Hello There:
I'm a prospective member of your fine organization who is currently giving serious consideration towards joining shortly after the holiday season.
I understand the first steps will be visiting prospective squadrons, filling out paperwork, doing fingerprints (QUESTION: Who actually is the fingerprint technician? Do CAP members do this "in-house?"), etc. I obviously won't be making any uniform purchases until after I receive formal membership....
However, as absolutely no volunteer work is ever free to the volunteer, I'm trying to go ahead and price-out my initial cost of membership.
So far:
- The cost of driving to weekly meetings (neglible in terms of cost)
- The Annual dues ($65/year......theoretically acceptable for an application fee, but quite frankly almost ridiculous for an annual fee each year afterwards....but whatever...I'm over it :) )
- The cost of a basic starter-uniform. Honestly, I want my initial uniform to be as basic as possible. I intend to give CAP a solid year as a trial to see what I think of it, and until then, I don't want to invest more than I have to into a uniform...
So my Primary Question: Which of your many uniforms is the best for a first time member to obtain? If it matters, I wish to eventually pursue the ES and Cadet programs in CAP... And can anyone provide a uniform cost estimate as well?
Thanks again for your help. :)
Members are required by regulation to equip themselves with the "Minimum Basic Uniform" - that is either the USAF-Style Blues or the Aviator Whites.
The USAF style uniforms require you meet specific weight and grooming standards
After that, there are other optional combinations which may be better suited for a particular duty.
Your best bet is not to worry too much about uniforms until you've found a unit that is a fit and you are an approved member.
I'm assuming that you're an adult, so the "book" answer is that the minimum uniform that all senior members should have is the dark blue slacks and light blue shirt uniform combination. If you don't meet height/weight guidelines the option is gray slacks and a white shirt.
If you're working with cadets you will probably end up also wearing the BDU uniform (or the blue equivalent) as well, especially if your interest in ES includes doing ground search and rescue.
All that being said, many new members start off with gray slacks and one of the blue golf shirts as they only thing they need to buy is the shirt (in many cases).
At the risk of dissing the service uniform (AF light blue shirt and dark blue slacks), I would recommend getting the aviator shirt/grey slacks (grey/white) uniform, even if you are within the h/w standards. The rationale is the grey/whites can be used easily outside of CAP and both require the same basic accoutrements. Some recommend the golf shirt, but the service uniform or grey/white is the minimum required and is generally easier to obtain than the golf shirt. Here are some prices:
Vanguard:
Printed golf shirt - $24
Embroidered golf shirt - $33 (personalization is extra)
AF blue short sleeve shirt - $44
Aviator shirt - $25
AB blue pants - $55
Nametag - $3.50
You can find the aviator shirt online at other shops for $18-$50 depending on where you go. Grey slacks can run into similar prices. If you're lucky, you can find them at Goodwill (or other similar stores) for a whole lot less - I know one member who picked up two aviator shirts and three grey slack for under $20 total at Goodwill. I don't have the MCSS (Military Clothing Sales Store) prices, but they are cheaper than Vanguard. The only official source for the golf shirt is Vanguard, but they've had quality issues with the shirts themselves.
BTW, the golf shirt uses the same slacks as the aviator shirt.
Alright....so it sounds like I'll be getting the Aviator Shirt and grey pants then. I'm going to use the "Goog" (as my friend calls it) to search for these height and weight reqs.. I'm about 235 LBS and about 5'11". Kinda chubby, but maybe not too fat. I won't go for the USAF-style or BDU's just yet.
On an interesting note, I have a ton of brand new old-style Coast Guard ODUs sitting in my basement. They are basically Blue BDUs (the old version of the ODU never had any Coast Guard emblems embroidered on them like the current ones due). I wonder if I could simple turn these into a CAP Blue BDU..The only thing is that the ODUs shirt (or "blouse," as the CG calls it) has only two pockets, whereas the normal army woodland BDUs have four pockets......might not work out...
But, I'm getting ahead of myself. Like I said, I won't be ordering ANYTHING until I'm well within the membership. My whole intentions here were to price things out, and it looks like I can get away with not spending much more than $60 for an initial uniform when the time comes. And that makes me happy.
Thanks again for the help. :)
Something to consider is that many units have their own "uniform culture" within the regs. You may go to a unit and every single SM in the place wears the golf shirt and grey slacks. You may go to another and its USAF style for the SMs in height/weight and aviators (white/grey equivalent) for those not. Or just the CP folks wear USAF style or CAP-distinctive, and the rest of the party wear golf shirts.
Based on what you said, you're in the "Avoid" region of the "USAF Uniform Height/Weight Diagram" (my fellow rotorheads will get that one) for now, so don't worry so much about the USAF uniform.
Grey slacks (not Dockers, please, oh heavens no..) can be had at Goodwill, as stated, or I found them brand new at Sears for a VERY reasonable price (IIRC, about $20?). The aviator shirt, at least the Van Heusen brand ones that I had previously, kind of suck from a quality standpoint. I'm a "pinpoint oxford" kind of guy, and the cheap poplin construction really, really turned me off. I recently obtained a much higher quality shirt that I am desperate to find another one of (mostly due to the fact that this one has developed this little cut over the pocket which will get worse..). Its made by "Flying Cross" and it is called a "Distinguished" (thats sort of the "model")
Flying Cross makes this same shirt in blue and its sold at MCSS (its the "Higher quality wool-blend shirt" versus the DPSC "issue" shirt), but the one I have is in white and it mirrors the USAF Dress Blue shirt construction right down to the mitred pockets.
(you may be able to find one of these shirts in a public service uniforms store, BTW)
Quote from: antdetroitwallyball on December 22, 2013, 05:35:38 PMI wonder if I could simple turn these into a CAP Blue BDU.
No. You might be able to use the pants, but the shirt is decidedly different. It'll cost as much to change it as to just buy a shirt.
Quote from: arajca on December 22, 2013, 05:21:59 PM
Embroidered golf shirt - $33 (personalization is extra)
I've picked up the embroidered CAP golf shirt off eBay for cheaper than that (I think it was around $25-ish or so) and the quality is on par with the "official" shift from Vanguard. Of course, your mileage may vary. Same goes for the white aviator shirt.
That being said, you might want to wait a bit before buying anything uniform related if you can. We're all waiting for the new edition of the uniform regulations (39-1) which is due Any Day Now™. While no drastic changes are expected in this draft, it probably wouldn't hurt to wait a little bit.
If you do join please make sure you obtain the REQUIRED uniform and know how to wear it properly. The golf shirt is fine and dandy but is not the minimum required. Also wear the uniform IAW with 39-1 and if it doesn't say you can then don't. And your squadron commander will dictate the uniform policy for the unit and don't do what I have seen alot of times and cop out on wearing the UOD because you don't have it or are to lazy to get it.
The height/weight chart is in the back of CAPM 39-1 (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/M391_E6F33EAAEC28A.pdf). Almost everything else you might want to know about uniforms is in there, too. The rest is here (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/2012_03_12_Uniform_Manual_EDA9CCE9FE03A.pdf).
Quote from: antdetroitwallyball on December 22, 2013, 05:35:38 PM
On an interesting note, I have a ton of brand new old-style Coast Guard ODUs....
Why is it that anyone with a screen name like that (antdetroit) just jumped out and screamed "Coastie"?
Still in the Detroit area? Hit me with a PM and I can give you the low down on the squadrons in the area.
Quote from: antdetroitwallyball on December 22, 2013, 04:23:51 PM
I'm a prospective member of your fine organization who is currently giving serious consideration towards joining shortly after the holiday season.
Every unit has a different persona. Some Senior Squadrons you could do a career with just a golf shirt.
Welcome aboard and have fun 8)
NIN......
Galls Uniform Catalog has a complete line of Flying Cross shirts. They've been supplying Police/Fire/Security for years and have great customer and on-line service. Here's the link..............
http://www.galls.com/ (http://www.galls.com/)
In my experience, and YMMV, most seniors dealing with CP in a direct function almost always wore the AF style uniform. Those that were in to fly or who were sick of wearing military style uniforms after their 20-25 years of AD wore polos and slacks. We in ES mainly wore the BBDU, but I grew up in AF blue and continue to wear the AF style blue uniform. I do own a polo but I don't wear it unless I am out of grooming standards or representing CAP at a function where the uniform would be impractical or inappropriate.
Quote from: capmaj on December 23, 2013, 04:43:47 PM
NIN......
Galls Uniform Catalog has a complete line of Flying Cross shirts. They've been supplying Police/Fire/Security for years and have great customer and on-line service. Here's the link..............
http://www.galls.com/ (http://www.galls.com/)
Sadly, it appears that Flying Cross have stopped the "Distinguished" line (except, maybe, for the blue USAF shirts you can get at MCSS) in favor of the "Duro" line (which is poplin, not broadcloth).
(http://www.galls.com/flying-cross-mens-65-35-poly-cotton-duro-poplin-long-sleeve-shirt (http://www.galls.com/flying-cross-mens-65-35-poly-cotton-duro-poplin-long-sleeve-shirt))
Meh.
Poplin shirts suck. Thats why I take issue with the Van Heusen Aviator. Its very cheaply made and pills up.
Careful buying from Galls; your shirt might come with a badge tab.
Here's a short summary, but based on what you said about your weight, you will not be in the USAF-style uniform for now. Take a look at pages 75, 76, and 79 for pictures of the below-mentioned uniforms from our uniform regulation at: http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/m391_e6f33eaaec28a.pdf (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/m391_e6f33eaaec28a.pdf)
At your height, you can only wear the USAF style blues and the camo BDUs if you go below 219 pounds.
Required (pic on page 75): Gray slacks and aviator shirt. Nametag. Gray rank shoulder boards. You probably already have the black shoes and belt.
Once you get started in emergency services (pic on page 79): Blue BDUs, black boots, belt. Since you're pricing it out, realize there are some unwriten costs as well: You'll need a custom-embroidered blue nametape, one CAP name tape, two rank insignia (3 depending on hat requirements for your squadron), and a wing patch. Also remember the sewing cost to attach those to the uniform.
Nice to have (pic on page 76): Blue polo, can wear with gray slacks listed above.
I've been happy with these shirts (http://www.pilotshirts.com/products.asp?dept=12/).
Ditto. Good quality, and quick delivery.
Quote from: Camas on December 23, 2013, 08:00:33 PM
I've been happy with these shirts (http://www.pilotshirts.com/products.asp?dept=12/).
Quote from: NIN on December 23, 2013, 04:53:21 PM
Poplin shirts suck. Thats why I take issue with the Van Heusen Aviator. Its very cheaply made and pills up.
I have several Aviators, and haven't seen pilling on any of them. The oldest is over 10 years olde. How are you washing them. Here, it's cold wash and rinse, perma-press dry, and iron with low heat.
Quote from: Slim on December 23, 2013, 06:56:12 AM
Quote from: antdetroitwallyball on December 22, 2013, 05:35:38 PM
On an interesting note, I have a ton of brand new old-style Coast Guard ODUs....
Why is it that anyone with a screen name like that (antdetroit) just jumped out and screamed "Coastie"?
Still in the Detroit area? Hit me with a PM and I can give you the low down on the squadrons in the area.
I caught that reference too. I always see invites in my D9 email for wallyball. Coupled with ANT Detroit it was not hard to figure out. Shoot me a PM, I know a guy who was stationed at ANT Detroit recently.
CGR member, CAP member (inactive, but renew my membership for some reason)
You may want to try www.pilotshirts.com (http://www.pilotshirts.com) for pinpoint oxford white dress shirts with mitered pockets and epaulets. Just make sure to select the shirt without the wing holes and the velcroed top pocket flap! That's what I generally use for my G/W uniform, though I also have V/H Aviators.
Observing this thread, it seems to me that eventually the de facto kit for senior members is going to be the grey/white, for several reasons:
Cost. Unless you get lucky at an Army/Navy (which I did; waist-length Air Force jacket for $25, I think), or are in a unit which gets them from ANG/AFRES/AFROTC, it's going to cost a lot more to get the AF uniform together. Even if you look on Evilbay, there's no guarantee that what you may find is current issue; i.e., older shades of trousers and flight caps.
Convenience. Again, unless you get lucky at the Army/Navy, have an MCSS near you (disclaimer: I do) or want to navigate the AAFES, it's easier to just go to the Goodwill/St. Vince's and get a white shirt and grey trousers a lot cheaper. There is also very little standardisation with this kit (I don't call it a uniform, because it is not uniform)...as long as you've got a white shirt that can fit CAP epaulettes, grey slacks, black belt and shoes, there's really nothing to "standardise" on, and any type of blue business coat will do for the Realtor corporate setup, as long as you can stick a nameplate and CAP crest (with or without bog-awful pocket protector) on it.
Almost Anything Goes. I have never personally witnessed anyone getting called on a uniform violation in the G/W kit...because, unless you're doing something obviously egregious (military ribbons/badges, blue nameplate, wearing AF flight cap), it's next to impossible to violate almost non-existent standards. And, of course, no worries about H/W or facial hair.
(False) assumption of no Customs and Courtesies. I have met so many CAP personnel who think that the only time you must render C&C's is in the AF uniform.
I think that, because of those factors, eventually most seniors will settle on the G/W over the AF uniform, if they haven't already. I would be interested to see now, at year end 2013, how many of our members wear the G/W exclusively and have no plans to wear the AF uniform, even if they can meet the standards.
It wouldn't be such a bitter pill (for me) to swallow if a real uniform headgear (and the "CAP baseball cap" isn't) and service coat were authorised, and a blue civilian airline shirt replacing the white shirt.
This is a flight of fancy, but something like this East German officers' evening dress jacket would look a lot better than a "corporate" jacket, especially with CAP insignia, ribbons, etc. authorised.
(http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/1/1/3/6/2/2/webimg/697047069_o.jpg)
It's grey, it's got a look somewhere in between military and civilian, and it looks good.
Of course, I know I'm in a minority of one on any changes to the corporate uniforms.
That cut was popular with another German about 75 years ago.
See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Adolf_Hitler_Wax_Statue_in_Madame_Tussauds_London.jpg (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Adolf_Hitler_Wax_Statue_in_Madame_Tussauds_London.jpg)
Flyer
Quote from: flyer333555 on December 24, 2013, 04:56:27 PM
That cut was popular with another German about 75 years ago.
See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Adolf_Hitler_Wax_Statue_in_Madame_Tussauds_London.jpg (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Adolf_Hitler_Wax_Statue_in_Madame_Tussauds_London.jpg)
Flyer
The only thing in common is the colour. Period.
Quote from: flyer333555 on December 24, 2013, 04:56:27 PM
That cut was popular with another German about 75 years ago.
