were in fact members of the Army Air Forces.  ~Army Officers Guide 1942, and Rank, Insignia of the services-War Dept 1942.

Quote from: RiverAux on January 03, 2008, 11:56:43 PM
CAP members from day one were using military ranks and titles. 

Not according to Colonel Leonard A. Blascovich, the National Historian.  He gave a brief to the NB a few years back about this very subject.

According to him, CAP started with Position Designators only ("Squadron Commander", "Squadron XO", etc.).  These were worn on the uniform as patches.

Rank came later, as a way to get better cooperation from local military bases (they'd pay more attention to a Captain than to a "Squadron Commander."

Of course, in those early days, rank was tied to position.  The only Captain in the squadron was the commander.  Presumably, if he didn't move up to higher HQ after command, he had to give up the railroad tracks.

Quote from: Falshrmjgr on January 03, 2008, 10:46:56 PM
CAP is a valuable national asset and a force multiplier and should be treated as such.  Not merely tolerated.  CAP has a long and distinguished history of service to this nation, and continues to do so.  While we may not (or in some cases no longer) be subject to the UCMJ, and be "military" as such, we are not just civilians either.  And portraying CAP as such is demeaning.  How many CAP members have died or been injured in the line of duty over the years fulfilling their mission in order to save the lives of others?  How many millions of man-hours and millions of dollars have been donated by our members over the years?  Military? maybe not de jure, but de facto.  Treating our members as a bunch of ne'er do wells who "just want to play Air Force" is disrespectful and demeaning.

A slightly different vew. 

We are part of USAF, but in fact, all trappings aside, we are civilians (at least we are when doing CAP stuff - I wear green the rest of the week).

Many fewer CAPer's have died "in the line of duty" than in most major fire departments,   In fact, most CAP casualties I know of died on non-misson flights.   Safety stuff.

Dead is still dead, but let's not overplay this card.  USAF civlians have died in the line of duty as well (sometimes in combat zones), but they don't rate officer insignia and titles.  Seems to work okay for them.  In fact, I can't imagine it working any other way.

The issue shouldn't be whether we should be respected for our role  (we should) , but whether our role should be confused with the uniformed USAF (perhaps not).

I think our striving to be mistaken for warriors works AGAINST us getting closer to USAF.

We should be proud of who we are, not who we'd like to be.

Quote from: JThemann on January 03, 2008, 09:15:55 PM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 03, 2008, 07:13:33 PM

I also think that an 18-20 year old cadet in good shape should serve his country on active duty before popping over to the CAP officer side.  That is the whole idea of "...prepare to be of service" in the Cadet Oath.

So I should pack in my CAP uniform and take my business (and membership dues) elsewhere?

Frankly, yes.  Active service would help both you and your country.

Quote from: Dragoon on January 04, 2008, 01:59:16 PM

Quote from: RiverAux on January 03, 2008, 11:56:43 PM
CAP members from day one were using military ranks and titles. 

Not according to Colonel Leonard A. Blascovich, the National Historian.  He gave a brief to the NB a few years back about this very subject.

According to him, CAP started with Position Designators only ("Squadron Commander", "Squadron XO", etc.).  These were worn on the uniform as patches.

Rank came later, as a way to get better cooperation from local military bases (they'd pay more attention to a Captain than to a "Squadron Commander."

Of course, in those early days, rank was tied to position.  The only Captain in the squadron was the commander.  Presumably, if he didn't move up to higher HQ after command, he had to give up the railroad tracks.

I don't know if that is entirely correct.  I will do some research and return, but I think they always had some type of rank identifier from the very begining.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 04, 2008, 04:03:26 PM

Quote from: JThemann on January 03, 2008, 09:15:55 PM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 03, 2008, 07:13:33 PM

I also think that an 18-20 year old cadet in good shape should serve his country on active duty before popping over to the CAP officer side.  That is the whole idea of "...prepare to be of service" in the Cadet Oath.

So I should pack in my CAP uniform and take my business (and membership dues) elsewhere?

Frankly, yes.  Active service would help both you and your country.

Thanks for the BS free answer.

Quote from: mikeylikey on January 04, 2008, 08:29:37 PM

Quote from: Dragoon on January 04, 2008, 01:59:16 PM

Quote from: RiverAux on January 03, 2008, 11:56:43 PM
CAP members from day one were using military ranks and titles. 

Not according to Colonel Leonard A. Blascovich, the National Historian.  He gave a brief to the NB a few years back about this very subject.

According to him, CAP started with Position Designators only ("Squadron Commander", "Squadron XO", etc.).  These were worn on the uniform as patches.

Rank came later, as a way to get better cooperation from local military bases (they'd pay more attention to a Captain than to a "Squadron Commander."

Of course, in those early days, rank was tied to position.  The only Captain in the squadron was the commander.  Presumably, if he didn't move up to higher HQ after command, he had to give up the railroad tracks.

I don't know if that is entirely correct.  I will do some research and return, but I think they always had some type of rank identifier from the very begining.

