Uniform policies if NAT/CC

[abdsp51]

So holding people accountable for processing items and keeping folks in the loop is bad got it.  Sorry adding the requirement of a suspense timeline is there to ensure people are doing what they are suppose to be doing.  Membership should be kept informed on the status of the things they submit. Sorry but all it takes is one person in that chain to have a bad day or be get pissed and discourage a member because he/she followed up.  It is way to easy for someone to get the run around via phone or email on something they are trying to follow up on the way you believe it should be. If there was a system in place for it to be routed, it can not be canned by anyone but the NUC and the CC and provide feedback to the member suggesting it, you would see less bickering about uniform changes and recommendations. 

[lordmonar]

You guys want your cake and to eat it too.   If you really feel strongly about it....you will fight for it.   Like I said before....I don't have a real problem with a VFR direct to the NUC.   I do have a problem with a suspense and record tracking requirement for it.

Gah.  It hates me to say this, but I do agree with you there.

I think adding a suspense date to "Ask the NUC!" submissions would create too much overhead.  And, let's be honest here, I imagine most would put an unreasonable amount of time on it, like, say, a week.

That's what I'm talking about.   As far as I know there is no NUC right now.  They were formed to get a new 39-1 out the door and they did.   So I don't see any of them gearing up for the "next round" of suggestions, gripes, complaints, ect. 

So.....okay....Maybe there should be a National Uniform Officer who is charge of fixing the minor oversights, corrections, and misunderstandings that any an all new regs generate.   His job would be to take all those "ask the NUC" questions and sort them into appropriate piles........."Can I wear my Navy Obscure Warfare Badge", "Grammar and spelling errors in 39-1", "Pictures don't match the words/Para 1.1 says but Para 4.5 says","Suggestions for the NUC","when are we getting ABUs"........then either work them himself.....ie. fix the errors, make the changes needed to follow policy, forward those that need CC or CoS approval up the chain, collate all the suggestion to the NUC into a working group agenda to be handed out when the next NUC actually convenes.

Not everything should have to go to the NUC.......a staffer can make the call and fix it if a few minutes, but a researching and developing a whole new uniform would be too much for just one guy.

Until we got a staffer working this....even if we had a Ask the NUC system.....we would have to wait until they were formed.  In the mean time we go a set of leaders who we expect to use their best judgement to make the right call.   And a system where any member can fight for what they thinks is right.

[arajca]

2)Why should wing and regional commanders not be able to ax something they don't like? 

But it's not just the regional commanders.  It's their subordinate staff members as well.

Let's say 1st Lt. Goodguy has an idea.  Now, he's supposed to follow the chain of command.  So he submits it to the Deputy Commander for Seniors.  That, in turn, is sent to the Squadron CC.  Then it goes up to Group, and before it gets to the Group CC his assistant will evaluate it.  Same for Wing.  Same for Region.  And so on.

All it takes is one person to say "Eh, I don't like it" and it's axed.

If Lt. Goodguy is lucky, he'll get word filtered back down to it that his submission was killed.  But, more likely than not, he'll hear nothing and have no idea that it was thrown in the trash can, or why.

Lt Goodguy only needs to follow up at it goes up the chain.   If he thinks he is getting stone walled or disagrees with Echelon X, he goes on up the chain.

That's a great idea, but it doesn't work. BTDT. Wing said it went to region. Region refused to answer. After several tries, went to Nat/CC. Nat/CC told Reg/CC to answer. Never heard a peep.

You guys want your cake and to eat it too.   If you really feel strongly about it....you will fight for it.

Head, Wall. Wall, Head. Play nice.   

Like I said before....I don't have a real problem with a VFR direct to the NUC.   I do have a problem with a suspense and record tracking requirement for it.

Assuming that such a tool was implemented....and we followed the USAF ROE....the NUC would meet once every two years and wade through all the suggestions that the uniform staff has been collecting....as well as all the stuff the uniform staff has been working on.
They would then make their recommendations to CAP/CC after routing it through CAP-USAF.

There is very little chance of any immediate feed back.

I have submitted, a few times, a suggestion for a tool to handle this in eServices, using already developed processes.
1. Member submits idea with documentation.
2. Member's Commander gets a notice of suggestion. Commander has 5 options - Approve, Approve with comments, Return for more information, Reject with comments, Do nothing.
3. Commander has two weeks to take action. If no action taken, suggestion goes to next level and member and commander are notified.
4. Repeat until suggestion reaches NHQ/DP, when procedures and timelines list in CAPM 39-1 take effect.
5. Member is notified at each step of action taken.
6. if Returned for more information, the member has two weeks to provide the information or process ends there. The updated information, when submitted, goes straight to the level that requested it, no starting over.

[Panache]

So holding people accountable for processing items and keeping folks in the loop is bad got it.

You misunderstand me.  I'm pretty much on your side in all of this.

