Getting rid of the AF service uniform

[Strick]

Looking at the NB agenda, is CAP looking at getting rid of the AF service uniform and going to one?  or is this part of getting rid of the TPU and comming up with a alternative to the security stylye blazer AND GREY SLACKS? 

[RiverAux]

From the way this item was discussed (before being sent to the new Uniform Committee), I get the idea that our leaders want to make a run at getting all CAP members BACK in the AF service uniform.  One of the proponents quoted an AF instruction allowing exceptions to be made to allow AF members who don't meet height or weight standards to wear the uniform. 

[capmaj]

10 years of National debate, here we come!!!!

[PHall]

By what logic did you come up with that?

There are a few Wing Commanders who are pushing for a reinstatement of the CSU or a replacement with another version of it.
But those are just proposals.

And CAP-USAF has made their views on this matter pretty clear, as in NO WAY, AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.

And from what I have been able to pick up about what happened to the various uniform proposals, most if not all were sent to the Uniform Committee.

[wuzafuzz]

Waiving height/weight still leaves the issue of grooming standards unresolved.  There will always be people with long hair or facial hair that still want a uniform that allows the display of bling.  Or would they be relegated to polos and blazers?

I'll believe it when I see it. 

[RiverAux]

I was just reporting what I heard.  But, to be clear, they didn't explicitly say they were going to try to get all CAP members in the AF service dress, but there was no other reason for him to quote that AFI if that wasn't one thing they were considering.  Granted, the phrasing in the agenda is much more vague and I'm sure that they will discuss other options. 

[Eclipse]

Waiving height/weight still leaves the issue of grooming standards unresolved.  There will always be people with long hair or facial hair that still want a uniform that allows the display of bling.  Or would they be relegated to polos and blazers?

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

We will never please everyone, but this pleases most.

[flyboy53]

I didn't get that idea from watching the NB. I guess I would wish that we as an organization could get beyond this issue of uniforms.

The era of the TPU/CSU represents one of the most teeth gnashing eras in our organiation's history. In the end, the wounds are deep and it got us nowhere.  Also, it seems that every time this subject comes up, the next thing that happens is that someone starts the idea of moving away from the Air Force.

The sad thing is that wearing the uniform is a priviledge. I never understood why people chose to push the envelope on the subject. People need to weigh the ramifications. It could have disasterous impact on governmental/Air Force support, the cadet program and membership retention.

This especially true at a time when some State Guard Divisions are already doing some of CAPs types of missions and are developing like organizations to augment the ANG. We could loose big just because of Coast Guard Auxiliary-like uniforms.  Besides, if I had really wanted to be part of the Coast Guard Auxiliary, I would have done it sooner because the nearest floatilla is only 12 miles away.

Maybe I should. We as the membership are already raked over the coals, being forced to deal with a single retailer/manufacturer, which also gives the NHQ a cut of what we buy in uniform insignia or "branded" insignia and clothing items. I don't see National coming back to the membership with rebate checks related to the profits we generate through our purchases.

Coming up with another stupid uniform (even item) has worn my patience to the end. Can't we just stop!

[RiverAux]

Not sure what CG Aux uniform you're talking about. 

[Major Carrales]

Not sure what CG Aux uniform you're talking about.

The fellow is making reference to the double breasted CSU service coat.

[ZigZag911]

Watching the presentation on-line re: a single uniform, here were my impressions:

1) there is support for getting all CAP members into a single set of uniforms (dress, utility, flight suit)

2) the ideal would be to allow all CAP members AF style uniforms under the AFI waiver referenced in the NB presentation

3) if #2 does not or can not happen, the inference I drew is that other avenues of getting all CAP into one set of uniforms will be actively explored.

[Major Carrales]

Watching the presentation on-line re: a single uniform, here were my impressions:

1) there is support for getting all CAP members into a single set of uniforms (dress, utility, flight suit)

A worthy goal.  Self identification for CAP need not mean running from the USAF.  However, remember that traditionally, since the start, CAP has worn USAAF and USAF uniforms.  That will be a "sticky wicket" to change.

2) the ideal would be to allow all CAP members AF style uniforms under the AFI waiver referenced in the NB presentation

The issue of CAP members who do not meet the criteria is also an issue that will be precarious.

3) if #2 does not or can not happen, the inference I drew is that other avenues of getting all CAP into one set of uniforms will be actively explored.

Remember, as with the phase out of the CSU, members who own USAF-STYLE uniforms  (and in that case these are thousands) will be, as an organization, out literally millions of dollars in uniform items if there is a Phase out of them in favor of some "new suit."  I would recommend a phaseout window of 10 years to remedy that, however, such a long phase out will defeat the purpose of consolidation by intoducing yet another uniform making the largest gamut of CAP uniforms in history during that time.

[Eclipse]

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.

[Eclipse]

Remember, as with the phase out of the CSU, members who own USAF-STYLE uniforms  (and in that case these are thousands) will be, as an organization, out literally millions of dollars in uniform items if there is a Phase out of them in favor of some "new suit."  I would recommend a phaseout window of 10 years to remedy that, however, such a long phase out will defeat the purpose of consolidation by intoducing yet another uniform making the largest gamut of CAP uniforms in history during that time.

