Jump Start- ABU Name Tapes, AF Occupational Badges, CAP Specialty Track Badges,

[JAFO78]

Quote from: Rob the supply guy on Yesterday at 09:04:48 PM

    Gentlemen, Has anyone checked Vanguards web page lately?? They already are offering Senior Rank for the new ABU's. Basically they are using the same number and changing the last two letters. Example, CAP0467K (for BDU) is now CAP0467KC (for ABU) price is the same $1.10 a set.


Those are for the corporate flight uniform. Which has been around for several years, at least.

OOPs and that's why I had to start over from the bottom....I'm proof you can try and teach an old dog new tricks. I should be thankful that I made 1st LT again after 30 years...

[Storm Chaser]

I wish Vanguard would use the same yellow thread they use for Navy and Coast Guard insignias for CAP's 2d Lt and Maj grades. The orange thread they use just looks off.

[JAFO78]

Maybe we should all just wear Polo Shirts for Seniors with name and rank stitched on, and silk screen t shirts for the cadets. On the front a big Hello My Name Is....and a spot they can write their names in marker. On the back its says Civil Air Patrol...The biggest secret in America, with the logo.....    

[kwe1009]

Maybe we should all just wear Polo Shirts for Seniors with name and rank stitched on, and silk screen t shirts for the cadets. On the front a big Hello My Name Is....and a spot they can write their names in marker. On the back its says Civil Air Patrol...The biggest secret in America, with the logo.....

Great idea as long as the t-shirts are orange!   

[LTC Don]

Cadets excluded for the most part, for those members airmen that choose to move to the ABU; as mentioned exhaustively, the nametapes, badges, and ranks all have to be upgraded. 

But additionally, all those squadrons across the great land have effectively had their uber-awesome squadron hats trashed, along with the black t-shirts, and belts.  The sole headgear is the ABU patrol cap, tan t-shirt, and belt.   

T-Shirt – A  standard  Desert  Tan  short or  long  sleeved  t-shirt  will  be  worn  under  the  ABU  coat.

Tan?

Belt. A standard Desert Tan belt will be worn.

What is 'standard', anyway?

Headgear. The  ABU  cap  is  the  only  authorized  headgear  with  this  uniform.

As mentioned in a number of posts and threads regarding member airman access to MCSS, how hard is it to post up civilian market alternatives with regard to t-shirts color, and belt style/color.  Also, there is no mention on what constitutes a 't-shirt' - Crew neck, V-neck, or tank. Ribbed or smooth.  100% cotton or poly-cotton.

The timing of this whole thing is interesting as the local surplus store no longer carries surplus woodland and the other area surplus stores have closed.  eBay is also showing a lack of surplus woodland bdu items as well.

As I recall, the USPS has or had a number of items, like footwear, that were/are specifically marked as approved for USPS use.  Why couldn't CAP do something like that?  I'm sure if companies are producing an acceptable product, they might be willing to include our logo on the packaging as approved for wear by USAF Auxiliary members airmen.


Pretty sure I'll be retired and done with CAP when this becomes mandatory in 2021, if not sooner.   :clap:

[Eclipse]

The timing of this whole thing is interesting as the local surplus store no longer carries surplus woodland and the other area surplus stores have closed.  eBay is also showing a lack of surplus woodland bdu items as well.

Searching "bdu" on ebay provides 46,755 listings, adding the qualified "woodland" reduces that to "only" 758, not to mention eleventy-twelveteen other online retailers.

[SarDragon]

I just went through the 39-1, and t-shirts associated with the BDU, FDU, and CFU are fully described as to style, color, and proper wear. The only thing new in the ICL is the tan color for the ABU.

[stillamarine]

I just went through the 39-1, and t-shirts associated with the BDU, FDU, and CFU are fully described as to style, color, and proper wear. The only thing new in the ICL is the tan color for the ABU.

It's not even an ICL yet. Let's wait and see what the actual ICL will say.

[NIN]

As I recall, the USPS has or had a number of items, like footwear, that were/are specifically marked as approved for USPS use.  Why couldn't CAP do something like that?  I'm sure if companies are producing an acceptable product, they might be willing to include our logo on the packaging as approved for wear by USAF Auxiliary members airmen.

The AFI / AFMAN used to be far more specific about this than it is now.

However

AFI 36-2903, para 1.5.1.1 Purchase clothing items from the Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES) Military Clothing Sales Stores (MCSS) supplied by the Defense Supply Center Philadelphia (DSCP).

