Uniform policies if NAT/CC

[A.Member]

why do we have SUIs and CIs?  And who enforces the remediation there? The next higher HQ, and when things don't get fixed, there's 5 clicks of pressure.  But of course much of the SUI / CI process is about money, property, and liability...

...people >want< to be members when their time is well spent and not wasted on admisitrivia and running in a circle.

And here you have two opposing forces.   

The SUI/CI process is just about the single biggest drain on morale on this organization.   Talk about a waste of time and energy. 

The number of regulations we have is absurd but the items the SUI/CI teams choose to focus on bring it beyond absurd.   There is way too much focus on non-value add items.  Do we need an audit process?  Yes, but the current process needs a complete overhaul.  There is no reason why 95+% of the info "needed" can't be ascertained from regular online uploads at any time with little to no interaction from units.

[Tim Medeiros]

why do we have SUIs and CIs?  And who enforces the remediation there? The next higher HQ, and when things don't get fixed, there's 5 clicks of pressure.  But of course much of the SUI / CI process is about money, property, and liability...

...people >want< to be members when their time is well spent and not wasted on admisitrivia and running in a circle.

And here you have two opposing forces.   

The SUI/CI process is just about the single biggest drain on morale on this organization.   Talk about a waste of time and energy. 

The number of regulations we have is absurd but the items the SUI/CI teams choose to focus on bring it beyond absurd.   There is why too much focus on non-value add items.  Do we need an audit process?  Yes, but the current process needs a complete overhaul.  There is no reason why 95+% of the info "needed" can't be ascertained from regular online uploads at any time with little to no interaction from units.

Have you seen the new SUI process?

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

A lot of members make themselves "unavailable" during the SUI process.  I have been through a couple myself.  It is not that the reason behind it is bad; but as it stands it is so overblown that it is like using a guillotine to cure a headache.

Add onto that the fact that members who don't make themselves "unavailable" during an SUI have to carry the water for those who do.

Even the forms themselves are enough to induce a migraine, especially in a new(ish) member.

[A.Member]

why do we have SUIs and CIs?  And who enforces the remediation there? The next higher HQ, and when things don't get fixed, there's 5 clicks of pressure.  But of course much of the SUI / CI process is about money, property, and liability...

...people >want< to be members when their time is well spent and not wasted on admisitrivia and running in a circle.

And here you have two opposing forces.   

The SUI/CI process is just about the single biggest drain on morale on this organization.   Talk about a waste of time and energy. 

The number of regulations we have is absurd but the items the SUI/CI teams choose to focus on bring it beyond absurd.   There is why too much focus on non-value add items.  Do we need an audit process?  Yes, but the current process needs a complete overhaul.  There is no reason why 95+% of the info "needed" can't be ascertained from regular online uploads at any time with little to no interaction from units.

Have you seen the new SUI process?

Yes.

[Ned]

Ned, you have refused to answer the simple question.

When the commanders fail to uphold their mandate, who's responsibility is it to fix that?

Bob, as a former commander, do you really not understand how the chain of command and assignment of responsibilities in CAP work?  That could explain a lot of your confusion on this topic.

Or are you trying to make some sort of point?  If so, please speak plainly.

You might start by explaining what it means to "fail to uphold a mandate" in this context.

Surely it has to mean more than "some of the members of the command did not wear their uniforms properly."  Because if that meets your standard of "failing to uphold a mandate," then no commander in the history of CAP has ever been able to "meet their mandate."

[Tim Medeiros]

why do we have SUIs and CIs?  And who enforces the remediation there? The next higher HQ, and when things don't get fixed, there's 5 clicks of pressure.  But of course much of the SUI / CI process is about money, property, and liability...

...people >want< to be members when their time is well spent and not wasted on admisitrivia and running in a circle.

And here you have two opposing forces.   

The SUI/CI process is just about the single biggest drain on morale on this organization.   Talk about a waste of time and energy. 

The number of regulations we have is absurd but the items the SUI/CI teams choose to focus on bring it beyond absurd.   There is why too much focus on non-value add items.  Do we need an audit process?  Yes, but the current process needs a complete overhaul.  There is no reason why 95+% of the info "needed" can't be ascertained from regular online uploads at any time with little to no interaction from units.

Have you seen the new SUI process?

Yes.

Would you not agree that it is much improved from the old process?  Especially considering that it is scaled back by a large degree and most of it is based on those online reports.  The main portion of the inspectors coming to the unit now is for the needed Eye-On Hand-On items like vehicle inspections and those without online records management.

