In 1966, I left the CAP and joined the armed forces. The country was at war. In 1969, it was my turn to go into combat, and I went to Vietnam as an E-3. My promotion and back pay caught up with me in a month or so, and I served my tour as an E-4. I earned the National Defense Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal, the Vietnam Cross of Gallantry, and the Vietnam Campaign Medal.
I did my job as a Navy hospital corpsman. I was not a "Hero" except when compared to other members of my generation who dishonorably shirked their duty to defend the United States. (There were a lot of them, too.)
In 1978, my National Guard unit was mobilized to deal with a severe blizzard. I was an Army MP by then, and rescued dozens of folks who were stranded in their cars and in buildings. We worked with the local police and were on duty for 11 days until the situation was stable. The highlight of my service was capturing a mental who went buggy in his house, and began shooting at people with a rifle. Again, I was not a hero, but again, I did the job that was asked of me. I was awarded the Humanitarian Service Medal.
In 1986, I was on TDY at Fort Sheridan, Illinois. After a week, I took my clerk out to dinner to celebrate successfully completing a mission that was very labor-intensive. Returning to post, we encountered a vehicle accident, and stopped to help. We found two men, both of whom had hit their heads hard on the windshield, and were now choking on their own blood. (Seat belts, people!) The lifesaving procedure, repositioning the head carefully, applying gentle cervical traction, and clearing the blood as best you can from the mouth and nose is basic Medic 101 stuff, but if not quickly applied will turn an injury crash into a fatal one. We climbed into the wreck, did what we had to do, and held their heads until the paramedics showed up. This time they DID say we were heroes, and gave each of the the Army Commendation Medal for non-combat heroism.
Now I am on short-final for Runway 60, and losing weight is harder than when I was simply "Over-50." As such, I am not welcome to wear the Air Force uniform. An alternate uniform was designed for us fat guys.
The National Board had a chance to allow us chubby guys the right to wear the simple tokens of our country's gratitude on that uniform. We are allowed to wear those same awards on police, fire, and similar uniforms on occasions, but it seems that nobody in CAP is interested in the service that I have given over a lifetime.
In fact, the National Legal Officer said: "We are a non-combatant organization, and as such combat devices of all kinds are inappropriate for wear."
Well, SORRR-EEEE! I guess I should have considered that when I got my orders to Vietnam. Maybe I should have joined the NLO in NOT going into combat so that the organization that I have been involved with would not be so ashamed of me that they call my awards "Inappropriate."
I THOUGHT that I joined the Auxiliary of the United States Air Force, and the ONLY military auxiliary in America with a battle history. I was wrong. Apparently I joined the Air Arm of the Woodstock Nation.
Peace. Love. Free dope.
Jerks!
According to the agenda CAP-USAF said that they wouldn't approve that particular suggestion in any case, so I wouldn't blame the NLO (no matter how silly his comments).
His comment was a flash-point with me.
By the way? Where WAS his sorry butt during the Vietnam War? In college growing his hair long and bad-mouthing his country?
The whole point of the corporate uniform is to have a uniform distinct from the Air Force and allowing military badges on it would seem to work against that. However, since we're putting military rank insignia on them, "confusion" is going to occur anyway, so why even bothering worrying about ribbons and badges. The corporate uniform may not be an military uniform, but everything about it is very much like a military uniform. Heck, our "Air Force style" BDUs are more different from the Air Force BDUs (when they had them), then the CAP corporate uniforms are from our AF style uniforms.
My personal view is that the ribbons and medals were issued to ME, not to the CAP or the Air Force.
But what do I know. I was in combat, so therefore I am "Inappropriate" in CAP.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 08, 2009, 03:14:23 PM
I THOUGHT that I joined the Auxiliary of the United States Air Force, and the ONLY military auxiliary in America with a battle history. I was wrong. Apparently I joined the Air Arm of the Woodstock Nation.
Peace. Love. Free dope.
Jerks!
I have noticed this very attitude as well. We have earned the right to wear the tokens of appreciation rendered by our nation. It angers me to think that a US military sponsored axillary would have an issue of them being worn on their uniforms, regardless of the member's weight. Your experience makes me angry... Hopefully someone will change it soon.
BTW, veterans and retirees(not in service anymore) have the right to wear their military medals and badges on civilian clothing! What is wrong with it being worn on the Cooperate uniform, when CAP ribbon bars and etc can be worn?
I agree with Johns point 100%. His awards were bestowed upon him. Not this branch of service. If members of the FD and PD are allowed to wear military decorations on their uniforms, why not members of the CAP wearing their cooperate uniforms?
In my opinion, that regulation is a slap in the face to veterans who risked and dedicated their lives to aid in the preservation of this nation...
You can still wear your military decorations on a uniform, the uniform of the service that you retired from.
For stuff like funerals and Memorial Day ceremonies you can wear your military uniform, either the current one or the one that was worn when you retired.
Mr Hall,
I understand what you are saying, but why not the Corporate Uniform as well? Military awards can be worn on state and city FD and PD uniforms as well as civilian clothes(by members no longer in service). Why will the Federally backed CAP not allow them on their Corporate uniform, where CAP ribbons and badges are worn?
Wear the aviator and wear your Vietnam Veteran hat with the ribbons embroidered on it. Problem solved.
Quote from: PaulR on March 08, 2009, 04:33:46 PMI understand what you are saying, but why not the Corporate Uniform as well? Military awards can be worn on state and city FD and PD uniforms as well as civilian clothes(by members no longer in service). Why will the Federally backed CAP not allow them on their Corporate uniform, where CAP ribbons and badges are worn?
It's not CAP that doesn't allow it... Your assumption doesn't jive with some services regulations for wear. I posted the relevant cites for each service a while ago, I just have to find the thread.
Edit: http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=5575.0
This corporate uniform business just never seems to end. Those in CAP/USAF who oversee the CAP rule makers should take a long look at the usefulness of old regulations in place. I think this guy should be allowed to wear his military service decorations.
Quote from: MIKE on March 08, 2009, 04:40:47 PM
Quote from: PaulR on March 08, 2009, 04:33:46 PMI understand what you are saying, but why not the Corporate Uniform as well? Military awards can be worn on state and city FD and PD uniforms as well as civilian clothes(by members no longer in service). Why will the Federally backed CAP not allow them on their Corporate uniform, where CAP ribbons and badges are worn?
It's not CAP that doesn't allow it... Your assumption doesn't jive with some services regulations for wear. I posted the relevant cites for each service a while ago, I just have to find the thread.
Edit: http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=5575.0
What made me angry was the comment made in his non-concurrence by the NLO. He also made the remark that CAP members could be criminally charged for wearing combat/military awards, but to do that one would also have to charge every VFW member and Legionaire who pinned his ribbon rack and his jump wings on his hat. The FBI doesn't have time to pursue even the most serious violations of the Stolen Valor Act. How much time does the NLO think they have to harrass old veterans?
I think you're missing the appropriate military regulations which do restrict when military awards can be worn on civilian clothing to certain occassions. These in fact would seem to make it illegal to wear them on a regular basis as part of the CAP corporate uniform.
Quote from: jimmydeanno on March 08, 2009, 04:37:59 PM
Wear the aviator and wear your Vietnam Veteran hat with the ribbons embroidered on it. Problem solved.
That isn't a bad idea! Except I'll wear my "Dysfunctional Veteran" hat with my ribbon rack pinned to the side.
Quote from: RiverAux on March 08, 2009, 05:02:14 PM
I think you're missing the appropriate military regulations which do restrict when military awards can be worn on civilian clothing to certain occassions. These in fact would seem to make it illegal to wear them on a regular basis as part of the CAP corporate uniform.
Please explain how a service regulation can be enforced upon a person who is no longer a member of that service.
Because of the federal law restricting when military uniforms and insignia can be worn which I believe does reference applicable military regulations.
I tend to believe also that military decorations earned should be able to be worn on the CAP corporate type uniforms. Both the VFW & American Legion "uniforms" allow their members to wear their earned ribbons. No one has gotten into any legal problems for doing this.
I really don't see the USAF having ANY authority over CAP's corporate type uniforms. IF they are distinctively different than USAF's military uniforms (which is only what the AF requires), there's no reason why a former/retired military member can't wear his/her earned ribbons.
HOWEVER, as far as devices go (combat badges, corps designations, etc), I would say no to that ONLY ribbons for awards/service time.
Seems in CAP a lot of time is spent on uniform issues. Sometimes I think we'd be better off to just go with a 3 or 4 simple corporate uniform designation & prohibit ANY AF type uniform from being worn. Let's look at the "least cost" uniform alternatives for all.
RM
I love all this talk about vets can get themselves arrested for wearing earned military decorations. First off, its not ILLEGAL for a vet to wear their medals. No vet has ever been arrested, cited or contacted by law enforcement for doing so. No law enforcement agency ANYWHERE is going to arrest or even care about a guy/gal wearing their medals. Spirit of the Law vs. Letter of the Law is what is recognized.
As a cop, I've worn my USMC ribbons on my uniform. I see vets everywhere wearing their medals on suit jackets at functions. On top of that, I was at a dinner and spoke to an FBI Agent who was wearing his mini-medal rack on his suit coat. And we weren't talking about his medals.
When I see people with an issue usually (not always) it comes from those who don't have them. Our military medals and qualification badges definitely have a place on our uniforms. Corporate or USAF. It adds a lot of credibility to our organization when dealing with the military, or even Law Enforcement Agencies, many of which are vets. We get each other. For those of you who were not in the military, Honestly, I wouldnt expect you to get it. And I dont mean that rude.
Its no different than me being on a mission with CAP and talking with some Border Patrol Helicopter pilots. At first, they pretty much blew me off. After I told them I was also an LE Pilot in addition to my CAP duties, it was immediately like we had known each other for years and actually began asking a lot about CAP. Right? Wrong? Its just how it is.
I get treated very different by military members after they notice my military ribbons, vs a member who has none. I was approached at March AFB by two Marines who asked me "Sir, I know what CAP is, but why are you wearing USMC ribbons also?" Initially, I think they were calling me out.
I spent 30 minutes talking to these two about CAP and ended up having lunch with them. When we were done they had a completely different impression of what CAP was. They thought CAP was a different form of JROTC. Sorry, its a rite of passage we've earned, that is recognized by others who have also. Common bond if you will.
Now, if you are in the military or a veteran, and you feel different. That is your privilege that you have earned. What I don't like is members who were never in the military, regardless of why you were not, telling me that my military decorations have no place.
Whether or not someone gets arrested is not terribly relevant to the fact that some of the services have clearly restricted the wear of their stuff on civilian clothes. Should not CAP honor the wishes of those services?
Quote from: Flying Pig on March 08, 2009, 06:15:01 PM
I love all this talk about vets can get themselves arrested for wearing earned military decorations. First off, its not ILLEGAL for a vet to wear their medals. No vet has ever been arrested, cited or contacted by law enforcement for doing so. No law enforcement agency ANYWHERE is going to arrest or even care about a guy/gal wearing their medals. Spirit of the Law vs. Letter of the Law is what is recognized.