I'm all for the "Make a Suggestion to the NUC" function.  And maybe even a simplified tracking system "Status: Pending / Under Review / Denied / etc."  but I don't think putting a suspense date is reasonable because the NUC only gets together at set times and when they do, they're going to have to go through a lot of suggestions.  While I would like to know that status of my submission, I understand that they'll get to it when they have the time to do so.

And, let's face it, pretty much anything done at NHQ moves at the speed of a glacier anyway.

One idea:  a dedicated "uniform suggestion" database that you have to go through before you make your suggestion, much like the system many online tech support agencies use ("have you checked the knowledgebase for your answer yet?").  Make the member check to see if their suggestion has already been made.  It'll save the NUC some time going through duplicate requests.

[lordmonar]

So holding people accountable for processing items and keeping folks in the loop is bad got it.  Sorry adding the requirement of a suspense timeline is there to ensure people are doing what they are suppose to be doing.  Membership should be kept informed on the status of the things they submit. Sorry but all it takes is one person in that chain to have a bad day or be get pissed and discourage a member because he/she followed up.  It is way to easy for someone to get the run around via phone or email on something they are trying to follow up on the way you believe it should be. If there was a system in place for it to be routed, it can not be canned by anyone but the NUC and the CC and provide feedback to the member suggesting it, you would see less bickering about uniform changes and recommendations.

Not what I said.  Not by a long shot.

Every leader should be providing feed back down the chain....be it a denied promotion/PD/Award/what ever.
But superiors are accountable to subordinates.    Sorry that's just the way it is.

Adding a Suspense Time line.......implies that you in fact have a standing Uniform Office......or a group of staff officers who do that job.  I know the USAF has one.   Someone who has a duty to respond in X number of days.

As for "It can not be canned by anyone but the NUC" just shows that you don't trust your leaders.  Maybe we should not trust them with promotions, decorations, mission planning or any of the other things they have to do.

I just don't see a suspense time line being very practical.  The USAF doesn't even do that....and they got a full time staff on the Air Staff........who by the way get ridiculed by the USAF every time they come up with a new project.  "we got XYZ wrong with the Air Force and these guys are coming up with the Billy Mitchel and Hap Arnold uniforms!"

[Panache]

oh how does one get to be on the NUC?

This is a good point.

Honestly, I think that having the NUC staffed by solely by Colonels and Lt. Colonels isn't really the best practice here.  I'm not disparaging those members, but it wouldn't be a bad idea to throw in a couple of members who have been in the organization for less time, or have a different (Squadron or Group-based) perspective.  Get some fresh ideas.

Let's have some Captains or 1st Lieutenants on the NUC.  Heck, maybe even a 2d Lieutenant.

Question:  Did the last NUC have any NCO members?

[lordmonar]

Don't know.....but one of my ideas for the NCO corps......one of their jobs, at least initially, would be the keepers of military customs and courtesies and the Uniform Police. 

So the Uniform Staff Office would be part of the CAP/CMSgt's job.   He/She would not chair the NUC...but would a voting member and primary member...maybe vice chair for want of another term.   He/She would handle the routine things about 39-1 that would not need to be staffed or sent to CC or NUC.

[abdsp51]

So holding people accountable for processing items and keeping folks in the loop is bad got it.  Sorry adding the requirement of a suspense timeline is there to ensure people are doing what they are suppose to be doing.  Membership should be kept informed on the status of the things they submit. Sorry but all it takes is one person in that chain to have a bad day or be get pissed and discourage a member because he/she followed up.  It is way to easy for someone to get the run around via phone or email on something they are trying to follow up on the way you believe it should be. If there was a system in place for it to be routed, it can not be canned by anyone but the NUC and the CC and provide feedback to the member suggesting it, you would see less bickering about uniform changes and recommendations.

Not what I said.  Not by a long shot.

Every leader should be providing feed back down the chain....be it a denied promotion/PD/Award/what ever.
But superiors are accountable to subordinates.    Sorry that's just the way it is.

Adding a Suspense Time line.......implies that you in fact have a standing Uniform Office......or a group of staff officers who do that job.  I know the USAF has one.   Someone who has a duty to respond in X number of days.

As for "It can not be canned by anyone but the NUC" just shows that you don't trust your leaders.  Maybe we should not trust them with promotions, decorations, mission planning or any of the other things they have to do.

I just don't see a suspense time line being very practical.  The USAF doesn't even do that....and they got a full time staff on the Air Staff........who by the way get ridiculed by the USAF every time they come up with a new project.  "we got XYZ wrong with the Air Force and these guys are coming up with the Billy Mitchel and Hap Arnold uniforms!"

MSgt Harris, I have been in long enough to not trust them especially after giving multiple supervisors, etc the benefit of the doubt.  And that was also with plenty of follow up on my part, there is trust and then trust but verify.  I give every new supervisor, superintendent, OIC, etc the benefit of the doubt until they show otherwise.  I don't believe in blind trust and haven't for awhile.  I follow up on anything that impacts my career both in my day job and here in CAP. 

