The New CAPM 39-1 Now Available

Started by MisterCD, June 26, 2014, 05:25:56 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

foo

Quote from: Eclipse on June 29, 2014, 02:21:57 AM
Quote from: neummy on June 29, 2014, 01:30:41 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on June 29, 2014, 01:03:52 AM
Quote from: neummy on June 28, 2014, 08:53:41 PM
Quote from: Panache on June 27, 2014, 04:07:06 AM
As CAP apparently couldn't care less about how those second-class members who have to wear the G/Ws ...

How does wearing the G/Ws make one a "second-class" member? I prefer not to wear the military-style uniforms. Am I supposed to be feeling bad about that?

You "prefer" , there's a difference between "choosing" and "not having a choice".

That's obvious, but it doesn't answer the question.

Yes, it does.

Those with the option to wear whatever combo they like, have the option.  If they choose to do some mental
gymnastics about why they don't want to wear the USAF-Style uniforms, whatever, that's their choice.

No, it doesn't.

All you did was reiterate why some individuals feel like second-class members because they're butting up against a minimum requirement prohibiting them from something they want to do. And, clearly, the only "mental gymnastics" going on here is on the part of folks fussing over not meeting those requirements. That's one thing, and maybe it's understandable to an extent. But I reject the idea that wearing the corporate uniforms inherently renders one "second class" in this civilian organization.

Eclipse

Quote from: neummy on June 30, 2014, 12:28:47 AMThat's one thing, and maybe it's understandable to an extent. But I reject the idea that wearing the corporate uniforms inherently renders one "second class" in this civilian paramilitary organization.

FTFY

How nice you feel that way, especially considering you have a choice.

Are the uniforms equal in configuration and only different from a color perspective?

Do they present a different public image even though there is no internal difference in duty, authority, or service?

Is one combination so preferred by many over the other that they are willing to risk breaking regulations and their integrity
instead of just wearing the other "equal" uniform?

Your answer is in those answers.

"That Others May Zoom"

SunDog

I have a generic polo shirt, if one of you guys want it? It's blue, at least, and has a nifty little pocket.  PM me and I'll mail it to you for free. It's an XL, by the way.

Add gray slacks and black shoes, and you'll never have another uniform issue, unless you like wing conferences and similiar events?  Come over to the dark side - you could take some pictures of the senior porkers wearing AF blues, and put 'em up on social media. Act like you were just posting pics of the event, let the pics tell the story?  Can't imagine anyone will care, though. . .unless some USAF type gets his knickers in a knot . . .say. . . .no, that would be wrong. . .

I got a pic of a fellow MP with flowing gray locks and a beard, striding out in a USAF flight suit. . .

The CyBorg is destroyed

Quote from: Eclipse on June 30, 2014, 12:48:15 AM
How nice you feel that way, especially considering you have a choice.

Again, well-stated, sir.

I have been in CAP off-and-on for 20 years now.

In all those years, I have never heard anyone, in any squadron I have served in, actually say they like the G/W and blazer setup.

Usually, the following reasons are given for wearing it.

1. It's cheap.
2. It's easy to put together since it's largely non-standardised; almost any white shirt and grey trousers will do.
3. I have to, since I'm out of height/weight/grooming regulations to wear the AF blue uniform.
4. I don't want to look "military."
5. I don't want to bother with customs and courtesies (which is a fictive reason anyway).

None of those reasons connote "pride" or "esprit de corps," as I see it.
Exiled from GLR-MI-011

lordmonar

And the circle is complete.

So.....what's the solution guys?

You are now the National Commander......make the call......and really deal with the fall out.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

The CyBorg is destroyed

Quote from: lordmonar on June 30, 2014, 04:45:33 AM
And the circle is complete.

So.....what's the solution guys?

You are now the National Commander......make the call......and really deal with the fall out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=gCNeJmLAsBo#

Sorry...couldn't resist.
Exiled from GLR-MI-011

lordmonar

I'm sorry guys...but we keep comming back to this.