There used to be reference to the design and specification of uniforms (ie. the MILSPEC).   Just looking at the 1989 version of CAPM 39-1, the language specified: "[...] When uniforms are worn, they must be clean, neat, correct in design and specification [...]" (Emphasis mine)

A little further on, ah, here it is in the new manual, too:

1.3.3. Commercial Sources.
1.3.3.1. When purchasing uniform clothing from commercial sources, the following should
be kept in mind: All USAF uniform garments, footwear, and accoutrements that the Defense Personnel
Support Center (DPSC) supplies to AAFES military clothing sales stores (MCSS) and conform to USAF
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.
1.3.3.2. 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 USAF 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 _____."

Its been a long time since I've seen the AF Specifications for, say, Shade 1549 trousers or whatever.  But the AF had "standards" that said, for example, what the specifications were for.. say, shoes.  Black, full grain leather, box toe, no cap, etc, etc.

These are what specify that boots are supposed to be, say, 8" from floor to top or whatever.  So when some guy shows up with high-top Nikes, you can say "yeah, uh, no..."

So just look for AF certification. That is the correct "standard"

[NIN]

BTW, I meant to say in this thread:

Lets not jump the gun. There is positively no reason for everybody to be running out and sourcing nametapes and grade insignia from "other vendors than Vanguard" just because Vanguard won't have stuff ready for purchase until 15 JUN.

If you buy accouterments from Vanguard when the time comes, those are "as specified" (yes, even if they're not 'perfect'..).

1.2.3.4. Vanguard is the authorized vendor for CAP insignia. Items sold through the "Civil
Air Patrol" section of the Vanguard webpage are those approved for wear on the CAP uniform. Members
who buy uniform items from other vendors may not meet CAP regulations, and commanders may direct
the removal of these items from the uniform if they do not meet standards for design, size, material, etc.

If you buy from "Joe Blow's Nametag and Tattoo Emporium" and then, oh, look, their shade of grey, or dark blue is different from Vanguard's, then the word is "Take it off, it doesn't match."

So you're just asking to shoot yourself in the foot by jumping the gun.  You're not gonna die if you're not the first guy in the country to wear ABUs on 15 June.

[SarDragon]

I just went through the 39-1, and t-shirts associated with the BDU, FDU, and CFU are fully described as to style, color, and proper wear. The only thing new in the ICL is the tan color for the ABU.

It's not even an ICL yet. Let's wait and see what the actual ICL will say.

ICL, letter - just a bunch of letters on paper.  :angel:

[Holding Pattern]

BTW, I meant to say in this thread:

Lets not jump the gun. There is positively no reason for everybody to be running out and sourcing nametapes and grade insignia from "other vendors than Vanguard" just because Vanguard won't have stuff ready for purchase until 15 JUN.

If you buy accouterments from Vanguard when the time comes, those are "as specified" (yes, even if they're not 'perfect'..).

1.2.3.4. Vanguard is the authorized vendor for CAP insignia. Items sold through the "Civil
Air Patrol" section of the Vanguard webpage are those approved for wear on the CAP uniform. Members
who buy uniform items from other vendors may not meet CAP regulations, and commanders may direct
the removal of these items from the uniform if they do not meet standards for design, size, material, etc.

If you buy from "Joe Blow's Nametag and Tattoo Emporium" and then, oh, look, their shade of grey, or dark blue is different from Vanguard's, then the word is "Take it off, it doesn't match."

So you're just asking to shoot yourself in the foot by jumping the gun.  You're not gonna die if you're not the first guy in the country to wear ABUs on 15 June.

This is especially on point considering how many people comment on the price of uniforms, tapes, and cutouts. Why take a chance to spend even more money on chancy gear?

[majdomke]

VG also pays a licensing fee back to CAP that amounts to thousands of dollars yearly. 

Which is what give a lot of us heartburn.  If there is money to return, the prices could be lowered.

Logically and obviously the prices could be lower on items that VG pays us the licensing fee, but since most retailers including VG base prices on multiple factors beyond simple "cost plus margin", there is no reason to believe that the prices would be any lower.  We simply have relatively little control over their pricing in specific items.  Restated, although VG pays us something like 8 cents for every $1.85 CAP tape sold, there is no reason to believe that they would start selling them for $1.77 if the licensing fee went away.  (And then we would have to find an alternative income stream for the funds.  I'm assuming you would not support a dues increase.)

because I can purchase cheaper on base.  Not all members have convenient base access,

All members, by the verbiage of the AFIs, are supposed to, but that is something CAP has allowed to dry up and not pursue.

