If you were a gambling man...

[NIN]

Forcing an 18 to 21 year old cadet into a separate uniform on the basis of weight seems to match the definition of hazing in CAPR 52-10 Cadet Protection Policy.

Good luck proving that. Using that "logic" we can not make them get haircuts or even bathe.

Yeah, I somehow think that it gets back to "you're voluntarily here.  Don't like the established rules? You're free to volunteer for someone else."

That sounds harsh, but there are rules and standards published for a reason.

"You won't let me fly the CAP plane without a Form 5! Thats HAZING!"

[Panache]

Forcing an 18 to 21 year old cadet into a separate uniform on the basis of weight seems to match the definition of hazing in CAPR 52-10 Cadet Protection Policy.

Good luck proving that. Using that "logic" we can not make them get haircuts or even bathe.

Yeah, I somehow think that it gets back to "you're voluntarily here.  Don't like the established rules? You're free to volunteer for someone else.

That sounds harsh, but there are rules and standards published for a reason."

"Sorry Lieutenant Matt, we understand you're in a wheelchair, but you're slowing down everybody else, so just stay home, okay?  Hey, you're voluntarily here.  Don't like the established rules? You're free to volunteer for someone else.

That sounds harsh, but there are rules and standards published for a reason."

[lordmonar]

Cyborg.....I was not singling anyone out when I was talking about the whiny kids.......But it the shoe fits.

Second...your post is just a rehash of everything you have said...."I hate the gray and whites"....okay we get it.    Have you by chance done a white paper on what you think the corporate uniform should look like....and forwarded it up the chain of command to the NUC?

If not.....then you might be a whiny kid.

As for the comment about costs and benefits of not doing anything with the corporate uniforms......the costs are actual costs of everyone having to change, the management costs of having to listen to everyone who just loved the Gray and whites [censored]ing about the new Pink and Greens or Blue and Purples or Black and Scarlet.....and I can't see any benefit of making a change to the gray and whites.

Cyborg...you are certainly entitled to your opinion....but sorry.......your opinion does not count as much as the national commander....it just does not work that way. 

Bottom line Cyborg....is that you are only looking at this from YOUR point of view...without even trying to understand what the NUC has to go through.  Then when the NUC does make a decision or not....you take it personally as if they did it just to spite you.

I'm not a psychologist....but I remember something in my PSYCH 101 course about that. 

[lordmonar]

Forcing an 18 to 21 year old cadet into a separate uniform on the basis of weight seems to match the definition of hazing in CAPR 52-10 Cadet Protection Policy.

Good luck proving that. Using that "logic" we can not make them get haircuts or even bathe.

Yeah, I somehow think that it gets back to "you're voluntarily here.  Don't like the established rules? You're free to volunteer for someone else.

That sounds harsh, but there are rules and standards published for a reason."

"Sorry Lieutenant Matt, we understand you're in a wheelchair, but you're slowing down everybody else, so just stay home, okay?  Hey, you're voluntarily here.  Don't like the established rules? You're free to volunteer for someone else.

That sounds harsh, but there are rules and standards published for a reason."

Which rule is that?    There is an established rule about hair cuts......I seemed to miss the one about slowing people down.

Try again.

[Garibaldi]

Forcing an 18 to 21 year old cadet into a separate uniform on the basis of weight seems to match the definition of hazing in CAPR 52-10 Cadet Protection Policy.

Good luck proving that. Using that "logic" we can not make them get haircuts or even bathe.

Yeah, I somehow think that it gets back to "you're voluntarily here.  Don't like the established rules? You're free to volunteer for someone else.

That sounds harsh, but there are rules and standards published for a reason."

"Sorry Lieutenant Matt, we understand you're in a wheelchair, but you're slowing down everybody else, so just stay home, okay?  Hey, you're voluntarily here.  Don't like the established rules? You're free to volunteer for someone else.

That sounds harsh, but there are rules and standards published for a reason."

Which rule is that?    There is an established rule about hair cuts......I seemed to miss the one about slowing people down.

Try again.

Big, BIG difference between trying to enforce h/w and grooming standards and violating the ADA. Jeez.

[Panache]

Forcing an 18 to 21 year old cadet into a separate uniform on the basis of weight seems to match the definition of hazing in CAPR 52-10 Cadet Protection Policy.

Good luck proving that. Using that "logic" we can not make them get haircuts or even bathe.

Yeah, I somehow think that it gets back to "you're voluntarily here.  Don't like the established rules? You're free to volunteer for someone else.

That sounds harsh, but there are rules and standards published for a reason."

"Sorry Lieutenant Matt, we understand you're in a wheelchair, but you're slowing down everybody else, so just stay home, okay?  Hey, you're voluntarily here.  Don't like the established rules? You're free to volunteer for someone else.

That sounds harsh, but there are rules and standards published for a reason."

Which rule is that?    There is an established rule about hair cuts......I seemed to miss the one about slowing people down.

Try again.

And if I can medically prove that I can't get a hair cut because of valid medical reasons (say, I'm a direct decedent of Samson and without my hair I'm powerless), then you can be darn sure ADA protections would apply.  A Federal court wouldn't care one whit about CAP's "rule".

Try telling the judge "Oh, well, he can just go somewhere else!"  Go ahead.  Try.

Big, BIG difference between trying to enforce h/w and grooming standards and violating the ADA. Jeez.

