Hello.
I was just recently promoted to C/2nd Lt. and I have a couple questions pertaining to the cadet officer's service cap.
I know that, according to CAP 39-1, the service cap "May be authorized by wing commanders for cadet officers."
Does that mean that it must be authorized for each individual cadet officer or if it is a general authorization for all cadet officers within the wing?
Secondly, does anyone know what the regulation for the service cap is for cadet officers specifically in TN Wing?
Thank you,
C/2nd Lt. Riffe
Are there any other cadet officers in your unit you can ask? What have you seen other cadet officers wearing when at wing level activities?
talk to your deputy commander for cadets,
If there is blanket authorization by your wing commander then they should know, or at least be able to find out.
Whatever you do, do not email your wing commander...... don't be that guy, I hate that guy.
Quote from: VetaWulf on October 03, 2011, 09:34:33 PMDoes that mean that it must be authorized for each individual cadet officer or if it is a general authorization for all cadet officers within the wing?
No, your wing will (or won't) have an approved supplement to 39-1 to authorize its wear. It should be on your wing's web page.
Nothing on the wing page and hardly any units had links to their websites. I did find a unit where a cadet officer was wearing the bus driver hat in a picture but there was also a C/SSgt wearing one too for no apparent reason. So who knows...
Quote from: captdomke on October 03, 2011, 10:33:52 PM
Nothing on the wing page and hardly any units had links to their websites. I did find a unit where a cadet officer was wearing the bus driver hat in a picture but there was also a C/SSgt wearing one too for no apparent reason. So who knows...
I've met more than a few people who had no idea it was even an issue of approval, so there well be no attention ever paid to the matter in TNWG.
Quote from: captdomke on October 03, 2011, 10:33:52 PM
Nothing on the wing page and hardly any units had links to their websites. I did find a unit where a cadet officer was wearing the bus driver hat in a picture but there was also a C/SSgt wearing one too for no apparent reason. So who knows...
TNWG is notorious for not having up-to-date or informative websites. From my experience everything has pretty much just been word-of-mouth, or through e-mail.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 03, 2011, 10:46:36 PMI've met more than a few people who had no idea it was even an issue of approval, so there well be no attention ever paid to the matter in TNWG.
I've seen a C/Capt wearing one before, so I'll just go ahead and wear it. I suppose the worst that could be done is that they would just tell me to take it off.
Quote from: VetaWulf on October 04, 2011, 12:58:11 AMI've seen a C/Capt wearing one before, so I'll just go ahead and wear it. I suppose the worst that could be done is that they would just tell me to take it off.
You should still make an attempt to find out... as an officer you need to be a role model, and role models generally shouldn't disregard the rules. You now know what you need to do to know if it's permitted to be worn, so find out. Go up the chain, and if "nobody knows", then work the chains again (up the command chain and CAC) to try to get it approved.
Ask your chain of command.
Quote from: VetaWulf on October 04, 2011, 12:58:11 AMI've seen a C/Capt wearing one before, so I'll just go ahead and wear it.
...and what if that C/Capt was wrong? That's never a good attitude to have, especially as a leader.
First off, congratulations on achieving your Mitchell!
Just a note... You could always stick with the flight cap with grade insignia. You will never be wrong with that option...
However, the service cap does look a lot cooler 8)
Quote from: titanII on October 04, 2011, 02:31:12 AM
However, the service cap does look a lot cooler 8)
Yeah sure, till the first function where you have to carry it around for 5 hours...
Quote from: titanII on October 04, 2011, 02:31:12 AMHowever, the service cap does look a lot cooler 8)
No, it doesn't.
You know, this was the case WIWAC, and it was silly then...saucer cap is a piece of uniform apparel, NB should either authorize for cadet officers or not. There is no logical reason to vary from wing to wing (or from one wing commander's tenure to the next).
Quote from: VetaWulf on October 04, 2011, 12:58:11 AM
I've seen a C/Capt wearing one before, so I'll just go ahead and wear it. I suppose the worst that could be done is that they would just tell me to take it off.
