Uniform Tape Test

[arajca]

Ideally, it would be something that matches the intent of an 'easy to acquire/cheaper, more comfortable alternative to Service Dress while still looking uniform enough and able to accommodate ribbons/badges.' I'm sure that's an easy find.

I suggested a black police four pocket dress coat with CAP buttons. Add a blue sleeve stripe and black service and/or flight caps and you're set.

[Sapper168]

Ideally, it would be something that matches the intent of an 'easy to acquire/cheaper, more comfortable alternative to Service Dress while still looking uniform enough and able to accommodate ribbons/badges.' I'm sure that's an easy find.

I suggested a black police four pocket dress coat with CAP buttons. Add a blue sleeve stripe and black service and/or flight caps and you're set.

Why not go with a navy blue coat and hat?  With the grey trousers and white shirt it would look significantly different than the AF service Uniform without introducing a new color into the scheme.

Heck i even found one online fairly cheap.  http://siegelsuniforms.com/navy-dress-coat-single-breasted-4-pocket-mens     

[SarDragon]

The blazer has been around since at least 1961, and is specifically mentioned as part of the IACE uniform in the cadet section of the 39-1.

The blazer uniform may be worn by male senior and cadet members, in either summer or winter, whenever the service uniform is not prescribed for wear. Wearing of this uniform at CAP social occasions instead of the service uniform is encouraged. It may be worn without restriction on non-CAP occasions.

This was, BTW, the first publication of the 39-1, having replaces several other publications.

[Devil Doc]

If i could wear my Military Ribbons/Medals on the NON-AF blues uniforms, it would be a compromise for not wearing th AF Blues. I am proud of what i did in the service, esp when it comes to awards.

[Chaplaindon]

Perhaps it's nothing more than a semantical issue, nevertheless I have a problem with a lack of uniformity in uniforms.

It's a bit akin to hearing someone say that something is "quite unique" ... either something is unique or it isn't. No modification is needed. Likewise, either there is uniformity in clothing, or else you are not wearing a uniform. By literal definition such a situation would necessarily be a "multi-form."

In fact, CAP has an absurd spectrum of multi-forms.

Members arguing/debating/wringing-hands/etc. over CAP's spectrum of official/authorized member clothing is really kind of silly. It's ultimately quite simple, either CAP members are UNIFORM in their clothing or they are not. Presently, any discussion of "uniforms" in CAP is an oxymoron ... a contradiction in terms.

The only way to remedy this logical problem is to find a means to have UNIFORMITY in official clothing.

As a USCG Auxiliary member, I have seen first-hand how one branch of our Nation's armed forces found such uniformity with their Auxiliary. Perhaps it's time for the USAF to consider doing likewise.

Seemingly there are two (2) courses of action to resolve the status quo:

1. Have the USAF eliminate the H/W restrictions on the wear of the USAF Distinctive official apparel, OR ...

2. Have CAP move to a "corporate-specific" apparel.

Neither solution is going to be acceptable to every member ... but then, again, the same can be said for virtually every other rule/regulation in CAP, or for that matter, law or ordinance in the "real world."

Furthermore, as a former chaplain (a present clergyperson), I believe that --sadly-- any such inclusive move (option 1 or 2), on official apparel, would cause conflict because there will always be folks who seek exclusivity and elitism as opposed to inclusiveness and diversity.

Absent a concession from the USAF, or a unilateral move by CAP to corporate-distinctive apparel (and a new found sense of inclusion and acceptable diversity among the membership), I would ask, as one who loves our beautiful english language, that we stop talking about uniforms in CAP because, like unicorns and faeries, they do not exist.

Personally, I wish CAP would find a way to bring back that uniformity. I believe that we'd see a coincidental resurgence of espirit de corps as well.

[LGM30GMCC]

Perhaps it's nothing more than a semantical issue, nevertheless I have a problem with a lack of uniformity in uniforms.

It's a bit akin to hearing someone say that something is "quite unique" ... either something is unique or it isn't. No modification is needed. Likewise, either there is uniformity in clothing, or else you are not wearing a uniform. By literal definition such a situation would necessarily be a "multi-form."