See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Adolf_Hitler_Wax_Statue_in_Madame_Tussauds_London.jpg (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Adolf_Hitler_Wax_Statue_in_Madame_Tussauds_London.jpg)
Eh. Many military or military-style uniforms share common themes.
"Hey, guys, did you see the G/W kit in the new 39-1?"
(http://cosplayers.acparadise.com/74479/11237851ea84cc52330ffd2f088be1c0.jpg)
I always think of Starship Troopers everytime someone talks about grey uniforms
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rock_biologist/1333500605/# (http://www.flickr.com/photos/rock_biologist/1333500605/#)
Would you like to know more?
Quote from: CyBorg on December 24, 2013, 04:49:36 PM
Observing this thread, it seems to me that eventually the de facto kit for senior members is going to be the grey/white, for several reasons:
Cost. Unless you get lucky at an Army/Navy (which I did; waist-length Air Force jacket for $25, I think), or are in a unit which gets them from ANG/AFRES/AFROTC, it's going to cost a lot more to get the AF uniform together. Even if you look on Evilbay, there's no guarantee that what you may find is current issue; i.e., older shades of trousers and flight caps.
Convenience. Again, unless you get lucky at the Army/Navy, have an MCSS near you (disclaimer: I do) or want to navigate the AAFES, it's easier to just go to the Goodwill/St. Vince's and get a white shirt and grey trousers a lot cheaper. There is also very little standardisation with this kit (I don't call it a uniform, because it is not uniform)...as long as you've got a white shirt that can fit CAP epaulettes, grey slacks, black belt and shoes, there's really nothing to "standardise" on, and any type of blue business coat will do for the Realtor corporate setup, as long as you can stick a nameplate and CAP crest (with or without bog-awful pocket protector) on it.
Almost Anything Goes. I have never personally witnessed anyone getting called on a uniform violation in the G/W kit...because, unless you're doing something obviously egregious (military ribbons/badges, blue nameplate, wearing AF flight cap), it's next to impossible to violate almost non-existent standards. And, of course, no worries about H/W or facial hair.
(False) assumption of no Customs and Courtesies. I have met so many CAP personnel who think that the only time you must render C&C's is in the AF uniform.
I think that, because of those factors, eventually most seniors will settle on the G/W over the AF uniform, if they haven't already. I would be interested to see now, at year end 2013, how many of our members wear the G/W exclusively and have no plans to wear the AF uniform, even if they can meet the standards.
It wouldn't be such a bitter pill (for me) to swallow if a real uniform headgear (and the "CAP baseball cap" isn't) and service coat were authorised, and a blue civilian airline shirt replacing the white shirt.
This is a flight of fancy, but something like this East German officers' evening dress jacket would look a lot better than a "corporate" jacket, especially with CAP insignia, ribbons, etc. authorised.
(http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/1/1/3/6/2/2/webimg/697047069_o.jpg)
It's grey, it's got a look somewhere in between military and civilian, and it looks good.
Of course, I know I'm in a minority of one on any changes to the corporate uniforms.
Cyborg, you never give up, do ya?
Do yourself a favor and drop it. All you're doing is raising your blood pressure, again.
Quote from: Panache on December 24, 2013, 05:53:45 PM
Would you like to know more?
That is so funny even Santa laughed, ho, ho, ho :clap:
Quote from: PHall on December 25, 2013, 01:47:01 AM
Cyborg, you never give up, do ya?
Do yourself a favor and drop it. All you're doing is raising your blood pressure, again.
My blood pressure is quite within standards, according to my last doctor's visit. I assure you I am quite serene.
You, good sir, seem to be the one who gets their knickers in a twist when I mention
any changes to the CAP/corporate uniform. I do not see you doing that with anyone else, and I know others have suggested changes.
In my original post, the only changes suggested were a service coat and cap of some sort. The rest was nothing but an analysis, based solely on my opinion, which I ask no-one else to agree with, of why I believe the G/W kit will eventually overtake the AF uniform among CAP senior members.
So which part am I to "drop?" Expressing an opinion? Unless I violate the TOS, that is not going to happen.
I believe there is a function allowing CT posters to "ignore" the posts of another poster. If my posts cause you so much annoyance, may I suggest you use that?
Here's hoping you and yours had a blessed Christmas.
Quote from: SARDOC on December 24, 2013, 05:44:03 PM
I always think of Starship Troopers everytime someone talks about grey uniforms
Battlestar Galactica uniforms were grey too - and I'm pretty sure they follow the "Low Light" rule too.
Quote from: CyBorg on December 24, 2013, 04:49:36 PMObserving this thread, it seems to me that eventually the de facto kit for senior members is going to be the grey/white, for several reasons:
Observing my wing, we already have a de facto uniform - the polo with grey pants. I suspect for many of the same reasons you quote for the aviator - cost, ease of maintenance, and the lack of concern with military customs.
I get that CAPM 39-1 prescribes a minimum uniform that members
must own, however I think it's inappropriate to waste a volunteer's money. If the member has no desire to wear the aviator/blues uniforms and they participate at a squadron that has no issues with members wearing the polo to meetings, then there's your de facto minimum uniform.
Now if a member finds him or herself joining a squadron that likes to designate UODs and send seniors home in the wrong uniform, then either pony up for the appropriate uniforms or find a different squadron that's more align with your interests.
This is again what we discuss is a problem in CAP. Members choosing to interpret regulations. You start with choosing to ignore a uniform, after you signed a membership application that stated you would follow regulations and orders.
Which regulation will you violate next, the one that states you have to be a pilot to fly CAP aircraft?
Flyer
Quote from: Fubar on December 27, 2013, 02:09:43 AMObserving my wing, we already have a de facto uniform - the polo with grey pants. I suspect for many of the same reasons you quote for the aviator - cost, ease of maintenance, and the lack of concern with military customs.
I believe terms you were actually looking for are "laziness" and "apathy".
Quote from: Fubar on December 27, 2013, 02:09:43 AM
I get that CAPM 39-1 prescribes a minimum uniform that members must own, however I think it's inappropriate to waste a volunteer's money. If the member has no desire to wear the aviator/blues uniforms and they participate at a squadron that has no issues with members wearing the polo to meetings, then there's your de facto minimum uniform.[/qupte]
No, they join an organization which has no such requirement.
Now if a member finds him or herself joining a squadron that likes to designate UODs and send seniors home in the wrong uniform, then either pony up for the appropriate uniforms or find a different squadron that's more align with your interests.
The fact that members believe a
uniform should "align with their interests" sums up this issue nicely.
Quote from: flyer333555 on December 27, 2013, 02:30:21 AM
This is again what we discuss is a problem in CAP. Members choosing to interpret regulations. You start with choosing to ignore a uniform, after you signed a membership application that stated you would follow regulations and orders.
Which regulation will you violate next, the one that states you have to be a pilot to fly CAP aircraft?
Not owning a set of G/W or AF Blues hasn't, to the best of my knowledge, gotten anybody killed.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 27, 2013, 03:38:51 AM
Quote from: Fubar on December 27, 2013, 02:09:43 AMObserving my wing, we already have a de facto uniform - the polo with grey pants. I suspect for many of the same reasons you quote for the aviator - cost, ease of maintenance, and the lack of concern with military customs.
I believe terms you were actually looking for are "laziness" and "apathy".
Yet he speaks the truth. There are a significant number of Squadrons out there where, for SM's, the default uniform is the polos-and-gray pants option.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 27, 2013, 03:38:51 AM
The fact that members believe a uniform should "align with their interests" sums up this issue nicely.
So? Again, we're a volunteer organization. If somebody wants to put in their time and effort, but really has no desire to wear a uniform other then the polo, so what? I would rather a member find a squadron they're compatible with than they aren't.
So we basically teach cadets to bounce from place to place until they get what they want? Sorry but there are countless organizations who have some type of uniform and have dues that are required to be paid to participate. Sorry but if you don't want to play by the rules and obtain what is required then we don't need you.
Sorry but 39-1 is clear on the min required uniform and that is what should be obtained, especially by SMs who are supposed to be setting the example and standard. If the unit CC wants to say that the UOD is the polo fine and dandy but it is not the required minimum uniform, and it should not be the goto uniform for a member because they don't want to spend the money. And if a unit is telling a prospective member that all that is required is the polo they are wrong.
With in the past year within my unit here it has gone to most of the SMs in polo daily to majority of them in either AF or Corp equivalent for our meetings, and there was very little resistance.
Quote from: abdsp51 on December 27, 2013, 05:50:47 AM
So we basically teach cadets to bounce from place to place until they get what they want?
Cadets and SM's are two different beasts. And we're constantly telling prospective new members to shop around to find a squadron that is a fit for them. So, should we amend that advice to "except for uniforms, because 39-1 is sacrament, unlike all the other outdated or poorly written regs we all ignore on a regular basis to get the mission done?"
Now, everybody may commence with calling me out for my heresy, even if it's true.
Ya'll will never win the polo vs. 39-1 vs. basic minimum uniform bit.
Quote from: a2capt on December 27, 2013, 07:02:02 AM
Ya'll will never win the polo vs. 39-1 vs. basic minimum uniform bit.
I'm not saying it's within regs. I'm saying that it's reality.
A member (or a unit) that disregards 39-1 requirements in the name of "cost, ease of maintenance, and lack of concern with military customs" is most likely a unit that will disregard other regulations as well.
I believe the Air Force expects better from us.
One more reason why they have issues with their Auxiliary, I suppose...
Jack
I may loathe the G/W kit for reasons stated elsewhere, and would like to see changes to it also stated elsewhere.
However, due to medication side effects I am currently (just) outside the limits for the AF uniform. Probably very few others would notice and/or call me on it, but I know that I'm out of regs to wear it...so I don't.
Hence, I have a set of G/W in both short- and long-sleeved variants. The short-sleeved I wear with just my wings, nameplate and rank. The long-sleeved I wear with the preceding plus CAP ribbons and my two speciality badges (basic Safety, master Administration). I try to make sure they're clean and pressed.
I do not own, nor do I ever plan to own, a polo shirt.
For non-"office ops" occasions I wear my BBDU's or blue utility/flight suit.
I think the regs really stink WRT uniforms in a lot of ways, but until/if they are changed, I view myself as bound to obey them, no matter how ugly I may think the "corporate" uniforms are.
Our Squadron uses the polo shirt with Grey slacks as the Uniform of the Day for Senior Members for most meetings (Blue BDU's are sometimes seen that night as well). There is one meeting a month labeled "Blues" night which is when those who can, wear the Air Force style blue uniforms, and those how cannot, wear the Grey/white combo with the various ribbons and the like. This more "formal" occasion is the more ceremonial one when promotions are handed out, so it seems appropriate to be "more dressed up".
Quote from: Eclipse on December 27, 2013, 03:38:51 AM
Quote from: Fubar on December 27, 2013, 02:09:43 AMObserving my wing, we already have a de facto uniform - the polo with grey pants. I suspect for many of the same reasons you quote for the aviator - cost, ease of maintenance, and the lack of concern with military customs.
I believe terms you were actually looking for are "laziness" and "apathy".
I would suggest being careful about associating the term "laziness" with such hard working CAP members (some I suspect work as hard as you do), but your word of apathy towards uniforms is likely spot on. These folks are very mission-driven and really enjoy what they do. If the polo option went away, I think they'd get whatever uniforms they had to in order to continue participating, but clearly the culture of our organization is changing from within in regards to the importance of uniforms.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 27, 2013, 03:38:51 AM
Quote from: Fubar on December 27, 2013, 02:09:43 AM
I get that CAPM 39-1 prescribes a minimum uniform that members must own, however I think it's inappropriate to waste a volunteer's money. If the member has no desire to wear the aviator/blues uniforms and they participate at a squadron that has no issues with members wearing the polo to meetings, then there's your de facto minimum uniform.
No, they join an organization which has no such requirement.
The reality is there is no such requirement in many places. I'm sure you can think of a number of laws that are on the books but not enforced. We're seeing the same thing within CAP with commanders who decide, for whatever reason, against setting a UOD that doesn't include polo shirts. If there is never a need to wear anything other than a polo, there is no reason to waste a volunteer's money by forcing them to buy a uniform shirt that will solely live in the bottom of their closet and never see the light of day.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 27, 2013, 03:38:51 AM
The fact that members believe a uniform should "align with their interests" sums up this issue nicely.
I'd say most aspects of a volunteer organization need to match up with a person's interests in order for them to commit their time and money to it.
"Mission driven" is code for "I only do what I feel like doing".
Beyond that, thank you for making my point.
It is quite obvious to me why the "minimum" uniform is not universally-owned by CAP members -- it is not the normal uniform of the day at most CAP events. In the CG Aux, the tropical blue long uniform (basically identical to the CAP dark blue slacks/light blue shirt AF-style) is worn to basically every meeting. Because it is worn almost all the time, members buy it and I don't know any Aux member that doesn't own one.
In CAP the "minimum" uniform is not the "standard" uniform. Note how the term "blues night" has been used in this thread. In practice it is considered a uniform for special occasions and new members quickly realize that they don't really need it.
Now, CG Aux does have field uniforms worn for field activities, including a polo-shirt option. And, it isn't terribly unusual in my unit for the ODU uniform to be worn in the winter because it is warmer (there is a winter-version of the tropical blue long, but it is rarely seen). But, even in the winter, the tropical blue long is usually worn by most.
So, CAP needs to either recognize reality and make the golf shirt the minimum basic uniform or make the light blue shirt and gray/whites the standard wear for all CAP meetings unless otherwise directed. Folks, logic trumps regulations and right now any CAP member knows that they don't really need the current minimum uniform and that no one really expects them to have it.
^
Command.
Failing.
Again.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 29, 2013, 06:33:24 PM
^
Command.
Failing.
Again.
So what are YOU doing to fix it?
I am not currently in a position to have any influence beyond personal example and whining about it discussing it here.
When I was a commander, I did plenty.
However until there is actual national prerogative to enforce the regulations, vs. fearing attrition as the apparent primary motivator,
islands of commanders doing things right, swimming in a sea of apathy, will continue to have little beyond local influence.
The constant rhetoric is "fixing CAP", yet the actual answer, which is to work the full program and enforce the rules, is simply ignored
for "NEW!" "EXCITING!" ideas which stress shiny over substance and ultimately defeat their own purpose.
An organization, especially a paramilitary auxiliary, which cannot get the most baseline details like "what do you wear", right and consistent,
is going to be questionable for anything of actual consequence.
