Most Basic CAP Uniform for New Member

[Eclipse]

Since being properly equipped is...

...required...

...why wouldn't they have it?

And since they are required to have it, why wouldn't they want to wear it?

Unit CCs are free to set the UOD, not relieve the requirement of 39-1 in regards to being properly equipped.

A good commander insures his people are always properly equipped so that they can take advantage of opportunities like an SLS.  Anything less is a disservice to his members.

[RiverAux]

One thing to keep in mind is that while the regulations only require the light blue shirt/pants, in practical terms members must buy other appropriate outerwear (for the AF style uniform at least) in most of the country. 

By the way, here is another contradiction for you regarding the distinction between the "service uniform" and the service dress uniform -- in 39-1 you see this in 2-1(a) (emphasis mine):

Service uniforms include the service dress uniform, long-sleeve light blue blouse/shirt, and shortsleeve light blue blouse/shirt.

[abdsp51]

I was a student and had no control over the UoD, and the director had put out in the announcement and reminders the uniform was the AF style blues or the G/W.  Since when is it a disservice to the member who can not follow the directions and guidelines set down? 

The member would have done themselves the disservice by ignoring that and doing what they want.  This sets a precedence for themselves and their unit when they pull that, and teaches cadets that the rules are not meant to be followed.

39-1 is clear on what the basic and required uniform is, it's because people either don't read it or care that we have these issues.  Ask cadets especially those in Phase II, III, or IV what the basic uniform is for them and you will probably get BDUs.  And it doesn't help when members especially commanders just say that oh the golf shirt is fine.

[a2capt]

We tell beginning cadets to wear black/white, too. But that's it. Nothing specific. They've all been able to find some kind of something black and white.

[Panache]

I'm seeing a fair amount of hypocrisy and cognitive disconnect here.

Statement #1: "39-1 states that all SMs must own either the AF Blues or G/W kit.  39-1 is a holy document which must not be disobeyed.  If you do not follow 39-1 to the letter of the regs, then you are a horrible member and, despite anything else you contribute, must be purged."

Statement #2: "The CC of course can tell members that they are required to purchase a uniform that is listed as 'optional' in 39-1.  The CC is the final authority in his or her command, and since 39-1 is so outdated it can be disregarded."

It's one or the other.  You can't have both.

[arajca]

I have seen many here opine that CAP units have an obligation to provice cadets with uniforms if at all possible, but seniors MUST buy their own.

What's wrong with issuing uniforms to seniors if the unit has them? I'm not saying screw the cadets, but many units reportedly have vast stocks of uniforms for cadets, but do not believe they are authorized to issue them to seniors.

We all know that the annual dues are merely the cost of admission to this park, and there are lots of additional costs seniors absorb to make things happen, so if we can help them with uniforms, why not?

[Walkman]

I have seen many here opine that CAP units have an obligation to provice cadets with uniforms if at all possible, but seniors MUST buy their own.

What's wrong with issuing uniforms to seniors if the unit has them? I'm not saying screw the cadets, but many units reportedly have vast stocks of uniforms for cadets, but do not believe they are authorized to issue them to seniors.

We all know that the annual dues are merely the cost of admission to this park, and there are lots of additional costs seniors absorb to make things happen, so if we can help them with uniforms, why not?

Both units I have been in have had a decent stock of both BDUs and AF-style blues to outfit both cadets and most SMs with at least pants & shirt. One unit even had a few select sizes of the green flight suit. In both the unit culture was/is to "provide as much of the uniform items as possible and reasonable from our stock to cut down on costs to members". Unfortunately for those that wear G/W & BBDUs, they usually don't have any of those options as they don't come free from AD surplus.

[Eclipse]

It's one or the other.  You can't have both.

And yet we do.  The core of the real problem, and ignored since last century.

[Eclipse]

I have seen many here opine that CAP units have an obligation to provice cadets with uniforms if at all possible, but seniors MUST buy their own.

Units have no obligation to provide uniforms to anyone, and I continue to be stymied as to why cadets are viewed as this
"protected class" in regards to what it costs to participate.  Kids play all sorts of sports, participate in other organizations,
etc., etc., and there's no "we can't make you wear this".  You wear what's required, and if you don't have the money,
you fund raise, get a uniform instead of an iPad, whatever. 

Anyone who's seen what 10-year old away hockey costs would laugh at CAP uniform expenses.

What's wrong with issuing uniforms to seniors if the unit has them? I'm not saying screw the cadets, but many units reportedly have vast stocks of uniforms for cadets, but do not believe they are authorized to issue them to seniors.

Nothing - on the occasions that we've gotten some, we made them available to whomever (whoever?) wanted them.

We all know that the annual dues are merely the cost of admission to this park, and there are lots of additional costs seniors absorb to make things happen, so if we can help them with uniforms, why not?

Agree 100% senior membership in CAP is 90% giving back, while cadet membership is 90% taking, yet seniors are
viewed as bottomless checkbooks.

Edit: typos.

[Walkman]

Units have no obligation to provide uniforms to anyone, and I continue to be stymied as to why cadets are viewed as this "protected class" in regards to what it costs to participate.  Kids play all sorts of sports, participate in other organizations, etc., etc., and there's no "we can't make you wear this".  You wear what's required, and if you don't have the money, you fund raise, get a uniform instead of an iPad, whatever. 

Anyone who's seen what 10-year old away hockey costs would lauch at CAP uniform expenses.

I totally agree. I've seen what my nephews & nieces need for travel hockey, football & softball. I wonder if part of the reason for this mindset relates to our military affiliation. In AD, ROTC and JROTC uniforms are provided by the parent service, maybe new people have that expectation when we tout our USAF Aux position. Just a thought...