As a cop, I've worn my USMC ribbons on my uniform. I see vets everywhere wearing their medals on suit jackets at functions. On top of that, I was at a dinner and spoke to an FBI Agent who was wearing his mini-medal rack on his suit coat. And we weren't talking about his medals.
When I see people with an issue usually (not always) it comes from those who don't have them. Our military medals and qualification badges definitely have a place on our uniforms. Corporate or USAF. It adds a lot of credibility to our organization when dealing with the military, or even Law Enforcement Agencies, many of which are vets. We get each other. For those of you who were not in the military, Honestly, I wouldnt expect you to get it. And I dont mean that rude.
Its no different than me being on a mission with CAP and talking with some Border Patrol Helicopter pilots. At first, they pretty much blew me off. After I told them I was also an LE Pilot in addition to my CAP duties, it was immediately like we had known each other for years and actually began asking a lot about CAP. Right? Wrong? Its just how it is.
I get treated very different by military members after they notice my military ribbons, vs a member who has none. I was approached at March AFB by two Marines who asked me "Sir, I know what CAP is, but why are you wearing USMC ribbons also?" Initially, I think they were calling me out.
I spent 30 minutes talking to these two about CAP and ended up having lunch with them. When we were done they had a completely different impression of what CAP was. They thought CAP was a different form of JROTC. Sorry, its a rite of passage we've earned, that is recognized by others who have also. Common bond if you will.
Now, if you are in the military or a veteran, and you feel different. That is your privilege that you have earned. What I don't like is members who were never in the military, regardless of why you were not, telling me that my military decorations have no place.
In the words of Scotty, "Don't ya think ya should rephrase that, laddy?" While I agree that US military ribbons should be worn, your above logic seems to insinuate that a person with no prior military service needn't be respected by Law Enforcement or active duty military because we "simply don't get it."
Sorry, our credibility should be based on what we can do, not what our membership did outside of CAP. CAP should rest on the laurels of its accomplishments. We are a volunteer force in the tradition of those that assembled on the Green at Lexington, the countless Civil Defense personnel that served as Air Raid Wardens et all for the war effort and an organization that has done a lot of good for a lot of people.
If you think works like that are BS, then you miss the point. That point being "be more proud of what you are than ashamed of what you are not."
Yes, I have not served in the military...but I do not subscribe to your contention that all of those like me are somehow "second class" or that we have some agenda to prevent veterans from wearing their ribbons. I do not subscribe to the opposite that Veterans seek to diminish the CAP issued ribbons because they feel they have no merit.
I greatly respect Law Enforcement, the US Servicemen and fire fighters for their service. Prehaps, one day, CAP (and teachers for that matter) might earn the same respect.
My vote is and always will be that US military ribbons should be worn.
Quote from: RiverAux on March 08, 2009, 06:23:03 PM
Whether or not someone gets arrested is not terribly relevant to the fact that some of the services have clearly restricted the wear of their stuff on civilian clothes. Should not CAP honor the wishes of those services?
Because... once they gave it to me, it isn't their stuff anymore.
For example: Who's regulation should I follow when wearing the Vietnam Service Medal? The Navy was what I was in when I earned it, but I spent more time in the Army. Even when I could wear the AF uniform, the AF's award precedents is slightly different with some ribbons than the Army's. Whose precedent do I follow? If you are correct, and the issuing service retains control over wear, we would have a real Charlie Foxtrot.
Service regulations pertain to servicemen in that branch. It would be a real distortion of the law to apply service regulations through the Stolen Valor Act to earned awards by veterans.
Quote from: RiverAux on March 08, 2009, 06:23:03 PM
Whether or not someone gets arrested is not terribly relevant to the fact that some of the services have clearly restricted the wear of their stuff on civilian clothes. Should not CAP honor the wishes of those services?
I am tempted to say, "Let the respect be mutual, then we'll talk." But, I understand that we are respected, at least officially, by the USAF. Their restriciton on CAP uniforms should really be a non-issue in that it is not an "end of the world" issue. I would be more corncerned on how CAP is slotted in their overall "force" as it relatest to having us functional and effective.
Quote from: Major Carrales on March 08, 2009, 06:46:33 PM
Quote from: Flying Pig on March 08, 2009, 06:15:01 PM
I love all this talk about vets can get themselves arrested for wearing earned military decorations. First off, its not ILLEGAL for a vet to wear their medals. No vet has ever been arrested, cited or contacted by law enforcement for doing so. No law enforcement agency ANYWHERE is going to arrest or even care about a guy/gal wearing their medals. Spirit of the Law vs. Letter of the Law is what is recognized.
As a cop, I've worn my USMC ribbons on my uniform. I see vets everywhere wearing their medals on suit jackets at functions. On top of that, I was at a dinner and spoke to an FBI Agent who was wearing his mini-medal rack on his suit coat. And we weren't talking about his medals.
When I see people with an issue usually (not always) it comes from those who don't have them. Our military medals and qualification badges definitely have a place on our uniforms. Corporate or USAF. It adds a lot of credibility to our organization when dealing with the military, or even Law Enforcement Agencies, many of which are vets. We get each other. For those of you who were not in the military, Honestly, I wouldnt expect you to get it. And I dont mean that rude.
Its no different than me being on a mission with CAP and talking with some Border Patrol Helicopter pilots. At first, they pretty much blew me off. After I told them I was also an LE Pilot in addition to my CAP duties, it was immediately like we had known each other for years and actually began asking a lot about CAP. Right? Wrong? Its just how it is.
I get treated very different by military members after they notice my military ribbons, vs a member who has none. I was approached at March AFB by two Marines who asked me "Sir, I know what CAP is, but why are you wearing USMC ribbons also?" Initially, I think they were calling me out.
I spent 30 minutes talking to these two about CAP and ended up having lunch with them. When we were done they had a completely different impression of what CAP was. They thought CAP was a different form of JROTC. Sorry, its a rite of passage we've earned, that is recognized by others who have also. Common bond if you will.
Now, if you are in the military or a veteran, and you feel different. That is your privilege that you have earned. What I don't like is members who were never in the military, regardless of why you were not, telling me that my military decorations have no place.
In the words of Scotty, "Don't ya think ya should rephrase that, laddy?" While I agree that US military ribbons should be worn, your above logic seems to insinuate that a person with no prior military service needn't be respected by Law Enforcement or active duty military because we "simply don't get it."
Sorry, our credibility should be based on what we can do, not what our membership did outside of CAP. CAP should rest on the laurels of its accomplishments. We are a volunteer force in the tradition of those that assembled on the Green at Lexington, the countless Civil Defense personnel that served as Air Raid Wardens et all for the war effort and an organization that has done a lot of good for a lot of people.
If you think works like that are BS, then you miss the point. That point being "be more proud of what you are than ashamed of what you are not."
Yes, I have not served in the military...but I do not subscribe to your contention that all of those like me are somehow "second class" or that we have some agenda to prevent veterans from wearing their ribbons. I do not subscribe to the opposite that Veterans seek to diminish the CAP issued ribbons because they feel they have no merit.
I greatly respect Law Enforcement, the US Servicemen and fire fighters for their service. Prehaps, one day, CAP (and teachers for that matter) might earn the same respect.
My vote is and always will be that US military ribbons should be worn.
It is lucky for us that the volunteers who assembled on the Green at Concord did not consider George Washington's service in the French and Indian War to be "Inappropriate."
Quote from: Major Carrales on March 08, 2009, 06:49:13 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on March 08, 2009, 06:23:03 PM
Whether or not someone gets arrested is not terribly relevant to the fact that some of the services have clearly restricted the wear of their stuff on civilian clothes. Should not CAP honor the wishes of those services?
I am tempted to say, "Let the respect be mutual, then we'll talk." But, I understand that we are respected, at least officially, by the USAF. Their restriciton on CAP uniforms should really be a non-issue in that it is not an "end of the world" issue. I would be more corncerned on how CAP is slotted in their overall "force" as it relatest to having us functional and effective.
Sparky:
It isn't the DECISION that has got me riled today. It is the attitude of at least one member of the National Board, the NLO, who said that CAP members wearing earned combat awards is "Inappropriate." I swear, if he had said that to my face I might have punched his lights out. I was really that mad!
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 08, 2009, 06:53:16 PM
Quote from: Major Carrales on March 08, 2009, 06:49:13 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on March 08, 2009, 06:23:03 PM
Whether or not someone gets arrested is not terribly relevant to the fact that some of the services have clearly restricted the wear of their stuff on civilian clothes. Should not CAP honor the wishes of those services?
I am tempted to say, "Let the respect be mutual, then we'll talk." But, I understand that we are respected, at least officially, by the USAF. Their restriciton on CAP uniforms should really be a non-issue in that it is not an "end of the world" issue. I would be more corncerned on how CAP is slotted in their overall "force" as it relatest to having us functional and effective.
Sparky:
It isn't the DECISION that has got me riled today. It is the attitude of at least one member of the National Board, the NLO, who said that CAP members wearing earned combat awards is "Inappropriate." I swear, if he had said that to my face I might have punched his lights out. I was really that mad!
Kach, I can see that this really bothers you. Please don't "get sick" over it. Sometimes people just think that they can say whatever they want without any thought to the consequences of those words. Thus it is offensive.
Might I suggest the following, submitting an official inquiry up the chain asking for a proper definition of "Inappropriate" in this occasions. Maybe these matters are not as clear as they need to be.
If it turns out to be benign, we all win. If it turns out to me some "anti-military" agendism, then maybe action is the answer.
Quote from: Major Carrales on March 08, 2009, 06:46:33 PM
Quote from: Flying Pig on March 08, 2009, 06:15:01 PM
I love all this talk about vets can get themselves arrested for wearing earned military decorations. First off, its not ILLEGAL for a vet to wear their medals. No vet has ever been arrested, cited or contacted by law enforcement for doing so. No law enforcement agency ANYWHERE is going to arrest or even care about a guy/gal wearing their medals. Spirit of the Law vs. Letter of the Law is what is recognized.
As a cop, I've worn my USMC ribbons on my uniform. I see vets everywhere wearing their medals on suit jackets at functions. On top of that, I was at a dinner and spoke to an FBI Agent who was wearing his mini-medal rack on his suit coat. And we weren't talking about his medals.
When I see people with an issue usually (not always) it comes from those who don't have them. Our military medals and qualification badges definitely have a place on our uniforms. Corporate or USAF. It adds a lot of credibility to our organization when dealing with the military, or even Law Enforcement Agencies, many of which are vets. We get each other. For those of you who were not in the military, Honestly, I wouldnt expect you to get it. And I dont mean that rude.