First, I would say we use the proper terminology for the uniforms. I only say this because I have seen plenty of cadets get jumped on (both Cadetstuff and Captalk) for calling the Service Dress Uniform the class A uniform (which I agree it is not). There is no polo uniform prescribed in CAPM 39-1. The proper uniform is the Knit Shirt or Golf Shirt as both are found in CAPM39-1.
Second, I think there are two different arguments going on. The first argument is what is the minimum uniform as dictated by CAPM39-1 and the second argument is what is the practical uniform worn by members.
The first argument is simple since it is spelled out in CAPM39-1. The only uniform which a commander can require a member to purchase is minimum basic service uniform or the CAP Distinctive basic service uniform (senior members only).:
Quote from: CAPM39-1Members will equip themselves with the basic uniform. The minimum basic uniforms for male and female cadets
and senior members, which will satisfy most occasions, are listed below. Members may obtain and wear
the additional uniform items authorized in this publication on an optional basis.
snip
a. Minimum Basic Service Uniform. Male: Short-sleeve, light blue shirt; dark blue trousers; blue
belt/silver buckle, blue flight cap; black shoes, and socks. Insignia: CAP nameplate, shoulder patch,
collar/lapel insignia, embroidered epaulet sleeve, and flight cap emblem. Female: Short-sleeve light
blue blouse; Dark blue skirt or slacks; flight cap; neutral nylon hose; black shoes; black handbag.
Insignia: CAP nameplate, shoulder patch, collar/lapel insignia, embroidered epaulet sleeve, and flight
cap emblem.
b. CAP Distinctive Basic Uniform (senior members only). Male: Short-sleeve, white aviator shirt;
gray trousers; black belt; black shoes and socks. Insignia: CAP nameplate, embroidered epaulet sleeve.
Female: Short-sleeve, white aviator shirt; gray slacks or skirt; plain black shoes. Insignia: CAP
nameplate, embroidered epaulet sleeve.
The second argument is also allowed for in CAPM39-1. A commander may prescribe the wear of a uniform in order to achieve uniform appearance.
Quote from: CAPM39-1The National Commander and other commanders may specify the wear of a particular uniform type
for the purpose of achieving a uniform appearance at squadron, group, wing, region, and national
functions. However, all commanders must be mindful of the objective of attaining a neatly
uniformed appearance at a minimum of personal expense to the individual member and will
consequently refrain from imposing unreasonable uniform requirements.
So at the very minimum, a member must own the either the Basic Service Uniform or the CAP Distinctive Service Uniform. Anything beyond that is the member's choice. What the squadron wears each night is a command choice. So if all SMs wear the golf shirt, great. If the commander allows for either BDUs/CAP Utility Uniform or Golf Shirt, great. If a commander says BDUs and a member shows up in the CAP Distinctive Service Uniform, then not much the commander can do unless it presents a safety issue. This is especially true for cadets unless the squadron can provide it free of charge:
Quote from: CAPM39-1A commander
may require cadets to wear other optional uniform items only if the purchase is voluntary or if the
uniform is supplied without expense to the cadet.
Although I will say that I did not know this until now, but the Knit Shirt is equal to the AF-style light blue shirt. I guess I always assumed more of a CAP Utility Uniform or BDU. But hey, learn something new everyday.
Quote from: LSThiker on December 29, 2013, 08:09:13 PM
If a commander says BDUs and a member shows up in the CAP Distinctive Service Uniform, then not much the commander can do unless it presents a safety issue.
Send the violator home. They can't follow the direction and policy set down by the CC or the Activity Director then they are not needed.
Quote from: abdsp51 on December 29, 2013, 08:26:01 PM
Quote from: LSThiker on December 29, 2013, 08:09:13 PM
If a commander says BDUs and a member shows up in the CAP Distinctive Service Uniform, then not much the commander can do unless it presents a safety issue.
Send the violator home. They can't follow the direction and policy set down by the CC or the Activity Director then they are not needed.
How is this person a violator? CAPM39-1 specifically states that the only uniforms required to be own by members are the basic minimum uniform. All other uniforms are optional. Although commanders may prescribe a uniform for uniform appearance, but they must be mindful of optional expenses.
If it is a cadet, then what? They definitely are not in violation of directive, rather the commander's directive is in violation of CAPM39-1 unless that commander can provide the other uniforms free of charge to the cadet or if the cadet is willing to pay for it or if it presents a safety hazard (although not spelled out but common sense says this). So at an ES school, sure. But a squadron meeting, no.
Quote from: CAPM39-1
A commander may require cadets to wear other optional uniform items only if the purchase is voluntary or if the uniform is supplied without expense to the cadet.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 29, 2013, 06:33:24 PM
^
Command.
Failing.
Again.
No, it is not an instance of command failing again. Just why should any member waste money buying a uniform that is rarely worn in most units and never worn in many?
The truth is that the "minimum basic uniform" is not used as such anywhere in CAP. In many units it is only the prescribed uniform once a month and at other it isn't worn at all.
If someone wants to make an argument that because it is the official minimum basic uniform that it should be worn to all CAP events unless otherwise directed, they actually have a case. A closer reading of 39-1 certainly implies that we should be wearing the service dress at every meeting, yet it is not done anywhere in CAP. Should we be doing that? Not sure I've heard anyone make that case.
And if we're not going to do that, the regs should be changed to reflect reality.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 29, 2013, 03:01:04 PM"Mission driven" is code for "I only do what I feel like doing".
Well, they're doing things like running squadrons and wings, holding AE and DDR events, executing REDCAP missions, and heck, recently a fun Christmas/Holiday/Year End party.
But I suppose they were only doing that stuff because they felt like it.
Commanders at all levels are expected to set the UOD for any meeting or activity. Most commanders seem content with setting a UOD of "any valid CAP uniform" and then expect members to wear those uniforms properly, regardless of which uniform they choose.
Unless the rules are changed forcing commanders to pick specific UOD requirements for meetings/activities, it is pointless to force members to purchase uniform items they will never wear.
Quote from: LSThiker on December 29, 2013, 09:01:06 PM
Quote from: abdsp51 on December 29, 2013, 08:26:01 PM
Quote from: LSThiker on December 29, 2013, 08:09:13 PM
If a commander says BDUs and a member shows up in the CAP Distinctive Service Uniform, then not much the commander can do unless it presents a safety issue.
Send the violator home. They can't follow the direction and policy set down by the CC or the Activity Director then they are not needed.
How is this person a violator? CAPM39-1 specifically states that the only uniforms required to be own by members are the basic minimum uniform. All other uniforms are optional. Although commanders may prescribe a uniform for uniform appearance, but they must be mindful of optional expenses.
If it is a cadet, then what? They definitely are not in violation of directive, rather the commander's directive is in violation of CAPM39-1 unless that commander can provide the other uniforms free of charge to the cadet or if the cadet is willing to pay for it or if it presents a safety hazard (although not spelled out but common sense says this). So at an ES school, sure. But a squadron meeting, no.
Quote from: CAPM39-1
A commander may require cadets to wear other optional uniform items only if the purchase is voluntary or if the uniform is supplied without expense to the cadet.
Split hairs much? The commander or activity director has the prerogative and obligation to set the UOD and has the prerogative to send someone not in compliance home. Cadets are a different story and usually ask prior to attending something, and I will not penalize a cadet for something out of their control. Adults on the other hand are where I have seen most of the issues. I had planned an activity and set the UOD for it and you can best be sure I'd have sent someone home for not complying.
For some sort of context, I did a poll last year about what uniforms most senior members wear to squadron meetings. It wasn't split out so that we could separate BDU/BBDUs from service dress/gray&whites, but the fact that just over 50% reported that most seniors wear the golf shirt uniform indicates that the service dress is not the actual standard uniform in CAP.
I suspect that if a poll was launched asking whether the service dress & gray/whites were the standard uniform for meetings that very very few would say that it was worn every meeting.
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=16223.msg292770#msg292770 (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=16223.msg292770#msg292770)
Quote from: RiverAux on December 29, 2013, 09:19:44 PM
And if we're not going to do that, the regs should be changed to reflect reality.
Yes they should be, but until they are, then they need to be enforced.
And they way to do that is by having the meetings, formations, and other activities
which dictate those uniforms, and not looking the other way when people ignore you.
The regs are there are part of a whole program, but we've become so gun-shy about
upsetting members that "setting expectations" has some how become a negative.
Quote from: RiverAux on December 29, 2013, 09:31:39 PMjust over 50% reported that most seniors wear the golf shirt uniform indicates that the service dress is not the actual standard uniform in CAP.
Yes, because members don't read the regs, CCs don't read them, there's no culture of expectation,
and far too many units are being run on a shoe-string with people coming and going as they please.
Then we look around and can't figure out why we have reputation issues, 20%+ annual churn,
and lack of focus on what many of our missions even are, let alone actually executing them.
Quote from: abdsp51 on December 29, 2013, 09:26:40 PM
Split hairs much? The commander or activity director has the prerogative and obligation to set the UOD and has the prerogative to send someone not in compliance home.
Balderdash, sir.
Requiring a member to purchase an optional uniform is not a lawful order. "Optional" means optional.
A member cannot be disciplined for violating an improper order.
But far more importantly, sending otherwise productive members home for mere uniform violations is silly and counter-productive, and does not seem to comport with our Core Values of Respect and Volunteer Service.
Please take a moment and reflect that any commander who adopts "do as I say or go home!" as their primary leadership style is overlooking most of the tools in their leadership tool box.
I encourage commanders to
focus on the mission -- preparing for and performing emergency services, training our cadets, and educating our members and the public on aerospace matters.
If a member's appearance directly impacts mission performance, immediate action is indicated. Otherwise good commanders educate, counsel, and encourage members to fully comply with our rather complex uniform regulations.
Ned Lee
Former CAP Legal Officer
Quote from: Ned on December 29, 2013, 09:48:46 PM
Requiring a member to purchase an optional uniform is not a lawful order. "Optional" means optional.
The minimum basic uniform.
Is.
Not.
Optional.
Period.
"will equip" is unambigous, so in that context, rather then stamp their feet like a 6 year old,
a good CC would insure they "are equipped" and find places for their members to be wearing the uniform
they have spent the money on.
Quote from: Ned on December 29, 2013, 09:48:46 PM
I encourage commanders to focus on the mission -- preparing for and performing emergency services, training our cadets, and educating our members and the public on aerospace matters.
Well, I guess we know how Eclipse feels about focusing on the mission....
Quote from: Eclipse on December 29, 2013, 03:01:04 PM
"Mission driven" is code for "I only do what I feel like doing".
Quote from: Eclipse on December 29, 2013, 09:51:46 PM
Quote from: Ned on December 29, 2013, 09:48:46 PM
Requiring a member to purchase an optional uniform is not a lawful order. "Optional" means optional.
The minimum basic uniform.
Is.
Not.
Optional.
Period.
Agreed. All the others (and there are a lot of them) are the "optional" ones.
Quote from: Panache on December 29, 2013, 09:52:39 PM
Quote from: Ned on December 29, 2013, 09:48:46 PM
I encourage commanders to focus on the mission -- preparing for and performing emergency services, training our cadets, and educating our members and the public on aerospace matters.
Well, I guess we know how Eclipse feels about focusing on the mission....
Quote from: Eclipse on December 29, 2013, 03:01:04 PM
"Mission driven" is code for "I only do what I feel like doing".
Yes, by all means purposely misinterpret what is written - that generally really moves a conversation along...
Quote from: Ned on December 29, 2013, 09:48:46 PM
Quote from: abdsp51 on December 29, 2013, 09:26:40 PM
Split hairs much? The commander or activity director has the prerogative and obligation to set the UOD and has the prerogative to send someone not in compliance home.
Balderdash, sir.
Requiring a member to purchase an optional uniform is not a lawful order. "Optional" means optional.
A member cannot be disciplined for violating an improper order.
But far more importantly, sending otherwise productive members home for mere uniform violations is silly and counter-productive, and does not seem to comport with our Core Values of Respect and Volunteer Service.
Please take a moment and reflect that any commander who adopts "do as I say or go home!" as their primary leadership style is overlooking most of the tools in their leadership tool box.
I encourage commanders to focus on the mission -- preparing for and performing emergency services, training our cadets, and educating our members and the public on aerospace matters.
If a member's appearance directly impacts mission performance, immediate action is indicated. Otherwise good commanders educate, counsel, and encourage members to fully comply with our rather complex uniform regulations.
Ned Lee
Former CAP Legal Officer
So setting a standard and enforcing the standard is not a tool in the leadership tool box sir? I'm sorry but if a member cannot comply with the simple standard as the uniform of the day and show up with a disregard to it, then how can you be sure they are not going to cut corners somewhere else?
So Eclipse, did you wear the service dress uniforms to all meetings when you were a group commander? Did you require it to be worn at all squadron meetings as required (unless the activities being undertaken during the meeting made it inappropriate)?
Quote from: RiverAux on December 29, 2013, 09:19:44 PM
A closer reading of 39-1 certainly implies that we should be wearing the service dress at every meeting, yet it is not done anywhere in CAP. Should we be doing that? Not sure I've heard anyone make that case.
Just a matter of reference, actually when I was a SQ/CC, my unit wore service dress the first two weeks of the month. The third week (BDUs) was for outdoor activities or indoor activities during the winter where service dress was not practical (ES training, model rocketry, team building exercises). The Squadron senior staff wore the golf shirt or CAP distinctive service uniform if they were not participating. The fourth night was PT, so obviously PT clothes.
I actually did this for two reasons. First the way the regulations are written. Two, the start of the Iraq war was not popular in my town. The service dress made it look a little less "war like".
Quote from: RiverAux on December 29, 2013, 10:05:36 PM
So Eclipse, did you wear the service dress uniforms to all meetings when you were a group commander? Did you require it to be worn at all squadron meetings as required (unless the activities being undertaken during the meeting made it inappropriate)?
Which meetings? I rarely held them. If I visited a unit, I generally asked what their UOD was.
As a unit CC, pretty much all the time, unless the activity dictated otherwise.
One must model the example one expects.
Actually, one could take a look at the 1997 and 2005 versions of 39-1 and see that if anything CAP has been moving away from having a standard uniform (no surprise to anyone here). In the older version it is pretty clear that you're expected to be in the service dress for normal activities. It is referred to as being worn for "normal duty" (1-2c) and especially (1-7).
It isn't quite as clear in the 2005 version, but it still does have the definition of service dress include the the "normal duty" language(1-3c), but expands the commander's authority to prescribe UOD.
So, why in the world are we requiring someone to buy a uniform that their squadron commander could decide on their own is never worn at their squadron?
Maybe the supposed revision to 39-1 will clear this up a bit. Either clearly make it the standard uniform for most activities or dump the requirement entirely or make the golf shirt the minimum uniform. The current requirement is clearly not something that most commanders support by requiring its wear on a regular basis.