That's the wrong attitude. You started out correct by trying to find the answer. What were those core values again?
Quote from: whatevah on October 04, 2011, 01:18:08 AM
Quote from: VetaWulf on October 04, 2011, 12:58:11 AMI've seen a C/Capt wearing one before, so I'll just go ahead and wear it. I suppose the worst that could be done is that they would just tell me to take it off.
You should still make an attempt to find out... as an officer you need to be a role model, and role models generally shouldn't disregard the rules. You now know what you need to do to know if it's permitted to be worn, so find out. Go up the chain, and if "nobody knows", then work the chains again (up the command chain and CAC) to try to get it approved.
I understand. I am still actively working through the Chain of Command to find out the exact regulation for my wing, which I should have specified in my reply.
Quote from: MSgt Van on October 04, 2011, 01:35:21 PM
Quote from: VetaWulf on October 04, 2011, 12:58:11 AM
I've seen a C/Capt wearing one before, so I'll just go ahead and wear it. I suppose the worst that could be done is that they would just tell me to take it off.
That's the wrong attitude. You started out correct by trying to find the answer. What were those core values again?
I apologize if I presented the wrong attitude of that befitting an officer, for that was not my intent.
Thank you all for your replies they have been a great help.
WIWAC, there was a joke about how you could always tell the new C/Officers. You could tell because they all wore the service cap, even in "Class C." Once they hit C/Capt, they'd switch to the flight cap again - most likely because you could see the grade insignia from 1,000 yards.
Quote from: jimmydeanno on October 04, 2011, 05:45:48 PM
WIWAC, there was a joke about how you could always tell the new C/Officers. You could tell because they all wore the service cap, even in "Class C." Once they hit C/Capt, they'd switch to the flight cap again - most likely because you could see the grade insignia from 1,000 yards.
Maybe it's the times or maybe it's the wing I'm in, but all but a few C/Officers I know of (or have seen) wear the service cap, even with Class C, regardless of grade.
But I guess YMMV.
Quote...even with Class C...
Uh, even if that term applied to CAP, isn't that in reference to a
utility uniform? A utility uniform + bus driver hat = major fail, no matter how you look at it.
Quote from: PhoenixCadet on October 05, 2011, 05:08:21 AM
Quote...even with Class C...
Uh, even if that term applied to CAP, isn't that in reference to a utility uniform? A utility uniform + bus driver hat = major fail, no matter how you look at it.
Kudos to Phoenix cadet. From AR 670-1, para 1-6.e, Classification of service and utility or field uniforms: "
Class C uniforms are the utility, field, hospital duty, food service, and other organizational uniforms."
This is a problem with the local unit, too. People using terminology that they don't know, just deciding it's whatever they think it is. If you don't know, look it up. If it's not in a pub, don't use it.
(And the term "Class C" has not been used in an Air Force uniform pub in at least the last twenty years, so that doesn't fly either.)
Which is why I put mine in quotes. At the time the local colloquialism was that the "class C" was blues without tie.
Quote from: Hawk200 on October 05, 2011, 01:09:14 PMThis is a problem with the local unit, too. People using terminology that they don't know, just deciding it's whatever they think it is. If you don't know, look it up. If it's not in a pub, don't use it.
BS!
Sorry....but really? If the term does not "mean" anything.....and it is defined locally.....what do you or I care if the Homer J. Simpson squadorn uses "class c" to mean short sleeve blues with out tie or BDUs with pink tutu?
Where do you get off on saying that a local commander can't "make up" his own terminology?
This is just arrogance, plain and simple.
Now....as a lesson to everyone about using technical terms and jargon in their writing........here is an example where your "clearly defined" definition was not clearly defind to the rest of the world.......so be award of the pit falls of jargon.
Quote from: lordmonar on October 05, 2011, 02:18:26 PM
Where do you get off on saying that a local commander can't "make up" his own terminology?