Its no different than me being on a mission with CAP and talking with some Border Patrol Helicopter pilots. At first, they pretty much blew me off. After I told them I was also an LE Pilot in addition to my CAP duties, it was immediately like we had known each other for years and actually began asking a lot about CAP. Right? Wrong? Its just how it is.
I get treated very different by military members after they notice my military ribbons, vs a member who has none. I was approached at March AFB by two Marines who asked me "Sir, I know what CAP is, but why are you wearing USMC ribbons also?" Initially, I think they were calling me out.
I spent 30 minutes talking to these two about CAP and ended up having lunch with them. When we were done they had a completely different impression of what CAP was. They thought CAP was a different form of JROTC. Sorry, its a rite of passage we've earned, that is recognized by others who have also. Common bond if you will.
Now, if you are in the military or a veteran, and you feel different. That is your privilege that you have earned. What I don't like is members who were never in the military, regardless of why you were not, telling me that my military decorations have no place.
In the words of Scotty, "Don't ya think ya should rephrase that, laddy?" While I agree that US military ribbons should be worn, your above logic seems to insinuate that a person with no prior military service needn't be respected by Law Enforcement or active duty military because we "simply don't get it."
Sorry, our credibility should be based on what we can do, not what our membership did outside of CAP. CAP should rest on the laurels of its accomplishments. We are a volunteer force in the tradition of those that assembled on the Green at Lexington, the countless Civil Defense personnel that served as Air Raid Wardens et all for the war effort and an organization that has done a lot of good for a lot of people.
If you think works like that are BS, then you miss the point. That point being "be more proud of what you are than ashamed of what you are not."
Yes, I have not served in the military...but I do not subscribe to your contention that all of those like me are somehow "second class" or that we have some agenda to prevent veterans from wearing their ribbons. I do not subscribe to the opposite that Veterans seek to diminish the CAP issued ribbons because they feel they have no merit.
I greatly respect Law Enforcement, the US Servicemen and fire fighters for their service. Prehaps, one day, CAP (and teachers for that matter) might earn the same respect.
My vote is and always will be that US military ribbons should be worn.
Could you go back and point out where I said you or anyone else was a second class citizen?
Quote from: Major Carrales on March 08, 2009, 07:05:35 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 08, 2009, 06:53:16 PM
Quote from: Major Carrales on March 08, 2009, 06:49:13 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on March 08, 2009, 06:23:03 PM
Whether or not someone gets arrested is not terribly relevant to the fact that some of the services have clearly restricted the wear of their stuff on civilian clothes. Should not CAP honor the wishes of those services?
I am tempted to say, "Let the respect be mutual, then we'll talk." But, I understand that we are respected, at least officially, by the USAF. Their restriciton on CAP uniforms should really be a non-issue in that it is not an "end of the world" issue. I would be more corncerned on how CAP is slotted in their overall "force" as it relatest to having us functional and effective.
Sparky:
It isn't the DECISION that has got me riled today. It is the attitude of at least one member of the National Board, the NLO, who said that CAP members wearing earned combat awards is "Inappropriate." I swear, if he had said that to my face I might have punched his lights out. I was really that mad!
Kach, I can see that this really bothers you. Please don't "get sick" over it. Sometimes people just think that they can say whatever they want without any thought to the consequences of those words. Thus it is offensive.
Might I suggest the following, submitting an official inquiry up the chain asking for a proper definition of "Inappropriate" in this occasions. Maybe these matters are not as clear as they need to be.
If it turns out to be benign, we all win. If it turns out to me some "anti-military" agendism, then maybe action is the answer.
I don't need a definition of "Inappropriate," since I've had it explained to me several times in various counseling statements.
Things I have done that have been called "Inappropriate:"
1. Describing, in vivid detail, a particularly satisfying bowel movement during "Happy Hour" in the Ft. Harrison Officers' Club.
2. Calling a female supervisor a "Sultry wench" at an office Christmas party, and predicting that, given the opportunity, I would be able to crack her cold and detached exterior and make her scream with delight and abandonment.
3. Serving my country in combat in Vietnam.
If our membership outside of CAP should have no bearing, why do we advertise members who are Thunderbird Pilots? Millionaire business owners? Astronauts? Fighter Pilots? Military Officers? We do it to bring credibility to our organization by saying "These are the kind of people who join CAP." Every organization does it.
This thread is getting "inappropriate."
Quote from: Flying Pig on March 08, 2009, 07:12:32 PM
Could you go back and point out where I said you or anyone else was a second class citizen?
QuoteI get treated very different by military members after they notice my military ribbons, vs a member who has none.
That places me in a seconday position to you.
I think that the part of the National Legal Officer's statement regarding the wear of combat-related badges being inappopriate for CAP was probably more of a personal statement of belief rather than an actual legal opinion on that issue. As we've seen on this board many times, there are some people in CAP who would prefer that we have no obvious associations at all with the military and they're entitled to that opinion. I think that in this case the NLO probably should have stuck just to the legal facts.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 08, 2009, 07:15:29 PM
Quote from: Major Carrales on March 08, 2009, 07:05:35 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 08, 2009, 06:53:16 PM
Quote from: Major Carrales on March 08, 2009, 06:49:13 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on March 08, 2009, 06:23:03 PM
Whether or not someone gets arrested is not terribly relevant to the fact that some of the services have clearly restricted the wear of their stuff on civilian clothes. Should not CAP honor the wishes of those services?
I am tempted to say, "Let the respect be mutual, then we'll talk." But, I understand that we are respected, at least officially, by the USAF. Their restriciton on CAP uniforms should really be a non-issue in that it is not an "end of the world" issue. I would be more corncerned on how CAP is slotted in their overall "force" as it relatest to having us functional and effective.
Sparky:
It isn't the DECISION that has got me riled today. It is the attitude of at least one member of the National Board, the NLO, who said that CAP members wearing earned combat awards is "Inappropriate." I swear, if he had said that to my face I might have punched his lights out. I was really that mad!
Kach, I can see that this really bothers you. Please don't "get sick" over it. Sometimes people just think that they can say whatever they want without any thought to the consequences of those words. Thus it is offensive.
Might I suggest the following, submitting an official inquiry up the chain asking for a proper definition of "Inappropriate" in this occasions. Maybe these matters are not as clear as they need to be.
If it turns out to be benign, we all win. If it turns out to me some "anti-military" agendism, then maybe action is the answer.
I don't need a definition of "Inappropriate," since I've had it explained to me several times in various counseling statements.
Things I have done that have been called "Inappropriate:"
1. Describing, in vivid detail, a particularly satisfying bowel movement during "Happy Hour" in the Ft. Harrison Officers' Club.
2. Calling a female supervisor a "Sultry wench" at an office Christmas party, and predicting that, given the opportunity, I would be able to crack her cold and detached exterior and make her scream with delight and abandonment.
3. Serving my country in combat in Vietnam.
Point well made, KACH. Extremely well made. I think I'm angry now.
Quote from: Major Carrales on March 08, 2009, 07:21:40 PM
Quote from: Flying Pig on March 08, 2009, 07:12:32 PM
Could you go back and point out where I said you or anyone else was a second class citizen?
QuoteI get treated very different by military members after they notice my military ribbons, vs a member who has none.
That places me in a seconday position to you.
Yeah, but no different than if I was standing next to you at a teachers conference. ;D
Quote from: Flying Pig on March 08, 2009, 07:24:41 PM
Quote from: Major Carrales on March 08, 2009, 07:21:40 PM
Quote from: Flying Pig on March 08, 2009, 07:12:32 PM
Could you go back and point out where I said you or anyone else was a second class citizen?
QuoteI get treated very different by military members after they notice my military ribbons, vs a member who has none.
That places me in a seconday position to you.
Yeah, but no different than if I was standing next to you at a teachers conference. ;D
Good thing were are friends... ;D It would be a bit of putting the cart before the horse if I were to enlist or seek a commission now just to have an active duty ribbon or two to be able to share the same place in like with you during Hurricane relief. ;)
It may well be that he was expressing his personal view. I notice that he not only mis-stated the nature of our organization (we, in fact, were a combat organization shortly after our inception, and we continue to perform combat-support missions for the Air Force) but also did not cite any particular law in his non-concurrence. But he used his position as NLO to bash veterans, and the rest of the NB just sat there and went along with it.
To be fair to him, we are very explicitly NOT a combat organization today no matter what happened 65 years ago. I don't think that it is relevant to the issue since wearing a combat-related badge somehow doesn't turn you, or the organization, into a combatant.
Interesting point
So if a CAP pilot earned an Air Medal flying for CAP in WWII, he would be in violation of regs if he wore it on a corporate Uniform.
The problem I have is all of the bling that CAP awards each other for things that the active duty people laugh at us for. We are way out of line giving ribbons for completion of home study courses.
but to deny a military medal for valor is strange. But I know of many CAP members who never served in the military so all they know are the home study course completion ribbons.
wow am I going to get it on this one.
So John have you heard from Marty lately?
Quote from: wingnut55 on March 08, 2009, 07:38:45 PM
Interesting point
So if a CAP pilot earned an Air Medal flying for CAP in WWII, he would be in violation of regs if he wore it on a corporate Uniform.
The problem I have is all of the bling that CAP awards each other for things that the active duty people laugh at us for. We are way out of line giving ribbons for completion of home study courses.
but to deny a military medal for valor is strange. But I know of many CAP members who never served in the military so all they know are the home study course completion ribbons.
wow am I going to get it on this one.
So John have you heard from Marty lately?
No, but I have been busy with my firearms instruction business. I've had to move a lot of CAP stuff to the back burner.
Quote from: Flying Pig on March 08, 2009, 07:16:12 PM
If our membership outside of CAP should have no bearing, why do we advertise members who are Thunderbird Pilots? Millionaire business owners? Astronauts? Fighter Pilots? Military Officers? We do it to bring credibility to our organization by saying "These are the kind of people who join CAP." Every organization does it.
Yes, they do - its called "marketing" and those who are familiar with "marketing" understand that it has little connection to reality.
Prior military service is no guarantee of success in CAP, in many cases it can actually be a hindrance as they don't always understand the dynamic of leading and motivating volunteers.
Kach -
the remark was stupid, and insensitive. If its causing you angst, write a professional letter with appropriate /cc's, and move on.
Don't equate a single remark with any particular bias or organization-wide attitude.
With that said, recognize that CAP has to serve many masters, is rife with conflicting regulations, and we're probably lucky at this point that we can still wear military-style uniforms at all, thanks to the seeming inability of many of our members to comply with even the most basic of rules.
For every tight-n-tight veteran that configs his uniform with a micrometer and a stack of regs and ICL's, I'll show you 5 who are still wearing USAF uniforms though they are clearly out of weight, grooming, or both. For some inexplicable reason the USAF husbands their uniforms and insignia in regards to CAP in a way which isn't even consistent anymore with most other services. (i.e. many have dropped height-weight in favor of performance-based metrics) That's part of the game. Absent CAP, its not like you're going to be in any military uniform at all, certainly not in performance of actual duties in federal service.