I know its splitting hairs, but it won't remotely be "millions" - assuming all 55k members spent $300 on service dress, that's only $1.65M, and we know that only a small percentage of the members have ever spent that much on uniforms.  Many exist on a few shirts and pants their whole careers, and you have to take out cadets, distinctive, and the golf-shirt-only crowd, and of course most members would not buy the whole new kit either.

Its a financial impact, but a 2-3 year phase-in matches the wear-out of an active member anyway.

[Ned]

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.

Non-sequitor.

The issue of larger members and the uniform has nothing whatever to do with "shaming the corporation."  Different classes of uniform simply do not equate to "shame" anymore that the fact that the Marines dress differently than the Navy invariably means one of them is shameful.  (After all, they are both in the Navy Department.) 

And of course, we are not talking about just our larger members.  Members who do not choose to follow USAF grooming standards similarly wear corporate alternatives.  You are not suggesting it is "shameful" to have a beard or long hair, are you?

And even if what you say was somehow true, it is simply not an issue of  larger members "shaming" the corporation, but arguably the USAF's decision that they do not want larger or out-of-grooming persons in the USAF-based uniform.

Bob, I'm not trying to sharpshoot you here.  I value your wisdom and service in one of CAP's most difficult jobs.  But it doesn't help to toss value-laden words like "shame" into the mix when no one in CAP is trying to "shame" anyone.  All of us are just volunteers trying to get missions accomplished.  CAP is the organization that came up with the CSU to allow a professional-looking uniform for anyone who wanted to wear it.

Obviously that didn't work out quite the way we wanted it to, but the point is that CAP has a record of trying to accomodate all of our members with dignity and professionalism.

Your post makes us seem like the bad guys.

And that's not fair.

[Spike]

Waiving height/weight still leaves the issue of grooming standards unresolved.  There will always be people with long hair or facial hair that still want a uniform that allows the display of bling.  Or would they be relegated to polos and blazers?

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

We will never please everyone, but this pleases most.

I agree with you 100%  Being clean shaven in exchange for wearing AF-Style will effect/affect many less than would be of the overweight crowd. 

[Spike]

Ned....

I almost agree with you.  However, being forced into uniforms so much more different than AF-style is unfair.  Unlike our skinny, clean shaven members who have choices, we overweight, bearded members are FORCED into a particular uniform.  (I am not overweight, nor have a beard, but understand what those who are feel like).  It does create a second class member feeling.  Until you are told that "you can not wear AF-Style" you will never understand what it feels like. 

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Re H/W issues: Sometimes that is something a person has control over (sucking down too many Big Macs and spending too much time sitting in front of CAPTalk  ) and sometimes it isn't (genetics, medication side effects and good ol' middle-age spread).

But for the most part grooming issues are in one's control.

I think the two issues should be separated to some degree.

The question is: Do you choose to cut your hair and get out the Gillette for the privilege of wearing a military-type uniform, or do you choose to stay hirsute?  When I joined CAP, I had long hair and a beard.  I got rid of both so I could enjoy that privilege.  Now that I'm grey and balding, I keep it cut pretty short to the skin anyway.

Of course, there are people who, for religious reasons, have a certain hairstyle/beard like Hasidic Jews and the Amish.  I think some sort of effort should be made to accomodate that on a case-by-case basis (though we won't be seeing any Amish joining CAP).

As for the CSU, is it really a dead duck in all forms?  I believe that the hard rank/blue epaulettes/blue nameplate are history.  But what about the "modified" version that General Courter presented, with grey epaulettes and nameplate?  I wore mine that way for the first time to a squadron meeting this past week and got several compliments that it looked good that way.

As well, several of my colleagues who currently wear the grey/white expressed interest in changing to that if adopted (including one with a beard, who said he'd be willing to shave his).  One guy said "I never understood what grey had to do with CAP or the Air Force anyway."

[Hawk200]

...it is simply not an issue of  larger members "shaming" the corporation, but arguably the USAF's decision that they do not want larger or out-of-grooming persons in the USAF-based uniform.

There probably aren't many issues of larger people "shaming" the organization just because of their size.  Most shame is the uniform being worn improperly, and there is nothing anywhere that proves that overweight folks are wholly and exclusively responsible or ever will.

Many people are manufacturing garbage and lies in an attempt to shame the Air Force into allowing the blues for everyone.

The problem is that people feel that they can demand or claim a right that they don't have. Unfortunately, society is teaching people this nowadays. Membership is a priviledge, not a right. Wear of blues is the same thing.

No one in the Civil Air Patrol has the right to demand anything from the Air Force. It amazes me how bass ackwards many people here are, thinking that they can.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Also, it seems that every time this subject comes up, the next thing that happens is that someone starts the idea of moving away from the Air Force.

Yes.  That's been happening since at least the early '90s, to the detriment of CAP and our relationship with the AF.

The ones I notice doing that tend to be strictly ES-orientated and not concerned with either AE or the cadet side, and find the issue of the AF connections (especially where uniforms are concerned) to be more of an annoyance than something to be proud of.  I'm not saying all are like that, but the ones I've encountered tend to be as such.