In fact, CAP has an absurd spectrum of multi-forms.

Members arguing/debating/wringing-hands/etc. over CAP's spectrum of official/authorized member clothing is really kind of silly. It's ultimately quite simple, either CAP members are UNIFORM in their clothing or they are not. Presently, any discussion of "uniforms" in CAP is an oxymoron ... a contradiction in terms.

The only way to remedy this logical problem is to find a means to have UNIFORMITY in official clothing.

I'm afraid I am going to have to disagree with you Chaplain. In my USAF shop we have folks that wear ABUs, and folks that wear flight suits. Not everyone can wear the flight suit because they don't meet the regulatory requirements to. On some days due to the various different roles you even had some folks in blues, others flight suits, others ABUs. The same thing can be seen in some med clinics, or support facilities.

At a wing commander's call or other event where it's 'Uniform of the Day' you may see ABUs, Flight-Suits, Blues, and USAF Informal (Khaki/polo combo). Are we not wearing uniforms because we have different options and the like? We have different uniforms. Within each level of formality there are difference. There is absolutely no reason a squadron commander couldn't require their personnel to all wear G/W, or Polos. They would need to be aware of the consequences of doing the same.

Back in the day (on a Tuesday) the USAF did allow members that did not meet H/W or grooming to wear some USAF style uniforms. You couldn't wear rank insignia on them though. Some of the uniforms we have now were actually to give those folks an option so they COULD blend in better. I think the more we move away from the USAF though the less healthy it is.

If by attitude/behavior and mission accomplishment (the whole shebang) we really show our officers to be equivalent in mannerisms, and far more importantly, professionalism, to the point that the USAF as a whole CONSISTENTLY across our organization sees true excellence (from the smallest squadron in East Bumbleyeah to the biggest 250 person unit) I believe the USAF would reconsider that stance again. There might still be some distinguishing mark, but we would need to be viewed at least as well as the National Guard and Reserves. Until we are part of the 'total force' in the minds of the majority of leaders, I just don't see that happening. But there is already prescedent for folks who don't meet Height/Weight/Grooming standards to wear USAF uniforms when they are pinged with 'DOD Civilian' tapes on them. Perhaps someday it would simply be a 'Huh, that's odd...oh...a CAP tape, that's legit then' But that would take a MASSIVE change in behavior and attitude of MANY of our members.

[Eclipse]

^ Yes, you see different uniforms based on duty, but you don't see two different styles of the respective uniform(s).

There's a huge difference.

[LGM30GMCC]

Discounting the greener and grayer ABUs   

I can see your view, however, I also don't think it matters as much as some folks seem to really get wrapped up about. I know I don't have as much of a dog in the fight since I meet H/W/G Standards...on the other side though I think I have a bigger dog in the fight when it comes to the appearance of folks in the USAF-style unfiorms. 

[Eclipse]

It's not "who wears what". We all have skin in this because no matter where you go, it's literally impossible
to stand in a line where everyone is in the same dress.

That may not impact the launching sorties, but the credibility we lose because of it probably impacts needing sorties.

[LGM30GMCC]

I really don't think as many people outside our organization care as you think care. I think those that notice prolly just go 'whatever' and move on with life because they have more important things to worry about; like needing sorties. I think the BEHAVIOR of members, regardless of what they are wearing, does a lot more to damage our credibility than what we wear. Even if we looked all the same...we still get painted with a broad brush by our bad apples if that is the impression someone has of us.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I think the BEHAVIOR of members, regardless of what they are wearing, does a lot more to damage our credibility than what we wear. Even if we looked all the same...we still get painted with a broad brush by our bad apples if that is the impression someone has of us.

Yes.  And that would happen regardless if we were forced into grey shirts, trousers, shoes, belt, cap and insignia.

As a USCG Auxiliary member, I have seen first-hand how one branch of our Nation's armed forces found such uniformity with their Auxiliary. Perhaps it's time for the USAF to consider doing likewise.