Actually, he's right. There was no rank in the very beginning. Got an old copy of the 1941 CAP manual, there's no rank that I've seen.

And I've met Col Blascovich. He's pretty precise on his research. You can probably bank on anything he says.

I have seen many local newspaper articles printed in very early 1942 referring to members by military rank and there are plenty of other sources indicating that when the coastal patrols started in early 1942 people had been given ranks.  Sorry, but our historian is wrong if he believes we did not use ranks while serving as part of OCD.  Pick almost any CAP Historical Monograph and you'll find many rank references prior to Army control. 

Quote from: RiverAux on January 04, 2008, 11:33:48 PM
I have seen many local newspaper articles printed in very early 1942 referring to members by military rank and there are plenty of other sources indicating that when the coastal patrols started in early 1942 people had been given ranks.  Sorry, but our historian is wrong if he believes we did not use ranks while serving as part of OCD.  Pick almost any CAP Historical Monograph and you'll find many rank references prior to Army control. 

That's not far enough back. CAP formed in 1941. There was a very brief period at CAP's inception that they did not have ranks. That was when CAP was part of the Office of Civilian Defense.

Second, the National historian probably has access to a lot more than any average member when it comes to the history of our organization.

QuoteThat's not far enough back. CAP formed in 1941.

Yeah, December 1st 1941 and I've got rank references from January, 1942, so I'm sitting on pretty solid ground here. 

CAP was not transferred to the Army until 1943 so it was not just a short period.  There are many references to coastal patrol incidents in 1942 that have been described in CAP publications using member ranks. 

QuoteSecond, the National historian probably has access to a lot more than any average member when it comes to the history of our organization.

He may have, but if his statements were properly reflected here, they were wrong.  More likely is that someone is misremembering what they thought he said. 

Quote from: RiverAux on January 05, 2008, 09:22:46 PM
Yeah, December 1st 1941 and I've got rank references from January, 1942, so I'm sitting on pretty solid ground here. 

I'd actually like to see that. Can you scan and post?

Most of the early stuff I've seen didn't show ranks.

Photogrphs from 1st quarter of 1942 shows CAP members wearing khaki uniforms with grade insignia. This was prior to coming under military control.
Mikey, at the start of World War II it was still Army Air Corp. Didin't become Army Air Force until 1943. Some but not all grades were tied to position, as an example, a pilot was made a 2Lt but for the unit position may have been in Finance.
Part of the problem of saying when Officer grade was authorized, most all CAP records of the period were lost during transfer from Fifth Avenue in New York City, to Bolling AFB to Ellenton AFB to Maxwell AFB. Only USAF records often local, for the period exist and they have never been totally researched. With many CAP Squadrons having been in existance since 1942-43, how many of them have complete records of the early activity of the Squadron, or even who were the Commanders of the squadron since the biginning? Very few because Squadron Historians have not researched the activity through files or newspaper articles.

Quote from: BillB on January 05, 2008, 09:59:05 PM
Mikey, at the start of World War II it was still Army Air Corp. Didn't become Army Air Force until 1943.

"The Arms and Services of the United States Army, Military Recognition Book, 1937-1942"

Specifically "The Arms are the Infantry, Cavalry, Field Artillery, Coast Artillery, Air Forces, Corps of Engineers, and Signal Corps" 
"The United States Army Air Forces.....with air power universally recognized as of a paramount importance in modern warfare......developed rapidly into a tremendous striking power"

It is a confusing subject, but Officers were branched "Air Corps" in the US Army Air Forces.  As the Air Forces were a separate but equal component of the Army.  The Army was split into Ground Forces and Air Forces.  Each with their own Commanding General.  Each with their own training schools. 

Any War Department circular or Regulation regarding the subject will back that statement.  I have a personal interest in the subject and sat at West Point for seven days about five years ago researching and listening to prominant historians. 

However, I reccomend picking up a copy of the "Army Officers Guide" published between 1935 and 1945, as it goes into great detail on the subject.  The publishers just "republished" War department documents.   

To make things more confusing at the time the subordinate commands in the Air Force were broken down into Corps, as in Corps Areas, much like the ground forces were.  In relevance, that is where CAP got it's Wing designations. 

The National Historian, if accurately represented here, is WRONG.  I doubt he is being accurately represented here though.   

Quote from: Hawk200 on January 05, 2008, 09:49:33 PM

Quote from: RiverAux on January 05, 2008, 09:22:46 PM
Yeah, December 1st 1941 and I've got rank references from January, 1942, so I'm sitting on pretty solid ground here. 

I'd actually like to see that. Can you scan and post?

Most of the early stuff I've seen didn't show ranks.

Sorry, can't.  But, go to your local library and look at newspaper microfilm of your local paper from the time period.  Assuming you had a CAP unit in your town you will probably find newspaper articles about them on a regular basis. 

More quickly, buy some of the CAP Historical Monographs or from Maine to Mexico and you'll find plenty of rank references from 1942.