Getting rid of the AF service uniform

[Spike]

Hawk200....

Harsh words.  If you can remember back, large people were allowed in AF-Style years ago.  It was then taken away by the AF becasue they don't like fat people.  It is as simple as that.

The AF has on numerous accounts "slapped" CAP for the mistakes of a few.  Some here can attest to that becasue they were members before 1985.

As far as creating one uniform or getting fat but well groomed members into AF-Style I see that as a positive move.  When I can look out my office window and see an Airman who is larger than any member I have in my Squadron wearing a USAF uniform, I wonder what the "deal" is with CAP.

When we are talking about being 20 pounds over the allowable weight limit for AF-Style that is silly.  I have a member who is a personal trainer at a gym, but because he has more muscle than all of my members combined is not allowed in AF-style.  He could wear it, but he is an honest person.

The AF needs to recognize we are volunteers who pay for the privelage to be part of thier team.  I think we need to focus our corporate efforts at making CAP a more recognizable AF team member.

 

[Ned]

Ned....

I almost agree with you.  However, being forced into uniforms so much more different than AF-style is unfair. 

I agree that some members may feel the situation is unfair.  My point is that - if it is unfair - then it isn't CAP that is being unfair.  CAP has gone out of its way (and been slapped down for it) to create professional looking uniforms that all members can wear.

It just doesn't do any good for us to beat each other up over this issue trying to decide who has been "shamed" and which of us are the "shamers."  That just divides us when we should be serving together. 

I wasn't in DC. but it sounds like there will be a new initative to get the AF back to the standards that existed for  most of our history - allowing all of our members who meet grooming standards to wear the AF-style uniforms.

That may or may not work.  But it is a the right way to go.

Let's support that process, not point fingers amongst ourselves.

[SarDragon]

I have a beard for a couple of different reasons. 1. It improves my appearance. That is the opinion of others, as well as myself. 2. My face no longer hurts every morning from shaving. No matter what method I used, my face got seriously irritated, because I have a very tough beard and tender shin. Every professional barber who has ever shaved my face has refused to do it a second time. We're talking straight razors here. One for each side of my face. Not a trivial situation.

[Short Field]

The expectation of shaving and getting a haircut in return for letting all of our members wear the same uniform is a reasonable compromise.

Baloney! 

[High Speed Low Drag]

The sad thing is that wearing the uniform is a priviledge. I never understood why people chose to push the envelope on the subject.

Because the recognition and privilege for service should be equal for all members, especially in consideration that in a lot of wings, the
hardest-charging members are out of weight and that means they either can't wear the USAF combos, or are doing so despite the rules.

I would assert that if the grooming regulations were actually enforced properly, there would be a lot less people wearing the USAF combos, and a lot more effort towards a consolidated uniform, but instead we choose to look the other way and "punish" the people who actually follow the rules with an inadequate uniform.

Unless you agree with the assertion that heavy members are less valuable and "shame" the image of the corporation, then the idea of two classes of uniforms is unfair and misguided.

People need to weigh the ramifications. It could have disasterous impact on governmental/Air Force support, the cadet program and membership retention.

If our value as a partner to the USAF is somehow lessoned because of the uniform we wear, there are more important conversations
to be had than the uniform itself, especially in that we are willing but unable.

I have to agree completely.  And Spike said it as well.  First, there is an inherent inequity when some members can wear all of their appropriate insignia and others cannot.  I want to look good.  I want to wear my accomplishments - I always read others'.  Fruit salad and insignia, to a degree, is a "resume" of activity; why can't I wear my resume because I have medical issues that preclude my fitting into a USAF uniform?

When I was a street officer, I wore the exact same uniform as the guy that went to the gym everyday.  Did my being "fat" prevent me from making arrests?  Did it mean I was not as good as the skinny guy?  Did it mean I could not fight just as effectively as the skinny guy?  No - As a matter of fact I typically caught more suspects in foot chases then a lot of the skinny guys.  All of my brass was polished, my boots were signed, and my uniform pressed.  I looked better than a lot of the skinny guys - and I feel no different from them.   But I come to CAP where I am told that because I am over the weight standards, I have to wear a different unifrom with different rules than someone that is lighter in weight.

I remember (and have commented before) WIWAC in the '80s, everyone wore the same uniform.  Now we have the skinny/trimmed uniforms and the fat/fuzzy uniforms.  And the fat/fuzzy uniforms have different rules. And that is not inequality?  Explain how that contributes to esprit-de-corps.

[SarDragon]

The fuzzies had the smurf suit and the blazer in the '80s. Everything else was off limits.

[Spike]

The fuzzies had the smurf suit and the blazer in the '80s. Everything else was off limits.

You are mistaken. 

[SarDragon]

I sit corrected. Fatigues w/o grade were also authorized. (I am completely ignoring the "Summer Uniform" intentionally. It sucked worse than the smurf suit.)

[Spike]

^ Yes the "summer uniform" was rather "casual"! 