[Alaric]

Ned, you have refused to answer the simple question.

When the commanders fail to uphold their mandate, who's responsibility is it to fix that?

Bob, as a former commander, do you really not understand how the chain of command and assignment of responsibilities in CAP work?  That could explain a lot of your confusion on this topic.

Or are you trying to make some sort of point?  If so, please speak plainly.

You might start by explaining what it means to "fail to uphold a mandate" in this context.

Surely it has to mean more than "some of the members of the command did not wear their uniforms properly."  Because if that meets your standard of "failing to uphold a mandate," then no commander in the history of CAP has ever been able to "meet their mandate."

Seems like that is true, but it is the mandate; from CAPM 39-1  Note that the emphasis is mine and that correcting uniform errors seems to stop at the Wing level, or at least being spelled out.

2.10. Commanders below Wing. In this context, region, wing, and group commanders act in this role for members of their headquarters units. Commanders may delegate these responsibilities to local activity directors for the duration of a particular activity.
2.10.1. Ensure that all members, individually and collectively, present a professional, well-groomed appearance, which will reflect credit upon CAP as the auxiliary of the United States Air Force. They will ensure all members are uniformed in accordance with the provisions of this manual, uniform violations are promptly corrected, and that members are regularly educated as to the proper wear of the uniform.
2.10.2. Enforces dress and personal appearance standards and defines "conservative", "faddish", and other terms not specifically defined in this publication or applicable supplements.
2.10.3. Ensures uniform items are consistent and standardized throughout the organization, and designates the appropriate uniform authorized in this manual to be worn at unit activities and events. To maintain uniformity and good order, commanders determine their members' compliance and understanding of this manual.
2.10.4. Determines acceptable civilian clothing for wear at CAP activities and may prohibit clothing that is offensive for moral, legal, or safety reasons.
2.10.5. May prohibit wear of optional items during formations, ceremonies, or other events when uniformity is required. Commanders may mandate wear of optional clothing if provided at no cost to the member, or if participation at an event is voluntary.
16 CAPM 39-1 26 JUNE 2014
2.10.6. Commanders do not have authority to waive personal grooming standards.

2.8. Wing Commanders. Oversees the wear of CAP uniforms within their wing's geographical boundaries and by the members of units assigned to their wing.
2.8.1. Wing commanders will ensure that all members, individually and collectively, present a professional, well-groomed appearance, which will reflect credit upon CAP as the auxiliary of the United States Air Force. They will ensure all members are uniformed in accordance with the provisions of this manual, that uniform violations are promptly corrected, and that members are continually informed as to the proper wear of the uniform.
2.8.2. The wing commander, or the commander to whom such authority is delegated by the wing commander such as directors of wing-sponsored activities, will 1) prescribe the appropriate uniform authorized in this manual to be worn by members while flying, 2) prescribe the appropriate uniform authorized in this manual to be worn by members while not in a flying status and 3) determine appropriate attire for wear during organized recreational activities.
2.8.3. The wing commander is the approval authority for organizational patches worn by subordinate units within the wing and will ensure that new patches meet the intent of the USAF heraldic guidelines published by the Air Force Historical Research Agency and the CAP National Historian Program. Patches approved for wear will be full color and not "subdued" in their composition.

2.7. Region Commanders. Oversees the uniform wear of personnel assigned to region headquarters. The region commander will 1) prescribe the appropriate uniform authorized in this manual to be worn by members while flying and 2) determine appropriate attire for wear during organized recreational activities. Region commanders oversee the uniform supplements prepared by subordinate wings, and may supplement this manual with guidance specific to their headquarters staff, personnel participating in designated region activities, and personnel assigned to wings within their region.

2.1. National Commander (CAP/CC). Responsible for the CAP uniform program. Establishes dress and personnel appearance policy. Acts as the final approval authority for uniform changes or new uniform designs. Ensures compliance with appropriate USAF directives and ensures compliance with legal requirements.

[Eclipse]

Ned, you have refused to answer the simple question.

When the commanders fail to uphold their mandate, who's responsibility is it to fix that?

Bob, as a former commander, do you really not understand how the chain of command and assignment of responsibilities in CAP work?  That could explain a lot of your confusion on this topic.

Or are you trying to make some sort of point?  If so, please speak plainly.

You might start by explaining what it means to "fail to uphold a mandate" in this context.

Surely it has to mean more than "some of the members of the command did not wear their uniforms properly."  Because if that meets your standard of "failing to uphold a mandate," then no commander in the history of CAP has ever been able to "meet their mandate."