NIN was the one who equated uniform regulations to Form 5's.

[Garibaldi]

My give up. /jarjar

[Panache]

My give up. /jarjar

Meesa so sorry.

[Eclipse]

Not every medical condition is ADA-applicable.

Per HDS Wisconsin (which popped up first).
"Under ADA, an individual with a disability is a person who: (1) has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; OR (2) has a record of such an impairment; OR (3) is regarded as having such an impairment."

Having long hair (for whatever reason) doesn't "substantially limit" anything.

Further, It would only be discriminatory (I think), if it weren't the standard for everyone.

[MisterCD]

And to have fun with this discussion, here are documents pertaining to the development of CAP uniforms ... from November 1941.





[attachment deleted by admin]

[Garibaldi]

Not every medical condition is ADA-applicable.

Per HDS Wisconsin (which popped up first).
"Under ADA, an individual with a disability is a person who: (1) has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; OR (2) has a record of such an impairment; OR (3) is regarded as having such an impairment."

Having long hair (for whatever reason) doesn't "substantially limit" anything.

Further, It would only be discriminatory (I think), if it weren't the standard for everyone.

A long while ago, I seem to recall there being an exception in 39-1 regarding beards. IIRC it read something along the lines of "beards are forbidden unless there is a valid medical excuse for having one." At the time, there was no religious exception.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

Not every medical condition is ADA-applicable.

Per HDS Wisconsin (which popped up first).
"Under ADA, an individual with a disability is a person who: (1) has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; OR (2) has a record of such an impairment; OR (3) is regarded as having such an impairment."

Having long hair (for whatever reason) doesn't "substantially limit" anything.

Further, It would only be discriminatory (I think), if it weren't the standard for everyone.

I never brought up hair. All the comments were weight related.

So a weight standard is not discriminatory because it's the standard for those who meet it.

As far as the ADA, is allowing a larger size uniform a reasonable accommodation?

If our regulations may be violating AFIs, DoD Directives and Federal Law, does the core value of integrity requires us to ask the question?

[lordmonar]

All things are waiver-able.....in the USAF we routinely get shaving waivers for people with Pseudo foliculitis barbie (sp?),  Shoe waivers of all kinds. I have seen hair cut waivers for everything from healing scalp injuries to covering dis figuration of the ears and face.

So the argument that we hold people accountable to meeting the regs......and maybe not being able to meet those regs due to medical issues is not discrimination.

It is a good thing CAP has got a uniform those people can wear.

Look.....we keep circling around the same thing.......the fat and fuzzies have no choice.....and it is true......it's not CAP's fault.   What is CAP's fault is their reluctance to piss off those member in CAP who can and choose to wear the USAF uniform.

We.....go to the change management thread.....and let's start effecting the change.....you think you have heard "unreasonable comments" here on CT.......just wait till you broach that one to the general membership.  You will understand why I have been defending the NUC.

[Eclipse]

^ It depends on which membership is asked.

We've already determined, scientifically, without a doubt, and all have agreed, that more then 50% of the adult membership
isn't allowed to wear the USAF-styles.

[lordmonar]

^ It depends on which membership is asked.

We've already determined, scientifically, without a doubt, and all have agreed, that more then 50% of the adult membership
isn't allowed to wear the USAF-styles.

I don't agree with that.....just from my personal eyeball of those units near me....i would say that is definitely not true. 
So...unless CAP requried a 100% weigh in with height cross check....I don't think we can say we have determined, scientifically with out a doubt.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Look.....we keep circling around the same thing.......the fat and fuzzies have no choice.....and it is true......it's not CAP's fault.   What is CAP's fault is their reluctance to piss off those member in CAP who can and choose to wear the USAF uniform.

I fail to see how making a couple of changes to the extant corporate uniform would anger those who can and choose to wear the USAF uniform...they would not be affected.

[Eclipse]

I don't agree with that.....just from my personal eyeball of those units near me....i would say that is definitely not true. 

In all seriousness, you're from Area51 Composite, presumably more then average military involvement, and
the civilians are essentially desiccated walking dead from too much time in the desert (or the casino)
your membership is probably not typical.

Though I'd really, really, like to know why we don't do weigh ins as a matter of course.

[lordmonar]

Look.....we keep circling around the same thing.......the fat and fuzzies have no choice.....and it is true......it's not CAP's fault.   What is CAP's fault is their reluctance to piss off those member in CAP who can and choose to wear the USAF uniform.

I fail to see how making a couple of changes to the extant corporate uniform would anger those who can and choose to wear the USAF uniform...they would not be affected.

I thought we were talking about going to a single uniform.

As for making a few changes to the corporate uniform.......as much as as you hate it....there are probably just as many who love it more the life itself....or so it will seem when you suggest ditching the white shirt for another color.

You will have the "I Just bought this shirt" group, you will have the "but it makes us look to military" group, you will have the "why the hell are they making us change...change for changes sake" group.  You will have the "I hate all the corporate uniform" group complaining we did not just ditch it all together.

Like I said......I can understand why the NUC took no major action.....at this time.....they are going to get enough [censored]ing and moaning from some of the more or less minor changes they have enacted.

[Al Sayre]

If you can't make everyone happy, the next best thing is to make everyone equally unhappy...

[a2capt]

Hi, I'm from NHQ .. we're here to help.

Just remember, we're not happy until your not happy! Got it?