However, you can probably find the items in a Tommy Bahama store if you miss it.   

[Short Field]

A rule of thumb from days gone by when I would inspect Airmen for 35-10 violations: if a white guy had a good looking mustache, it was out of regs.  Period, end of story.  Now people want to deny me the opportunity to donate my time and money to CAP because I want a good looking mustache and have no problem wearing a corporate uniform to do so???

[Spike]

^ I am under the impression that mustaches are allowed?!?

I don't understand the reasoning why a "white guy" would not be allowed a mustache in the Air Force?  Is that an inside joke or a AF thing?

[TACP]

A rule of thumb from days gone by when I would inspect Airmen for 35-10 violations:

Looks like it's been a while since you refreshed yourself; we don't even use a 35-10 anymore. Mustache is allowed in all AF uniforms, if kept in w/in grooming standards.

[Майор Хаткевич]

^ I am under the impression that mustaches are allowed?!?

I don't understand the reasoning why a "white guy" would not be allowed a mustache in the Air Force?  Is that an inside joke or a AF thing?

I'm assuming it's because any stache within regs looks like a Hitler stache and rather comical, hence a good looking one is out of regs.

[Short Field]

Like I said, if it looks good on a white guy, it was out of regs.  NEVER did I say anything about a mustache not being allowed.   I never inspected anyone using whatever instruction or regulation they use in the USAF today so why should I bother trying to say up on them??  Refresh myself??

[Eclipse]

Like I said, if it looks good on a white guy, it was out of regs.  NEVER did I say anything about a mustache not being allowed.   I never inspected anyone using whatever instruction or regulation they use in the USAF today so why should I bother trying to say up on them??  Refresh myself??

Why are these racist statements being included in this discussion?  Mustaches are allowed even for the USAF combos in CAP.  What other services do is irrelevant, and your comments are offensive.

[SarDragon]

I'm assuming it's because any stache within regs looks like a Hitler stache and rather comical, hence a good looking one is out of regs.

That is exactly correct. When I was in the Navy, the 'stache regs were a bit more liberal in the width specification. As a member of an overseas unit on an AF base, my commander initially encouraged me to conform to CAPM 39-1. After seeing what I looked like with an in-reg 'stache, he let me grow it back and ignored that small infraction from then on. Fortunately, no pictures exist of that particular facial iteration.

Many of the 'staches I saw on AF guys there were also out of reg.

The comment was a factual observation. I doubt there was any racist intent.

YMMV.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

A rule of thumb from days gone by when I would inspect Airmen for 35-10 violations: if a white guy had a good looking mustache, it was out of regs.  Period, end of story.

I am hoping that you are referring to the exemption that some black men can claim from AF shaving standards (in BMT, anyway) because their facial hair can ingrow and become infected.  Otherwise, the topic can get very ugly when it doesn't need to.

I see a lot of people in all five services with neat, well-trimmed 'taches.

[SarDragon]

The point is that moustaches can be neat and well trimmed, and still be too wide to meet the reg. And that there are neat, well trimmed, in-reg moustaches that look like crap. What's a guy to do? 

[JoeTomasone]

This is something of a moot argument.  Even if USAF declared today that from this point forward, CAP members could be overweight and wear the USAF style uniform as long as they were properly groomed, many members would choose not to groom.   That *still* means that we'd need a uniform for them to wear, and we're still back at square one.

The whole "exception" based on a "professional appearance" still would not apply to members with wild hair or beards.  And, quite frankly, I don't think that having Commanders having to make judgment calls on their members as to their "professional appearance" is in the best interests of a volunteer organization due to the vague and subjective nature of the standard.   If SQ/CC#1 declares that Member Y does not present a "professional appearance", but Member Y shows pictures of Member Z that SQ/CC#2 said DID present a professional appearance and Member Y believes that he presents more of a professional appearance....   I think you get the idea.   Do we now start "Squadron Shopping" until we find a Commander that likes us?   What if a new Commander comes in who is more conservative with this rule?  What if it's a new Group or Wing Commander?   

Having quantifiable standards takes the onus off of the Commander, whose job is to ensure that the unit is operating at peak efficiency and that the volunteers in the Command are mission-focused, not worrying about if they will meet the a subjective "standard" tomorrow or not. 

[Eclipse]

This is something of a moot argument.  Even if USAF declared today that from this point forward, CAP members could be overweight and wear the USAF style uniform as long as they were properly groomed, many members would choose not to groom.   That *still* means that we'd need a uniform for them to wear, and we're still back at square one.

The key term is "choose", its much easier to shave than lose 50 lbs, especially when you are older.  The number of seniors who would choose not to shave is  infinitesimally small compared to those who would be helpd by a relaxation of the weight tables for USAF combos.

You have to draw the line somewhere.  80-year old pilots, and no beards or ponytails seems fairly resonable for a professionalized volunteer military auxiliary.   Accept the attrition and move on.