^ Because the CAP "multiform" is a hot mess of progressive compromise instead of being
a clothing standard, coupled with CCs who avoid uncomfortable conversations like the
plague, or who can't even be bothered themselves.
So the "standard" uniform for cadets is generally BDUs, even though we can't require they
buy them, and the MBU for adults is something 1/3rd don't even know is required.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 29, 2013, 09:55:48 PM
Yes, by all means purposely misinterpret what is written - that generally really moves a conversation along...
Your own words, sir.
Quote from: Panache on December 29, 2013, 10:44:23 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on December 29, 2013, 09:55:48 PM
Yes, by all means purposely misinterpret what is written - that generally really moves a conversation along...
Your own words, sir.
And correct in context.
Rewrite the reg because of people who are either a) lazy or b) dont care? Honestly these issues can be resolved if commanders explained the requirements upon entry and enforced them. Cadets can and should be given leeway adults on the other hand not so much. With cadets it will be situational but adults know better and should have their feet held to the fire and held accountable for violating things.
In todays society no one wants to be the bad guy and tell someone they are wrong or have those hard talks wih people. Anyone coming into my unit here that wants to work with cadets in the CP side of things is informed of the requirements upfront and what is expected of them. IMO if you are working the CP side you wear what they wear or the corp equilvalent.
The golf shirt should not be the minimum period why should we have to drop the standard for those that don't care or are lazy?
QuoteHonestly these issues can be resolved if commanders explained the requirements upon entry and enforced them.
Well, just what is the argument for requiring purchase of a uniform that is rarely worn? If you want people to own it, you need to require them to wear it and we really don't. If you want to require it, then you need to re-write the regulation to require it be the standard uniform and restrict commanders discretion to make other uniforms the UOD for regular meetings.
Quote from: abdsp51 on December 29, 2013, 10:04:23 PM
So setting a standard and enforcing the standard is not a tool in the leadership tool box sir? I'm sorry but if a member cannot comply with the simple standard as the uniform of the day and show up with a disregard to it, then how can you be sure they are not going to cut corners somewhere else?
A reasonable question.
No one disputes that commanders can (and indeed normally should) set a UOD for a given meeting or activity. And have all the necessary authority to enforce this, as they have to enforce any other lawful directive, command, or order.
(I suspect everyone is nodding in agreement so far.)
But while we probably agree on the principle involved, it sounds like there is substantial disagreement on the implementation. So let's look at that.
Hypo #1. Suppose a commander says "The UOD for our meeting next Tuesday is 'Short sleeve shirts/ blouse or Aviators.'" Reasonable guidance, and probably similar to something that is said by several hundred CAP commanders nationwide each week. But now, further suppose the following:
Capt Smith - the logistics officer - shows up in BDUs. When the commander asks about it, Capt Smith says "I didn't think you meant me because you knew I have to inventory all the tents and heavy boxes of uniforms in the supply shed. I'm sorry if I misunderstood, but I do have to get the inventory done or we will be late on the suspense."
The commander has at least two options here:
1) Send Smith home because Smith "cannot follow simple standards." After all, if Smith shows up in the wrong uniform "how can you be sure he is not going to cut corners somewhere else?" This approach has the advantage of reinforcing a commander's authority to specify uniforms. Other members will surely watch and learn. Sure, the inventory may not get done, but it is far more important to ensure that members do not disregard clear guidance about uniforms.
2) Thank Smith for pointing out the communication error. Ask Smith to remind you in the future if your guidance seems ambiguous. Make sure Smith has all the help needed for the inventory.
HYPO #2. The commander says "The UOD next week is BDU's or corporate equivalent. We're going to do some ES training in the woods adjacent to the squadron, so dress warmly.
Lt Jones - the unit Admin officer -- shows up wearing aviators. When the commander asks about it, Jones says that Jones doesn't have BDUs, believing them to be an optional uniform. Jones points out that Jones received a CAP Achievement Award last year after being nominated for Admin Officer of the Year award. All of Jones' duties are performed either at home, on line, or in the tiny squadron office.
The commander pushes back a bit, saying how important it is for everyone to look uniform, and reminds Jones that it is the commander's prerogative to set the UOD. Jones replies that Jones is retired, lives on a fixed income, and can't really afford the over $100 cost for the "optional" uniform that is not needed or related to Jones' normal duties.
The commander has at least two options here:
1) Send Jones home because Jones "cannot follow simple standards." After all, if Jones shows up in the wrong uniform "how can you be sure he is not going to cut corners somewhere else?" This approach has the advantage of reinforcing a commander's authority to specify uniforms. Other members will surely watch and learn. After all, Jones can perform much of the Admin Officer duty at home or on line.
2) Thank Jones yet again for exemplary performance of duty. Let Jones perform duty in the Aviator uniform.
HYPO #3. The commander of a cadet unit specified BDUs for the meeting. Cadet Davis shows up in what only can be described charitably as "BDU's." Davis' shirt has the impressions from where the previous owner's patches had been removed, but no CAP insignia. It is, however, free of wrinkles and the boots are shined. Davis forgot the BDU hat at home. When asked by the staff, Davis point out that this is his first time wearing BDUs. Davis' family had economized by recycling some BDUs acquired from a family member. Davis worked very hard to get the uniform ready, and came with some money to buy patches from the unit supply during the break.
The commander has at least two options here:
1) Send Davis home because Davis "cannot follow simple standards." After all, if Davis shows up in an improper uniform "how can you be sure he is not going to cut corners somewhere else?" This approach has the advantage of reinforcing a commander's authority to specify uniforms. Other members will surely watch and learn.
2) Allow the cadet chain to work with Davis to ensure that he understands the standards, and encourage Davis to properly sew on the patches for the next BDU night. Make sure that Davis (and all the other cadets) have an exciting and engaging meeting night.
And to give you one:
HYPO #4. The commander sets the UOD as "short sleeve shirts or aviators." Lt Lee - a qualified CAP Transport pilot -- shows up in a golf shirt. In fact, this is the third meeting in a row that Lee has worn the golf shirt instead of the UOD. Previously, the commander had educated and counseled Lee about the minimum basic / distinctive basic uniforms, and specifically referred Lee to CAPM 39-1, para 1-5. Based on previous conversations, the commander knows that finances are not the issue here. Lee has said on several occasions that "hey, I'm a busy legal professional. You guys are lucky to have me here at all." Lee has also actively encouraged other squadron members to wear the golf shirt combo and to disregard the commander's UOD guidance. Lee has no specific responsibilities beyond receiving some training at tonight's meeting.
The commander has several options here:
1) Send Lee home because Lee "cannot follow simple standards." After all, if Lee shows up in the wrong uniform "how can you be sure he is not going to cut corners somewhere else?" This approach has the advantage of reinforcing a commander's authority to specify uniforms. Other members will surely watch and learn.
2) Again counsel and re-educate Lee. The commander can take additional actions to encourage compliance such as restricting Lee from the upcoming National Conference in Vegas, or even grounding Lee until he has acquired a minimum basic / distinctive uniform. The commander may ask officers whom Lee respects to join the conversation and actively mentor Lee. The commander can also explain additional options available to the commander to encourage compliance, such as suspension and demotion. And eventually, the possibility of termination.
3) Transfer Lee to group headquarters or some other squadron, kicking the disciplinary can down the road. >:D
Bottom line, is that you or any commander can set a UOD.
But you do not have the power or authority to order members to purchase any uniform other than the minimum basic / distinctive uniform specified in the regs.
Sure, you can restrict them from duties that would normally require a field or flight uniform if they don't have them. But as a practical matter, that is going to be a fairly rare occurance. For the average meeting or activity, the minimum uniform is more than adequate.
Thank you for your work with our cadets. You are shaping America's future.
(This got too long. Sorry about that.)
Quote from: RiverAux on December 29, 2013, 11:22:11 PM
QuoteHonestly these issues can be resolved if commanders explained the requirements upon entry and enforced them.
Well, just what is the argument for requiring purchase of a uniform that is rarely worn? If you want people to own it, you need to require them to wear it and we really don't. If you want to require it, then you need to re-write the regulation to require it be the standard uniform and restrict commanders discretion to make other uniforms the UOD for regular meetings.
It may be worn rarely at your unit and in your wing and maybe by those actively present here. Bottom line it is required and it's up to the commander to set and enforce policy. In all the units I have been in even now it has been the exception not the rule. A commander can require it and it is on them to require it. Change for the sake of change or to cater to the few who don't want to play by the rules is pointless. There is no solid, unbiased or statistical data to support that the golf shirt is the predominantly worn combo.
Rewriting the reg because commanders do not want to do their job is silly and pointless.
LtCol Lee, you're scenarios certainly provide a different picture, but in all of those prior coordination would have alleviated most of them. I have said before I would not penalize a cadet for something they have no control over. Let me ask you this.
How long has Capt Smith known the inventory was due?
Lt Jones case is correct in assessment it's optional, but I am also on a fixed budget and income and have equipped myself with three different uniform combos. Is all Lt Jones doing is admin and nothing else?
Cadet Davis's case is one for the CP staff and cadet staff to work on.
The final case said Lt needs an attitude adjustment big time. His attitude and contempt is not needed nor hopefully desired in our organization. He's not the only one who is a busy professional and if he's thumbing his nose at uniform policies, then I go back to the earlier question what's stopping him from cutting corners with the A/C?
Ned, thank you very much for telling us the Application for Senior Membership has meaningless words in its oath.You probably remember that form better than me but basically it states that adults swear to obey CAP regs and orders of those put above me. And that everything in it is well empty. This is the implications of the scenarios you present.
You cannot defend both positions. Either you obey or not.
Someone brings a firearm into a courtroom. He has removed the trigger and other key parts so it cannot fire or be loaded with ammunition. That person cannot claim "It is not a firearm as it cannot shoot bullets," right? Well that is basically the argument you are presenting.
Flyer
Quote from: flyer333555 on December 29, 2013, 11:58:55 PM
Ned, thank you very much for telling us the Application for Senior Membership has meaningless words in its oath.You probably remember that form better than me but basically it states that adults swear to obey CAP regs and orders of those put above me. And that everything in it is well empty. This is the implications of the scenarios you present.
You cannot defend both positions. Either you obey or not.
Flyer
Seriously?
In your world all orders must be obeyed, even improper and illegal ones?
That can't be what you are saying.
One of my major points in my post above is that commanders do not have the authority to order or require members to purchase optional uniforms. Any order that purports to do so is improper and need not be obeyed.
(BTW, lawful and proper orders and directives must be obeyed. That was kinda the point of Hypo #4.)
But let's look at the implications of your position:
Example: I am the new cadet squadron commander. I hereby set the UOD for the first three meetings of the month as Blazer Uniform. Cadets who do not show up in a proper blazer uniform will be sent home and subject to further discipline. Everybody better be able to share hundreds of their dollars with Vanguard . . . . or else.
You should be fine with that. After all, "either you obey or not."
(Hint: such an order is improper because it directly contradicts the regulation that makes any cadet uniform beyond the minimum basic uniform as "optional." Members cannot be disciplined for refusing to obey improper orders. Indeed, commanders who give such improper orders commit misconduct and can be disiplined.)
Example: Cadet Jones has been a little careless with the storage of his cash at encampment. I order you to take money from his footlocker to teach him a lesson.
You should be fine with that. After all, "either you obey or not."
It is not too hard to think of dozens of potential examples of orders that are improper, and which should not be obeyed. Fortunately, such things are relatively rare in CAP, and even if it happens the stakes are ususally fairly low and everything can be sorted out with a little discussion and training.
But my point remains: Commanders do not have the authority to order members to purchase optional uniforms. Any order that purports to do otherwise is improper.
(Again, commanders clearly have the authority to restrict members from performing duties that require the use of an (optional) field or flight uniform, if the member does not have the proper uniform. But such situations are extremely rare.
Hypothesis 1 -- The commander is really at fault for not taking into account the duty he knew Capt. Smith was going to be performing that night.
Hypothesis 2 - No member is required to participate in ES training or buy the uniforms necessary to carry it out. The proper answer would be to require those participating in the training to wear BDUs while those that would not be doing that would be provided with some alternative activity with the proper UOD. Again, the commander messed up.
Hypothesis 3 - Again, the commander messed up by not asking the cadet to bring in his uniform for inspection prior to wearing it to ensure that it was in good shape. No one is going to go hard on a cadet on his first night wearing the uniform anyway.
Hypothesis 4 -- this is really the only one that directly applies to this conversation. Since the issue has been discussed with him in the past, yes, I would send him home. If not already begun with the past counseling session, its time to start documenting this issue and to begin formal disciplinary action.
Quote from: Ned on December 30, 2013, 12:29:06 AMBut my point remains: Commanders do not have the authority to order members to purchase optional uniforms. Any order that purports to do otherwise is improper.
(Again, commanders clearly have the authority to restrict members from performing duties that require the use of an (optional) field or flight uniform, if the member does not have the proper uniform. But such situations are extremely rare.
This answer, like most information from Microsoft Tech support, is factually accurate and irrelevant.
Saying a commander cannot order someone to buy a specific uniform, yet can set the UOD and restrict participation, means the defacto opposite.
"Well SM Jimmy, I can't
make you by whites, but you can't come to a meeting until you have them."
This doublethink, circular logic is a situation NHQ has established and allowed to continue for far too long.
We can't force a cadet to buy anything, but BDUs are the defacto uniform for unit meetings, encampments, and most other
outdoor activities.
BDUs aren't required to be worn, but must be in a members possession for GT (which means we can, in fact, require a cadet to
wear something not issued, except we can, but we can't).
Seriously, it's ridiculous.
How about "one uniform, everyone wears it, or they don't and they stay home". The chips fall where they fall.
Quote from: abdsp51 on December 29, 2013, 11:54:18 PM
LtCol Lee, you're scenarios certainly provide a different picture, but in all of those prior coordination would have alleviated most of them.
Well, for at least the first one, I agree. The other three, less so.
QuoteI have said before I would not penalize a cadet for something they have no control over.
I think every good CP officer agrees with you.
QuoteLet me ask you this.
How long has Capt Smith known the inventory was due?
Undoubtedly for a while. But point of the hypo was that sometimes innocent communication errors occur. And even if it was somehow the member's "fault" for making good faith assumptions or misunderstanding the commander's guidance, it just seems a little harsh to send them home and start talking about them "cutting corners somewhere else," in your words.
The example was meant to point out that mission focus is far more important than uniform focus.
QuoteLt Jones case is correct in assessment it's optional, but I am also on a fixed budget and income and have equipped myself with three different uniform combos. Is all Lt Jones doing is admin and nothing else?