I don't think the "allowed it to dry up and not pursue" comment is accurate or fair.

The problem is not a simple one.  Many members (it's hard to get hard data on this) don't live near enough to have access to MCSS even if there were no restrictions on base access.  This is a magic combination of geography and BRAC that will likely get worse before it gets better.  ORWG, for example, does not have a single active military installation in the state.

Second, Darin is right that base access has been significantly tightened in recent years, and individual base commanders have significant discretion as to who is allowed on.  As long as AF commanders have significant discretion as to who gets onto their base and under what conditions, it should not be surprising that CAP is treated somewhat differently at different bases in terms of ID required, vehicle passes, etc.  Aggravating the problem is growing reliance / default to the DBIDS scanner system.  CAP does not have the kind of government ID that is recognized by the scanners, and various local work-arounds have been developed.  I have never experienced a base access issue, but clearly see reports here on CT that others have.

I have personally spoken about this issue to not only the CAP-USAF commander, but also the 1stAF/AFNORTH commander.  The BoG has clearly engaged our AF colleagues on the issue.  A lot of work and effort is ongoing.
[/quote]
I was able to order from AAFES online just a year ago and now when I try to login I get a message that my ID is no longer authorized. I called their customer service and spent the better part of an hour talking with someone. What I got from that conversation is that AAFES changed their requirements for ordering online and over the phone. Everyone needs to be on DEERS to place an order and CAP is not in that system. I pointed to their website that clearly says CAP is an exception and allowed to order. No matter what I said her supervisor just came back and said sorry. We can't order online or over the phone. When I asked how I was supposed to order our new uniforms I was told to visit www.vanguardmil.com to which I laughed. Seriously? We're going to make a run to Travis AFB in a couple weeks and hopefully we are allowed to still purchase at the MCS location on base. I've got to believe something isn't right but it's hard to argue with them when they hold all the cards. Not being able to order from VG until June 15th is nonsensical too. We can wear the uniform starting June 15 but won't have the ability to purchase the mandatory items until then as well. This makes it impossible to actually wear them within the regs on their effective date. Why not allow people to order now and at least be ready when they date comes? We're going to end up with a rush of thousands of CAP'rs all ordering on June 15th and there being a huge backlog because they are swamped. Just defies logic that's all.

[Mustang]

The other problem with allowing anyone to produce our insignia, is that it would inevitably become a "race to the bottom" in terms of quality...

Hard to imagine the quality getting any worse than some of the garbage VG has produced of late.  I get that a large part of the blame for this lays at NHQ's feet for failing to produce meaningful specifications, but a company like Vanguard (and N.S. Meyer, which VG absorbed awhile back) which has been producing military insignia for over a century knows or SHOULD know the quality level we're after. If it wouldn't be good enough for the USAF, it shouldn't be good enough for CAP.

[Okayish Aviator]

VG also pays a licensing fee back to CAP that amounts to thousands of dollars yearly. 

Which is what give a lot of us heartburn.  If there is money to return, the prices could be lowered.

Logically and obviously the prices could be lower on items that VG pays us the licensing fee, but since most retailers including VG base prices on multiple factors beyond simple "cost plus margin", there is no reason to believe that the prices would be any lower.  We simply have relatively little control over their pricing in specific items.  Restated, although VG pays us something like 8 cents for every $1.85 CAP tape sold, there is no reason to believe that they would start selling them for $1.77 if the licensing fee went away.  (And then we would have to find an alternative income stream for the funds.  I'm assuming you would not support a dues increase.)

because I can purchase cheaper on base.  Not all members have convenient base access,

All members, by the verbiage of the AFIs, are supposed to, but that is something CAP has allowed to dry up and not pursue.

I don't think the "allowed it to dry up and not pursue" comment is accurate or fair.

The problem is not a simple one.  Many members (it's hard to get hard data on this) don't live near enough to have access to MCSS even if there were no restrictions on base access.  This is a magic combination of geography and BRAC that will likely get worse before it gets better.  ORWG, for example, does not have a single active military installation in the state.

Second, Darin is right that base access has been significantly tightened in recent years, and individual base commanders have significant discretion as to who is allowed on.  As long as AF commanders have significant discretion as to who gets onto their base and under what conditions, it should not be surprising that CAP is treated somewhat differently at different bases in terms of ID required, vehicle passes, etc.  Aggravating the problem is growing reliance / default to the DBIDS scanner system.  CAP does not have the kind of government ID that is recognized by the scanners, and various local work-arounds have been developed.  I have never experienced a base access issue, but clearly see reports here on CT that others have.