Because the stupidity has a way of spreading and confusing the crap out of everyone else. I just saw class C referenced in an email from my wing's DCP. I've thought about asking what the heck she means by it.
Quote from: davidsinn on October 05, 2011, 02:41:35 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on October 05, 2011, 02:18:26 PM
Where do you get off on saying that a local commander can't "make up" his own terminology?
Because the stupidity has a way of spreading and confusing the crap out of everyone else. I just saw class C referenced in an email from my wing's DCP. I've thought about asking what the heck she means by it.
Well that makes more sense then telling people "If you can't find it don't use it".
I agree that good communications needs to remove all the barriers that it can. And of course all communicators need feed back....so if you get a "what the hell does he mean?" sort of message...by all means shoot him back a WFT OVER....REPEAT ALL AFTER....message.
Quote from: lordmonar on October 05, 2011, 02:18:26 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on October 05, 2011, 01:09:14 PMThis is a problem with the local unit, too. People using terminology that they don't know, just deciding it's whatever they think it is. If you don't know, look it up. If it's not in a pub, don't use it.
BS!
Sorry....but really? If the term does not "mean" anything.....and it is defined locally.....what do you or I care if the Homer J. Simpson squadorn uses "class c" to mean short sleeve blues with out tie or BDUs with pink tutu?
Where do you get off on saying that a local commander can't "make up" his own terminology?
This is just arrogance, plain and simple.
Now....as a lesson to everyone about using technical terms and jargon in their writing........here is an example where your "clearly defined" definition was not clearly defind to the rest of the world.......so be award of the pit falls of jargon.
I didn't say that it was the commander now, did I? So what does that say about the art of assumption?
We have organization wide regulations for a reason with common policies, not a bunch of separate clubs with their own idea of doing things. And this cadet simply put out "class C's" on Tuesday. I never heard the term "class C" used while in the Air Force, so my only reference is Army. As quoted above, "Class C" refers to utility uniforms.
There is also no local squadron supplement issued. Which means that it's not defined now, is it? I imagine you'd get annoyed if told to wear a "class" of uniform and you showed up wearing something different.
So, is it really BS? Is it really OK? Maybe in your world, not in mine. Common terms, not local terms. That's how we stay organized, uniformed, and one team. No misunderstandings.
The arrogance is on the part of people that think that they're special enough that they don't have follow what every one else does.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on October 04, 2011, 12:53:20 PM
NB should either authorize for cadet officers or not. There is no logical reason to vary from wing to wing (or from one wing commander's tenure to the next).
Have to agree with ZigZag on this one. Why would there need to be local variations for something like this?
Quote from: RiverAux on October 05, 2011, 04:32:39 PM
Quote from: ZigZag911 on October 04, 2011, 12:53:20 PM
NB should either authorize for cadet officers or not. There is no logical reason to vary from wing to wing (or from one wing commander's tenure to the next).
Have to agree with ZigZag on this one. Why would there need to be local variations for something like this?
I'll second that one. I never saw why it was up to the wing king in the first place. Designating a specific headgear is different than needing an authorization to wear it.
Contact the Wing Director of Personnel ask if there is a Wing supplement to CAPM 39-1 authorizing the Service Cap. If not ask if can be implemented.
Back in my days WIWAC (when the earth cooled and dinosaurs roamed the earth) my first squadron referred to service dress as 'Class As', the service uniform as '1550s' (this was before the Air Force redesigned the shirt) and utility uniforms as 'fatigues'.
Local Usage of terms is one thing, but if our uniforms are standardized (Which since we have a regulation, I believe they are) Standard usage of terms to describe these different combinations in uniforms should be used across the board. They teach is all over the place from the Tongue and Quill, to our FEMA courses, how important it is to have effective communication. If it has already been standardized and has a name, why re-invent the wheel with using "Class A" or "Class ZZ"? It might sound really anal, but if we can't effectively communicate with something as simple as a uniform, how do we expect to communicate complex thoughts and directives?