Does it really matter? Do commander's get to second-guess members on what they can or cannot afford? ("Sure you can. You're just not trying hard enough! Look at me, I can do it.")
If it is "optional," it is optional.
QuoteCadet Davis's case is one for the CP staff and cadet staff to work on.
Sounds like we agree.
QuoteThe final case said Lt needs an attitude adjustment big time. His attitude and contempt is not needed nor hopefully desired in our organization. He's not the only one who is a busy professional and if he's thumbing his nose at uniform policies, then I go back to the earlier question what's stopping him from cutting corners with the A/C?
On this one, I agree. As a staff guy, I would support your analysis if you chose option #1. But if I was your superior or mentor, I would strongly urge you to consider option #2 or a variation thereof. We agree that his attitude needs correction in order to be a productive team member.
Thats why it is ridiculous to allow commanders to set a UOD when the only UOD they can actually make anyone wear is the service dress which we require be purchased but rarely require be worn. Thus, the commander can set a UOD that everyone is realistically free to ignore unless it is for an activity that requires a specific uniform. And the only activity that requires a specific uniform is ground team work (You can fly in blues if you really want to).
So, CAP is really setting everyone up for failure here.
Simple solution--
1. Require cadets to obtain both BDUs and service dress. Recognizes reality that all cadets have BDUs and officially makes it possible to require BDUs be worn by cadets for regular meetings (which is the norm except on blues night).
2. Require service dress be standard senior member uniform for all normal activities except for field activities where other uniforms are appropriate.
Quote from: Ned on December 30, 2013, 12:55:49 AM
The example was meant to point out that mission focus is far more important than uniform focus.
These concepts are not mutaully exclusive, and our parent service seems to feel otherwise.
The only reason members believe these are somehow mutually exclusive is because of commander apathy and
NHQ's reticence towards making people sad, despite it ultimately contributing to the general malaise and
confusion about the issue.
Quote from: RiverAux on December 30, 2013, 12:59:42 AM
Thats why it is ridiculous to allow commanders to set a UOD when the only UOD they can actually make anyone wear is the service dress which we require be purchased but rarely require be worn. Thus, the commander can set a UOD that everyone is realistically free to ignore unless it is for an activity that requires a specific uniform. And the only activity that requires a specific uniform is ground team work (You can fly in blues if you really want to).
So, CAP is really setting everyone up for failure here.
Simple solution--
1. Require cadets to obtain both BDUs and service dress. Recognizes reality that all cadets have BDUs and officially makes it possible to require BDUs be worn by cadets for regular meetings (which is the norm except on blues night).
2. Require service dress be standard senior member uniform for all normal activities except for field activities where other uniforms are appropriate.
I believe you are confusing the service uniform with the service dress. They are two different entities.
Lt Col Lee, Sir we can go round and round on this whole thing. We can agree to disagree on many of your hypo scenarios as to what is the right or wrong answer to them.
In all of your cases can the CC send them home you bet it's entirely his/her discretion and call to make. Adults are one thing and cadets are another. When I attended SLS last year, it was put out that the uniform was either the AF blues or the G/W combo. We had people show up in the polo combo and they were told if they showed up the next day they would be sent home.
I planned a D/C academy and posted the uniform of the day for the activity, now had someone shown up without that uniform they would have been sent packing.
But the question still remains if you can not trust someone with the little or minor things how can you trust them with the bigger ones.
Quote from: abdsp51 on December 30, 2013, 01:43:35 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on December 30, 2013, 12:59:42 AM
Thats why it is ridiculous to allow commanders to set a UOD when the only UOD they can actually make anyone wear is the service dress which we require be purchased but rarely require be worn. Thus, the commander can set a UOD that everyone is realistically free to ignore unless it is for an activity that requires a specific uniform. And the only activity that requires a specific uniform is ground team work (You can fly in blues if you really want to).
So, CAP is really setting everyone up for failure here.
Simple solution--
1. Require cadets to obtain both BDUs and service dress. Recognizes reality that all cadets have BDUs and officially makes it possible to require BDUs be worn by cadets for regular meetings (which is the norm except on blues night).
2. Require service dress be standard senior member uniform for all normal activities except for field activities where other uniforms are appropriate.
I believe you are confusing the service uniform with the service dress. They are two different entities.
Well, blame CAP for not really making the distinction clear. For example, the service dress uniform is labeled as such in various figures in 39-1 while the "service uniform" isn't so described in the figures (while it is elsewhere in the text).
Well let us see if this is fixed with the latest revision of 39-1.
Quote from: abdsp51 on December 30, 2013, 01:51:36 AM
When I attended SLS last year, it was put out that the uniform was either the AF blues or the G/W combo. We had people show up in the polo combo and they were told if they showed up the next day they would be sent home.
There is a difference here. The AF Service uniform and the CAP Distinctive Service Uniform are both a required uniform, which every member needs to have. The Golf Shirt is an optional uniform. Therefore, this scenario is well within CAPM39-1. However, if the activity said Golf Shirt and a person showed up in the CAP Distinctive Service Uniform and was sent home, this would not be correct.
Ned, typical lawyer speak, twisting my words. Putting things that were never there.
It was established well before my post that there are legal and illegal orders. And that illegal orders cannot or should not be obeyed.
So if that is well established, why would I or anyone insist on them being obeyed?
Address my points without stating things that are clearly not there.
Flyer
By the way, commanders potentially give an illegal order every time a new cadet joins a squadron to wear black and whites until they get the required uniform.
Cadet shows in black denim Levis or Dickies. "It cannot be Levis, it cannot be denim, it has to be dress pants."
Cadet does not own any black dress pants, his school uniform is a different color.
Cadet shows in black tennis-like shoes, or black walking shoes. "Those are not the proper shoes, they have to be black dress shoes."
Cadet does not have any black dress shoes because, again, his school uniform shoes are a different color.
Don't pontificate about "illegal orders should not be obeyed."
I am willing to bet that most previous squadron commanders and Cadet Program Officers here do not/did not check whether cadets have dress black and whites before telling them the dress black/white is a required uniform.
Flyer
Quote from: flyer333555 on December 30, 2013, 03:03:54 AM
I am willing to bet that most previous squadron commanders and Cadet Program Officers here do not/did not check whether cadets have dress black and whites before telling them the dress black/white is a required uniform.
Who tells new cadets to show up in black and white clothing? I have never heard anything like that in my wing or region. When I was a SQ/CC and then a CP Officer, my guidance was just show up in conservative clothing that is appropriate for the climate until you receive your uniforms.
When did telling cadets black and white clothing become "a thing"?
Quote from: flyer333555 on December 30, 2013, 02:43:25 AM
Ned, typical lawyer speak, twisting my words. Putting things that were never there.
It was established well before my post that there are legal and illegal orders. And that illegal orders cannot or should not be obeyed.
So if that is well established, why would I or anyone insist on them being obeyed?
Address my points without stating things that are clearly not there.
Flyer
OK, Luis, I'll try.
So what were your points?
My Wing. I joined first in 1996, stopped attending in 2005 or so, came back in 2011. Has been there since 1996, continues until today. I have been in six different squadrons, and have attended some activities in which other squadrons have also told new cadets of this "uniform."
Flyer
Quote from: flyer333555 on December 30, 2013, 03:22:43 AM
My Wing.
Flyer
Interesting. Cannot say I really understand the point, but okay. Interesting nevertheless.
Quote from: flyer333555 on December 30, 2013, 03:22:43 AM
My Wing. I joined first in 1996, stopped attending in 2005 or so, came back in 2011. Has been there since 1996, continues until today. I have been in six different squadrons, and have attended some activities in which other squadrons have also told new cadets of this "uniform."
Flyer
Was this in a Wing Supplement or something? Because if it isn't it's not enforceable.
Nope, it is not in any Wing supplement. But appears to be enforced by all senior members... It has never been challenged, and every time you go to a different squadron, you see the "uniform." And the CCs state it again.
Quote from: abdsp51 on December 30, 2013, 01:51:36 AMIn all of your cases can the CC send them home you bet it's entirely his/her discretion and call to make. Adults are one thing and cadets are another. When I attended SLS last year, it was put out that the uniform was either the AF blues or the G/W combo. We had people show up in the polo combo and they were told if they showed up the next day they would be sent home.
That's unfortunate that there were members who decided to ignore what I assume were clear instructions on the UOD. Did anyone offer up an explanation for their disobedience that made sense?
What undermines your efforts to enforce your disdain of the golf shirt uniform onto your fellow members is that those without anything but the golf shirt can simply skip your SLS and wait for the next one that allows them to wear their preferred uniform. Because we allow commanders and activity directors the flexibility to command within the regulations, we all have to occasionally live with commanders who base their decisions on priorities other than our own.
Quote from: PHall on December 30, 2013, 03:44:40 AM
Quote from: flyer333555 on December 30, 2013, 03:22:43 AM
My Wing. I joined first in 1996, stopped attending in 2005 or so, came back in 2011. Has been there since 1996, continues until today. I have been in six different squadrons, and have attended some activities in which other squadrons have also told new cadets of this "uniform."
Flyer
Was this in a Wing Supplement or something? Because if it isn't it's not enforceable.
Is it any less enforceable than the PT uniforms squadrons dictate to their cadet members?
QuoteWhat undermines your efforts to enforce your disdain of the golf shirt uniform onto your fellow members is that those without anything but the golf shirt can simply skip your SLS and wait for the next one that allows them to wear their preferred uniform.
I'm glad to hear that there are members who would willingly delay CAP promotion because they couldn't wear their preferred uniform to an event. Folks like that don't need to be promoted.
Since being properly equipped is...
...required...
...why wouldn't they have it?
And since they are required to have it, why wouldn't they want to wear it?
Unit CCs are free to set the UOD, not relieve the requirement of 39-1 in regards to being properly equipped.
A good commander insures his people are always properly equipped so that they can take advantage of opportunities like an SLS. Anything less is a disservice to his members.
One thing to keep in mind is that while the regulations only require the light blue shirt/pants, in practical terms members must buy other appropriate outerwear (for the AF style uniform at least) in most of the country.
By the way, here is another contradiction for you regarding the distinction between the "service uniform" and the service dress uniform -- in 39-1 you see this in 2-1(a) (emphasis mine):
QuoteService uniforms include the service dress uniform, long-sleeve light blue blouse/shirt, and shortsleeve light blue blouse/shirt.
I was a student and had no control over the UoD, and the director had put out in the announcement and reminders the uniform was the AF style blues or the G/W. Since when is it a disservice to the member who can not follow the directions and guidelines set down?
The member would have done themselves the disservice by ignoring that and doing what they want. This sets a precedence for themselves and their unit when they pull that, and teaches cadets that the rules are not meant to be followed.
39-1 is clear on what the basic and required uniform is, it's because people either don't read it or care that we have these issues. Ask cadets especially those in Phase II, III, or IV what the basic uniform is for them and you will probably get BDUs. And it doesn't help when members especially commanders just say that oh the golf shirt is fine.
We tell beginning cadets to wear black/white, too. But that's it. Nothing specific. They've all been able to find some kind of something black and white.
I'm seeing a fair amount of hypocrisy and cognitive disconnect here.
Statement #1: "39-1 states that all SMs must own either the AF Blues or G/W kit. 39-1 is a holy document which must not be disobeyed. If you do not follow 39-1 to the letter of the regs, then you are a horrible member and, despite anything else you contribute, must be purged."
Statement #2: "The CC of course can tell members that they are required to purchase a uniform that is listed as 'optional' in 39-1. The CC is the final authority in his or her command, and since 39-1 is so outdated it can be disregarded."
It's one or the other. You can't have both.
I have seen many here opine that CAP units have an obligation to provice cadets with uniforms if at all possible, but seniors MUST buy their own.
What's wrong with issuing uniforms to seniors if the unit has them? I'm not saying screw the cadets, but many units reportedly have vast stocks of uniforms for cadets, but do not believe they are authorized to issue them to seniors.
We all know that the annual dues are merely the cost of admission to this park, and there are lots of additional costs seniors absorb to make things happen, so if we can help them with uniforms, why not?
Quote from: arajca on December 30, 2013, 02:09:56 PM
I have seen many here opine that CAP units have an obligation to provice cadets with uniforms if at all possible, but seniors MUST buy their own.
What's wrong with issuing uniforms to seniors if the unit has them? I'm not saying screw the cadets, but many units reportedly have vast stocks of uniforms for cadets, but do not believe they are authorized to issue them to seniors.
We all know that the annual dues are merely the cost of admission to this park, and there are lots of additional costs seniors absorb to make things happen, so if we can help them with uniforms, why not?
Both units I have been in have had a decent stock of both BDUs and AF-style blues to outfit
both cadets and most SMs with at least pants & shirt. One unit even had a few select sizes of the green flight suit. In both the unit culture was/is to "provide as much of the uniform items as possible and reasonable from our stock to cut down on costs to members". Unfortunately for those that wear G/W & BBDUs, they usually don't have any of those options as they don't come free from AD surplus.
Quote from: Panache on December 30, 2013, 08:57:33 AM
It's one or the other. You can't have both.
And yet we do. The core of the real problem, and ignored since last century.
Quote from: arajca on December 30, 2013, 02:09:56 PM
I have seen many here opine that CAP units have an obligation to provice cadets with uniforms if at all possible, but seniors MUST buy their own.
Units have no obligation to provide uniforms to anyone, and I continue to be stymied as to why cadets are viewed as this
"protected class" in regards to what it costs to participate. Kids play all sorts of sports, participate in other organizations,
etc., etc., and there's no "we can't make you wear this". You wear what's required, and if you don't have the money,
you fund raise, get a uniform instead of an iPad, whatever.
Anyone who's seen what 10-year old away hockey costs would laugh at CAP uniform expenses.
Quote from: arajca on December 30, 2013, 02:09:56 PM
What's wrong with issuing uniforms to seniors if the unit has them? I'm not saying screw the cadets, but many units reportedly have vast stocks of uniforms for cadets, but do not believe they are authorized to issue them to seniors.
Nothing - on the occasions that we've gotten some, we made them available to whomever (whoever?) wanted them.
Quote from: arajca on December 30, 2013, 02:09:56 PM
We all know that the annual dues are merely the cost of admission to this park, and there are lots of additional costs seniors absorb to make things happen, so if we can help them with uniforms, why not?
Agree 100% senior membership in CAP is 90% giving
back, while cadet membership is 90%
taking, yet seniors are
viewed as bottomless checkbooks.