I agree its silly not to allow the same military ribbons and badges on the CSU as on the USAF-style combos, but to take such offense over something that is a long standing-policy in CAP is just going to cause you excess blood pressure to no gain.
As to the question of whether the various services "own" their insignia, uniform parts, etc., one only needs to look at the recent NB discussion regarding adding a black sweater to the CSU, and the fact that consensus was that Army regs preclude it. Much of the interoperability of the services depends on the mutual cooperation regarding what some might consider "administrivia" - the AFI's for example that require other services to offer us various levels of resources and support. Without adherence to those and reciprocal agreements, CAP would have a hard time operating.
Want us all to get a little more credibility with the uniforms, and in turn perhaps some relaxation on the regulatory-stranglehold? How about we put the same "100% compliance" effort and emphasis on uniforms, customs, and courtesies, that was expended for the wing banker program. Probably because 1/2 the senior membership would rise up about CAP being too "military", etc. (blah, blah).
A couple of years of our showing the USAF we actually respect the uniform and all that it means would be a lot more effective that random whining about this badge, that braid, and which hat we can wear.
Quote from: wingnut55 on March 08, 2009, 07:38:45 PM
Interesting point
So if a CAP pilot earned an Air Medal flying for CAP in WWII, he would be in violation of regs if he wore it on a corporate Uniform.
No, its a spurious point of no value to the conversation - this is about the
average vet who is actually serving CAP today, not the handful of WWII vets who might show up to an annual banquet or memorial day service.
Quote from: wingnut55 on March 08, 2009, 07:38:45 PM... I know of many CAP members who never served in the military so all they know are the home study course completion ribbons.
Your regular habit of insulting the entire membership by the disparaging comments you regularly make about CAP show exactly how much respect you have for the organization. I have no idea why people maintain a membership in an organization for which they have no respect.
Common sense says the day you feel that way is the day both you and CAP would be better served by your spending time elsewhere.
Quote from: wingnut55 on March 08, 2009, 07:38:45 PM
Interesting point
So if a CAP pilot earned an Air Medal flying for CAP in WWII, he would be in violation of regs if he wore it on a corporate Uniform.
The problem I have is all of the bling that CAP awards each other for things that the active duty people laugh at us for. We are way out of line giving ribbons for completion of home study courses.
but to deny a military medal for valor is strange. But I know of many CAP members who never served in the military so all they know are the home study course completion ribbons.
wow am I going to get it on this one.
So John have you heard from Marty lately?
Wow, and I called Flying Pig out for putting down non-military types. Wow!!!
Fact is, CAP is culturally not like the military. It has its own nuances that many times Prior Service types simply do not understand. I've seen many prior service CAP Officers become frustrated because things are not running the "Army," "Air Force" or "Navy" Way. Fact is CAP is run according the the CAP way.
If you want USAF light, may I suggest joining the USAFR? If you want to serve your community as a CAP Officer may I suggest that it be done in the CAP way. Sometimes that requires homestudy courses...you know why? Because CAP Officers operate in a world where they have jobs, families and the like. I suppose one might fault the Minutemen at Lexington and Concord for not having "Genuine British Military Education." Washington himself read it all in Books prior to his activities as an AUXILIARY Major in the British Army (Virgina Milita) in 1754.
But I suppose he is not up to the standards established here at CAPTALK.
Quote from: RiverAux on March 08, 2009, 07:23:04 PM
I think that the part of the National Legal Officer's statement regarding the wear of combat-related badges being inappropriate for CAP was probably more of a personal statement of belief rather than an actual legal opinion on that issue. As we've seen on this board many times, there are some people in CAP who would prefer that we have no obvious associations at all with the military and they're entitled to that opinion. I think that in this case the NLO probably should have stuck just to the legal facts.
If the NLO made that remark as the NLO and/or as a member of CAP for the guidance of CAP members than yes it is an official statement and not a "personal opinion". Even the Secretary of Veterans Affairs encourages the wear of ribbons on civilian clothing when appropriate. The CSU has been repeatedly described by CAP as a "civilian variant" of the USAF uniform.
So is the CSU an AF uniform or not?
Quote from: Cecil DP on March 08, 2009, 08:36:38 PM
So is the CSU an AF uniform or not?
Obviously not. It is a CIVIL AIR PATROL uniform.
In fact, the "blues" are not an AF uniform either - they are a USAF-
style uniform.
Absent our being funded, commanded, and little-brother to a military service, we could pretty much wear whatever we wanted in the same way that police, fire, airline pilots and civilian boat captains do and no one would care.
However, we are funded, commanded, and little-brother to a military service, therefore, we do what we are told.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 08, 2009, 07:43:33 PM
Want us all to get a little more credibility with the uniforms, and in turn perhaps some relaxation on the regulatory-stranglehold? How about we put the same "100% compliance" effort and emphasis on uniforms, customs, and courtesies, that was expended for the wing banker program.
Well said. But also for the reasons stated in your post probably has little chance of happening.
Quote from: Major Carrales on March 08, 2009, 08:26:02 PM
Quote from: wingnut55 on March 08, 2009, 07:38:45 PM
Interesting point
So if a CAP pilot earned an Air Medal flying for CAP in WWII, he would be in violation of regs if he wore it on a corporate Uniform.
The problem I have is all of the bling that CAP awards each other for things that the active duty people laugh at us for. We are way out of line giving ribbons for completion of home study courses.
but to deny a military medal for valor is strange. But I know of many CAP members who never served in the military so all they know are the home study course completion ribbons.
wow am I going to get it on this one.
So John have you heard from Marty lately?
Wow, and I called Flying Pig out for putting down non-military types. Wow!!!
Fact is, CAP is culturally not like the military. It has its own nuances that many times Prior Service types simply do not understand. I've seen many prior service CAP Officers become frustrated because things are not running the "Army," "Air Force" or "Navy" Way. Fact is CAP is run according the the CAP way.
If you want USAF light, may I suggest joining the USAFR? If you want to serve your community as a CAP Officer may I suggest that it be done in the CAP way. Sometimes that requires homestudy courses...you know why? Because CAP Officers operate in a world where they have jobs, families and the like. I suppose one might fault the Minutemen at Lexington and Concord for not having "Genuine British Military Education." Washington himself read it all in Books prior to his activities as an AUXILIARY Major in the British Army (Virgina Milita) in 1754.
But I suppose he is not up to the standards established here at CAPTALK.
Yes, there is an Army, Navy, and CAP way.
CAP does not deploy operational units, as volunteers we form a "Task Force" for every mission, commanded by a pre-qualified "Incident Commander" who structures his force as he needs to to accomplish the mission. This is not the way the military does things generally, but how we MUST do things when we never know who is available for a call.
Also, all positions below Wing commander are grade immaterial. That also is not what the military branches are used to.
But once these differences are embraced by military folk, they tend to adapt rapidly.
At least until somebody says that their combat service, and the awards associated with it, are "Inappropriate."
There's a lot more significant differences than the two you mention, not the least of which is the inability
to compel or require participation, and the limited disciplinary consequences for non- or poor performance.
Honestly John, I don't think too many people here think you're off-base, but if you fly your indignation flag too high
you're going to lose your supporters.
At the end of the day, its all bling - I have no issue with you wearing it, you should be able to considering our military auxiliary context, but CIB's, combat ribbons, and likewise don't have a lot of analog in CAP, nor are they really much indication any specific abilities that CAP is looking for, especially in the operational context.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 08, 2009, 09:47:45 PM
There's a lot more significant differences than the two you mention, not the least of which is the inability
to compel or require participation, and the limited disciplinary consequences for non- or poor performance.
Honestly John, I don't think too many people here think you're off-base, but if you fly your indignation flag too high
you're going to lose your supporters.
At the end of the day, its all bling - I have no issue with you wearing it, you should be able to considering our military auxiliary context, but CIB's, combat ribbons, and likewise don't have a lot of analog in CAP, nor are they really much indication any specific abilities that CAP is looking for, especially in the operational context.
I cited two examples, and never intended it to be a complete dissertation on the differences between RM and CAP. But even the examples you cite are surmountable leadership challenges. I have never known any officer who relied only on disciplinary and coercive authority to accomplish the mission.
And, frankly, it is NOT about the awards themselves. It is about the demeaning comment made by the NLO. To be honest, I can use the issue as further incentive to lose more weight, get into AF blue, and then I can wear them anyway. (When losing weight is easier than setting up a new ribbon rack, I'll hit the gym).
I am NOT angry about the decision itself, except that the NB failed to rebuke the NLO for saying that the awards earned by members in battle in defense of the United States are "Inappropriate."
Really... Just who does he think he is?
Kach
Thank you for your service in the 'Nam
Some folks here (CAP NLO and NB) collectively, will not figure this out
That is why in my "measly" 21 years of service, approx 8 yrs after Nam, I just put all my ribbons, aircrew badges, pro badges all in a shadow box
Just bring your previous knowledge to the table, like we all have, help some of the seniors and cadets out where you can......
CAP needs alot to learn BUT as far as respect for the military, folks that I knew in CAP 25 years ago that turned CAP Col and CAP LTC STILL have no idea what I did for the service of this country, nor do they ask.
It's a goofy organization.. For the folks out there, I served... I am here for the ES and the "Cheeep" flying and really do not give a rip what some folks think.
Both of lived the UCMJ and the AR 670-1 life and lived by the RM rules.. But I am also here to say the some of the CAP "rules" are dreamed up by some bunch of kangaroo court types who have egos that have not been truly humbled, yet!!!
Quote from: heliodoc on March 08, 2009, 10:45:34 PM
Kach
Thank you for your service in the 'Nam
Some folks here (CAP NLO and NB) collectively, will not figure this out
That is why in my "measly" 21 years of service, approx 8 yrs after Nam, I just put all my ribbons, aircrew badges, pro badges all in a shadow box
Just bring your previous knowledge to the table, like we all have, help some of the seniors and cadets out where you can......
CAP needs alot to learn BUT as far as respect for the military, folks that I knew in CAP 25 years ago that turned CAP Col and CAP LTC STILL have no idea what I did for the service of this country, nor do they ask.
It's a goofy organization.. For the folks out there, I served... I am here for the ES and the "Cheeep" flying and really do not give a rip what some folks think.
Both of lived the UCMJ and the AR 670-1 life and lived by the RM rules.. But I am also here to say the some of the CAP "rules" are dreamed up by some bunch of kangaroo court types who have egos that have not been truly humbled, yet!!!
It may be a fair criticism of my position that I am over-reacting to this, but...
When I came back from Vietnam, I was greeted with protesters outside the gate of Travis AFB. I had to endure every long-haired college freshman who ever took Psych 101 pontificating about my adjustment when he had never done anything significant in his life except potty training. And my personal favorite: "I chose not to serve in the military because by going to college instead, I could make a more significant contribution."**
** Translation: "I'm too big of a sissy to play with the boys because I might get hurt, so I'll stay here and play Barbie with the girls."
So when a guy says that "Since CAP is a non-combatant organization, combat badges of any kind are inappropriate." That attitude is dismissive of ALL of our service, and equates CAP (Which has a battle history AND currently provides combat support to the Air Force) with Code Pink.
Well the NLO did not do his profession any favours. One has to wonder if he had any time in the service. I don't think so because of his poor choice of words on his part. I think that Military Awards ,Decorations and Aviation badges should be allowed on the CSU, now the CIB and other related badges probably not. And for the Record I am a veteran of the Army National Guard. As for the Air Medal the first two were awarded to CAP members by FDR personally.I would think that the NLO would look very very silly taking a member to task the earned that one Serving On Coastal Patrol.
P/S Thank you for your combat service Major.
>:( what the CAP NLO said was reprehensible!! What an insult to everyone who has served or is serving or will serve! Also just as bad was the board letting him ramble. Anyone who has served or is serving is a hero and deserves to be able to wear what the nation gave them as a thank you... angry... >:(
In light of the NLO's interpetation of the regs, I'm glad I retired from CAP.
Quote from: Cecil DP on March 09, 2009, 12:42:45 AM
In light of the NLO's interpretation of the regs, I'm glad I retired from CAP.
What Kach is indicating the NLO said was not an interpretation of any "reg", it was a partially correct
opinion. Let's not make this to be more than it is.
He was factually correct in that CAP is a non-combatant service - you can't argue that. The other part was his opinion, which the board, etc., is fully free to ignore, and I know I for one, on occasion, simply don't engage in conversations when someone says something silly that has no weight. One should not automatically assume the lack of comment or argument equaled agreement.
Legal Officers don't make policy, regs, or other command decisions, they merely advise, and as of today, this appears to be a decision well above CAPFLT001's paygrade.
Quote from: Major Carrales on March 08, 2009, 08:26:02 PMIf you want USAF light, may I suggest joining the USAFR?
So the Air Force Reserve is Air Force light? Remind me to tell the guys in the sand for 12 months that they're not in the "real" Air Force.
Major Carrales, if you know not of what you speak of, then please don't speak.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 09, 2009, 01:08:29 AM
Quote from: Cecil DP on March 09, 2009, 12:42:45 AM
In light of the NLO's interpretation of the regs, I'm glad I retired from CAP.
What Kach is indicating the NLO said was not an interpretation of any "reg", it was a partially correct opinion. Let's not make this to be more than it is.
He was factually correct in that CAP is a non-combatant service - you can't argue that. The other part was his opinion, which the board, etc., is fully free to ignore, and I know I for one, on occasion, simply don't engage in conversations when someone says something silly that has no weight. One should not automatically assume the lack of comment or argument equaled agreement.
Legal Officers don't make policy, regs, or other command decisions, they merely advise, and as of today, this appears to be a decision well above CAPFLT001's paygrade.
You are right, E., in that the NLO was not "Interpreting" a reg, he was advising against a new one.
You are also right in that CAP is chartered to perform "... Non-combat missions and programs of the Air Force."
What I do not understand, and what I find so insulting is that this provision is being interpreted by the NLO to such an extent that he considers all wear of earned combat awards to be "Inappropriate."
"Non-combat" does not mean the same as "Pacifist."
A fighter pilot who joins a Guard unit that flies transport aircraft may now be on "Non-cambat" missions, but he does not need to be ashamed of his former combat service. Similarly, a G.I. who serves in combat and later joins CAP should not have his service be deemed "Inappropriate" by the NLO.
Quote from: PHall on March 09, 2009, 01:27:20 AM
Quote from: Major Carrales on March 08, 2009, 08:26:02 PMIf you want USAF light, may I suggest joining the USAFR?
So the Air Force Reserve is Air Force light? Remind me to tell the guys in the sand for 12 months that they're not in the "real" Air Force.
Major Carrales, if you know not of what you speak of, then please don't speak.
No, the USAFR is the Air Force Reserve...what some people here want CAP to be (drilling for Senior Members, lots of trumped up "professional development" and the over use of Military protocol...as in trying to run a CAP unit like an ARMY, USAF or Naval unit... on what is basically a civilian manned Auxiliary of the Air Force) is "USAF Light."
As always, you fail to find the meaning (likely clouded by your dislike of my views on CAP). My point is that people who feel CAP should be "USAF Light" should get their "fix" by joining the USAFR, which is everything they want CAP to be...and more. You know, like being paid or deployed overseas!"
Quote from: Eclipse on March 09, 2009, 01:08:29 AM
Quote from: Cecil DP on March 09, 2009, 12:42:45 AM
In light of the NLO's interpretation of the regs, I'm glad I retired from CAP.
What Kach is indicating the NLO said was not an interpretation of any "reg", it was a partially correct opinion. Let's not make this to be more than it is.
He was factually correct in that CAP is a non-combatant service - you can't argue that. The other part was his opinion, which the board, etc., is fully free to ignore, and I know I for one, on occasion, simply don't engage in conversations when someone says something silly that has no weight. One should not automatically assume the lack of comment or argument equaled agreement.
Legal Officers don't make policy, regs, or other command decisions, they merely advise, and as of today, this appears to be a decision well above CAPFLT001's paygrade.
With respect to the non-concurrence by the USAF, I read Col. Hodgkin's remarks, and frankly, I like Russ, but his comment makes no sense.
He talks about confusing CAP members further, yet the proposed regulation, in fact, standardizes the ribbon and badge display between the USAF and CSU's, making it less confusing.
And since the USAF had already weighed in negatively on the issue, for whatever reason, then the NLO's comments were gratuitous, and therefore even more insulting.
Quote from: Major Carrales on March 09, 2009, 01:40:56 AM
Quote from: PHall on March 09, 2009, 01:27:20 AM
Quote from: Major Carrales on March 08, 2009, 08:26:02 PMIf you want USAF light, may I suggest joining the USAFR?
So the Air Force Reserve is Air Force light? Remind me to tell the guys in the sand for 12 months that they're not in the "real" Air Force.
Major Carrales, if you know not of what you speak of, then please don't speak.
No, the USAFR is the Air Force Reserve...what some people here want CAP to be (drilling for Senior Members, lots of trumped up "professional development" and the over use of Military protocol...as in trying to run a CAP unit like an ARMY, USAF or Naval unit... on what is basically a civilian manned Auxiliary of the Air Force) is "USAF Light."
As always, you fail to find the meaning (likely clouded by your dislike of my views on CAP). My point is that people who feel CAP should be "USAF Light" should get their "fix" by joining the USAFR, which is everything they want CAP to be...and more. You know, like being paid or deployed overseas!"
I served for 18 years in the Air Force Reserve, so yeah, I take a dim view of people putting it down.
And you know, my Reserve unit was/is as busy if not busier then any Active Duty unit with the same mission. (Strategic Airlift in C-141's. The unit now flys C-17's)
But you wouldn't know that, since you haven't been there.
On the other hand, I've never been a teacher, so I don't pass judgement on them since I don't know enough about teachers to judge them.
Quote from: PHall on March 09, 2009, 01:58:04 AM
Quote from: Major Carrales on March 09, 2009, 01:40:56 AM
Quote from: PHall on March 09, 2009, 01:27:20 AM
Quote from: Major Carrales on March 08, 2009, 08:26:02 PMIf you want USAF light, may I suggest joining the USAFR?
So the Air Force Reserve is Air Force light? Remind me to tell the guys in the sand for 12 months that they're not in the "real" Air Force.
Major Carrales, if you know not of what you speak of, then please don't speak.
No, the USAFR is the Air Force Reserve...what some people here want CAP to be (drilling for Senior Members, lots of trumped up "professional development" and the over use of Military protocol...as in trying to run a CAP unit like an ARMY, USAF or Naval unit... on what is basically a civilian manned Auxiliary of the Air Force) is "USAF Light."
As always, you fail to find the meaning (likely clouded by your dislike of my views on CAP). My point is that people who feel CAP should be "USAF Light" should get their "fix" by joining the USAFR, which is everything they want CAP to be...and more. You know, like being paid or deployed overseas!"
I served for 18 years in the Air Force Reserve, so yeah, I take a dim view of people putting it down.
And you know, my Reserve unit was/is as busy if not busier then any Active Duty unit with the same mission. (Strategic Airlift in C-141's. The unit now flys C-17's)
But you wouldn't know that, since you haven't been there.
On the other hand, I've never been a teacher, so I don't pass judgement on them since I don't know enough about teachers to judge them.
Again, read my post. I am not puting down the USAFR, I am suggesting that CAP Officers that want more than what CAP offers join the USAFR as opposed to chaning CAP into something it is not.
SO, if you want to be disingenuous...are you saying that I am less of a CAP Officer because I have never served? Again, you treat us like second class citizens...Flying Pig take note of this.
Quote from: PHall on March 09, 2009, 01:58:04 AM
And you know, my Reserve unit was/is as busy if not busier then any Active Duty unit with the same mission. (Strategic Airlift in C-141's. The unit now flys C-17's)
And I do know -
for a fact - that any time the 82nd wanted to make sure that the aircraft got to the right place, at the right time, for something really important, we asked for USAFR or ANG crews and birds at the air allocation meetings. Those boys (and girls) flew more often then the "real" air scouts and were generally there because they wanted to be and had real pride in doing their job.
And yeah, I know that its a fact because I was doing those "inappropriate" things myself.
QuoteAnd since the USAF had already weighed in negatively on the issue, for whatever reason, then the NLO's comments were gratuitous, and therefore even more insulting.
I would hope that when a regulation proposal is put out for comment to all the folks that get to have their thoughts included on the agenda (NLO, CAP-USAF, NHQ staff, etc.) that each of them does their own independent analysis. If that is the case, you can't expect the NLO to know what CAP-USAF is going to say. And, really I would hope that he would stick to his opinion. When it comes right down to it, both the NLO and CAP-USAF statements are opinions, it just happens that the CAP-USAF is the one that actually carries some weight. Remember, even if the National Board approved this proposal, the AF could still put the kaibosh on it just like they did earlier version of the CSU that they thought were too military.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 08, 2009, 09:47:45 PM
At the end of the day, its all bling - I have no issue with you wearing it, you should be able to considering our military auxiliary context, but CIB's, combat ribbons, and likewise don't have a lot of analog in CAP, nor are they really much indication any specific abilities that CAP is looking for, especially in the operational context.
Ok, then do not allow them on the AF style uniform either. I have often said that this policy is a slap in the face of those who cannot or chose not to wear the AF uniform, for whatever reason, and are veterans. Why is Lt. Skinny's service worthy of recognition but Lt. Heavy or Lt. Fuzzy's not?
Equal treatment, that is all that is asked for...............................