Nothing has changed....the same three less then optimal choices.

a) Ditch the USAF uniforms
b) Ditch the out of weight and grooming people
c) Keep the status quo.


PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Eclipse

#227
Quote from: lordmonar on June 30, 2014, 04:45:33 AM
....make the call......and really deal with the fall out.

Which is what the National CC should do, make the call.

Go to the USAF and discuss the height/weight and actually request, formally, that all members be in the same uniform.
Instead of conjecture about what might be refused, or "they told us 'no' over coffee", etc., submit the request and
insure it is formally addressed and responded to.

Depending on their response, then it will either be "all in blue" or "all in gray".  Lots of people will be unhappy, but lots
of people are already unhappy, it's time they at least knew who was making them unhappy.

The process should be 100% open, and done publicly, including all requests and responses from all parties,
this is, after all, a volunteer paramilitary organization which depends on the benevolence of its members for
its existence, not some intelligence hearings about Ukraine.  Nothing about the uniforms should be a "secret".

Then, once CAP has a "uniform", whatever it is, this conversation never have has to occur again.

If the USAF came out publicly and simply said "This situation is out of CAP's hands, we choose to
perpetuate the status quo and there will be no change to a single uniform as long as it is our call...".
then at least everyone would know where the blame lies, and the situation could be addressed
from a different vector (i.e. DOD, Congress, whatever).

Until then, because no one wants to be blamed, or risk being sad or making someone else sad, it
all lies in a dark corner and everyone can privately blame everyone else, while never actually doing anything.

There is, of course, the possibility that the BOG doesn't >want< a single uniform, for whatever reason,
and if that's the case, so be it, that's their call to make, but then they should own it.

"That Others May Zoom"

lordmonar

And the mission continues.

Do you see my point?
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

abdsp51

Quote from: lordmonar on June 30, 2014, 04:51:53 AM
I'm sorry guys...but we keep comming back to this.

Nothing has changed....the same three less then optimal choices.

a) Ditch the USAF uniforms
b) Ditch the out of weight and grooming people
c) Keep the status quo.

Either way someone is pissed.  Honestly IMHO the org has done a good job of having some type of alternate uniform for all of membership.  Whether it be the AF style for those who can wear them or the corp style for those who can't due to some reason or another or those who chose to.  The status quo while not the best COA seems to be the best currently for the org. 

Now do I have a choice yes I do.  I have the choice to wear either corp or AF style, I own different sets of both.  I choose to wear the Af style as I work primarily directly with cadets and feel that the AF style is a common ground.  I wear it properly and make sure that it's within reg when I do.  I also have the corp I wear from time to time as well for whatever reason that may be, but again I wear within regs. 

Now if I was the NHQ/CC some of the changes I would make in regards to uniforms would be:

1) Find a middle ground somewhere between corp and AF style all around

2) Change the way recommendations for uniform changes are submitted.  This would be either a central point for membership to recommend changes or changing the language in 39-1 to state that all uniform suggestions will be sent to the NUC and no one can deny membership that process.  IE if a member has a recommendation, change etc, only the NUC can decide whether or not to pursue it, and no one can squash it between the member and the NUC.  There would be a suspense control in place or developed for the member to track the status of their submission.

3) Require weigh-ins for all members above 18yo who desire to wear the AF style uniform until the implementation of a unified uniform.  Also members would be required to sign a form stating that they will comply with uniform policies or face some degree of personnel action. 

4) Any wing desiring specialized uniforms (ground teams, etc) would be required to submit with solid justification a supplement for approval.  Justification needs to be a state statute, county ordinance, etc for the implementation of said uniforms.  Supplements would be required to be reviewed every two years or upon changes to 39-1. 

5) CAPM39-1 would undergo review every 2 years or as needed to maintain currency. 

Would these be popular, probably not but would help to bring a more firm identity to the org and allow for more enforcement of the publication.