Very correct, Padre, but you'll never convince the USAF of that.  As a former CGAUXiliarist I found it refreshing there was virtually no aggro about uniforms in the CGAUX.

Seemingly there are two (2) courses of action to resolve the status quo:

1. Have the USAF eliminate the H/W restrictions on the wear of the USAF Distinctive official apparel, OR ...

2. Have CAP move to a "corporate-specific" apparel.

The first falls under the "not-gonna-happen" category.

The second could work IF input were solicited from members.  If it would be just the status quo grey/white/polo, I'd be gone and I know I wouldn't be the only one.

Personally, I wish CAP would find a way to bring back that uniformity. I believe that we'd see a coincidental resurgence of espirit de corps as well.

That ship sailed around 1990 unfortunately.

Sorry if this seems grumpy and defensive.  It is not meant that way. 

Ned, I for one appreciate your being CT's "window" into the otherwise-murky workings of the powers that be deciding uniform issues.

I'm only speaking for myself here, but I lost a lot of trust in that leadership over the CSU debacle: "We're taking it and we don't have to tell you why.  Like it or lump it about the existing 'corporate' uniforms, because it's what you get."

Do you suppose our WWII members spent much time complaining about their red epaulletes?  Did they feel that they were being punished and insulted because Uncle Sam didn't want anyone to mistake them for "real" AAF personnel?

Our WWII counterparts weren't forced into an "alternate" uniform that is patently ugly and had nothing to do with our heritage, or aviation in general.

[Eclipse]

I really don't think as many people outside our organization care as you think care. I think those that notice prolly just go 'whatever' and move on with life because they have more important things to worry about; like needing sorties. I think the BEHAVIOR of members, regardless of what they are wearing, does a lot more to damage our credibility than what we wear. Even if we looked all the same...we still get painted with a broad brush by our bad apples if that is the impression someone has of us.

Interesting.

It "doesn't matter what we wear", yet to the USAF it clear does "matter what we wear".

Can't have it both ways.  Either appearance is part and parcel of the game, or its not, and it's no different just because you are, or are not "military".

There isn't a structured fighting force, law enforcement agency, fire department, delivery company, or 4th-grade soccer team that would allow
it's members / employees / players to have multiple uniforms but it apparently is "no issue" for CAP.

Appearance matters, it affects credibility which in turn affects mission (and in some cases it affects mission directly).

[RogueLeader]

There is absolutely no reason a squadron commander couldn't require their personnel to all wear G/W, or Polos. They would need to be aware of the consequences of doing the same.

Sure there is.  A commander may not REQUIRE a specific uniform, unless it is provided.  The exception is the minimum service uniform, such as blues OR g/w.  Unit/CC can set UOD is Service Dress, so I wear my Blues as thats the only one I have.  He can't require me to wear g/w's unless they were issued, which they aren't.

[Eclipse]

There is absolutely no reason a squadron commander couldn't require their personnel to all wear G/W, or Polos. They would need to be aware of the consequences of doing the same.

Sure there is.  A commander may not REQUIRE a specific uniform, unless it is provided.  The exception is the minimum service uniform, such as blues OR g/w.  Unit/CC can set UOD is Service Dress, so I wear my Blues as thats the only one I have.  He can't require me to wear g/w's unless they were issued, which they aren't.

Incorrect - that applies only to cadets.

39-1 allows for a commander to prescribe any UOD he so desires for senior members.  The only asterisk is about sensitivity to cost, which does not equal a prohibition.

Table 1-1. Wearing the Uniform
NOTES:
1. The National Commander and other commanders may specify the wear of a particular uniform type for the purpose of achieving a uniform appearance at squadron, group, wing, region, and national functions. However, all commanders must be mindful of the objective of attaining a neatly uniformed appearance at a minimum of personal expense to the individual member and will consequently refrain from imposing unreasonable uniform requirements.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

39-1 allows for a commander to prescribe any UOD he so desires for senior members.  The only asterisk is about sensitivity to cost, which does not equal a prohibition.

So if a member owns a complete, within-regs set of AF blues and has no intention of acquiring a polo shirt, and a commander specifies a polo shirt as UOD, said member is out of luck.