Edit: typos.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 30, 2013, 04:37:34 PM
Units have no obligation to provide uniforms to anyone, and I continue to be stymied as to why cadets are viewed as this "protected class" in regards to what it costs to participate. Kids play all sorts of sports, participate in other organizations, etc., etc., and there's no "we can't make you wear this". You wear what's required, and if you don't have the money, you fund raise, get a uniform instead of an iPad, whatever.
Anyone who's seen what 10-year old away hockey costs would lauch at CAP uniform expenses.
Quote from: arajca on December 30, 2013, 02:09:56 PM
I totally agree. I've seen what my nephews & nieces need for travel hockey, football & softball. I wonder if part of the reason for this mindset relates to our military affiliation. In AD, ROTC and JROTC uniforms are provided by the parent service, maybe new people have that expectation when we tout our USAF Aux position. Just a thought...
^ it's possible, and doesn't help us the way it was probably intended. Even the partial issue of uniforms is somewhat
problematic because what the cadet has to buy costs a fair piece and many parents are "surprised" after being told
"uniforms are free".
I've had more then a few parents who misunderstand the USAF affiliation and think the staff is paid, expenses are covered and
CAP units are government entities that will exist whether they help / show up or not. In fact a lot of seniors
act that way, too.
Quote from: Fubar on December 30, 2013, 03:52:30 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on December 30, 2013, 01:51:36 AMIn all of your cases can the CC send them home you bet it's entirely his/her discretion and call to make. Adults are one thing and cadets are another. When I attended SLS last year, it was put out that the uniform was either the AF blues or the G/W combo. We had people show up in the polo combo and they were told if they showed up the next day they would be sent home.
That's unfortunate that there were members who decided to ignore what I assume were clear instructions on the UOD. Did anyone offer up an explanation for their disobedience that made sense?
What undermines your efforts to enforce your disdain of the golf shirt uniform onto your fellow members is that those without anything but the golf shirt can simply skip your SLS and wait for the next one that allows them to wear their preferred uniform. Because we allow commanders and activity directors the flexibility to command within the regulations, we all have to occasionally live with commanders who base their decisions on priorities other than our own.
Or it will be like the SLS I went to: "Blues or G/Ws only".
Some people show up in Polos. No one says anything, someone asks if they can wear polo also, and the next day all but 3 of us are in Polos...
Or it will be like the TLC I wen to: "Blues or G/Ws only".
Some people show up in Polos. No one says anything, and the next day all but 2 of us are in Polos...
Or it will be like the Wing Conference social hour on Friday: "Blues or G/Ws only".
Someone must of [censored]ed via email. Then a few more, I'm sure. All of a sudden the "Meet and greet" with the Nat. Staff and BoG (or whatever the new name is) is now "POLOs OK!" (and I assume so was the rest of the conference..., and some commanders have to send out an email to their Unit/Group urging them to wear the minimum uniform "to raise the bar" and present ourselves well.
What's the point of urging ANY of this locally, when WING level staffers will only give it lip service, and then dump the standard as soon as an uncomfortable conversation or email has to take place? Then people wonder why overweight members are in Blues and no one says a [darn] thing.
^ can't disagree.
Nothing says "formal" like receiving an award form the National Commander in a golf shirt.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on December 30, 2013, 06:18:03 PMSome people show up in Polos. No one says anything, someone asks if they can wear polo also, and the next day all but 3 of us are in Polos...
I'm a firm believer in following the published UOD and I agree something must be said to those that don't follow the rules, such as what abdsp51 saw at his SLS where the members were informed they'd better show up the next day in the right uniform or don't bother showing up at all.
That said, this appears to be more anecdotal evidence that, at least for your fellow participants, the golf shirt is the preferred uniform option for a classroom environment. Many participants here don't like the (apparent) culture shift, but it seems to be there. When they are in positions of authority they have the right to do whatever they want to limit (if not ban) the wear of the golf shirt, but it appears (again anecdotally) they are in the minority. The only way the minority is going to get their way is to change the regulations to limit discretion of commanders and activity directors (prescribed uniforms for meetings, SLS, CLC, TLC, conferences, etc) or get the golf shirt removed from the inventory.
Culture shift?
This situation is nothing new, either in the text or in the way people act. CCs have been setting UODs forever and
some members feel "empowered" to do whatever they feel like based on the "you're lucky I showed up at all mentality".
The first thing we need to change is accepting that, because in most cases, we actually aren't.
Away from the paramilitary nature of CAP.
Quote from: RiverAux on December 30, 2013, 11:22:34 PM
Away from the paramilitary nature of CAP.
People who
want to move that way are trying to insinuate CAP is, I don't see it.
This is bad actors and apathy, nothing more.
And honestly, I would say of all the factors affecting CAP's viability, apathy is what could cause
its demise the quickest.
So, here's a question: What limitations are there on the Commander's authority to set the UOD for an activity?
Is it solely at the discretion of the commander without limit? Does there need to be a reason for the setting of a UOD, or can it be arbitrary?
If you think it is solely at the discretion, here are some questions:
- Can the commander mandate an optional uniform for an activity? Could a commander say that a unit meeting would be BDUs only for example? In what circumstances would such an mandate be invalid or valid?
- Can a commander mandate AF-style only or Corporate-style only?
Quote from: Eclipse on December 30, 2013, 03:57:13 AM
Since being properly equipped is...
...required...
...why wouldn't they have it?
And since they are required to have it, why wouldn't they want to wear it?
When a member joins, comes to a few meetings and sees everyone in a golf shirt, it doesn't take a genius to figure out the golf shirt is all you need. Some might even ask about the required uniform and if their commander is honest, they'll be told yes you are required to own it but hold off on buying it until you
actually need it. Then you notice everyone at mission base or in the airplane are in golf shirts and the annual conference most folks are in golf shirts and someone might start to think they don't need to spend the money at all.
Quote from: Fubar on December 30, 2013, 11:31:42 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on December 30, 2013, 03:57:13 AM
Since being properly equipped is...
...required...
...why wouldn't they have it?
And since they are required to have it, why wouldn't they want to wear it?
When a member joins, comes to a few meetings and sees everyone in a golf shirt, it doesn't take a genius to figure out the golf shirt is all you need. Some might even ask about the required uniform and if their commander is honest, they'll be told yes you are required to own it but hold off on buying it until you actually need it. Then you notice everyone at mission base or in the airplane are in golf shirts and the annual conference most folks are in golf shirts and someone might start to think they don't need to spend the money at all.
That's supported by the fact that there is no suspense date for when you "must equip yourself" with the minimum basic uniform.
If you're a member for 50 years, and don't buy the G/W for 49 of them, you're still compliant with the letter of the reg.
Quote from: Fubar on December 30, 2013, 11:31:42 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on December 30, 2013, 03:57:13 AM
Since being properly equipped is...
...required...
...why wouldn't they have it?
And since they are required to have it, why wouldn't they want to wear it?
When a member joins, comes to a few meetings and sees everyone in a golf shirt, it doesn't take a genius to figure out the golf shirt is all you need. Some might even ask about the required uniform and if their commander is honest, they'll be told yes you are required to own it but hold off on buying it until you actually need it. Then you notice everyone at mission base or in the airplane are in golf shirts and the annual conference most folks are in golf shirts and someone might start to think they don't need to spend the money at all.
If the commander is good, they won't see that, will they?
Quote from: JeffDG on December 30, 2013, 11:33:45 PM
Quote from: Fubar on December 30, 2013, 11:31:42 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on December 30, 2013, 03:57:13 AM
Since being properly equipped is...
...required...
...why wouldn't they have it?
And since they are required to have it, why wouldn't they want to wear it?
When a member joins, comes to a few meetings and sees everyone in a golf shirt, it doesn't take a genius to figure out the golf shirt is all you need. Some might even ask about the required uniform and if their commander is honest, they'll be told yes you are required to own it but hold off on buying it until you actually need it. Then you notice everyone at mission base or in the airplane are in golf shirts and the annual conference most folks are in golf shirts and someone might start to think they don't need to spend the money at all.
That's supported by the fact that there is no suspense date for when you "must equip yourself" with the minimum basic uniform.
If you're a member for 50 years, and don't buy the G/W for 49 of them, you're still compliant with the letter of the reg.
That could also be interpreted to mean
immediately, but it certainly means lack of having the proper equipment
cannot be used as an excuse for not wearing the proper uniform.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 30, 2013, 11:35:26 PM
If the commander is good, they won't see that, will they?
So, you define the quality of the commander by the fact that they arbitrarily limit the uniforms of members at meetings?
If there's no particular reason to require a uniform other that Polo, why is it a sign of a high-quality commander that they would just say "No Polos" with no particular reason?
Quote from: Eclipse on December 30, 2013, 11:36:42 PM
That could also be interpreted to mean immediately, but it certainly means lack of having the proper equipment
cannot be used as an excuse for not wearing the proper uniform.
If they'd meant "immediately" they would have said so.
Things that have required dates state them, they don't just require that they be inferred.
Quote
...until you actually need it.
If the commander would require it for, lets say, that members third meeting, the member would
need it by then...
Flyer
Quote from: JeffDG on December 30, 2013, 11:36:59 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on December 30, 2013, 11:35:26 PM
If the commander is good, they won't see that, will they?
So, you define the quality of the commander by the fact that they arbitrarily limit the uniforms of members at meetings?
If there's no particular reason to require a uniform other that Polo, why is it a sign of a high-quality commander that they would just say "No Polos" with no particular reason?
Good commanders are defined by their actions and their examples, not to mention their attention to detail.
People who ignore details and treat regs like a menu tend to be haphazard with other important things as well.
No one said "no golf shirts", but "only golf shirts" is a problem, because for starters, that means a commander
or member has self-selected to ignore components of the program.
Again, these baseline issues of "what do I wear?" shouldn't' even be discussion items, but because of how
messed up the regs are, coupled with apathy and confrontational avoidance, they become more important.
Uniforms are not the core of CAP, but they are a major component which is not mutually exclusive to other parts,
nor is good performance in mission areas an excuse to ignore the uniform or treat it as secondary.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 30, 2013, 11:42:59 PM
No one said "no golf shirts", but "only golf shirts" is a problem, because for starters, that means a commander
or member has self-selected to ignore components of the program.
In the absence of a "No Polo" UOD declaration by a commander, then if the unit all shows up in polos, that's an entirely acceptable situation, and does not demonstrate any kind of lack of leadership, or poor quality of commander. There's no ignoring components of the program. The polo is a valid uniform fulling IAW applicable regulations.
A member who comes and sees everyone in polos and equips himself equivalently also shows no lack of leadership, lack of commitment to the program, or anything else.
Quote from: flyer333555 on December 30, 2013, 11:39:39 PM
Quote
...until you actually need it.
If the commander would require it for, lets say, that members third meeting, the member would need it by then...
Flyer
That seems like a rather arbitrary decision. Why not the second meeting, or the fifth? What specific purpose is served by having this order issued?
Quote from: flyer333555 on December 30, 2013, 11:39:39 PM
Quote
...until you actually need it.
If the commander would require it for, lets say, that members third meeting, the member would need it by then...
Flyer
Exactly, and this lack of consistency is what kills the culture in a lot of units.
CCs try to get things on track, have promotion nights and formations, they get a lot of guff from
members, and give up.
None of that would be an issue if we had one consistent uniform for all, expectation of wearing it properly
and commanders willing to enforce the rules. No one should be able or allowed to sit back in the side of the
room, back in CAP opportunities and benefits, and yet make side-comments about other members
"Military wannabeism" or "choice of one uniform over another".
Because everyone should be dressed the same. That's something that other similar organizations,
not to mention NGOs, SAR agencies, etc., realize is important enough to decide and move on, instead of leaving a mess
that is constantly in flux.
Just like any business plan you can't summarize in 1-2 sentences is either a scam or doomed to fail,
if you can't tell a new member what they are expected and required to wear in two sentences,
you're done.
It then sets the "do whatever / self-actualization" tone from day one.
Quote from: JeffDG on December 30, 2013, 11:47:35 PM
Quote from: flyer333555 on December 30, 2013, 11:39:39 PM
Quote
...until you actually need it.
If the commander would require it for, lets say, that members third meeting, the member would need it by then...
Flyer
That seems like a rather arbitrary decision. Why not the second meeting, or the fifth? What specific purpose is served by having this order issued?
Why not? All are valid choices. It's part of a successful unit's calendar rotation of meeting activities.
On promotion night where do you put the grade an ribbons? Their pocket?
How can you instruct a cadet with a straight face, or any other member for that matter, how to properly
wear a uniform you've never even touched yourself and expect to have an credibility?
Also - to the "which parts are they ignoring?" question.
How many times have we seen people on here trying to sell the "I'm not wearing the golf shirt so I can ignore customs and courtesies..." nonsense?
These are people who have simply "decided" to ignore a core competent of CAP's structure in their own whim.
That impacts discipline, respect, and negates a critical attention to detail that is supposed to help frame
the serious mindset we're in and negate the GOB.
In far to many cases, the GOBs just want to fly cheap outside a mission environment and treat CAP
like an FBO, to the detriment of the organization and especially the unit they are in. This isn't exclusive
to pilots by any means, they are just a handy, too-prevalent example. There's plenty to go around.
QuoteThat seems like a rather arbitrary decision. Why not the second meeting, or the fifth? What specific purpose is served by having this order issued?
That allows the new member time to order the uniform, either the G/W or Blues, and have everything sewed, etc. In my opinion, it is better for the new member to have the commander tell him as I said
"Show up in G/W or Blues by your third meeting."Or would you rather have the commander tell the prospective member
"You should bring the FBI card, membership application, dues, and be in uniform?"
And what it serves for the commander is to demonstrate he is willing he will follow the rules.
But if you think that the new member can get the G/W and/or Blues in the time it takes to process his application, then the commander should state "Wear the Blues or G/W by your first meeting."
The quote I did initially was by Fubar, not Jeff, I apologize.
Again, he stated "Hold wearing it until you actually need it." If the commander says "Start wearing it by X meeting, the uniform becomes needed by that time!
Flyer
Quote from: flyer333555 on December 31, 2013, 12:37:48 AMAgain, he stated "Hold wearing it until you actually need it." If the commander says "Start wearing it by X meeting, the uniform becomes needed by that time!
And after reading it again, you need it the day you become a member,
It's essentially an "if/then statement". "Members will". Are you a member? Then you will.
No date is necessary because everyone in the status of "member", will. There's plenty of other similar statements with
assumed compliance and no specific date or delta.
The very fact that a member could conceivably shop for a unit based on which uniform they wear is so ridiculous and counterproductive
as to be a Duffle Blog article if it wasn't sadly true.
Eclipse-
Here is the situation.
Just because every adult applies to a unit, he/she is not guaranteed acceptance by NHQ. The FBI may have some issues with that person.
