drivel... was: Navy Awards on Cap Uniform

[Майор Хаткевич]

Perhaps this makes me a terrible commander, who picks and chooses what suits my needs.  But Ive had members who were a little plump fit nicely in to the USAF uniform.  But they still looked good, pressed, cleaned, shined, haircut.   I never said a thing about it.  Yes...... I should have been stripped of all command responsibility    I was more concerned that they were contributing members.

Probably. Because the guy next to him in G/Ws thought you didn't have the cherries to deal with it.

[Eclipse]

Heh..."cherries"

[SarDragon]

We have a member who has multiple Distinguished Flying Crosses (Vietnam) but he can't wear them.  It's sad really.

Absolutely concur.

Maybe it's because AFI 36-2903 doesn't authorize the wear of ribbons on civilian attire?  Is there an authorization in there for that?

AFI 36-2903 does authorize the wear of ribbons and medals on civilian attire. I'll let you look it up.

I did. Allowable modes of dress do not resemble, in any way, the G/W CAP combination.

[Mitchell 1969]

Perhaps this makes me a terrible commander, who picks and chooses what suits my needs.  But Ive had members who were a little plump fit nicely in to the USAF uniform.  But they still looked good, pressed, cleaned, shined, haircut.   I never said a thing about it.  Yes...... I should have been stripped of all command responsibility    I was more concerned that they were contributing members.

I'm convinced that most of this issue would never even be an issue in the first place even by allowing people outside of standards to wear the USAF uniform, but for one point. By the way, it's the same point that causes people to comment now upon seeing people noticeably not meeting the standards.

Simply put, it's all about....fit. Not being fit, although that would be nice. Even simpler than that - we wouldn't have ended up in this ridiculous "dualiform" situation had there been insistence in people wearing uniforms that fit.

As the (modified) saying goes - you can't put 20 pounds of rice in a 10 pound sack.

The appearance problem isn't because a guy has a large waist. It's a problem when a guy with a large waist tries to shovel himself into a pair of trousers or a shirt two sizes two small. It's a CAP problem of long standing.

Our definition of "new uniform" is different than the definition used by service members. We wear them maybe 50-70 times per year for literally hours at a time. So, the uniforms that only have been worn 6 hours per month are still relatively "new" well into 12-18 months later. But, if the owner has added 10-20 pounds in that same period of time, the uniform no longer fits. "Next time I buy uniforms for CAP, I'm gonna have to buy a bigger size. Or maybe I should go on Atkins. Or do some sit-ups or something. Oops, gonna be late for the squadron meeting..." The Atkins and sit-ups get forgotten, and the "next time" for buying uniforms is another 12 months out ("They're in great shape, no need to replace them.") Meanwhile, the guy has added another 10 pounds.

If there was a way to hold people to wearing USAF uniforms in their ACTUAL size, the image problem would be improved far greater than sending those people into G/Ws (many of which get outgrown and not replaced already, simply transferring the problem).

The appropriate standard should not be "If you can get into it, wear it" as we have all seen people do. The standard should be "If it actually fits, you may wear it."

[Flying Pig]

Perhaps this makes me a terrible commander, who picks and chooses what suits my needs.  But Ive had members who were a little plump fit nicely in to the USAF uniform.  But they still looked good, pressed, cleaned, shined, haircut.   I never said a thing about it.  Yes...... I should have been stripped of all command responsibility    I was more concerned that they were contributing members.

Probably. Because the guy next to him in G/Ws thought you didn't have the cherries to deal with it.

If thats whats constitutes having "cherries" in your world, stick to your Xbox

[Garp]

We have a member who has multiple Distinguished Flying Crosses (Vietnam) but he can't wear them.  It's sad really.

Absolutely concur.

Maybe it's because AFI 36-2903 doesn't authorize the wear of ribbons on civilian attire?  Is there an authorization in there for that?

AFI 36-2903 does authorize the wear of ribbons and medals on civilian attire. I'll let you look it up.

Well, thanks for bring so helpful    1.4.9 specifically forbids mixing military and civilian items.  Grade must have been exceptionally authorized in the past, but I don't see any authorization for badges and ribbons in there.  Medals seem to be authorized under 11.4, but not ribbons or badges

[PHall]

We have a member who has multiple Distinguished Flying Crosses (Vietnam) but he can't wear them.  It's sad really.

Absolutely concur.

Maybe it's because AFI 36-2903 doesn't authorize the wear of ribbons on civilian attire?  Is there an authorization in there for that?

AFI 36-2903 does authorize the wear of ribbons and medals on civilian attire. I'll let you look it up.

Well, thanks for bring so helpful    1.4.9 specifically forbids mixing military and civilian items.  Grade must have been exceptionally authorized in the past, but I don't see any authorization for badges and ribbons in there.  Medals seem to be authorized under 11.4, but not ribbons or badges

11.4 is what I was refering to.  If a member is a military retiree, they can wear their medals on civilian clothing.
But, IMO this would not include a CAP "Corperate" uniform. Simply because it is a "uniform". YMMV.

[Panache]

11.4 is what I was refering to.  If a member is a military retiree, they can wear their medals on civilian clothing.
But, IMO this would not include a CAP "Corperate" uniform. Simply because it is a "uniform". YMMV.

HQ has been quite clear in the past that the G/Ws are not meant to be a "alternate military-style uniform."

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

If there was a way to hold people to wearing USAF uniforms in their ACTUAL size, the image problem would be improved far greater than sending those people into G/Ws (many of which get outgrown and not replaced already, simply transferring the problem).