Eclipse

Quote from: lordmonar on June 30, 2014, 05:06:53 AM
And the mission continues.

Do you see my point?

I see the point you're trying to make, and I don't agree.

CAP, Inc., may well have been able to sustain itself using it's current stance on this, and a lot of other issues,
in the past when the numbers were greater, the military resources more abundant, and volunteerism in general
was a higher priority in American's lives - minor annoyances like uniform issues are easier to ignore or
discount when you're getting a high ROI on your time and effort otherwise.

What I've seen in the last 5 years, especially, is significant program shrinkage, a lot of the hard-chargers
saying they have had enough (for whatever reason), and those people not being replaced, which
just accelerates the process to its critical mass.

Some strong leadership at all levels, coupled with hard choices that cut the dead weight could turn that
around quickly, otherwise, doing what's "always been done" won't fix things, nor reverse the demonstrable trends.

At this point, anything which causes a grind or a pinch point to a member's experience which can reasonably
be ironed out, should be, because every one of those pinch points is costing time, money, and most certainly
people, and CAP has not of it to spare.

Pretending things aren't a problem, hoping they go away, or focusing, as CAP does, on "today's shiny"
just perpetuates the problem, it won't fix it.

"That Others May Zoom"

Eclipse

Quote from: abdsp51 on June 30, 2014, 05:15:12 AM
1) Find a middle ground somewhere between corp and AF style all around

2) Change the way recommendations for uniform changes are submitted.  This would be either a central point for membership to recommend changes or changing the language in 39-1 to state that all uniform suggestions will be sent to the NUC and no one can deny membership that process.  IE if a member has a recommendation, change etc, only the NUC can decide whether or not to pursue it, and no one can squash it between the member and the NUC.  There would be a suspense control in place or developed for the member to track the status of their submission.

3) Require weigh-ins for all members above 18yo who desire to wear the AF style uniform until the implementation of a unified uniform.  Also members would be required to sign a form stating that they will comply with uniform policies or face some degree of personnel action. 

4) Any wing desiring specialized uniforms (ground teams, etc) would be required to submit with solid justification a supplement for approval.  Justification needs to be a state statute, county ordinance, etc for the implementation of said uniforms.  Supplements would be required to be reviewed every two years or upon changes to 39-1. 

5) CAPM39-1 would undergo review every 2 years or as needed to maintain currency. 

Would these be popular, probably not but would help to bring a more firm identity to the org and allow for more enforcement of the publication.

Here's a great set of taskings, especially #3.

The fact that NHQ couldn't even pull the trigger on the suggestion of simple compliance with the uniform regulations,
let alone a mandate, is an indication where the fortitude it.

I have said, and will continue to assert, if everyone was actually held to the same standard, especially the
leadership charged with enforcing the standards, thing would change quickly, because all of a sudden
it would be "their problem, too.".

The current unwritten policy of "look the other way" literally punishes members for their integrity.

Seriously?  Who is CAP afraid of making mad?  People who ignore these very simple, baseline rules?
Why should we even care if people who "can't be bothered to read the regs, or choose to ignore them"
are sad when they are told to "knock it off"?

So there's my "call" - mandatory weigh-ins for everyone in blues, with notations in eservices.
90 days for the weigh-in, 6 months for compliance.

"That Others May Zoom"

Devil Doc

Quote from: Tim Medeiros on June 26, 2014, 07:35:19 PM
Quote from: Alaric on June 26, 2014, 07:20:05 PM
Quote from: Tim Medeiros on June 26, 2014, 07:14:53 PM
Quote from: Alaric on June 26, 2014, 06:47:26 PM
From the manual

6.3.1.2.2. Faddish styles and mirrored lenses are prohibited. Sunglasses (to include darkened photosensitive lenses) are not authorized in formation. Exception: Sunglasses are not authorized in formation, unless for medical reasons, e.g., PRK/Lasik surgery.