I was answering Fubar's post, which seems to indicate he was not aware that commanders could indicate the uniform is "actually needed" (his words, my sarcasm) for squadron meetings.
When I stated "by the third meeting" a little leeway is given for the members to acquire the uniforms after being accepted by NHQ. Since if NHQ denies such membership that person would not have wasted their money. The alternative is telling them they cannot attend any meeting immediately after their application is accepted.
You say you "need it the day you become a member." But mail order companies do not have a transporter that can have the uniform in your house seconds after it is ordered.
Flyer
We're all getting wrapped into the quotes, I was supporting you but really responding to Jeffdg's assertion that there's no clock on the MBU,
when in fact it's an assumed part of the term "member".
Obviously no one should be investing in a uniform until they are approved, which is fine, since until Level 1 is complete,
you can't do anything anyway.
But the first uniform a member buys should be the MBU, and CC's should be stressing that during L1 training, and
also through their own behavior and the unit's schedule. Those same CC's should be providing and stressing the
opportunities to wear not only the MBU, but other formal uniforms as well, and pushing their members to participate
in outside activities like conferences and PD which also should be mandating a more formal, professional appearance
The "well, what do we need that for anyway crowd" can find something better to do with their free time. The reality is that
much of life is unnecessary, but we add to the "required" either for flavor, spirit, good order, etc., etc. As it stands, it
doesn't matter why it's required, it just is. Push to change that, but comply until it's changed.
Why do you need an MBU? Because you joined the Air Force Auxiliary, not a YMCA youth league or "Mom's Sar Team",
the uniform, the courtesies, and the accouterments are part of the deal, for a number of very good reasons.
When we start insisting that our commanders understand and reinforce that idea, CAP will be pointed back in the right direction.
Eclipse-
My sentiments exactly...
Flyer
We all agree that under current regulations everyone is required to own it and commanders do have the authority to require it be worn.
However, until such time that this uniform is mandated by regulation to be worn on a regular basis (at every meeting unless training requiring other uniforms is taking place), you guys are just howling into the wind.
There is absolutely no reason to rant and rave about people not owning it when we don't require them to wear it.
It is obvious that the current regulations are not resulting in this uniform being owned by many. This isn't the fault of regulation-defying members, but the fault of CAP which has failed to mandate that this uniform be worn. So long as it is at the whim of a commander you are going to see most commanders decide not to require its wear because it is absolutely clear to me that most senior members prefer the golf shirt on almost all occasions and the regulations allow that uniform to be the defacto minimum uniform.
This isn't a failure by the commanders either. They have been given the authority to make the choice to NEVER require the minimum uniform be worn. Are we surprised that many of them have made that decision?
If you want people to own it and wear it, 39-1 clearly needs to state that this be the standard duty uniform for all CAP meetings unless another uniform is more appropriate for the purpose of the meeting or training session.
Actually, as indicated in 39-1, the MBU is the standard uniform for all CAP activities, for both cadets and senior members.
[quote author=RiverAux link=topic=18321.msg332833#msg332833 date=1388457873.
It is obvious that the current regulations are not resulting in this uniform being owned by many. This isn't the fault of regulation-defying members, but the fault of CAP which has failed to mandate that this uniform be worn. So long as it is at the whim of a commander you are going to see most commanders decide not to require its wear because it is absolutely clear to me that most senior members prefer the golf shirt on almost all occasions and the regulations allow that uniform to be the defacto minimum uniform.
[/quote]
Cite and substantiate? What regulation states this?
Quote from: Eclipse on December 31, 2013, 02:47:18 AM
Actually, as indicated in 39-1, the MBU is the standard uniform for all CAP activities, for both cadets and senior members.
Yeah, if you REALLY want to work at it. It needs to be EXPLICITLY stated as such. The only place this comes close to being stated is in a definition of the service uniform in 1-3(c). No one is looking for guidance on what the standard uniform is for meetings in a place like that. I tried really hard earlier in this thread to find something better, but be my guest...
QuoteCite and substantiate? What regulation states this?
Uh, I said it was the defacto minimum uniform. In other words, the unofficial minimum uniform.
My eyesight and that of many members on this forum indicates that the majority of members wear polos to meetings. Its not a large majority, but its there.
So the only actually required uniform is the MBU, but you need more explicit indication that's
supposed to be the official uniform for most activities?
It's the only uniform a CC can actually require a member to have, cadet and senior, what more do you need?
This is another place where nothing more then actually enforcing the existing regulation is needed.
Quote from: RiverAux on December 31, 2013, 04:01:03 AM
Uh, I said it was the defacto minimum uniform. In other words, the unofficial minimum uniform.
How many folks get the difference between de facto and de jure?
When I first joined CAP (1993), the G/W kit was completely different - no epaulettes, no badges, just the blazer nameplate. Even though I don't like today's G/W kit, I have to admit it's light-years ahead of the old one. I used to really feel for the members who couldn't wear the AF uniform, because they had nothing on which to display their accomplishments. It was also difficult to recognise rank until you were close enough to read the nameplate.
Perhaps it's just that CAP demographics have changed over the years since then, but at my first (best) unit, when I went to order uniforms from the CAP Bookstore (ahh...them was the daze), my unit deputy CC and I sat down and he told me the things I would need:
1. Air Force light blue, short-sleeved shirt
2. Air Force trousers
3. Airman flight cap; he said I could not wear an officer's cap until I was promoted 2nd Lieutenant; this was reinforced by the unit CC - and indeed I didn't.
4. CAP collar cutouts
5. Blue (at that time) nameplate
6. AF blue belt
7. Flight cap device
Some of the things the unit had on hand, others I had to order.
He told me that almost any black dress socks and "low-quarter" shoes would do, so I got those locally. I was also able to get a "Tony Nelson" service coat on the cheap at the Army/Navy.
I never actually saw a polo shirt or the G/W kit until I went to my first Wing activity. I never saw them worn in my unit and I was with them for six years (1993-1999).
The way the CC's specified UOD was very simple: warm weather, blue uniform; activity uniform and winter uniform; BDU's. The G/W and golf shirt were never prohibited; they were just unheard-of in my unit.
Standards were enforced by all three of my unit CC's during that time (including the deputy CC I mentioned, who later became squadron CC).
We had one member who consistently wore his AF uniform dirty...to be honest, it looked like hell. The CC (who had been active Air Force) had several counselling/warning sessions with him, but I guess it never got through. Finally he was restricted to wearing the smurf suit by the CC.
I think a big part of it could have been that we were in a building with Reserve units from the Navy (including Sea Cadets, who were always, unfailingly sharp-looking and on the mark with their C&C's), Marines and ArNG...and since we were the only Air Force-associated unit there, we didn't want to look bad in front of the others.
I suppose the gist of what I'm trying to get at is from Day One the command staff sat down with me, told me what I would need and how it was expected to be worn (and I did see other members get sent home for violations).
I got gigged myself once for my hair touching the top of my ears (I had just not got my hair cut in time); the CC took me aside and just explained to me that the next time I showed up my hair was to be within regs. I got a haircut the next day and it never happened again.
How many CC's or deputy CC's sit down with new people and show them the ye olde 39-1, point to the blue uniform and/or G/W equivalent and say "this is the minimum you are required by regulation to have, and everything else is optional?"
Quote from: Eclipse on December 31, 2013, 02:23:41 AM
Obviously no one should be investing in a uniform until they are approved, which is fine, since until Level 1 is complete,
you can't do anything anyway.
Wear of the AF-style uniform is prohibited by CAPR 50-17 until they complete Level 1 anyway.
What about a member that has been out of CAP for 3-4 years, may have completed Level 3,4 or 5 but hasn't compoleted the new Level 1 affect his/her wearing a uniform? He/she obviously completed the old Level 1, but now has to take the new Level 1.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 31, 2013, 04:07:47 AM
So the only actually required uniform is the MBU, but you need more explicit indication that's
supposed to be the official uniform for most activities?
It's the only uniform a CC can actually require a member to have, cadet and senior, what more do you need?
This is another place where nothing more then actually enforcing the existing regulation is needed.
Yes, it does need to be explicit because it isn't obvious that it is the preferred uniform and commanders are given total discretion to never require its wear. Are you saying that a commander is breaking the regulations by not requiring its wear? Until such time as that is the case, no one other than you is going to see this uniform as the default uniform for most CAP activities.
Some of us have been in that boat.
I have been in and out three times. And had to wait to meet the new requirements before wearing the uniform.
It is like renewing ES quals. You have to meet the new regulations before you can say you are a qualified ground team leader...
And if I go out and away for 5 years, I am perfectly fine with waiting for a new Level I. At this time I am a Captain, attained Level III and waiting for my Level IV request to be approved...
Flyer
Quote from: BillB on December 31, 2013, 12:48:54 PM
What about a member that has been out of CAP for 3-4 years, may have completed Level 3,4 or 5 but hasn't compoleted the new Level 1 affect his/her wearing a uniform? He/she obviously completed the old Level 1, but now has to take the new Level 1.
They obviously completed Level 1 at some point. The new one would be more of a refresher or whatnot. In some cases people who have attained Level 2+ and have come back from a break in service already know how to wear the AF style uniform if that was what they wore before. As long as it doesn't look like a sack I would allow the renewing member to wear it, sans grade until that was approved.
Quote from: RiverAux on December 31, 2013, 01:55:24 PMAre you saying that a commander is breaking the regulations by not requiring its wear?
I'm saying a commander is doing a disservice to both the member and CAP by ignoring a simple regulation and then not reinforcing it
by providing opportunities to use this required equipment.
Quote from: RiverAux on December 31, 2013, 01:55:24 PM
Until such time as that is the case, no one other than you is going to see this uniform as the default uniform for most CAP activities.
"You can't, I won't, you can't make me..."
Just me? That's not even true in this
thread.
"Is there a required uniform for CAP?"
"Well, it says here we all have to own
this..."
"Makes sense to me, next question..."
"Nah, I think I'll wait until the National CC calls me and explicitly explains this simple idea..."
Draft CAPM 39-1 is out on eServices. Get it while it's hot! >:D
Looks like draft 39-1 is doing what I asked and being more explicit about requiring wear of this uniform. In describing the service uniform:
QuoteService uniforms are the everyday uniform for CAP business. The appropriate combination depends on the commander's direction and the type of event, but these uniforms are usually worn for unit meetings, professional development events, conferences, etc.
Although, as expected, contradictory regulation is also in the draft -- they're going back to the language saying that you only have to wear the uniform at certain times, and "normal CAP duty" is no longer in there:
QuoteCAP members are required to wear a CAP uniform (either USAF- or Corporate-style) when working with cadets, when flying in a CAP aircraft (Corporate or member owned aircraft used in a CAP flight activity), or when conducting business under a CAP mission number (A, B, or C).
So, if a commander wants to require the service uniform at a meeting, I'm free to wear civilian clothes if I want. It doesn't look like I could choose to wear another CAP uniform though without getting in trouble (since I wouldn't be wearing the mandated uniform)
Hi, after reading thru this thread completely I'm gonna be the fly in the middle of the bowl of split pea soup and point out that this "problem" would not exist if CAP had ONE (1) corporate Service uniform, ONE (1) corporate Field uniform, and ONE corporate Flying uniform.
Pick a color, pick a pattern, and go with it. Uniformity... it's a wonderful thing in a "uniformed" organization.
BTW, if a cadet doesn't meet USAF height/weight standards... what uniform does he/she get to wear?
Quote from: shuman14 on January 01, 2014, 02:14:37 AM
Hi, after reading thru this thread completely I'm gonna be the fly in the middle of the bowl of split pea soup and point out that this "problem" would not exist if CAP had ONE (1) corporate Service uniform, ONE (1) corporate Field uniform, and ONE corporate Flying uniform.
Pick a color, pick a pattern, and go with it. Uniformity... it's a wonderful thing in a "uniformed" organization.
BTW, if a cadet doesn't meet USAF height/weight standards... what uniform does he/she get to wear?
Cadets less than 18 years are not subject to height/weight standards. Cadets above 18 years would wear the corporate uniform.
I do not think a lot of people would disagree if CAP moved to just a simple one style corporate uniform to clarify things.
^ So the Air Force has no issue with 17 or younger cadet who cannot meet height/weight standards being in their uniform... but for 18-year-olds and any SM it's a huge problem.
Seems like a silly double standard to me. :-\
Quote from: shuman14 on January 01, 2014, 02:46:12 AM
^ So the Air Force has no issue with 17 or younger cadet who cannot meet height/weight standards being in their uniform... but for 18-year-olds and any SM it's a huge problem.
Seems like a silly double standard to me. :-\
They don't want anybody who is old enough to be in the Air Force to reflect badly on them.
Quote from: shuman14 on January 01, 2014, 02:46:12 AM
^ So the Air Force has no issue with 17 or younger cadet who cannot meet height/weight standards being in their uniform... but for 18-year-olds and any SM it's a huge problem.
Seems like a silly double standard to me. :-\
Does not matter. Their uniform, their rules. Since the USAF also has no problems with AFJROTC cadets that would not meet standards, why would they have problems with CAP cadets?
Quote from: RiverAux on December 31, 2013, 08:08:27 PM
Looks like draft 39-1 is doing what I asked and being more explicit about requiring wear of this uniform. In describing the service uniform: QuoteService uniforms are the everyday uniform for CAP business. The appropriate combination depends on the commander's direction and the type of event, but these uniforms are usually worn for unit meetings, professional development events, conferences, etc.
I saw that as well and clearly the command intent is to see less of the golf (soon polo) shirt at meetings & classes. Unfortunately for those that continue to despise the polo option, the draft uses words like "usually worn" and still leaves UOD options to the local commander. I think we're going to continue to see the dark blue monster grow, especially when the squadron commanders seem to like wearing it.
Regardless, I think we need to recognize Eclipse's opinion that commanders need to at least occasionally require the MBU to force members out of their polos lines up with what the NUC is thinking.
The cadet that couldn't pass weight standards otherwise may not be promoting regularly anyway, baring a medical exemption, as the deck is stacked against the PT standards being met, as the cadet ages, the requirements tighten up.
That kinda takes care of that all by itself.
By it's very design, the cadet program should produce cadets able to stay within the required envelope for uniform wear.
Quote from: Fubar on January 01, 2014, 03:56:27 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on December 31, 2013, 08:08:27 PM
Looks like draft 39-1 is doing what I asked and being more explicit about requiring wear of this uniform. In describing the service uniform: QuoteService uniforms are the everyday uniform for CAP business. The appropriate combination depends on the commander's direction and the type of event, but these uniforms are usually worn for unit meetings, professional development events, conferences, etc.
