CAPM 39-1 REVISIONS GAME

caphornbuckle · January 02, 2011, 02:51:14 AM

Alright, there has been several posts regarding the Uniform Manual and how it is out of date with today's uniform standards.

If you were responsible for updating the CAP Uniform Manual (CAPM 39-1) to meet current standards, what would you change/omit/add to it?

Here's a few ground rules:

1-If it isn't a current uniform item (ie. black trousers for the Corporate Uniform) it doesn't count. What you believe should be, may not be what it really is.
2-Quote the paragraph that needs updated, if possible.
3-Give the reason why you believe a specific item needs to be added/removed/changed.

Since almost everyone is big on uniforms on here, I figured it might be fun to see what the results would be!

Eclipse · January 02, 2011, 03:02:45 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigh

manfredvonrichthofen · January 02, 2011, 04:06:11 AM

REPOSTED TO FIX IMAGE ERRORS.
An everywhere issue: change of wording for regulation. Especially in 6.2 there is an issue with the wording that I have had trouble with and quite a few others have too, 6.2 says that you can wear up to four badges, taken to look like this.

(I know this image is not mine, I used it because it shows the max of what 6.2 suggests if you read that paragraph without interpretation)
Especially since there is a statement that one badge can be worn on the pocket. But what it means is one patch can be worn on the pocket, not badge. I now understand that your badges can look like this at most.

Only with a space in between the badges.

The next issue that needs to be addressed is that the photographs of the uniforms are mostly of uniforms that are as bare as possible.

The images of proper wear are there to make the regulation easier to understand. The issue is that they don't really show much of how the uniform is to be set up and worn when they are bare.

JohnKachenmeister · January 02, 2011, 03:03:15 PM

Resolve the conflict between Table 5-2 and Table 5-3 of CAPM 39-1 and CAPR 39-3 with respect to the precedence of foreign awards. Some foreign awards are erroneously listed as US awards in 5-2.

Phil Hirons, Jr. · January 02, 2011, 03:49:34 PM

I propose an even more basic change.

CAPM 39-1 CAP Cadet Uniform Manual
CAPM 39-2 CAP Senior Uniform Manual

I know there is a CAPR 39-2, so I'd be open to a new designation.
There would be some duplication of material.

This would eliminate attempting to cover c/Enlisted, c/Officer, SMWOG, CAP NCO, CAP Officer at the same time.

I think this is a much more usable approach. Can you think of a time when you've referenced 39-1 for a cadet and senior issue at the same time?

RiverAux · January 02, 2011, 03:56:05 PM

That is a very interesting idea. Since our cadet uniforms seem to be changed less than senior members it might be a more stable document.

However, my concern would be that either accidentally or intentionally we would start ending up with differences between how the same uniform is worn by cadets and seniors -- for example, BDUs. Trying to make two documents consistent with each other hasn't been a strong suit of CAP up till now.

a2capt · January 02, 2011, 05:24:13 PM

Lets get *one* right before making two out of it.

Persona non grata · January 02, 2011, 05:28:12 PM

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Quote from: phirons on January 02, 2011, 03:49:34 PM
I propose an even more basic change.

CAPM 39-1 CAP Cadet Uniform Manual
CAPM 39-2 CAP Senior Uniform Manual

I know there is a CAPR 39-2, so I'd be open to a new designation.
There would be some duplication of material.

This would eliminate attempting to cover c/Enlisted, c/Officer, SMWOG, CAP NCO, CAP Officer at the same time.

I think this is a much more usable approach. Can you think of a time when you've referenced 39-1 for a cadet and senior issue at the same time?

Phil Hirons, Jr. · January 02, 2011, 05:43:56 PM

Quote from: a2capt on January 02, 2011, 05:24:13 PM
Lets get *one* right before making two out of it.

The size of the work to revise 39-1 has been been given as a reason it's not been updated.
Splitting the work into more reasonable chunks should help.

To RiverAux's point. Yes the 2 manuals could get out of synch, but would that be worse than the current situation.

RiverAux · January 02, 2011, 06:02:53 PM

Quote from: phirons on January 02, 2011, 05:43:56 PM
The size of the work to revise 39-1 has been been given as a reason it's not been updated.

A fairly bogus explanation if I've ever heard one. Yes, we have had a lot of uniform changes since it was last updated, but I am fully confident that if one person sat down it would take about 2 days to fully incorporate all the existing ICLs into an updated version of the current regulation.