The appropriate standard should not be "If you can get into it, wear it" as we have all seen people do. The standard should be "If it actually fits, you may wear it."

And there is a way to do this.  On my last visit to MCSS, I have seen service coats and trousers made in XL sizes; I believe I have even seen trousers in size 50.

As I have said before, I remember seeing people in my former ANG unit many, many moons ago who were clearly out of H/W standards.  One AGR TSgt in Personnel would not have fit into CAP H/W standards, let alone Air Force.  I remember seeing Colonels wearing very large-size uniforms.  Of course, what could I say to them?  "Sir, you are clearly too fat for that uniform?"  Sure, right.  Of course, I was a scrawny little figure in BDU's then...no kidding, they hung on me like a tent.

1.4.9 specifically forbids mixing military and civilian items.

We already do it.  The Air Force blue tie is authorised with the G/W, as is the Cardigan Sweater.

Hypocrisy?

[Garp]

Cardigan is not allowed with grade.   Blue tie is just that, a blue tie, although the description is pretty darn close to USAF  .  There is no visible link to military service.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Cardigan is not allowed with grade.   Blue tie is just that, a blue tie, although the description is pretty darn close to USAF  .  There is no visible link to military service.

I checked the new 39-1 and you are correct.  That must have changed.

However, I was correct regarding the tie:

4.2.3.6. Tie. Either the CAP regimental tie or AF blue tie. A tie is mandatory with this uniform combination unless wearing the turtleneck. A tie tack or tie clasp may be worn with the tie. If worn, the tie tack or clasp will have the CAP coat of arms, the "wing and star" design, the AF symbol, or appropriate rank insignia. The tie tack or clasp will be centered between the bottom edge of the knot and the bottom tip of the tie.4.2.3.7.

[Eclipse]

4.2.5.4 clarifies that the regimental abomination is >only< worn with the service coat Realtor's jacket blazer, not the whites.

Which means if you're one of those people who thinks the blazer is a service coat, and wears
decs and grade underneath, you can't wear the regimental tie if you intend to take off your jacket.

Seen it, plenty.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

4.2.5.4 clarifies that the regimental abomination is >only< worn with the service coat, not the whites.

Which means if you're one of those people who thinks the blazer is a service coat, and wears
decs and grade underneath, you can't wear the regimental tie if you intend to take off your jacket.

Seen it, plenty.

Just a way to make an already ugly "uniform" uglier...

[AlphaSigOU]

Cardigan is not allowed with grade.   Blue tie is just that, a blue tie, although the description is pretty darn close to USAF  .  There is no visible link to military service.

Essentially, it is the AF-spec blue tie with herringbone pattern. (The herringbone pattern is visible in certain reflected light angles.)

[Mitchell 1969]

If there was a way to hold people to wearing USAF uniforms in their ACTUAL size, the image problem would be improved far greater than sending those people into G/Ws (many of which get outgrown and not replaced already, simply transferring the problem).

The appropriate standard should not be "If you can get into it, wear it" as we have all seen people do. The standard should be "If it actually fits, you may wear it."

And there is a way to do this.  On my last visit to MCSS, I have seen service coats and trousers made in XL sizes; I believe I have even seen trousers in size 50.

Alas, I fear "Give a mouse a cookie" syndrome. If we allowed wearing up to max available size that fits, then size 50 is end of the line. Except there will always be those who will say "Yeah, 50, but I'm 52 and I can probably squeeze into it," then there will be the guy saying "I'm 54, but I can buy the 50's and have them let out to 52, and I can squeeze into those..." Which would be and enough, but he wouldn't even get around to doing that, trying to put 54 into 50.

[Garp]

4.2.5.4 clarifies that the regimental abomination is >only< worn with the service coat Realtor's jacket blazer, not the whites.

Which means if you're one of those people who thinks the blazer is a service coat, and wears
decs and grade underneath, you can't wear the regimental tie if you intend to take off your jacket.

Seen it, plenty.

Why "abomination"?  http://www.bensilver.com/The-Corps-and-Regiments-Bow-Ties.html

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Fine...if you're in the British/Canadian/Australian/New Zealand Army, Royal Marines, RAF, RCAF, RAAF, RNZAF, etc.

In Commonwealth countries, when you join (especially) the Army, you often spend your entire career with one regiment; i.e., the French-Canadian Royal 22nd Regiment, or the British Army Blues and Royals.

Trying to stick a regimental tie on the Realtor combo is doing exactly the opposite of what it is supposed to be...non-military.

[Eclipse]

4.2.5.4 clarifies that the regimental abomination is >only< worn with the service coat Realtor's jacket blazer, not the whites.

Which means if you're one of those people who thinks the blazer is a service coat, and wears
decs and grade underneath, you can't wear the regimental tie if you intend to take off your jacket.

Seen it, plenty.

Why "abomination"?  http://www.bensilver.com/The-Corps-and-Regiments-Bow-Ties.html

My point exactly...

[Garp]

http://www.medalsofamerica.com/SubCategory--Military-Ties--m-1472. 

The blazer is intended to be non-military, right?   The tradition of unit ties is specifically for civilian clothes, right?

[AlphaSigOU]

In Jolly Old Blighty - ahem - the United Kingdom, social etiquette takes a very dim view of anyone wearing a regimental, club or university tie if the individual is not entitled to wear one. The CAP 'regimental' tie is considered 'fractionally off' the design used by the British Army's Brigade of Guards.


Brigade of Guards regimental tie:


CAP regimental tie: