Where to purchase BDUs?

[manfredvonrichthofen]

[img alt=]http://captalk.net/MGalleryItem.php?id=347[/img]
Doesn't that just look good? Better than the green boots to me.
Those are a pair of ripstop ABU, from BDU.com

[caphornbuckle]

Hate to jump in with this but:

Quote from CAPM 39-1 Pg 10 Para e

...Members who buy uniform items from other than AAFES MCSSs should check the reliability of the seller and make sure each garment has an USAF certification label.  Members must be careful about buying from commercial sources.  The articles may have been rejected by government buyers, may not conform to specifications, or may be in the process of being phased out.  Uniform items that do not meet Air Force specifications are not authorized for wear.  Each uniform item must have this label sewn or stamped on permanently: "USAF CERTIFICATE NO ____________.  A sample of this item has been inspected and meets or exceeds the quality prescribed by AF Specification ______."

If it doesn't have the tag/label, it shouldn't be worn.  I haven't purchased any uniforms from the commercial vendors stated above so I don't know if they have this label.

Just something to think of if we are talking about complying with regulations/manuals and the uniform.  Granted, I don't know if my uniforms even have this label or not.

[a2capt]

The Propper stuff is made to the same spec, and the label further states this.

[AngelWings]

Even if said top is given to you by your squadron and has USAF/ANG patches sewn on but no specific thing identifying it is of USAF spec? Thats really sad. The cadets I've seen from other squadrons don't even get a set for free, and their parents are poor, or just cheap people :\

[Hawk200]

Hate to jump in with this but:

Quote from CAPM 39-1 Pg 10 Para e

...Members who buy uniform items from other than AAFES MCSSs should check the reliability of the seller and make sure each garment has an USAF certification label.  Members must be careful about buying from commercial sources.  The articles may have been rejected by government buyers, may not conform to specifications, or may be in the process of being phased out.  Uniform items that do not meet Air Force specifications are not authorized for wear.  Each uniform item must have this label sewn or stamped on permanently: "USAF CERTIFICATE NO ____________.  A sample of this item has been inspected and meets or exceeds the quality prescribed by AF Specification ______."

If it doesn't have the tag/label, it shouldn't be worn.  I haven't purchased any uniforms from the commercial vendors stated above so I don't know if they have this label.

Just something to think of if we are talking about complying with regulations/manuals and the uniform.  Granted, I don't know if my uniforms even have this label or not.

That applies to the Air Force specific service dress items, not BDUs.

[Tim Medeiros]

Hate to jump in with this but:

Quote from CAPM 39-1 Pg 10 Para e

...Members who buy uniform items from other than AAFES MCSSs should check the reliability of the seller and make sure each garment has an USAF certification label.  Members must be careful about buying from commercial sources.  The articles may have been rejected by government buyers, may not conform to specifications, or may be in the process of being phased out.  Uniform items that do not meet Air Force specifications are not authorized for wear.  Each uniform item must have this label sewn or stamped on permanently: "USAF CERTIFICATE NO ____________.  A sample of this item has been inspected and meets or exceeds the quality prescribed by AF Specification ______."

If it doesn't have the tag/label, it shouldn't be worn.  I haven't purchased any uniforms from the commercial vendors stated above so I don't know if they have this label.

Just something to think of if we are talking about complying with regulations/manuals and the uniform.  Granted, I don't know if my uniforms even have this label or not.

That applies to the Air Force specific service dress items, not BDUs.

Are you sure?  The reg I read, CAPM 39-1, says "All"

e. Commercial Sources.  When purchasing uniform clothing from commercial sources, the
following should be kept in mind: All Air Force uniform garments, footwear, and accouterments that the
Defense Personnel Support Center (DPSC) supplies to AAFES military clothing sales stores (MCSS)
and conform to Air Force specifications; AAFES also may obtain for sale in MCSS a variety of required
and optional uniform items from commercial vendors.  These items are sold under normal AAFES
merchandising procedures.  All uniform items must display a USAF certification label.  Members who
buy uniform items from other than AAFES MCSSs should check the reliability of the seller and make
sure each garment has an USAF certification label.  Members must be careful about buying from
commercial sources.  The articles may have been rejected by government buyers, may not conform to
specifications, or may be in the process of being phased out.  Uniform items that do not meet Air Force
specifications are not authorized for wear.  Each uniform item must have this label sewn or stamped on
permanently:  "USAF CERTIFICATE NO _______.  A sample of this item has been inspected and
meets or exceeds the quality prescribed by AF Specification _____."

Nothing about "but not BDUs".

[HGjunkie]

So, now we're arguing about the tags inside the uniforms?

Ah, the smell of a pointless (IMO) debate in the evening. 

[a2capt]

Well, you'll also see on that label a notice that says "Do note remove this label". There really isn't a need to remove it either. Flight uniforms tend to get labeled internally and loose their labels when going to DRMO or eBay. The reality of it is, no one is gonna bust your chops over a uniform item that looks right, because if it looks right it probably is right. If said uniform item is in need of repair, well, then - thats a different story.

[Hawk200]

Are you sure?  The reg I read, CAPM 39-1, says "All"
........................................

Nothing about "but not BDUs".

OK, we'll look at it from that viewpoint. First, show me a BDU with an Air Force certification label. You're not going to find it for a few reasons, only one of which is that the BDU is an Army controlled design.

Second, show me an undershirt (white, brown, or black) with a certification label. I doubt you'd be able to. Mine may have had DPSC or DLA identifiers on the label, but never a specific branch label. Consider boots and socks as well.

Third, show me a corporate uniform ensemble that has Air Force certification labels. You won't, it doesn't use Air Force components, but COTS items. The nature of the uniform defies the idea of requiring a certification label. Apply the same logic to the CAP utility "jumpsuit" uniform, the blue flightsuit, and blue BDUs.

The same concept applies to all uniform pieces that are not specific to the blue service dress. The original manual that identified the requirement of having a certification label only addressed Air Force specific uniforms.

Making a blanket statement that all uniforms worn in CAP must have a certification label is not entirely accurate. If it truly meant that, there would be no way to wear a complete and proper uniform.

This is also another indicator of why a new manual needs to be written from the ground up, and not just a mashup of new info into an old pub.

[caphornbuckle]

Third, show me a corporate uniform ensemble that has Air Force certification labels. You won't, it doesn't use Air Force components, but COTS items. The nature of the uniform defies the idea of requiring a certification label. Apply the same logic to the CAP utility "jumpsuit" uniform, the blue flightsuit, and blue BDUs.

The same concept applies to all uniform pieces that are not specific to the blue service dress. The original manual that identified the requirement of having a certification label only addressed Air Force specific uniforms.

The corporate uniforms are not subject to this paragraph.

Ref: CAPM 39-1

e. Commercial Sources.  When purchasing uniform clothing from commercial sources, the
following should be kept in mind: All Air Force uniform garments, footwear, and accouterments that the
Defense Personnel Support Center (DPSC) supplies to AAFES military clothing sales stores (MCSS)
and conform to Air Force specifications; AAFES also may obtain for sale in MCSS a variety of required
and optional uniform items from commercial vendors.  These items are sold under normal AAFES
merchandising procedures.  All uniform items must display a USAF certification label.  Members who
buy uniform items from other than AAFES MCSSs should check the reliability of the seller and make
sure each garment has an USAF certification label.  Members must be careful about buying from
commercial sources.  The articles may have been rejected by government buyers, may not conform to
specifications, or may be in the process of being phased out.  Uniform items that do not meet Air Force
specifications are not authorized for wear.  Each uniform item must have this label sewn or stamped on
permanently:  "USAF CERTIFICATE NO _______.  A sample of this item has been inspected and
meets or exceeds the quality prescribed by AF Specification _____."

And another quote from CAPM 39-1 para 1-1:

COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY

Yes, it is out of date.  Yes, it does have misleading information.  But as of now, it is our bible on the uniforms.

Like I said, I don't think any of my uniforms have this stamp/tag on it (and most of my uniforms were from when I served in the Air Force).  But we are out of compliance without it!  If someone was to purchace Air Force-style uniform items (as per this thread) this may be something to consider when they are shopping around.

[Hawk200]

Third, show me a corporate uniform ensemble that has Air Force certification labels. You won't, it doesn't use Air Force components, but COTS items. The nature of the uniform defies the idea of requiring a certification label. Apply the same logic to the CAP utility "jumpsuit" uniform, the blue flightsuit, and blue BDUs.

The same concept applies to all uniform pieces that are not specific to the blue service dress. The original manual that identified the requirement of having a certification label only addressed Air Force specific uniforms.

The corporate uniforms are not subject to this paragraph.

Which means the statement "All uniforms must an Air Force certification label" is not valid. I stand by my original statement: "That applies to the Air Force specific service dress items, not BDUs."

Ref: CAPM 39-1

e. Commercial Sources.  When purchasing uniform clothing from commercial sources, the
following should be kept in mind: All Air Force uniform garments, footwear, and accouterments that the Defense Personnel Support Center (DPSC) supplies to AAFES military clothing sales stores (MCSS)
and conform to Air Force specifications; AAFES also may obtain for sale in MCSS a variety of required
and optional uniform items from commercial vendors.  These items are sold under normal AAFES
merchandising procedures.  All uniform items must display a USAF certification label.  Members who
buy uniform items from other than AAFES MCSSs should check the reliability of the seller and make
sure each garment has an USAF certification label.  Members must be careful about buying from
commercial sources.  The articles may have been rejected by government buyers, may not conform to
specifications, or may be in the process of being phased out.  Uniform items that do not meet Air Force
specifications are not authorized for wear.  Each uniform item must have this label sewn or stamped on
permanently:  "USAF CERTIFICATE NO _______.  A sample of this item has been inspected and
meets or exceeds the quality prescribed by AF Specification _____."

I just noted something that I never considered before, the part that says "and conform to Air Force specifications." BDUs do not comply with Air Force specification, because there is no Air Force spec for them. It's an Army design, always has been.

And another quote from CAPM 39-1 para 1-1:

COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY

Yes, it is out of date.  Yes, it does have misleading information.  But as of now, it is our bible on the uniforms.

Like I said, I don't think any of my uniforms have this stamp/tag on it (and most of my uniforms were from when I served in the Air Force).  But we are out of compliance without it!  If someone was to purchace Air Force-style uniform items (as per this thread) this may be something to consider when they are shopping around.

Some points I have:
1. Only blue uniform items are covered when it comes to mentioned labels.
2. Blanket statements are best avoided.
3. The manual is inaccurate on numerous points. It needs to be written fresh, not just rehashed with new info.
4. You can not require compliance in any manner when there is no way to comply. You're never going to find a t-shirt, a belt, a pair of socks or shoes with a certification label. Such things do not exist. (On a side note, there are certain things that if someone ever asks to look at my labels, I'm gonna tell them to go pound sand.)
5. Some logic needs to be applied rather than a knee jerk reaction of "Well, we got to follow it anyway!" Let's be realistic, folks.

[caphornbuckle]

If BDU's don't comply with Air Force specification, then why do they wear them?  They still had to be approved by the Air Force in order for airmen to wear them.

I do remember in the early 90's that the BDU's DID have this stamp on them.  Unfortunately I can't prove this because the uniforms worn then are hard to find although some units may have these older uniforms (particularly the ones with the flaps on the side) still in stock or has worn off.

The stamp was in black ink on the inside of the blouse either on the right or left side behind the bottom pocket.

[HGjunkie]

Just for fun, I decided to go check the insides of my BDU Coats for any AF certification label/stamp.

I'll give you a hint; I didn't find any. I DID see the label that has the washing instructions on it, but that's it.
FWIW, one of the coats is Propper brand, and the other is Military Surplus with the button flaps on the side.

[Hawk200]

If BDU's don't comply with Air Force specification, then why do they wear them?  They still had to be approved by the Air Force in order for airmen to wear them.

Here it is, one more time: BDUs are an ARMY design. The ARMY developed them, and offered their use to the other branches(This isn't unusual, the Army was offered use of the current Marine Corps utilities, but declined due the fact that they were developing the ACU). Every single BDU made is a pattern of a utility that was Army developed. It doesn't even matter if it's woodland camoflage, desert colored, tan, green, blue, purple, or bright pink. The basic pattern (not the print) is Army in design.

The BDU was adopted for use by the Air Force in the mid '80's. It became general issue in October 1988.

I do remember in the early 90's that the BDU's DID have this stamp on them.  Unfortunately I can't prove this because the uniforms worn then are hard to find although some units may have these older uniforms (particularly the ones with the flaps on the side) still in stock or has worn off.

The stamp was in black ink on the inside of the blouse either on the right or left side behind the bottom pocket.

I shipped to Air Force boot in November 1988, six weeks after the Air Force began issuing the BDU instead of fatigues. I've never seen a stamping or label inside them that implies "Air Force specification". The uniform was so new to the Air Force that some rather wierd practices were legal with them that did not make sense.

One example of such wierdness was the allowance to wear low quarters with the BDU. Yep, it looked liked dog squeeze, but it was allowed, due to the same problem then that we currently have with 39-1: old publication rehashed with new info. Another example was the allowance to wear a flight jacket with it. That didn't look right either.

The stamp inside the shirt you had sounds like an attempt to simply have a "certification" to appease people stuck on technical details. Plenty of people are. I'd never believe a BDU came from the factory that way. Placing stamps inside something in is pretty easy. You remember marking your uniforms in basic? Or did they still continue that practice?

However, you've stated that you no longer have such uniforms. If you are wearing a BDU lately, then you are not complying in a manner that you claim we are supposed to be doing.

Additionally, anyone can put anything inside clothing. Just because it has the label doesn't mean it's approved. The Air Force published info on non-compliant ABUs within months of them being fielded, and explicity stated that many of the fakes had "certification" labels when they didn't comply at all.

The logic of  "the Air Force wore it, so it must have a certification label, therefore the certification label exists" doesn't work. As I've stated before, there are things that don't have it, and won't. Don't get stuck on the specifics to the point that reality gets brushed aside.

[caphornbuckle]

I will agree with you on the fact that the label is not there on any uniforms, including the service dress uniforms you have mentioned.  I will even agree with you that it would be ridiculous to see these stamps on boots and belts.  I can also agree with you that this is something that isn't taken into consideration when purchasing uniforms nor will it be possible to even find these tags/labels in any uniform in our current inventory.

I just stated what CAPM 39-1 says about purchasing uniforms from commercial sources.  It may not be current but it is the standing policy and until it gets changed, we are required to be compliant.  I am not in compliance with it, you are not in compliance with it, and I seriously doubt anyone on here is.  But one of the requirements that was asked in the beginning was for Regulation/Military BDU's.  There is nothing in the paragraph that we have quoted on here in the CAPM 39-1 that states "except for BDU's".

BDU's may have been designed and created by the United States Army but they had to go through a quality check with the Air Force in order for airmen to be allowed to wear them thus giving the "seal of approval" with this stamp (though obviously no longer in use).

So I will stand corrected on the point that what I said wasn't detailed enough to explain that uniforms with the stamp/tag on them are difficult if not impossible to find.  I will not give in though on the fact that the paragraph quoted does not include BDU's.  It is a uniform worn in the Air Force (regardless of who designed/created it) which makes it an Air Force Uniform.

[Hawk200]

I will agree with you on the fact that the label is not there on any uniforms, including the service dress uniforms you have mentioned.  I will even agree with you that it would be ridiculous to see these stamps on boots and belts.  I can also agree with you that this is something that isn't taken into consideration when purchasing uniforms nor will it be possible to even find these tags/labels in any uniform in our current inventory.

I just stated what CAPM 39-1 says about purchasing uniforms from commercial sources.  It may not be current but it is the standing policy and until it gets changed, we are required to be compliant.  I am not in compliance with it, you are not in compliance with it, and I seriously doubt anyone on here is.  But one of the requirements that was asked in the beginning was for Regulation/Military BDU's.  There is nothing in the paragraph that we have quoted on here in the CAPM 39-1 that states "except for BDU's".

BDU's may have been designed and created by the United States Army but they had to go through a quality check with the Air Force in order for airmen to be allowed to wear them thus giving the "seal of approval" with this stamp (though obviously no longer in use).

So I will stand corrected on the point that what I said wasn't detailed enough to explain that uniforms with the stamp/tag on them are difficult if not impossible to find.  I will not give in though on the fact that the paragraph quoted does not include BDU's.  It is a uniform worn in the Air Force (regardless of who designed/created it) which makes it an Air Force Uniform.

You're still operating on the logic that since it was worn by the Air Force, then it must have an Air Force specification. That's inaccurate. The specification was promulgated by the Army, and was accepted by the Air Force, not approved by them. If one branch vets a product, other branches often accept the original branch's certification, both for expediency and to avoid waste (of both money and time).

CAPM 39-1 may state that a specification tag is required for an Air Force uniform item, but it's still not something that anyone can comply with as applied to BDUs, unless they have some of the unusual ones you had and are very old.

I have three sets of BDUs hanging in my closet that were issued by the Air National Guard. I have one shirt that I first wore twenty years ago that I kept as is for a memento. Not a single one of them has an Air Force specification tag, even though they were all issued by an Air Force component. If officially issued uniforms lack the tag, do you honestly think commercial ones would have?

It would seem, by your logic, that even though no one can comply, they still must do so. See the problem?

All in all, there is no way to comply with the concept that a tag be present. If you are unable to comply because it is not possible, then it doesn't apply. I'm puzzled that you insist on compliance even though you agree that it is impossible to do so.

There are MILSPEC BDUs available, and I certainly have no issue with requiring compliance there. I've seen some off-the-wall knock-offs that just plain look bad.

[caphornbuckle]

[You're still operating on the logic that since it was worn by the Air Force, then it must have an Air Force specification. That's inaccurate. The specification was promulgated by the Army, and was accepted by the Air Force, not approved by them. If one branch vets a product, other branches often accept the original branch's certification, both for expediency and to avoid waste (of both money and time).

CAPM 39-1 may state that a specification tag is required for an Air Force uniform item, but it's still not something that anyone can comply with as applied to BDUs, unless they have some of the unusual ones you had and are very old.

I have three sets of BDUs hanging in my closet that were issued by the Air National Guard. I have one shirt that I first wore twenty years ago that I kept as is for a memento. Not a single one of them has an Air Force specification tag, even though they were all issued by an Air Force component. If officially issued uniforms lack the tag, do you honestly think commercial ones would have?

It would seem, by your logic, that even though no one can comply, they still must do so. See the problem?

All in all, there is no way to comply with the concept that a tag be present. If you are unable to comply because it is not possible, then it doesn't apply. I'm puzzled that you insist on compliance even though you agree that it is impossible to do so.

There are MILSPEC BDUs available, and I certainly have no issue with requiring compliance there. I've seen some off-the-wall knock-offs that just plain look bad.

A couple of things:

Unfortunately it isn't my logic I'm working with here.  It's CAP's.  They're the ones that make the policies-right or wrong.

I would like to see a little about the BDU's not having to go through a process where the Air Force would approve wear before authorizing them for use (but that is slightly off topic).

And indeed, there does need to be a process where BDU's need to pass MILSPEC before they are allowed to be worn in CAP.

[Hawk200]

A couple of things:

Unfortunately it isn't my logic I'm working with here.  It's CAP's.  They're the ones that make the policies-right or wrong.

I understand that it's CAP logic, but it's old logic that has been around since the '70's, and has foolishly been ignored when a new manual comes out. Too make a current manual, you have to write it from scratch. The logic was right then. The problem is that then doesn't apply to now. Even if it's an item that is completely unchanged (which there aren't really any left that I know of), it still needs a now policy written on it. It's part of being thorough. Anytime you just copy and paste something, you're not completely analyzing the process. That's were the failure lies.

I would like to see a little about the BDU's not having to go through a process where the Air Force would approve wear before authorizing them for use (but that is slightly off topic).

Approving for wear and authorizing for use are different concepts than specification. A specification can be, and is regularly, presented by one branch; then approval and authorization is given by another branch for it's own personnel.

In Iraq, Afghanistan, and numerous other places around the globe there are airman wearing Army Combat uniforms. Do you think the Air Force produced a specification for the ACU so that airman can wear them? No. They did however approve wear and authorize use. The concepts may be related in progressive actions, but they're not the same thing.

For a branch to duplicate existing certification is impractical, and in some cases could be considered criminal. There's no point to spending money already spent elsewhere on the same thing.

As a side note, there are products that are researched by teams composed of personnel of all branches. These items can end up with specs given numbers by each branch. Some products, such as joint publications, can be the same document with different branch number identifiers. For example, Army Field Manual 12-34 might also be Air Force Instruction 65-4321. It shows common operations or equipment (in general "products").

And indeed, there does need to be a process where BDU's need to pass MILSPEC before they are allowed to be worn in CAP.

I readily and wholeheartedly agree. I've seen some BDUs that were hideously lacking in any kind of specification. They also fail in the uniformity department.

[caphornbuckle]

Honestly, we should just agree to disagree on some of this.

The only way this is going to go away is if CAP gives the CAPM 39-1 the MUCH NEEDED attention it deserves.

We can take this to PM if need be.

[Hawk200]

Honestly, we should just agree to disagree on some of this.

There are probably things we disagree on, but it's a manner of viewpoint. I have had problems getting my viewpoint across at times, but continued communication can usually overcome that.

The only way this is going to go away is if CAP gives the CAPM 39-1 the MUCH NEEDED attention it deserves.

I will again wholeheartedly agree. It needs it. We have people willng to do without any form of compensation whatsoever, and it still hasn't been addressed.

We can take this to PM if need be.

It is getting somewhat peripheral as to the discussion, that could be reason to do so. However, this has remained quite civil, and some others may learn something. I'm not the only person to think the way I do, and you're not the only person to think the way you do. Just because you're not in the discussion, doesn't mean you can't learn something. I may still learn something from you, as such someone else will too.

However, it is late, and I think best to resume after the sun has risen (at least in my part of the world, there are many in other places that are seeing it rise now.)