[Eclipse]

^ it's possible, and doesn't help us the way it was probably intended.   Even the partial issue of uniforms is somewhat
problematic because what the cadet has to buy costs a fair piece and many parents are "surprised" after being told
"uniforms are free".

I've had more then a few parents who misunderstand the USAF affiliation and think the staff is paid, expenses are covered and
CAP units are government entities that will exist whether they help / show up or not.  In fact a lot of seniors
act that way, too.

[Майор Хаткевич]

In all of your cases can the CC send them home you bet it's entirely his/her discretion and call to make.  Adults are one thing and cadets are another.  When I attended SLS last year, it was put out that the uniform was either the AF blues or the G/W combo.  We had people show up in the polo combo and they were told if they showed up the next day they would be sent home.

That's unfortunate that there were members who decided to ignore what I assume were clear instructions on the UOD. Did anyone offer up an explanation for their disobedience that made sense?

What undermines your efforts to enforce your disdain of the golf shirt uniform onto your fellow members is that those without anything but the golf shirt can simply skip your SLS and wait for the next one that allows them to wear their preferred uniform. Because we allow commanders and activity directors the flexibility to command within the regulations, we all have to occasionally live with commanders who base their decisions on priorities other than our own.

Or it will be like the SLS I went to: "Blues or G/Ws only".


Some people show up in Polos. No one says anything, someone asks if they can wear polo also, and the next day all but 3 of us are in Polos...


Or it will be like the TLC I wen to: "Blues or G/Ws only".


Some people show up in Polos. No one says anything, and the next day all but 2 of us are in Polos...


Or it will be like the Wing Conference social hour on Friday: "Blues or G/Ws only".


Someone must of [censored]ed via email. Then a few more, I'm sure. All of a sudden the "Meet and greet" with the Nat. Staff and BoG (or whatever the new name is) is now "POLOs OK!" (and I assume so was the rest of the conference..., and some commanders have to send out an email to their Unit/Group urging them to wear the minimum uniform "to raise the bar" and present ourselves well.


What's the point of urging ANY of this locally, when WING level staffers will only give it lip service, and then dump the standard as soon as an uncomfortable conversation or email has to take place? Then people wonder why overweight members are in Blues and no one says a [darn] thing.

[Eclipse]

^ can't disagree.

Nothing says "formal" like receiving an award form the National Commander in a golf shirt.

[Fubar]

Some people show up in Polos. No one says anything, someone asks if they can wear polo also, and the next day all but 3 of us are in Polos...

I'm a firm believer in following the published UOD and I agree something must be said to those that don't follow the rules, such as what abdsp51 saw at his SLS where the members were informed they'd better show up the next day in the right uniform or don't bother showing up at all.

That said, this appears to be more anecdotal evidence that, at least for your fellow participants, the golf shirt is the preferred uniform option for a classroom environment. Many participants here don't like the (apparent) culture shift, but it seems to be there. When they are in positions of authority they have the right to do whatever they want to limit (if not ban) the wear of the golf shirt, but it appears (again anecdotally) they are in the minority. The only way the minority is going to get their way is to change the regulations to limit discretion of commanders and activity directors (prescribed uniforms for meetings, SLS, CLC, TLC, conferences, etc) or get the golf shirt removed from the inventory.

[Eclipse]

Culture shift?

This situation is nothing new, either in the text or in the way people act.  CCs have been setting UODs forever and
some members feel "empowered" to do whatever they feel like based on the "you're lucky I showed up at all mentality".

The first thing we need to change is accepting that, because in most cases, we actually aren't.

[RiverAux]

Away from the paramilitary nature of CAP. 

[Eclipse]

Away from the paramilitary nature of CAP.

People who want to move that way are trying to insinuate CAP is, I don't see it.

This is bad actors and apathy, nothing more.

And honestly, I would say of all the factors affecting CAP's viability, apathy is what could cause
its demise the quickest.

[JeffDG]

So, here's a question:  What limitations are there on the Commander's authority to set the UOD for an activity?

Is it solely at the discretion of the commander without limit?  Does there need to be a reason for the setting of a UOD, or can it be arbitrary?

If you think it is solely at the discretion, here are some questions:

• Can the commander mandate an optional uniform for an activity?  Could a commander say that a unit meeting would be BDUs only for example?  In what circumstances would such an mandate be invalid or valid?
• Can a commander mandate AF-style only or Corporate-style only?

[Fubar]

Since being properly equipped is...

...required...

...why wouldn't they have it?

And since they are required to have it, why wouldn't they want to wear it?

When a member joins, comes to a few meetings and sees everyone in a golf shirt, it doesn't take a genius to figure out the golf shirt is all you need. Some might even ask about the required uniform and if their commander is honest, they'll be told yes you are required to own it but hold off on buying it until you actually need it. Then you notice everyone at mission base or in the airplane are in golf shirts and the annual conference most folks are in golf shirts and someone might start to think they don't need to spend the money at all.

[JeffDG]

Since being properly equipped is...

...required...

...why wouldn't they have it?

And since they are required to have it, why wouldn't they want to wear it?

When a member joins, comes to a few meetings and sees everyone in a golf shirt, it doesn't take a genius to figure out the golf shirt is all you need. Some might even ask about the required uniform and if their commander is honest, they'll be told yes you are required to own it but hold off on buying it until you actually need it. Then you notice everyone at mission base or in the airplane are in golf shirts and the annual conference most folks are in golf shirts and someone might start to think they don't need to spend the money at all.

That's supported by the fact that there is no suspense date for when you "must equip yourself" with the minimum basic uniform.

If you're a member for 50 years, and don't buy the G/W for 49 of them, you're still compliant with the letter of the reg.