This is my last orbit.

Plainly.

It is a commander's mandate to enforce the regulations, as written, without filter.

When they fail to do so, it is the next higher HQ's mandate to either induce the failing CC to do their job or replace them.

Further, a commander of a given echelon is personally responsible for the mandate of all of their subordinate commanders.

A unit CC, failing his mandate, is ultimately the responsibility of the national CC to fix, because ultimately all 5 clicks have
failed or abdicated.

The way the National CC fixes the problem is first and foremost by example, in both his personal behavior and in his dealing
with subordinates, and second by either inducement or replacement of those in his span of control until such time as
compliance is achieved.

[Storm Chaser]

A unit CC, failing his mandate, is ultimately the responsibility of the national CC to fix, because ultimately all 5 clicks have failed or abdicated.

So the National Commander is directly responsible for uniform infractions that a unit commander failed to correct? 

[A.Member]

Have you seen the new SUI process?

Yes.

Would you not agree that it is much improved from the old process?  Especially considering that it is scaled back by a large degree and most of it is based on those online reports.  The main portion of the inspectors coming to the unit now is for the needed Eye-On Hand-On items like vehicle inspections and those without online records management.

No.  I'd say it's different from the old process.  However, the scope is still too broad and a significant amount of member engagement is still required, including phone and in person interviews; not to mention a lot of prep time. 

The entire SUI/CI effort is significant waste of time for nearly all members involved.  As I mentioned previously, there is no reason the audit team can't get 95+% of the info they need from online resources/reports.   Updates to WMIRS and eServices should support such action. 

As an organization, we spend way more time on non-value exercises like this than we do on activities that actually bring value to our communities and membership.  This must change.  It's overly burdensome with an overly punitive tone; not unlike our regs related to flying.  It kills morale.  No successful business I'm aware of operates in such a manner, we shouldn't either.

[Eclipse]

A unit CC, failing his mandate, is ultimately the responsibility of the national CC to fix, because ultimately all 5 clicks have failed or abdicated.

So the National Commander is directly responsible for uniform infractions that a unit commander failed to correct?

Yes.  That is why it is referred to as the "weight of command" - those stars are very heavy.

Those who want and choose to wear the CC's badge, take on that weight for their entire AOR.

The specific duty is to insure that he maintains a chain of command which will induce compliance in the rank and file membership.
Whether that inducement is ultimately the carrot or the stick is irrelevant to the conversation regarding responsibility.

When a unit CC fails in his duties, it is the wing commander (even in wings with groups) who is ultimately responsible for
the remediation.  When that remediation is not done, the Region CC is next responsible, and after that HEADCAP.

A significant number of unit and activity commanders have shown a pattern of ignorance, disinterest, and/or disregard for
any number of regulations, including, but not limited to, the uniform.  To say that remediation of this issue is the sole responsibility
of inconsistently trained and inexperienced unit CCs, and failing that "what else can you do, right?" is completely disingenuous and
ignoring the reality of the situation.

We have poorly and inconsistently trained unit CCs because of a history of poor retention, lack of command and staff development,
lowest common denominator policies, failure to hold people responsible for infractions, and a general lack of good example and mentorship.
For every A-Team commander who could fix things, there are any number of door-holders who don't have the experience or where-with-all for
the job, many who took it as a last resort to folding the charter, and who are not all that interested in "fixing" anything. The good ones are surrounded
by people constantly eroding the progress they are trying to make, with per projects, fiefdoms, and petty personal concerns while ignoring the
needs of their members.

The responsibility for that is squarely on the leadership and can only be fixed by them.

Apathy can and will kill an organization just as dead as any overt active negative actions.

[Storm Chaser]

If you think it's that simple, maybe you should run for National Commander.

[Eclipse]

If you think it's that simple, maybe you should run for National Commander.

The fixes for CAP's issues are painfully simple, and already exist in the programs and curriculum.

Someone just needs to work what CAP already has.

You also have to be willing to accept the consequences of what is needed, which are going to be painful.

CAP is notoriously averse to anything which may cause pain to its members, even if it is ultimately for everyone's best interest.

[RiverAux]

Historically there are only three things that can be done to ensure that Wings enforce some particular regulation or that individual members follow some particular regulation
-- Ground the Wing's airplanes until the problem is fixed.
-- Freeze any supplies that may come to Wing from National or the Air Force
--Suspend the member's flying privileges or 101 card until they come into compliance

CAP has been more than willing to do this on all sorts of issues, including making individual members waste time on silly safety briefings that are often about non-CAP topics.  That is what CAP does and has to do when they think something is important enough to really emphasize.