Oh and There are no Class whatever Dress in CAP. AF Style Uniforms -
Men's Service Dress Uniform
Men's Long-sleeve Shirt
Men's Short-sleeve Shirt
Men's Mess Dress Uniform
Men's Blue Semiformal Uniform
Women's Service Dress Uniform
Women's Long-sleeve Blouse
Women's Short-sleeve Blouse
Women's Mess Dress Uniform
Men's and Women's Battle Dress Uniforms
The new AFI 36-2903 uses Class A and CLass B as terms for the service dress and service uniforms. >:D
Quote from: MajFitzpatrick on October 13, 2011, 08:28:47 AM
Oh and There are no Class whatever Dress in CAP. AF Style Uniforms -
Quote from: lordmonar on October 13, 2011, 03:54:00 PM
The new AFI 36-2903 uses Class A and CLass B as terms for the service dress and service uniforms. >:D
Facts are the enemy of a good argument, avoid them at all costs.
Quote from: lordmonar on October 13, 2011, 03:54:00 PM
The new AFI 36-2903 uses Class A and CLass B as terms for the service dress and service uniforms. >:D
True but those terms are not in our uniform manual. That said. I won't give anyone grief for using them as long as they use them in the same manner as 36-2903.
It's been my experience that the terms Class A,B,C,D uniforms never totally disappeared from USAF or CAP. It was a carry over from the Army Air Forces. If you said the Uniform of the Day was class A, almost everyone knew what you meant. The exceptions were new seniors and cadets.
Quote from: BillB on October 13, 2011, 05:10:37 PM
It's been my experience that the terms Class A,B,C,D uniforms never totally disappeared from USAF or CAP. It was a carry over from the Army Air Forces. If you said the Uniform of the Day was class A, almost everyone knew what you meant. The exceptions were new seniors and cadets.
;D So basically, they knew it because some hanged on to it, and taught everyone when they were new? :angel:
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on October 06, 2011, 02:12:08 AM
Back in my days WIWAC (when the earth cooled and dinosaurs roamed the earth) my first squadron referred to service dress as 'Class As', the service uniform as '1550s' (this was before the Air Force redesigned the shirt) and utility uniforms as 'fatigues'.
What were the 1550's? I remember 505's and 1505's. But then again, I have never remembered the numbered combinations.
Very tricky with the newest CHANGE In 36-2903! good catch. (Still no Class C) But I have now been Ed-ja-ma-kated on Class A and Class B.
Quote from: Grumpy on October 13, 2011, 06:12:51 PM
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on October 06, 2011, 02:12:08 AM
Back in my days WIWAC (when the earth cooled and dinosaurs roamed the earth) my first squadron referred to service dress as 'Class As', the service uniform as '1550s' (this was before the Air Force redesigned the shirt) and utility uniforms as 'fatigues'.
What were the 1550's? I remember 505's and 1505's. But then again, I have never remembered the numbered combinations.
1550s were the light blue shirt without epaulets; grade was on the collar. When the current short and long sleeve shirts with epaulets were introduced, only the shade number (1550) carried over.
To the best of my knowledge, and recollection, uniform class designations have not been formally used in CAP since at least as far back as 1968. I have copies of CAPM 39-1 going back that far, and there is no change notice in the 1968 edition regarding uniform combination nomenclature. That would take us back to 1961.
OK, I remember now. Just never committed the number combinations to memory. Thanks
Quote from: davidsinn on October 13, 2011, 04:13:08 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on October 13, 2011, 03:54:00 PM
The new AFI 36-2903 uses Class A and CLass B as terms for the service dress and service uniforms. >:D
True but those terms are not in our uniform manual. That said. I won't give anyone grief for using them as long as they use them in the same manner as 36-2903.
I can live with that. At least there's something in writing. I know our regulations don't completely mirror the Air Force's, but I guess that using in the same spirit is acceptable.
In some cases, at least I know that the individual is reading something, they're not wallowing in ignorance.
That being said, there is still no class C reference in any Air Force or Civil Air Patrol publication.