The CSU is by definition "civilian" attire and as such, the AF's role/input should be advisory, not regulatory except for Air Force awards or badges, as they still own the rights, so to speak, to them. I am an honorably discharged Army veteran of wartime service who cannot meet weight requirements due to a service connected disability/injury. AR 670-1 allows me to wear my decorations on any civilian clothing in an appropriate setting. Volunteer service to ones Nation that allows me to continue to uphold my oath of enlistment seems to be appropriate, don't you think?
QuoteThe CSU is by definition "civilian" attire and as such, the AF's role/input should be advisory, not regulatory except for Air Force awards or badges, as they still own the rights, so to speak, to them.
Except that when it comes down to it, the Air Force has the authority to say whether or not it is civilian enough to pass muster.
QuoteAR 670-1 allows me to wear my decorations on any civilian clothing in an appropriate setting.
And pretty much defines those appropriate settings in a very restricted manner for basically special occassions.
Quote from: RiverAux on March 09, 2009, 02:38:25 AM
QuoteThe CSU is by definition "civilian" attire and as such, the AF's role/input should be advisory, not regulatory except for Air Force awards or badges, as they still own the rights, so to speak, to them.
Except that when it comes down to it, the Air Force has the authority to say whether or not it is civilian enough to pass muster.
QuoteAR 670-1 allows me to wear my decorations on any civilian clothing in an appropriate setting.
And pretty much defines those appropriate settings in a very restricted manner for basically special occasions.
+1 on both.
The intention of 670 is to allow for ceremonial wear on special occasions, and in situations where a local rule or custom does not preclude their wear. An example is the oft-cited allowance by
some departments that allows police officers to wear military decorations on their police service uniforms.
There are plenty of departments that don't even have ribbons on their uniforms, and would certainly tell you not to wear military decorations, etc.
The same goes for active services - as it stands today, the USAF precludes and regulates any number of other-service decorations and badges for their active-duty personnel. Take the CIB / CAB, for example. Airmen can only wear it while assigned to an Army unit, then it is supposed to come off. The fact that some don't remove it doesn't change the policy, or necessarily indicate that the USAF thinks Army service is inferior. Someone in the USAF decided it was inappropriate for their uniform, period.
There is no carte-blanche wear of anything, anywhere, active service, civilian, whatever. Some things are authorized, some things aren't - let's make sure to seperate that from the inconsiderate remark by one person.
Something I have suggested here (and other places) would be to have CAP/CC write a letter to each of the service secretaries or Chiefs of Staff to request authorization to wear their respective awards on the CAP uniforms - AF style and corporate (blues and greys). So far, I have not heard of such a thing being done.
In keeping with the topic, when the NLO makes a comment like that as an official opinion - which it is being in the NB agenda - members have every right to be offended. The fact that the NB failed to rebuke the NLO is likewise reason for offense. I suspect most of us glanced over that comment, since I think many of us realize that whatever the NB decided, it would not have any standing or result in any changes, so we did not waste our time reading the complete agenda item.
Judging from some of the responses, we could all probably benefit from some anger management classes.
I would be interested in hearing the NLO's comment in full context, but the statement itself is troubling. I agree that the branches have a right to allow or disallow their decs on other clothing, but the Army has already established precedent for allowing decs on civilian clothing.
Wear of decorations on the CSU seems perfectly fitting, and very much inline with the spirit of what the Army allows. As to the Air Force, it's puzzling to me that they wouldn't permit the wear of decs on their Auxiliary's uniform, especially considering the Army precedent. The Marines can be restrictive, and I don't see them changing that anytime soon. However, the other branches would be fair play. I agree that an effort should be made to obtain permission from each branch permitting wear on the CSU.
As to the comraderie shown by various groups, that isn't just limited to military vs. CAP. Tonight, I had a conversation with an Air Force cop at an ECP about how the Air Force is nowadays. I noted the change on his face when I told him that I was former Air Force, and he realized that I wasn't just "another stupid grunt" (a viewpoint that is out there, but not valid). My prior service in the Air Force gave me a credibility with him, instantly, that I would probably would never have had.
Prior service can build bridges, but any commonalities with any agencies we work with is beneficial. It can be anything, LE, teaching, working for the power company, being an accountant. Even my experience delivering pizza has proven to be a bridge (who would have thought that?). No one is second class here because of being non-prior service. Ever.
As to the uniform, the CAP blues are an Air Force uniform with CAP distinctive insignia. The uniform components are required to be from Air Force approved sources, and should be worn with all due respect to those airmen that have served in it and died for it. I can put Buick badges on a Mercedes, but that won't change what it is.
I strongly believe that this attitude that it is an "Air Force style" uniform is what contributes to many of our members wearing it improperly because they don't consider it important enough. That attitude is garbage, unprofessional, disrespectful, and dead wrong. If you don't feel that the Air Force variant is important enough to wear properly, then end your membership. Your behaviours are an impediment to our organization.
Personally, I'm am proud of, and honored to work with, members with no prior service that wear it with the same attention to detail, sometimes more so, than prior service members. It shows me a professional person that I can rely on. and our organization needs far more "professionals" than we have. Too many wear our uniforms as simply another set of clothes, instead of the symbol it is.
Quote from: Hawk200 on March 09, 2009, 04:28:07 AM
I strongly believe that this attitude that it is an "Air Force style" uniform is what contributes to many of our members wearing it improperly because they don't consider it important enough. That attitude is garbage, unprofessional, disrespectful, and dead wrong. If you don't feel that the Air Force variant is important enough to wear properly, then end your membership. Your behaviors are an impediment to our organization.
I assume your referring to the intent and effort to do things right out of respect, and not suggesting those who can't wear it, for whatever reason, should quit.
The fact remains that the term "USAF-Style" uniform is the proper terminology, look it up. The blue service dress, BDU's and flightsuits are made up of (mostly) the same mil-spec components as the USAF uniform, are worn IAW regulations and traditions that are similar-to, or based-on USAF regulations and traditions, but they are not USAF uniforms. That's based on regulation, not opinion. Read 39-1.
Its not civilian dress by any means, but its not a military uniform, its a military-
style uniform. [darn] straight it needs to be respected, worn right, and appreciated for the honor it is to wear it, but we can't ignore the distinction and terminology just because it might degrade an argument.
As to the CSU, and even the Aviator whites, they may be comprised of civilian
components, but the components themselves don't make their combined use "civilian dress" any more than the military
components make CAP blues a
military uniform. Especially in the context of an AR670 argument about being able to wear a decoration on them because they are "just" civilian clothes. I don't think you guys mean it, but that
is insulting to those of us who where them and take the time and effort to get it right. The insinuation that its ok to break the corporate uniform regs because of some "ex-military mojo" just doesn't fly, and really set a distasteful tone that I doubt you actually mean.
And as we pointed out in another thread, the tags don't help the argument either - since the service coats from either one don't have a mil-spec tag, it could be argued that the CSU actually contains more mil-spec components than the USAF-Style blues because of the military grade epaulet sleeves and metal grade (its probably a wash).
Wouldn't this be a lot better if we all just respected each other, stopped trying to see who can mark the wall higher by comparing services and worried about the mission and the experience instead of the clothes?
I wrote on another thread that the Air Force uniform that we wear is not an "Air Force-style" uniform. It's the Air Force's uniform with distinguishable CAP markings, as dictated and approved by the Air Staff through CAP-USAF.
While CAPM 39-1 uses that "Air Force-style" terminology, it's dead wrong. If it wasn't a real Air Force uniform, the Air Force wouldn't retain control over it, and the National Board could approve whatever it wanted. Whomever coined the name "Air Force-style uniform" misled a lot of people, and probably should be forced to wash a few dozen airplanes, at least. (Unless that person will do some "style" of wash job.)
CAP can do whatever it likes with the white-and-grays, the golf shirt, whatever, even the expired-ICL TPU. But when it comes to the service blues, the BDU and the sage-green flight suit, the Air Force tells CAP what it can and cannot do. That's because those uniforms are Air Force uniforms.
There's no "style" about it.
^ That's where the argument falls apart - CAP is not free to "do whatever it wants with the whites" - we wear what big brother blue tells us and approves, regardless.
The fact that they don't always intervene when they see something they don't like doesn't limit their power over the corporate combos - the changes made (and recently not made) to the CSU are evidence of that.
Thinking anything else is just schoolyard lawyering that would not stand up.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 09, 2009, 05:31:42 AM
^ That's where the argument falls apart - CAP is not free to "do whatever it wants with the whites" - we wear what big brother blue tells us and approves, regardless.
The fact that they don't always intervene when they see something they don't like doesn't limit their power over the corporate combos - the changes made (and recently not made) to the CSU are evidence of that.
Thinking anything else is just schoolyard lawyering that would not stand up.
Eclipse, ol' buddy, did CAP-USAF approve the Pineda suit? Does it dictate the white-and-grays? Or the blazer combination, or the golf shirt?
Changes to the Pineda suit were made because of backtracking and Air Force pressure, and with good reason. The double-breasted uniform was conceived to subvert Air Force jurisdiction, and I would dare say, leave a lasting visual legacy for the former national commander.
I'd venture to say that as long as CAP members are wearing an "authorized uniform" aboard CAP airplanes and in CAP activities, the parent service doesn't care about the CAP civilian combinations.
But boy, I'd enjoy the Air Force stepping in more often. And if there's an anti-military feeling in our ranks, or a feeling that CAP needs to be more civilian or "softer," I'd really enjoy seeing that squeezed out in a hurry. We joined the Air Force's uniformed civilian auxiliary to make a difference in what is at least a semi-military environment. We didn't join the Boy Scouts or the Peace Corps.
Kach has every right to be put out, if you ask me. I didn't hear the national legal officer's comments, but if what's been put forth here is true, I'm shocked.
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on March 09, 2009, 05:44:54 AM
But boy, I'd enjoy the Air Force stepping in more often. And if there's an anti-military feeling in our ranks, or a feeling that CAP needs to be more civilian or "softer," I'd really enjoy seeing that squeezed out in a hurry. We joined the Air Force's uniformed civilian auxiliary to make a difference in what is at least a semi-military environment. We didn't join the Boy Scouts or the Peace Corps.
Here we agree, and your point above is probably the only thing that really matters in all this..
I'm glad I missed this thread until now because I'd have jumped in the middle and twisted off on a few things that seem to have been hashed out now.
I'm one of those who joined the "Air Force Light" because of how some people in the CAP community are and how it is viewed by outside agencies. I was a cadet, been in law enforcement for 12 years, and came back into CAP. I saw quite quickly how the organization was viewed and how some members handled their business and that's what pushed me to join the AF Reserve.
It's just a basic fact that if you walk into a scene as a CAP member and you have law enforcement/fire/ems and/or military experience, you get some pretty instant "street cred" and that's just human nature.
To make a remark that military ribbons or badges are "inappropriate" on a military auxiliary uniform was nowhere near an intelligent response. I believe I will be writing a letter also.