Having the National Commander send an email out to Wing Commanders saying, "enforce those uniform regs" will not make it happen.

The only way this particular problem is solved is through mandated weigh-ins on some regular basis that are input into e-services only by the commander and if the height/weight don't match imprinting something on their 101 card that says "May only wear corporate uniforms".  That will at least stop non-compliant people from wearing AF uniforms during missions where they may come into contact with the public and once it becomes well known that is the only uniform they may wear due to height/weight, they probably won't try to wear them to meetings either. 

Quite frankly I am shocked at Ned's point of view that this problem should not be addressed by some sort of NHQ action and that squadron commanders, on their own (and despite any inclination to do it in the past on a large scale), will fix it.  Yes, the more explicit language about weigh-ins will give a tool to those who actually care, but not many fit in that category. 

[Eclipse]

Quite frankly I am shocked at Ned's point of view that this problem should not be addressed by some sort of NHQ action and that squadron commanders, on their own (and despite any inclination to do it in the past on a large scale), will fix it.  Yes, the more explicit language about weigh-ins will give a tool to those who actually care, but not many fit in that category.

Well stated.

[Storm Chaser]

If you think it's that simple, maybe you should run for National Commander.

The fixes for CAP's issues are painfully simple, and already exist in the programs and curriculum.

Someone just needs to work what CAP already has.

You also have to be willing to accept the consequences of what is needed, which are going to be painful.

CAP is notoriously averse to anything which may cause pain to its members, even if it is ultimately for everyone's best interest.

So what is stopping you from doing something about it?

A new CAP/CC was appointed, yet you don't seem to have much faith that things are going to change. Well, if no one else will do what you know needs to be done, then why don't you work yourself into a position in which you can then fix CAP?

[Eclipse]

So what is stopping you from doing something about it?

A new CAP/CC was appointed, yet you don't seem to have much faith that things are going to change. Well, if no one else will do what you know needs to be done, then why don't you work yourself into a position in which you can then fix CAP?

Yes, by all means, let's marginalize the issue by aiming at one specific person who pushed a rock up a hill for about 15 years.

CAP has made it very clear they are not interested in people who would bring disruptive change to the organization.
I tried, I held the waters as long as I could.

But I guess if eclipse can't do it, why should anyone else, right?  Or even acknowledge there's a problem?

Every unit CC is responsible for their AOR, but no one unit CC, awash in a sea of apathy, can "fix CAP" that has to come from Maxwell.

[Storm Chaser]

I just merely suggested a solution. You're saying that others need to fix the problem. You're also saying that those who need to fix the problem either don't know how to do it or are unwilling to do it. Well, how do you fix that?

If you know what to do, then I challenge you to do it. If you're calling it quits after 15 years, then complaining about it in CAP Talk is not going to change anything either.

We do have problems in CAP. Many here agree with you. But your way of approaching it won't do anything to fix them. It's hard to be inspired to do anything when most of what you're saying is negative. If we need leaders who are willing to take action, then be one and contribute to the solution. If not, then step out of the way and let others do so.

[Eclipse]

I just merely suggested a solution.

You suggested no "solution", unless your quip about running for National CC is what you consider a "solution".
I no longer qualify for the job, for starters, nor is it likely that anyone with as strong opinions, who espouses disruptive
change will ever be able to climb that high even if I was.

If you know what to do, then I challenge you to do it. If you're calling it quits after 15 years, then complaining about it in CAP Talk is not going to change anything either.

How, exactly? 

No one said I was quitting, however I am not currently in any position of influence or authority.

Knowing what needs to be done does not mean you have the authority or influence to make it happen.

FWIW, I did what needed to be done for most of the tie I was a CC, those who had to listen did, those
who didn't need to pay me any attention, did so, actively, to everyone's detriment, which is the
problem with indicating this is a Unit CC's problem to fix.  At the micro, sure it is.  In the current
state of CAP, absent national action, it will only get worse.

[Ned]

It is a commander's mandate to enforce the regulations, as written, without filter.

When they fail to do so, it is the next higher HQ's mandate to either induce the failing CC to do their job or replace them.

Further, a commander of a given echelon is personally responsible for the mandate of all of their subordinate commanders.

A unit CC, failing his mandate, is ultimately the responsibility of the national CC to fix, because ultimately all 5 clicks have
failed or abdicated.