I have personally spoken about this issue to not only the CAP-USAF commander, but also the 1stAF/AFNORTH commander.  The BoG has clearly engaged our AF colleagues on the issue.  A lot of work and effort is ongoing.

I was able to order from AAFES online just a year ago and now when I try to login I get a message that my ID is no longer authorized. I called their customer service and spent the better part of an hour talking with someone. What I got from that conversation is that AAFES changed their requirements for ordering online and over the phone. Everyone needs to be on DEERS to place an order and CAP is not in that system. I pointed to their website that clearly says CAP is an exception and allowed to order. No matter what I said her supervisor just came back and said sorry. We can't order online or over the phone. When I asked how I was supposed to order our new uniforms I was told to visit www.vanguardmil.com to which I laughed. Seriously? We're going to make a run to Travis AFB in a couple weeks and hopefully we are allowed to still purchase at the MCS location on base. I've got to believe something isn't right but it's hard to argue with them when they hold all the cards. Not being able to order from VG until June 15th is nonsensical too. We can wear the uniform starting June 15 but won't have the ability to purchase the mandatory items until then as well. This makes it impossible to actually wear them within the regs on their effective date. Why not allow people to order now and at least be ready when they date comes? We're going to end up with a rush of thousands of CAP'rs all ordering on June 15th and there being a huge backlog because they are swamped. Just defies logic that's all.
[/quote]

Welcome to the Military's way of doing things. hahaha

[Майор Хаткевич]

I'm betting they roll out is the same date as the authorization because people WOULD order early AND wear it.

[Storm Chaser]

I'm betting they roll out is the same date as the authorization because people WOULD order early AND wear it.

Which is/was poor planning. If the authorization date is 15 June, then they should be available prior to that. Otherwise, they force members who can't/won't wait to look for alternative vendors.

The other issue Vanguard may encounter is mass ordering, which will result in weeks of backorders, pushing the wear date even farther.

[NIN]

I'm betting they roll out is the same date as the authorization because people WOULD order early AND wear it.

Which is/was poor planning. If the authorization date is 15 June, then they should be available prior to that. Otherwise, they force members who can't/won't wait to look for alternative vendors.

The other issue Vanguard may encounter is mass ordering, which will result in weeks of backorders, pushing the wear date even farther.

It doesn't force anybody to do anything.

Just because the uniform is authorized for wear as of 15 June doesn't compel you to actually have to wear it ON 15 June.

Nobody's getting extra points for being the first to wear ABUs in their AO. Seriously.

So why the rush to buy potentially unauthorized, or at least potentially non-compliant, insignia?  If you don't have ABUs set up until 15 July, oh well.   Its not that big of a deal.

Whatever happened to doing things right the first time? 

[grunt82abn]

I'm betting they roll out is the same date as the authorization because people WOULD order early AND wear it.

Which is/was poor planning. If the authorization date is 15 June, then they should be available prior to that. Otherwise, they force members who can't/won't wait to look for alternative vendors.

The other issue Vanguard may encounter is mass ordering, which will result in weeks of backorders, pushing the wear date even farther.

It doesn't force anybody to do anything.

Just because the uniform is authorized for wear as of 15 June doesn't compel you to actually have to wear it ON 15 June.

Nobody's getting extra points for being the first to wear ABUs in their AO. Seriously.

So why the rush to buy potentially unauthorized, or at least potentially non-compliant, insignia?  If you don't have ABUs set up until 15 July, oh well.   Its not that big of a deal.

Whatever happened to doing things right the first time?

That is the question I want answered!!! Not just CAP, but DoD wide. Seems like everyone wants to leave their mark on uniform designs, and what changes they were able to make. I see it working for the US Navy (federal Employee), the Army and Air Force (Part-time State Employee). Seems like every 6 moths a new uniform policy come up with some new change to make the uniform a little different now that they are in command. It even stretches to DoD civilian Firefighters and Police Officers, seems like we change uniforms every year.

[Okayish Aviator]

I'm betting they roll out is the same date as the authorization because people WOULD order early AND wear it.

Which is/was poor planning. If the authorization date is 15 June, then they should be available prior to that. Otherwise, they force members who can't/won't wait to look for alternative vendors.

The other issue Vanguard may encounter is mass ordering, which will result in weeks of backorders, pushing the wear date even farther.

Which they would be more ok with than people wearing it early.