Just my two cents a little late in the thread, I know.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 09, 2009, 05:24:38 AMI assume your referring to the intent and effort to do things right out of respect, and not suggesting those who can't wear it, for whatever reason, should quit.
Yes, I was referring to it being worn properly out of respect, and had nothing to do with those who are wearing an alternate. I also resent your skewing it by stating that assumption in that manner. That's twisting words into something different.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 09, 2009, 05:24:38 AMThe fact remains that the term "USAF-Style" uniform is the proper terminology, look it up.
I know quite well what it says, but it's inaccurate. It's an Air Force uniform, utilized by the Air Force, approved by the Air Force for Civil Air Patrol wear with CAP distinctive insignia. And if you recall previous versions of 39-1, you'd know that it didn't always call it an "Air Force style" uniform. Like I said before, I can put Buick badges on a Mercedes, but it doesn't change what it is. That's what the writer of 39-1 is trying to, probably unintenionally.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 09, 2009, 05:24:38 AM
The blue service dress, BDU's and flightsuits are made up of (mostly) the same mil-spec components as the USAF uniform, are worn IAW regulations and traditions that are similar-to, or based-on USAF regulations and traditions, but they are not USAF uniforms. That's based on regulation, not opinion. Read 39-1.
Its not civilian dress by any means, but its not a military uniform, its a military-style uniform. [darn] straight it needs to be respected, worn right, and appreciated for the honor it is to wear it, but we can't ignore the distinction and terminology just because it might degrade an argument.
You're trying to win the argument based on technicalities and semantics, not on reality. I know what the pub says, I read it monthly, along with the ICL's on uniforms. Doesn't change fact. You can
technically win the argument, which I know is all that matters to you, but it's not keeping in with reality. But if it's that important to you, you win.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 09, 2009, 05:24:38 AMWouldn't this be a lot better if we all just respected each other, stopped trying to see who can mark the wall higher by comparing services and worried about the mission and the experience instead of the clothes?
From the tone of the thread, no one is trying to make anything higher than anything else. It's simply a matter of terminology that needs to be accurate, and points about what service is. Nothing about anything being superior to anything else.
As to the "respect", the NLO's statement shows a distinct and blatantly ignorant lack of it. That's an issue that should be addressed as well.
Maybe it's best this thread dies. I don't think anything good is gonna come out of it.
Point of Order...
We have been debating alleged words from an NLO (National Legal Officer)...
Who is the National Legal Officer? Is it not called a General Counsel?
Quote from: Hawk200 on March 09, 2009, 06:58:42 AM
You're trying to win the argument based on technicalities and semantics, not on reality. I know what the pub says, I read it monthly, along with the ICL's on uniforms. Doesn't change fact. You can technically win the argument, which I know is all that matters to you, but it's not keeping in with reality. But if it's that important to you, you win.
I'm making the point that the USAF had a very good reason for the "semantics" it used - you don't come up with terminology like that by accident.
Its interesting how regulations and terminology matter when they support someone's point, but are just either "semantics" or a mistake when they don't.
Quoting what a reg
used to say doesn't mean much here either. CAP
used to do a lot of things. If anything it adds more weight to my point, someone or some group of CAP and USAF people fairly recently, thought is was important enough to make the distinction, my guess it happened sometime in the berry-board era, a distinction that is made in every official reference to USAF uniform parts worn by CAP members.
The clear intent of the term "USAF-style uniform" was to seperate it from being a "military" uniform or a "USAF uniform".
OK, tell you what. I'll throw in a situation that's probably far less hypothetical than it sounds.
An Air Force officer, who is also a CAP officer, goes to work one morning, wearing blues. For the sake of the hypothesis, we'll call it short sleeve blues, no tie, no ribbons, nothing fancy. Figuring that he will probably be working a little later, he carries in his pocket a CAP nametag, a pair of CAP officer epaulettes, and a CAP officer hat device.
Upon leaving work, he goes to a meeting that night. While sitting in his POV, he changes his nametag, epaulettes, and his hat device to CAP insignia. Now what has fundamentally altered his atttire that he is no longer wearing an Air Force uniform? What has magically changed his attire to something that isn't Air Force? Do you see the point I'm making?
Now, I personally consider it an Air Force variant. Much like Air Force members that wear ACU's are wearing an Army variant uniform. It's a matter of insignia. Just changing the tags doesn't alter what it is, it doesn't become an Army "style" uniform.
Second, you and I both know that the Air Force did not write the current, or probably even the last three CAPM 39-1's. I'd imagine that the last one they did have a hand in was probably the 1970 dated one, if even that one. I would seriously doubt that they had any actual input on the 39-1 in almost the last 40 years. It would probably be far better organized if they did.
But back to the original question of mil decs on the CSU. Would it be so horribly wrong to even ask the various branches if it would be OK? How do we know that the various branches wouldn't be all for it? I don't think anyone here can say with any legitimate proof (not conjecture, but hard evidence) that they would all say no. Maybe if we packaged it right, made sure it sounded like a request rather than a demand, we might get their blessings.
Quote from: Hawk200 on March 09, 2009, 09:58:02 AMUpon leaving work, he goes to a meeting that night. While sitting in his POV, he changes his nametag, epaulets, and his hat device to CAP insignia. Now what has fundamentally altered his attire that he is no longer wearing an Air Force uniform? What has magically changed his attire to something that isn't Air Force? Do you see the point I'm making?
I see the point you're reaching for and it doesn't hold. While configured as required by CAP, it is not a USAF "variant", if for no other reason than no one in the Air Force could wear it legally while on Air Force duty.
Its not the components that define whether something is a military uniform or not, or even a
uniform at all, it is the specific configuration and wear of the components together that delineate that.
It would only be an Air Force "variant" if members of the USAF could wear it on USAF duty.
And obviously the USAF most certainly did approve and had input into the current 39-1, its a regulation that requires compliance with their directives. The term "USAF-style" predates me, so that's at least 10 years, and as I said, my guess is the term came with or around the time of the berry boards, though perhaps someone else would know.
The berry board situation, as well as the ongoing issues with our general officer grade, subdued on the flightsuit, etc., etc., should be evidence enough of ongoing USAF involvement in 39-1.
I probably should just let it go, but...
I find it interesting that in defending one person's honor, folks here have managed to insult others' honor. Not our finest moment. :-[
Quote from: Fifinella on March 09, 2009, 03:32:21 PM
I probably should just let it go, but...
I find it interesting that in defending one person's honor, folks here have managed to insult others' honor. Not our finest moment. :-[
Point taken.
Actually we're dealing with two diverse attitudes toward uniforms which, in this particular instance, merge to the disadvantage of CAP members whoa re veterans:
1) the historic USAF desire for a "plain blue suit" when they split off from the Army in 1947; I've always viewed this as the "if you're not wearing wings, who cares what else you've accomplished" point of view...perhaps I'm being harsh, but that's always been my interpretation....anyway, there is certainly a school of thought today in USAF that wants to return to the far simpler uniform
2) CAP "corporate mentality", which has been discussed elsewhere here in great detail; essentially, those who hold this view would prefer all seniors wore the blazer, very plain flightsuit or something similar for field work
Frankly, I've felt for a long time that it is scandalous that CAP (or the Air Force) restricts veterans from wearing their earned recognition in CAP uniform; if it requires a change in federal law, then we ought to request it.
Please note that I am not a veteran.
One last thought -- does anyone know how this is handled by Coast Guard Auxiliary? It would make an interesting comparison.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on March 09, 2009, 06:19:24 PM
One last thought -- does anyone know how this is handled by Coast Guard Auxiliary? It would make an interesting comparison.
You can wear military ribbons and badges on the service uniforms (Trops, SDB, etc) IAW AUXMAN Chapters 10/11... but IIRC the utility uniforms (ODU or working blue) and bags restricted WRT badges at the moment. But... the rule on uniforms is pretty much you can wear it if you can get one that you can fit into... and your beard meets specs... And if you don't, wear the blazer.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on March 09, 2009, 06:19:24 PM1) the historic USAF desire for a "plain blue suit" when they split off from the Army in 1947; I've always viewed this as the "if you're not wearing wings, who cares what else you've accomplished" point of view...perhaps I'm being harsh, but that's always been my interpretation....anyway, there is certainly a school of thought today in USAF that wants to return to the far simpler
Simpler as in the McPeak-style? The last round of updates to the service coat would seem to conflict with that - they have been moving back to the 4-pocket Hap Arnold style.
CAPM 39-1, 1 Jan 77 (Earliest I have)
Quote
Civil Air Patrol members are authorized to wear a uniform similar to the US Air Force uniform, the difference being that distinctive emblems, buttons, insignia, and badges are employed to identify the wearer as a member of CAP.
I added the emphasis. Note that at the time, the USAF had complete control over the uniform.
I think somewhere in the AFI it refers to CAP being authorized to wear the USAF uniform "With certain distinctive identifying insignia."
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 09, 2009, 08:48:14 PM
I think somewhere in the AFI it refers to CAP being authorized to wear the USAF uniform "With certain distinctive identifying insignia."
Good call.
Quote from: AFI 10-2701, July 2005, Page 8
1.3. Status of CAP Personnel. CAP is not a military service and its members are not subject to the
UCMJ. CAP members voluntarily perform Air Force-assigned missions. CAP membership does not confer
upon an individual any of the rights, privileges, prerogatives or benefits of military personnel, active,
reserve, or retired. While CAP is not a military service, it uses an Air Force-style grade structure and its
members may wear Air Force-style uniforms when authorized. Air Force protocol requirements do not
apply to CAP members.
So at least 32 years of CAP regs, as well as the official regulation which governs the USAF relationship with CAP, refer to the blue service dress as "similar" or "style". That's not semantics, and its not a mistake. That's a deliberate distinction made for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is support non-military status.
Also, for the record regarding out designation:
Quote from: AFI 10-2701, July 2005, Page 5
The Civil Air Patrol (CAP) is a Federally chartered non-profit corporation that may be utilized as a civilian
volunteer auxiliary of the Air Force. The Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF) can employ the services
of CAP in lieu of or to supplement Air Force resources to fulfill the non-combat programs and missions
of the Air Force. Such services may include Air Force-assigned missions (AFAMs) in support of homeland
security operations, consequence management, support to civilian law enforcement, and other civil
support. Certain CAP cadet and aerospace educational programs may also be approved and assigned as
Air Force non-combat missions. When performing Air Force-assigned programs and missions, CAP
assets function as an auxiliary of the Air Force. CAP is not authorized to perform AFAMs outside of the
territories of the United States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico without specific authorization.
Refer to Appendix 1 for the history and organization of the Civil Air Patrol.
How far we have come:
"The greatest honor that a man can receive is to bear arms under his country's flag."
-- George S. Patton, 1945.
"We are a non-combatant organization, therefore all combat badges of whatever type are inappropriate for wear."
-- Civil Air Patrol NLO, 2009
I think you're reaching a bit, John.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 09, 2009, 11:40:25 PM
I think you're reaching a bit, John.