So that means CAP expects me to buy a new pair of glasses just to wear in formations?  Way to not think it through.  If the formation is outside anyone wearing photosensitive lenses is going to have a problem.  I'm not spending another 400 dollars just for formations, looks like no RSC for me.
That's actually the rule, verbatim if I recall, from the AF.  Considering in the summary it mentions it used AFI 36-2903 as the template, this is why that exists.


Also, last RSC I was out, we didn't really have formations outside, only one inside each day to get inspected.

I'm not in the Air Force and the US Government doesn't pay for my glasses.  At NER RSC, there is an outdoor formation every day.
The Air Force and US Gov doesn't pay for photosensitive lenses either, at least not the times I went to the med group for my eye appointment.

The government pays for my Transition Lenses. The VA has gave me 2 sets in the past year or so. I lost the first set. My Glasses are prescription I would Assume. My glasses are for things Contacts cannot fix, with my TBI I have sensitivity to light.
Captain Brandon P. Smith CAP
Former HM3, U.S NAVY
Too many Awards, Achievments and Qualifications to list.


Devil Doc

Quote from: NIN on June 27, 2014, 08:06:59 PM
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on June 27, 2014, 08:04:13 PM
And we'll be sure there will be some who will wear the flag patch until the very last day it's authorized.



Yep, I will. I am proud to have the Flag on my Uniform. 'Merica!
Captain Brandon P. Smith CAP
Former HM3, U.S NAVY
Too many Awards, Achievments and Qualifications to list.


GroundHawg

#234
Quote from: Devil Doc on June 30, 2014, 11:56:16 AM
Quote from: Tim Medeiros on June 26, 2014, 07:35:19 PM
Quote from: Alaric on June 26, 2014, 07:20:05 PM
Quote from: Tim Medeiros on June 26, 2014, 07:14:53 PM
Quote from: Alaric on June 26, 2014, 06:47:26 PM
From the manual

6.3.1.2.2. Faddish styles and mirrored lenses are prohibited. Sunglasses (to include darkened photosensitive lenses) are not authorized in formation. Exception: Sunglasses are not authorized in formation, unless for medical reasons, e.g., PRK/Lasik surgery.

So that means CAP expects me to buy a new pair of glasses just to wear in formations?  Way to not think it through.  If the formation is outside anyone wearing photosensitive lenses is going to have a problem.  I'm not spending another 400 dollars just for formations, looks like no RSC for me.
That's actually the rule, verbatim if I recall, from the AF.  Considering in the summary it mentions it used AFI 36-2903 as the template, this is why that exists.


Also, last RSC I was out, we didn't really have formations outside, only one inside each day to get inspected.

I'm not in the Air Force and the US Government doesn't pay for my glasses.  At NER RSC, there is an outdoor formation every day.
The Air Force and US Gov doesn't pay for photosensitive lenses either, at least not the times I went to the med group for my eye appointment.

The government pays for my Transition Lenses. The VA has gave me 2 sets in the past year or so. I lost the first set. My Glasses are prescription I would Assume. My glasses are for things Contacts cannot fix, with my TBI I have sensitivity to light.

When on active duty, I was issued prescription Oakley sunglasses with polarized lenses and regular frame glasses. When I was at the sweet PX at Balad once, a new new LT told me to take off my sunglasses because I was indoors. I politely informed him I would do so, but they were Rx and I could not see well without them. He said OK, milled around a little while, then came back over to me and demanded to see them because he thought I was lying to him. I handed them over, he realized the level of astigmatism, and apologized and walked away.

The VA got me a set of the transition lenses that I ended up hating, so they ordered me another paid of regulars and a pair of Rx sunglasses as well. I have extreme light sensitivity due to TBI, and am usually the DB wearing sunglasses and a hat indoors.

I will wear my Oakley's, in formation or otherwise.