The way the National CC fixes the problem is first and foremost by example, in both his personal behavior and in his dealing
with subordinates, and second by either inducement or replacement of those in his span of control until such time as
compliance is achieved.

So, Bob, in your world, how many uniform violations in a given unit are required to define the commander as having "failed their mandate" and have to be fired?

One?  Three?  A dozen?

Does the size of the unit matter?  (Does the wing commander get fired because a single new cadet wore her/his uniform improperly?)

While we agree that commanders have a responsibility to enforce uniform regulations, we may well disagree signifcantly on how to measure success in this area.  You seem to suggest that "regulations are regulations, and any discrepancy is a violation, and any violation means the commander has 'failed.'"

If that is really your position, it seems rather unhelpful.  One of those "perfection is the enemy of success" situations.  It actually begins to sound like a "zero defects leadership" paradigm which has been pretty thoroughly discredited, particularly by the armed forces.

Quite frankly I am shocked at Ned's point of view that this problem should not be addressed by some sort of NHQ action and that squadron commanders, on their own (and despite any inclination to do it in the past on a large scale), will fix it.  Yes, the more explicit language about weigh-ins will give a tool to those who actually care, but not many fit in that category.

Initially, it sounds like you shock pretty easily.  But if it helps ease your discomfort, this is not even close to my position(s) on the matter at hand.  If it helps, I'll recap:

1.  No one had been able to clearly articulate the scope of the "uniform compliance problem" beyond anecdotal observations like "I say some really big guys at wing conference.  No way that they were in height / weight." Or "Even some of the senior leaders may be out of standard.  Look, here's a picture from 2009 - the guy in the back row looks too large."   

So, we are not even sure that there is a significant problem in the first place.  And it is probably not helpful to say things like "any uniform violations are a problem that the senior leadership needs to focus on."

2.  Even if we could get some sense of how many members actually have significant uniform violations, here on CAP Talk we probably won't be able to agree on what a "good rate of compliance" would be.  If 95% of the membership meets the standards are we doing a good job or a bad job?  98%?  90%?  Does it really have to be 100% or nothing?

3. Local unit commanders have all of the guidance, authority, and tools they need to enforce the uniform regulations.  If a commander wants to have a weigh-in, they can have a weigh-in.  If all they need is to have a "difficult conversation," then they can and should do so.

4.  All of us share a responsibility to help each other look professional.  I appreciate it when others remind me that I can't wear my Guyaberra shirt any more, or that my IACE ribbon is outdated.  Indeed, we are shirking our duties when we walk by someone at the wing conference who needs some help.  It is hypocritical for each of us to complain about those "other people" if we had an opportunity to help, but did not.  It is all too easy for 'arm chair generals" and Monday-morning quarterbacks to yelp about how "those guys" at higher aren't doing their jobs, when all it would take is literally 10 seconds of our time to help a member wear their uniform properly.

5. Be extremely careful what you wish for.  Every single one of us who complains about having to watch safety powerpoints instead of doing meaningful training should think not twice, but at least three times, before asking "higher" to "do something about the uniform problem."

Restated, there is nothing to suggest that anything done from above could measurably improve uniform wear beyond what can and should be done in the local units where well over 95% of the membership resides.  And some substantial experience to suggest that any such efforts -- however well intended -- may well result in tedious briefings, on line "education," and mandatory classes.  And since the great majority of members already wear their uniforms correctly, it will all be a wasted effort for the (pick a number) 80%, 90%, 95% of the membership.

6.  If you insist that Gen Carr needs to focus additional command emphasis on uniform compliance, you are going to need to identify what items he can take off his plate.  If we are raising the time and efforts devoted to uniform compliance by Gen Carr and his staff, exactly what items should they begin to ignore?  I've never met a commander or staff officer who reacted well to "do more with less.  Here's an 'additional #1 priority' for you.  But be sure to keep  doing everything else you are doing."

So, the short version is "While there are undoubtedly members who wear their uniforms improperly, there is nothing beyond anecdotal evidence to suggest that this is a significant problem that affects our ability to perform our missions or to recruit and train our members as we always have.  Even if we could establish that it was a problem, intervention by NHQ is among the most "unlikely to be successful" solutions for several reasons, including the 3-4 echelons between Gen Carr and Joe/Josephine Pilot and our substantial history of bureaocratic responses to similar issues in the past."

(And remember, I personnally support weigh-ins.  I drafted the language that was included in a (non-approved) draft of the 39-1.  Heck, I've even conducted weigh-ins at an NCSA.)