What I mean by suspense with the NUC is that it cannot sit at any stage between the member and the NUC for a period of time.  In other words it can't sit at group, wing or region for longer than x days.  If it does then it's sent up higher, once it hits the NUC then its a matter of when they convene and lets face it they need to convene more often than xx years. 

Arajca has spelled out a system that my own CC had come up with along the lines when I first mentioned this.  The only thing I would remove is the reject aspect. 

Maybe if there were steps and measures in place for leadership, programs, processes, etc to be held accountable by the membership the org would function much better than it does.

[Eclipse]

The key is accountability, something woefully lacking in CAP.

The unit CC doesn't want to be bothered, so he says "it's Group's fault", Group blames Wing, and Wing just doesn't respond.
(Odd how Region is rarely in the conversations, isn't it?).

Companies actually interested in customer service can give you real-time status on the product - Dominios shows
you where the "pizza" is, Amazon gives you updates on the whole process.

A system that requires and shows the step-by-step status of "whatever" is what is needed in CAP
to reel in the blame game.

That, again, would put the onus on the unit CCs.  Commander would still be free to accept and pas-forward,
or deny things as they saw fit, but would have no way to blame others for the denials, and would then
have to deal with the members directly.

[JeffDG]

A system that requires and shows the step-by-step status of "whatever" is what is needed in CAP
to reel in the blame game.

Give me one week, a supply of Tim Horton's Coffee, and some pizza, and I can build this in Google Apps using Google Forms at a sum total cost of...let me see...carry the one...ZERO.

Unfortunately, the Echelons-Above-Reality won't accept it unless they pay some consultant at least 5 figures to do it.  Were a volunteer to do it, it would get caught up in the "not-invented-here" syndrome and die a painful death as various people would specifically engineer systems to prevent the volunteer-developed, free, system from functioning.

[a2capt]

^ That right there.

[Eclipse]

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Honestly, I think that having the NUC staffed by solely by Colonels and Lt. Colonels isn't really the best practice here.

Dare I say GOB/GN?

[Fubar]

Dare I say GOB/GN?

The Good Old Boy Network is designed to let those with power give their friends desired positions.

Who on earth would punish a friend by putting them on the National Uniform Committee?

[lordmonar]

Dare I say GOB/GN?

The Good Old Boy Network is designed to let those with power give their friends desired positions.

Who on earth would punish a friend by putting them on the National Uniform Committee?

Well......sometime the GOBN also let those with power punish those they don't like.   
But yes......who in their right mind would want to be on the NUC......and admit it to the general public?
Can you imagine getting blamed for all the BS we complain about here on CT as if it was their (sole) fault?

Just look at some of the comments made about axing the U.S. Flag.
And that was a simple no braining......the USAF does not wear a flag on their ABU/BDU uniform.  But there have been threats and accusations about their patriotism.

Cyborg and the G/W haters think that they are discriminating against them.....but they were not even empowered to make changes to the G/W......just to fix the discrepancies between the rules for the G/W and USAF uniform.

If I ever got asked to sit on the NUC......I would be very careful about who I told.   

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Cyborg and the G/W haters think that they are discriminating against them.....but they were not even empowered to make changes to the G/W......just to fix the discrepancies between the rules for the G/W and USAF uniform.

Discrimination?  No.  Hate the G/W?  Proudly guilty.

What "discrepancies" were there?  What was changed?  The G/W is the same status quo that it has been since 1995.

[lordmonar]

Cyborg and the G/W haters think that they are discriminating against them.....but they were not even empowered to make changes to the G/W......just to fix the discrepancies between the rules for the G/W and USAF uniform.

Discrimination?  No.  Hate the G/W?  Proudly guilty.

What "discrepancies" were there?  What was changed?  The G/W is the same status quo that it has been since 1995.

Sorry if I put you in with the "It's discrimination" crowd.

but your follow up makes my point......you only focus on the "sorry you can't wear USAF uniforms" and that's not what the NUC was formed to tackle.

The discrepancies like badge placement, differences between the USAF short sleeve shirt and the White Shirt.

That was as far as they were supposed to go.

They were supposed to bring in the ABU but that got axed.  It must be very frustrating to be on the NUC.

[ZigZag911]

All Cadets: AF style uniform

All Seniors: Corporate style (not necessarily GWs, we can design/discuss alternatives)

This would result in uniformity!

Suspense dates are unreasonable; acknowledgment of receiving suggestion would be a step in the right direction.

[Luis R. Ramos]

No uniformity is possible if cadets are wearing one uniform and senior members another!!!!!!!!

D'uh!!!!!!!!!!!!

[arajca]

No uniformity is possible if cadets are wearing one uniform and senior members another!!!!!!!!

D'uh!!!!!!!!!!!!

But it's a whole lot closer than what we have now.