I don't think so. The impression I get is that at least the NLO is embarrassed to have combat veterans in his "Non-combatant" organization. In order to "Fit in" we will need to divest ourselves of the indicia of our combat service.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 09, 2009, 11:54:10 PM
I don't think so. The impression I get is that at least the NLO is embarrassed to have combat veterans in his "Non-combatant" organization. In order to "Fit in" we will need to divest ourselves of the indicia of our combat service.
I'll play Devil's advocate -- while wearing a
corporate service uniform, why does one need to wear proof of one's
combat service? I tend to believe this is the point to Col Herrin's statement, rather than some sort of anti-military agenda. At the very least, Col Herrin's certainly had enough experience at the squadron, group, wing, and region level that any anti-military hate would've probably cost him considerably by now.
(Col Herrin's also not a bad guy, from what I could tell in person. But I could be wrong.)No one's trying to remove the approved (and documented) military insignia from the Air Force variant uniforms, last I checked. So if a member wears the military uniform, the member can still wear his or her military insignia.
I'm pretty sure no one intended to personally insult combat veterans and their honored service by saying "y'know, maybe the CIB and Air Assault badge and the military ribbons shouldn't go on this uniform."
Unintended consequences? Obviously.
Anti-military witch hunt? Doubtful.
Aux, Last year there was a pretty ambitious effort to make changes to the corporate uniform set in terms of its makeup and who could wear it. At some point I suppose the AF weighed in and the whole thing it seems went radio silent. Are you aware of specifics from the AF regarding changes to the TPU/CSU and what final ruling has been handed down to put an end to what was to amount to a corporate uniform alignment?
Quote from: RocketPropelled on March 10, 2009, 12:36:30 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 09, 2009, 11:54:10 PM
I don't think so. The impression I get is that at least the NLO is embarrassed to have combat veterans in his "Non-combatant" organization. In order to "Fit in" we will need to divest ourselves of the indicia of our combat service.
I'll play Devil's advocate -- while wearing a corporate service uniform, why does one need to wear proof of one's combat service? I tend to believe this is the point to Col Herrin's statement, rather than some sort of anti-military agenda. At the very least, Col Herrin's certainly had enough experience at the squadron, group, wing, and region level that any anti-military hate would've probably cost him considerably by now. (Col Herrin's also not a bad guy, from what I could tell in person. But I could be wrong.)
No one's trying to remove the approved (and documented) military insignia from the Air Force variant uniforms, last I checked. So if a member wears the military uniform, the member can still wear his or her military insignia.
I'm pretty sure no one intended to personally insult combat veterans and their honored service by saying "y'know, maybe the CIB and Air Assault badge and the military ribbons shouldn't go on this uniform."
Unintended consequences? Obviously.
Anti-military witch hunt? Doubtful.
It isn't a matter of "Need" to prove combat service. The NLO thinks we should CONCEAL it as "Inappropriate."
Quote from: Eclipse on March 09, 2009, 02:52:07 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on March 09, 2009, 09:58:02 AMUpon leaving work, he goes to a meeting that night. While sitting in his POV, he changes his nametag, epaulets, and his hat device to CAP insignia. Now what has fundamentally altered his attire that he is no longer wearing an Air Force uniform? What has magically changed his attire to something that isn't Air Force? Do you see the point I'm making?
I see the point you're reaching for and it doesn't hold. While configured as required by CAP, it is not a USAF "variant", if for no other reason than no one in the Air Force could wear it legally while on Air Force duty.
Its not the components that define whether something is a military uniform or not, or even a uniform at all, it is the specific configuration and wear of the components together that delineate that.
It would only be an Air Force "variant" if members of the USAF could wear it on USAF duty.
And obviously the USAF most certainly did approve and had input into the current 39-1, its a regulation that requires compliance with their directives. The term "USAF-style" predates me, so that's at least 10 years, and as I said, my guess is the term came with or around the time of the berry boards, though perhaps someone else would know.
The berry board situation, as well as the ongoing issues with our general officer grade, subdued on the flightsuit, etc., etc., should be evidence enough of ongoing USAF involvement in 39-1.
The 1987 version of 39-1 calls it "military style Air Force uniform." The 1968 version makes no such mention or distinction.
Quote from: SarDragon on March 10, 2009, 05:46:33 AMThe 1968 version makes no such mention or distinction.
As an aside, would you have a spare copy of that 1968 manual? Trying to build my collection of older uniform manuals.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 10, 2009, 01:23:11 AMIt isn't a matter of "Need" to prove combat service. The NLO thinks we should CONCEAL it as "Inappropriate."
Ironic, considering that I've seen ads online, and military distribution messages that attempt to actively recruit current, prior and retired military personnel. Apparently, they want the experience the military brings, but some consider the trappings "inappropriate".
Kinda reminds me of the dogs that Sean Connery talked about in the "Presidio".
Quote from: Hawk200 on March 10, 2009, 05:50:10 AM
Quote from: SarDragon on March 10, 2009, 05:46:33 AMThe 1968 version makes no such mention or distinction.
As an aside, would you have a spare copy of that 1968 manual? Trying to build my collection of older uniform manuals.
Nope. I got that one on eBay for $20. Nor am I willing to disassemble it to copy or scan it.
Quote from: SarDragon on March 10, 2009, 06:02:13 AMNope. I got that one on eBay for $20. Nor am I willing to disassemble it to copy or scan it.
Perfectly understandable, I wouldn't do it with any of mine either. Got a few of them, but I'm not even sure which ones I'm missing.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 10, 2009, 01:23:11 AM
Quote from: RocketPropelled on March 10, 2009, 12:36:30 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 09, 2009, 11:54:10 PM
I don't think so. The impression I get is that at least the NLO is embarrassed to have combat veterans in his "Non-combatant" organization. In order to "Fit in" we will need to divest ourselves of the indicia of our combat service.
I'll play Devil's advocate -- while wearing a corporate service uniform, why does one need to wear proof of one's combat service? I tend to believe this is the point to Col Herrin's statement, rather than some sort of anti-military agenda. At the very least, Col Herrin's certainly had enough experience at the squadron, group, wing, and region level that any anti-military hate would've probably cost him considerably by now. (Col Herrin's also not a bad guy, from what I could tell in person. But I could be wrong.)
No one's trying to remove the approved (and documented) military insignia from the Air Force variant uniforms, last I checked. So if a member wears the military uniform, the member can still wear his or her military insignia.
I'm pretty sure no one intended to personally insult combat veterans and their honored service by saying "y'know, maybe the CIB and Air Assault badge and the military ribbons shouldn't go on this uniform."
Unintended consequences? Obviously.
Anti-military witch hunt? Doubtful.
It isn't a matter of "Need" to prove combat service. The NLO thinks we should CONCEAL it as "Inappropriate."
Is that really what he said, or is it what you think he meant?
Quote from: Flying Pig on March 08, 2009, 07:12:32 PM
Could you go back and point out where I said you or anyone else was a second class citizen?
He is not saying that a non-prior service member is not worth as much as a a prior service member. He is saying that when you are able to wear your ribbons , show people where you have been and what you have done, you have an easier time in establishing a comminality with other military members. With ribbons, medals and badges, you can show what you have done military service wise. If he was not wearing his ribbons at the time, the USMC members would not have approached him about CAP and as such was able to talk to them about CAP, set them straight on it and maybe got them interested in work with it.
Quote from: JThemann on March 10, 2009, 01:45:42 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 10, 2009, 01:23:11 AM
Quote from: RocketPropelled on March 10, 2009, 12:36:30 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 09, 2009, 11:54:10 PM
I don't think so. The impression I get is that at least the NLO is embarrassed to have combat veterans in his "Non-combatant" organization. In order to "Fit in" we will need to divest ourselves of the indicia of our combat service.
I'll play Devil's advocate -- while wearing a corporate service uniform, why does one need to wear proof of one's combat service? I tend to believe this is the point to Col Herrin's statement, rather than some sort of anti-military agenda. At the very least, Col Herrin's certainly had enough experience at the squadron, group, wing, and region level that any anti-military hate would've probably cost him considerably by now. (Col Herrin's also not a bad guy, from what I could tell in person. But I could be wrong.)
No one's trying to remove the approved (and documented) military insignia from the Air Force variant uniforms, last I checked. So if a member wears the military uniform, the member can still wear his or her military insignia.
I'm pretty sure no one intended to personally insult combat veterans and their honored service by saying "y'know, maybe the CIB and Air Assault badge and the military ribbons shouldn't go on this uniform."
Unintended consequences? Obviously.
Anti-military witch hunt? Doubtful.
It isn't a matter of "Need" to prove combat service. The NLO thinks we should CONCEAL it as "Inappropriate."
Is that really what he said, or is it what you think he meant?
My quote was accurate and I have provided the context. It is on page 81 of the NB Agenda if you want to check it out yourself.
John,
the NLO can only suggest it because he has no control over the USAF uniforms. If the USAF didn't want badges on its uniforms they would do something similar to what the USCG did, that you can only wear Badges that you earn in USCG service. Now the NLO can say you can not wear ribbons, medals, and badges on the corporate uniforms because it is a CAP created uniform. I would say wear the SDBs. I have some larger guys in my unit and wing that still wear the USAF uniform. A bunch of the guys are prior and wear their CIB so I say don't sweat it.
Quote from: PORed on March 12, 2009, 02:05:15 PM
I have some larger guys in my unit and wing that still wear the USAF uniform.
And you don't see this as part of the problem?
Quote from: PORed on March 12, 2009, 02:05:15 PM
A bunch of the guys are prior and wear their CIB so I say don't sweat it.
The CIB is approved for wear on the USAF-style uniforms. If they are wearing them on a corporate combo, that's wrong.
Eclipse, I miss spoke. I meant I have seen other members wear the CIB on their SDBs is all. I also agree with holding people to weight standards but until we see annual or semiannual weigh-ins it is moot.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 09, 2009, 11:54:10 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on March 09, 2009, 11:40:25 PM
I think you're reaching a bit, John.
I don't think so. The impression I get is that at least the NLO is embarrassed to have combat veterans in his "Non-combatant" organization. In order to "Fit in" we will need to divest ourselves of the indicia of our combat service.
Neither do I. John, I was pretty pi$$ed, too. I had been going over the agenda for the winter board when I ran into it. I got that sick feeling in my stomach (you're a vet - you know exactly what I'm talking about) and shredded the document (I was taking a break at work and put it in the industrial shredder).
I was offended more than I can describe here. It was a quiche-eating, berkenstock-wearing, idiot moment. What's worse than he wrote it was that NHQ
published it. What a blister-head!
I think this horse has been throughly beaten... You guys are just circling the carcass repeating yourselves now.
Also... If you are gonna draw attention to your post by subverting the curse filter... Use a word that is actually filtered... Better still, if you have to mask it... maybe you could find a better choice of words for a public forum.