I saw that as well and clearly the command intent is to see less of the golf (soon polo) shirt at meetings & classes. Unfortunately for those that continue to despise the polo option, the draft uses words like "usually worn" and still leaves UOD options to the local commander. I think we're going to continue to see the dark blue monster grow, especially when the squadron commanders seem to like wearing it.
Regardless, I think we need to recognize Eclipse's opinion that commanders need to at least occasionally require the MBU to force members out of their polos lines up with what the NUC is thinking.
However, you'll notice the golf/polo shirt has been removed from the "Service Uniforms" section and is apparently no longer considered equivalent to the AF blues or aviator shirt uniforms. The polo has been relegated to the work uniforms equal to the bdu and field uniform.
Quote from: arajca on January 01, 2014, 05:07:35 AMHowever, you'll notice the golf/polo shirt has been removed from the "Service Uniforms" section and is apparently no longer considered equivalent to the AF blues or aviator shirt uniforms. The polo has been relegated to the work uniforms equal to the bdu and field uniform.
Guess that means we won't be seeing any seniors or cadets in BDUs at meetings anymore..... right?
Quote from: PHall on January 01, 2014, 02:48:12 AM
They don't want anybody who is old enough to be isn't in the Air Force to reflect badly on them.
FTFY.
There's plenty of active duty, reservist, and guardsman out of weight but wearing the USAF uniform
in all its iterations, just don't want anyone not on the payroll to have that option.
^^^Go on any AF/ANG/AFRES installation and I can almost guarantee you'll see at least one example of what Eclipse is talking about.
Quote from: Fubar on January 01, 2014, 06:39:18 AM
Quote from: arajca on January 01, 2014, 05:07:35 AMHowever, you'll notice the golf/polo shirt has been removed from the "Service Uniforms" section and is apparently no longer considered equivalent to the AF blues or aviator shirt uniforms. The polo has been relegated to the work uniforms equal to the bdu and field uniform.
Guess that means we won't be seeing any seniors or cadets in BDUs at meetings anymore..... right?
Funny, but I read the regulation differently. The Air Force style uniform and/or White aviator shirt with Grey pants is clearly the "regular" uniform, but the polo is defined as one of the option of the working uniform.
My guess is that we will continue to see UOD being BDU's (Cadets) and Polos (SMs) on most weeks with one week a month with cadets in PT gear and SMs in Polos, and one week a month with the AF style or G/W uniforms being worn.
Maybe at Group or Wing level trainings and higher level meetings we'll see everyone in Whites/Blues.
Quote from: MacGruff on January 02, 2014, 12:09:02 AM
Quote from: Fubar on January 01, 2014, 06:39:18 AM
Quote from: arajca on January 01, 2014, 05:07:35 AMHowever, you'll notice the golf/polo shirt has been removed from the "Service Uniforms" section and is apparently no longer considered equivalent to the AF blues or aviator shirt uniforms. The polo has been relegated to the work uniforms equal to the bdu and field uniform.
Guess that means we won't be seeing any seniors or cadets in BDUs at meetings anymore..... right?
My guess is that we will continue to see UOD being BDU's (Cadets) and Polos, or whatever you came from work in (SMs) on most weeks with one week a month with cadets in PT gear and SMs in Polos, or whatever you came from work in and one week a month with the AF style or G/W uniforms cadets in blues and seniors in polos, or whatever they came from work in being worn.
Maybe at Group or Wing level trainings and higher level meetings we'll see everyone in Whites/Blues polos still.
FTFY based on my personal observations ;D
The sad fact is that in 2015 we will still have CCs using the 2005 version, and members with wing
patches on their uniforms.
If I were a commander, we'd be discussing the draft, but as soon as it was approved, the
next meeting would be detailed discussions of the changes followed by inspections.
(And yes, BITD we had members bring in uniforms to be checked for this reason).
I'd also do the weigh-ins immediately and let the chips fall. It's just too bad they aren't mandated.
Here's the kind of thing where OPS Quals and eServices should talk. If a W&B number is entered for
a member which exceeds a uniform spec, that should ping a warning email to both the member and the CC, to be
discussed next meeting.
eServices should also have an approval module for blues which must be entered by the CC, and
it should show on the ID and 101 card.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 02, 2014, 03:28:52 AM
If a W&B number is entered for a member which exceeds a uniform spec, that should ping a warning email to both the member and the CC, to be
discussed next meeting.
I'm aware I'm too heavy to wear blues. That's why I don't even own a set. I don't need a "warning email" to tell me this. And frankly would be offended if my CC pulled me aside to say "Hey, Lt. Panache, just thought I should tell you that you can't wear blues."
Quote from: Eclipse on January 02, 2014, 03:28:52 AM
eServices should also have an approval module for blues which must be entered by the CC, and it should show on the ID and 101 card.
Heh. This got a genuine laugh out of me.
"You! Captain! I see you're wearing the Air Force-styled blue uniform!
Let me see your papers."
^ We could fiance operations with fake ids indulgences!
"Thank you for attending the Arizona Wing annual conference. If you are attending in your Air Force-style blue uniform, please have your documents ready for inspection at the checkpoint."
(http://asbarez.com/App/Asbarez/eng/2009/12/upper-larse-crossing.jpg)
Quote from: BHartman007 on January 02, 2014, 01:42:54 AM
Quote from: MacGruff on January 02, 2014, 12:09:02 AM
Quote from: Fubar on January 01, 2014, 06:39:18 AM
Quote from: arajca on January 01, 2014, 05:07:35 AMHowever, you'll notice the golf/polo shirt has been removed from the "Service Uniforms" section and is apparently no longer considered equivalent to the AF blues or aviator shirt uniforms. The polo has been relegated to the work uniforms equal to the bdu and field uniform.
Guess that means we won't be seeing any seniors or cadets in BDUs at meetings anymore..... right?
My guess is that we will continue to see UOD being BDU's (Cadets) and Polos, or whatever you came from work in (SMs) on most weeks with one week a month with cadets in PT gear and SMs in Polos, or whatever you came from work in and one week a month with the AF style or G/W uniforms cadets in blues and seniors in polos, or whatever they came from work in being worn.
Maybe at Group or Wing level trainings and higher level meetings we'll see everyone in Whites/Blues polos still.
FTFY based on my personal observations ;D
There are times I have gone to a meeting in civvies coming from work, yes, if only for the fact that I forgot to stick a uniform in my backseat, and by the time I drove the 50 miles round-trip to go to the house, change, and go back, the meeting would be close to being over. Whereas if I go straight from work to CAP I'd be driving 3 miles.
(I just wonder what can of worms would be opened when I get on the road as an officer and swing by the Squadron building after a shift for a meeting, still in uniform with sidearm lol!)
Sorry officer, no weapons in CAP, you will have to leave yours in your car!
:P
(Ducking so what will come does not hit me!)
;D
Flyer
Quote from: Brad on January 02, 2014, 01:13:37 PM
(I just wonder what can of worms would be opened when I get on the road as an officer and swing by the Squadron building after a shift for a meeting, still in uniform with sidearm lol!)
There's a Major in our Group who's also a state trooper. He's shown up a couple times in full uniform. Nobody seemed to care. I certainly didn't.
The "nobody seemed to care part" is where the problem starts.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 02, 2014, 03:15:41 PM
The "nobody seemed to care part" is where the problem starts.
If he's a state trooper in full state trooper uniform, I think he's probably required by law to be armed.
what would you do if a state trooper showed up to you CAP meeting to talk about, say, state police aviation? "Sorry, officer, but you can't wear your sidearm?"
Right.
^ I think this one's been beat to death already.
Quote from: NIN on January 02, 2014, 03:31:25 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 02, 2014, 03:15:41 PM
The "nobody seemed to care part" is where the problem starts.
If he's a state trooper in full state trooper uniform, I think he's probably required by law to be armed.
what would you do if a state trooper showed up to you CAP meeting to talk about, say, state police aviation? "Sorry, officer, but you can't wear your sidearm?"
Right.
Yea but my question is what if I as a state police officer, also a CAP member, am coming off-duty, still in uniform, but attending my squadron meeting in a CAP capacity? While there are provisions in law that exempt police officers from prohibitions AGAINST carrying firearms, there's no requirement in SC law that requires police officers to be armed while in uniform, i.e. CAPR 900-3. Department policy however says that a firearm must be carried while in uniform, but that only covers on duty times, but basic officer safety says if I'm in uniform, I'm going to carry.
So yea, there's your head scratcher for the week.
Quote from: Panache on January 02, 2014, 03:03:42 PM
There's a Major in our Group who's also a state trooper. He's shown up a couple times in full uniform. Nobody seemed to care. I certainly didn't.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 02, 2014, 03:15:41 PM
The "nobody seemed to care part" is where the problem starts.
Nobody but Eclipse.
Quote from: Panache on January 02, 2014, 03:03:42 PM
There's a Major in our Group who's also a state trooper. He's shown up a couple times in full uniform. Nobody seemed to care. I certainly didn't.
I've seen police officers in CAP who come straight off shift to CAP meeting, sometimes in patrol car. What are they supposed to do - go home, change the uniform and take civilian vehicle, and possibly miss most of the meeting?
Quote from: CyBorg on January 02, 2014, 07:11:10 PMWhat are they supposed to do - go home, change the uniform and take civilian vehicle, and possibly miss most of the meeting?
Why are they any different then anyone else "coming off shift"? CAP activity = CAP uniform. A welder should change in the bathroom but a cop can't?
If they are attending a meeting representing their department in an official capacity, they of course they
should wear their uniform, but just like member of the military who regularly show up in their uniform
instead of CAP's, the rules aren't different because you have an interesting / dangerous / oddly-time-shifted job.
As long as they comply with CAP regs in regards to notifications, etc., I don't care either way,
however no one needs to know, either. If their regs about carrying conflict with CAP regs,
then unfortunately they will need to find another outlet for their volunteer service.
Why couldn't he just leave his sidearm in the car?
Quote from: BHartman007 on January 02, 2014, 10:17:32 PM
Why couldn't he just leave his sidearm in the car?
Not as cool.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 02, 2014, 10:20:44 PM
Quote from: BHartman007 on January 02, 2014, 10:17:32 PM
Why couldn't he just leave his sidearm in the car?
Not as cool.
I suppose not.
It only takes 30 seconds of extra prep to bring a uniform shirt and pants to work with you. Almost every cop I know if half out of their uniform before they even get home.
It's not like weekly meeting night/time is a surprise they don't tell you about until it's happening.
Agree. I often make it to our meetings straight from work. When I don't have enough time to change into a CAP uniform prior to the meeting, I just do so at the squadron building. It only takes a few minutes. Being in law enforcement or the military is not dispensation for not wearing a CAP uniform to CAP meetings or activities.
Quote from: BHartman007 on January 02, 2014, 10:17:32 PM
Why couldn't he just leave his sidearm in the car?
Because the weapon would not be secured.
Quote from: BHartman007 on January 02, 2014, 10:17:32 PM
Why couldn't he just leave his sidearm in the car?
I never leave my weapon in the car.
If I'm carrying a weapon, then it's on my person. That way I know it's safe and in my control.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 02, 2014, 10:20:44 PM
Not as cool.
That's just uncalled for. FWIW, a duty sidearm is usually not very light, in addition to all the extra gear. It's a pain in the tush to lug around all the time.
Quote from: Panache on January 03, 2014, 01:32:44 AM
Quote from: BHartman007 on January 02, 2014, 10:17:32 PM
Why couldn't he just leave his sidearm in the car?
I never leave my weapon in the car.
If I'm carrying a weapon, then it's on my person. That way I know it's safe and in my control.
Fair enough. But I wouldn't feel at all unsafe with my CHL locked up in the car outside the squadron building, either.
If the choice is lock it up, or don't come to the meeting, it's seems an equitable option.
I would imagine even having mine in the car would be verboten at ours, because it's past the secure point on a base.
Quote from: BHartman007 on January 03, 2014, 01:43:20 AM
Fair enough. But I wouldn't feel at all unsafe with my CHL locked up in the car outside the squadron building, either.
If the choice is lock it up, or don't come to the meeting, it's seems an equitable option.
True. Speaking from personal experience, even through I know the chances that somebody would break into my car and steal my secured weapon outside the Squadron building is.... extremely low, old habits and training is hard to ignore. I would admit to being worried about it.
Quote from: BHartman007 on January 03, 2014, 01:43:20 AM
I would imagine even having mine in the car would be verboten at ours, because it's past the secure point on a base.
For this discussion I'm assuming the person with the weapon is a LEO and that it has been cleared with the base MP's / DoD Police / whoever the Law Enforcement is. Obviously if it's illegal or against regs, then it's a non-issue.
For example: I had a situation where I was to go onto a school campus to give a presentation. Even though I was a sworn and certified LEO, I wasn't a School Police officer and was told, in no uncertain terms, not to wear my weapon. (/shrugs)
I guess if a sidearm is locked in a vehicle and others know that vehicle belongs to a policeman, a person intent on harm can break in.
I can understand that, and agree with Hall and others.
Weighty?
Again I sympathize with Hall. I rode with a volunteer ambulance corps. In my duty belt I carried gloves, flashlight, radio.
For officers, adding a sidearm and ammo, about two clips in addition to the one inside, and handcuffs... How much is that? About five to ten pounds in the waist?
Quote from: flyer333555 on January 03, 2014, 01:55:40 AM
For officers, adding a sidearm and ammo, about two clips in addition to the one inside, and handcuffs... How much is that? About five to ten pounds in the waist?
Easily. I suspect that all my lower back problems I've developed are from wearing a duty belt with a Para-Ordnance P16.40, 46 rounds of ammo, two pairs of handcuffs, pepper spray, an expandable baton, a Streamlight Stinger, keyring, and a chunky two-way radio which was state of the art in the late 70's, plus body armor, for almost two decades.
Or it could just be me getting old. Either/or, really.
Quote from: Panache on January 03, 2014, 02:19:39 AM
Quote from: flyer333555 on January 03, 2014, 01:55:40 AM
For officers, adding a sidearm and ammo, about two clips in addition to the one inside, and handcuffs... How much is that? About five to ten pounds in the waist?
Easily. I suspect that all my lower back problems I've developed are from wearing a duty belt with a Para-Ordnance P16.40, 46 rounds of ammo, two pairs of handcuffs, pepper spray, an expandable baton, a Streamlight Stinger, keyring, and a chunky two-way radio which was state of the art in the late 70's, plus body armor, for almost two decades.
Or it could just be me getting old. Either/or, really.
It's a cause for lower back pain which is why in 2003 I switched my belt to the Accumold Ergo-Tek belt and wore that for years. It helped out alot.