[Eclipse]

39-1 allows for a commander to prescribe any UOD he so desires for senior members.  The only asterisk is about sensitivity to cost, which does not equal a prohibition.

So if a member owns a complete, within-regs set of AF blues and has no intention of acquiring a polo shirt, and a commander specifies a polo shirt as UOD, said member is out of luck.

Pretty much.  At that point, the only option would be appeal to higher HQ and/or filing a complaint, however since blues are inappropriate for a lot of environments, especially dirty tasks or ES-related activities, the onous would be on the member to define "unreasonable" in a meaningful way.  There
are also other duties such as GTM which specify a certain uniform as "required equipment".

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Pretty much.  At that point, the only option would be appeal to higher HQ and/or filing a complaint, however since blues are inappropriate for a lot of environments, especially dirty tasks or ES-related activities, the onous would be on the member to define "unreasonable" in a meaningful way.  There
are also other duties such as GTM which specify a certain uniform as "required equipment".

What I meant is that if a member has a full set of uniforms that AREN'T "corporate" but cover all the bases of operational environments, yet a commander specifies a corporate uniform, the member is out of luck?

Sorry.  I wouldn't want to take part in such an activity where an agenda overrules mission capability.

[RogueLeader]

You quoted TYPE, not a particular uniform.

Utilities is a TYPE, BDU's and BBDU's are a UNIFORM
Service dress is a TYPE,  Blues and G/W are a UNIFORM

Table 1-1. Wearing the Uniform
NOTES:
1. The National Commander and other commanders may specify the wear of a particular uniform type for the purpose of achieving a uniform appearance at squadron, group, wing, region, and national functions. However, all commanders must be mindful of the objective of attaining a neatly uniformed appearance at a minimum of personal expense to the individual member and will consequently refrain from imposing unreasonable uniform requirements.

And wear does it say that it only pertains to cadets for the issued requirements?

I certainly agree with you that some uniforms are better suited for certain tasks, and that requiring a certain TYPE of uniform is within reason, but requiring a specific uniform such as BBDU's, and disallowing BDU's; is absolutely asinine.

[Ned]

Our WWII counterparts weren't forced into an "alternate" uniform that is patently ugly and had nothing to do with our heritage, or aviation in general.

See, there's that "perspective" thing again.  It was ugly (if you didn't like maroon, surely you have to admire the pure red even less), had nothing to do with our heritage (since we didn't have any), or aviation in general (it was a modifed Army uniform, otherwise essentially unchanged from before Orville's first flight).

All back to that subjective opinions about uniforms meme.

And -- for better or worse -- the NEC / CSAG does not have the authority to approve or disapprove uniforms anymore. 

[Eclipse]

And wear does it say that it only pertains to cadets for the issued requirements?

1-5. Uniform Combinations.  Various combinations of CAP uniforms are authorized in order to allow
for various climatic conditions, availability of uniforms, etc., but no member is obligated to equip
himself/herself with all or even a major part of the combinations described in this publication.  Members
will equip themselves with the basic uniform. The minimum basic uniforms for male and female cadets
and senior members, which will satisfy most occasions, are listed below.  Members may obtain and wear
the additional uniform items authorized in this publication on an optional basis.  Uniform clothing may
be altered to improve fit.  However, alterations must not change the intended appearance of garment as
designed.  It is the member's personal responsibility to equip himself/herself with a proper uniform. 
Commanders may assist if they have the capability, through use of unit funds and/or donations or by
acquiring surplus uniforms.  Cadets are required to have the minimum basic uniform.  A commander
may require cadets to wear other  optional uniform items only if the  purchase is voluntary or if the
uniform is supplied without expense to the cadet. The omission of a specific item or appearance standard
does not automatically permit its wear.

No uniforms are issued to seniors, ergo there is no prohibition against a commander prescribing a UOD
regardless whether the members have it or not.

I'll agree it says "type" - an assertion that a CC could specify blues / whites is probably too extreme for
the reg to allow, but he certainly could specify a type.