Now, a full overhaul and remake would be a different story, but I think most of us would be happy with just an updated regulation at this point.

Ozzy · January 06, 2011, 07:52:18 PM

Hm....... fix the blue's shirt crease to be more current with the AF standards?

Obviously implement the ICLs.... I thought this type of thread was made before..

Eclipse · January 06, 2011, 08:01:47 PM

Quote from: Ozzy on January 06, 2011, 07:52:18 PM
Hm....... fix the blue's shirt crease to be more current with the AF standards?

?

MIKE · January 06, 2011, 08:23:32 PM

The natural crease (as they come in the bag) is just behind the epaulet. The last CAPM 39-1 had you move it so it was centered on the epaulet... Probably because of the wing patch.

Eclipse · January 06, 2011, 08:29:24 PM

Quote from: MIKE on January 06, 2011, 08:23:32 PM
The natural crease (as they come in the bag) is just behind the epaulet. The last CAPM 39-1 had you move it so it was centered on the epaulet... Probably because of the wing patch.

OK, seriously - I drop my shirts off in a pile at the cleaners and receive them clean and pressed in a bag.

Granted, if you are thinking about it at the time and doing it yourself, or preparing for an NCC inspection, whatever, otherwise I seriously doubt there are many units in the country where the sleeve crease is at the top of the list of uniform problems.

By all means align it with USAF standards, but that isn't going to change how the nice lady on the corner presses the shirts.

a2capt · January 06, 2011, 08:44:32 PM

I'm compiling all the ICLs and overlaying/making references, I kinda started on that a while back and let it sit, the thread made me think about it again. My intention was to have something that you only had to look one place, not start from the back and go to the front of the pile.

Gunny Couture · January 07, 2011, 12:32:16 AM

First off I do not think we should split the manual. CAP has a lot of manuals already, so creating a new manual designation that duplicates some of the regs doesn't make sense. Especially if you want to refer to the manual during uniform reg instruction, having two can cause confusion. Secondly creases should be an issue. If there is a reg on them and you do not enforce that reg, and a cadet or anyone finds out, you will lose your credibility and authority. At that point it becomes an issue of integrity beyond being just "another regulation".

Lord of the North · January 07, 2011, 12:50:50 AM

CAP has only TWO Manuals CAPM 39-1 and CAPM 52-4, National Cadet Competition. The idea of splitting CAPM 39-1 into two has some merit but as previously stated keeping the two in sync for common material will be a problem. Of course sync between documents is already a problem when one regulation clashes with another regulation on the same issue.

Gunny Couture · January 07, 2011, 12:56:06 AM

Correction: CAP has a lot of documents and designations and I think we should look long and hard at the issue before we decide to create another one.

sleepyboyd · January 07, 2011, 03:19:29 AM

Quote from: RiverAux on January 02, 2011, 06:02:53 PM
Quote from: phirons on January 02, 2011, 05:43:56 PM
The size of the work to revise 39-1 has been been given as a reason it's not been updated.
A fairly bogus explanation if I've ever heard one. Yes, we have had a lot of uniform changes since it was last updated, but I am fully confident that if one person sat down it would take about 2 days to fully incorporate all the existing ICLs into an updated version of the current regulation.

Now, a full overhaul and remake would be a different story, but I think most of us would be happy with just an updated regulation at this point.

The manual should be completely revised to incorporate all ICLs. To say "its too much" is a cop-out. I feel sure there are enough concerned citizens that CAP could put together a group of folks to rewrite that reg and make it readable again.

sleepyboyd · January 07, 2011, 03:31:26 AM

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on January 02, 2011, 04:06:11 AM
REPOSTED TO FIX IMAGE ERRORS.
An everywhere issue: change of wording for regulation. Especially in 6.2 there is an issue with the wording that I have had trouble with and quite a few others have too, 6.2 says that you can wear up to four badges, taken to look like this.
(I know this image is not mine, I used it because it shows the max of what 6.2 suggests if you read that paragraph without interpretation)
Especially since there is a statement that one badge can be worn on the pocket. But what it means is one patch can be worn on the pocket, not badge. I now understand that your badges can look like this at most.
Only with a space in between the badges.

Please cite your reference for the picture with four badges being wrong. I know it looks absolutely crazy and busy, but please show where it states only two can be above the tape on the BDU in the 39-1. I may have read over it.