DoubleSecret

Quote from: GroundHawg on June 30, 2014, 02:53:58 PM
When on active duty, I was issued prescription Oakley sunglasses with polarized lenses and regular frame glasses. When I was at the sweet PX at Balad once, a new new LT told me to take off my sunglasses because I was indoors. I politely informed him I would do so, but they were Rx and I could not see well without them. He said OK, milled around a little while, then came back over to me and demanded to see them because he thought I was lying to him. I handed them over, he realized the level of astigmatism, and apologized and walked away.

He straight-up said he thought you were lying to him?  I hope that was a profuse apology.

arajca

Ladies and Gentlemen,
   The OFFICIAL word on the flag issue is:

"Our National Uniform Committee made this recommendation and it was approved by the CSAG. CAP's USAF-style uniform policies will adhere to USAF standards found in the appropriate USAF instructions and since the Air Force does not wear the flag on their field uniform while serving stateside, we decided to follow the same policy."

My commander asked using the "Ask the National Commander" function and that was the reply.

Devil Doc

The VA can order Presciption Sunglasses? Really WTF!! I told them that the transitions do not get dark enough, they said to buy polarized glasses and put them over them. I hate wearing glasses, i dont like wearing sunglasses much either. If it gets to bright outside, i wear my $5 Aviators.
Captain Brandon P. Smith CAP
Former HM3, U.S NAVY
Too many Awards, Achievments and Qualifications to list.


Bobble

Quote from: CyBorg on June 30, 2014, 04:38:12 AM
In all those years, I have never heard anyone, in any squadron I have served in, actually say they like the G/W and blazer setup.

Oh well, I actually do like the the G/W's.  Yes, I do have have two full sets of SDB's (Class B's, as we can now call them).  Yes, I do have two full sets of BDU's.  Yes, I do have the appropriate outerwear/accoutrements for both uniforms.  Yes, I do meet the H/W requirements to wear them and did (up until a month ago) meet the grooming requirements to wear them.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with the G/W's as far as I'm concerned, and when I do wear them (I'm going pretty much 50%/50% G/W's/Polo's these days since I'm not working directly with cadets at this point), I wear them with pride.  I've read through all your posts (on this thread and others) to try and understand why you have such a problem with this issue, but I'm just not getting it.  You can BM/PG all you want, it is the way it is because it is the way the USAF wants it this way, whether we as individuals like it or not, whether it makes you feel like a "2nd-class citizen" or not.  It's time to ruck up and drive on.

But speaking of getting our panties all a-twist, what is it with the whole "Men will wear underpants." thing? -

4.2.3.10
4.2.5.9
4.2.6.9
5.2.1.9.1
5.2.2.8.1
6.4.6.1.1.1
8.2.8

I'm have to assume either 1) That since this re-write is based on AFI-362903 as the template, USAF personnel have a real problem with remembering or wanting to put their underpants on in the morning, or 2) It's a HMRS trickle-down (yikes) issue, what with "going commando" and all that.  Heck, I actually went back to the top of the document, certain that I could find the phrase somewhere within 1.1.1.

Also, nice to see that the Manual finally clears up the Blue Beret wear issue, only to open a whole 'nother can-o-worms with the 9.2.4 orange ball cap "may" goat-rope.  What, the fancy patch AND tab isn't sufficient to differentiate Hawk Mountain attendees from mere mortals?  Jeez, enough already.

Truthfully though, hat tip and/or applause to those that worked on this, great job overall IMHO.
R. Litzke, Capt, CAP
NER-NY-153

"Men WILL wear underpants."

Garibaldi

Quote from: Bobble on June 30, 2014, 03:59:05 PM
Quote from: CyBorg on June 30, 2014, 04:38:12 AM
In all those years, I have never heard anyone, in any squadron I have served in, actually say they like the G/W and blazer setup.

But speaking of getting our panties all a-twist, what is it with the whole "Men will wear underpants." thing? -

Shhhhhh.....probably one of the most easily violated and hardest to enforce regs ever.

(redacted to remove TMI)
Still a major after all these years.
ES dude, leadership ossifer, publik affaires
Opinionated and wrong 99% of the time about all things