Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
January 20, 2020, 08:19:03 PM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Uniforms & Awards  |  Topic: Standards for "Way out" appearances
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: [1] 2  All Send this topic Print
Author Topic: Standards for "Way out" appearances  (Read 1757 times)
Hawk200
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 4,659

« on: November 03, 2019, 07:39:39 PM »

I know that the alternate uniforms are the wear for those not meeting the typical military grooming styles, but was curious as to thoughts on "other" appearances.

I'm taking about things like dreads, alternate hair coloring (such as purple, lime green, neon orange, etc.), beards to the middle of the chest, multiple piercings, ear guages, tattoos on face/neck/hands, and other things things that would be considered body modification.

Have my own views at the moment (which may change if logical counter to it is presented,) but was curious as to other views.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

Report to moderator   Logged
PHall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 6,806

« Reply #1 on: November 03, 2019, 07:42:22 PM »

Are they a "productive" member? If they are then what's the problem?
Report to moderator   Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time With Silver Clasp
*
Posts: 30,546

« Reply #2 on: November 03, 2019, 08:07:17 PM »

CAPM 39-1, starting on page 18, indicates that the kinds of things you're mentioning
(gauges, ornamentation, excessive tattoos, bizarre hair color, etc.) would be verboten
regardless of which uniform a respective member wears.

Long beards and hair is probably going to be a "get over it" as NHQ has been issuing
religious waivers for the beards, especially, the last year or two, so unless it's a hygiene issue
there's really no standard.

I agree to an extent that if the member is otherwise productive then tie should go to the runner,
but there's no point in pretending that the image CAP wants to foster as an organization isn't
conservative in appearance and military in form, and members who are too outside those lines,
especially in public-facing or cadet orientated roles will compromise that intention.

As is constantly made clear, CAP isn't for everyone.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2019, 08:12:20 PM by Eclipse » Report to moderator   Logged


etodd
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,949

« Reply #3 on: November 03, 2019, 09:28:30 PM »

CAPM 39-1, starting on page 18, indicates that the kinds of things you're mentioning
(gauges, ornamentation, excessive tattoos, bizarre hair color, etc.) would be verboten
regardless of which uniform a respective member wears.

"Excessive and bizarre" by whose interpretation?  Our 85 year old members, or the 25 year olds?  Poorly written regs that leave so much subjective. LOL
Report to moderator   Logged
MS - MO - AP - MP - FRO - ESO

sUAS MP - sUAS Instructor - sUAS Check Pilot
PHall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 6,806

« Reply #4 on: November 03, 2019, 10:52:38 PM »

CAPM 39-1, starting on page 18, indicates that the kinds of things you're mentioning
(gauges, ornamentation, excessive tattoos, bizarre hair color, etc.) would be verboten
regardless of which uniform a respective member wears.

"Excessive and bizarre" by whose interpretation?  Our 85 year old members, or the 25 year olds?  Poorly written regs that leave so much subjective. LOL

CAPM39-1 Paragraphs 3.2 and 3.3 are pretty clear. Not a whole lot of interpretation needed.
Report to moderator   Logged
TheSkyHornet
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,974

« Reply #5 on: November 04, 2019, 12:50:01 PM »

CAPM 39-1, starting on page 18, indicates that the kinds of things you're mentioning
(gauges, ornamentation, excessive tattoos, bizarre hair color, etc.) would be verboten
regardless of which uniform a respective member wears.

"Excessive and bizarre" by whose interpretation?  Our 85 year old members, or the 25 year olds?  Poorly written regs that leave so much subjective. LOL

CAPM39-1 Paragraphs 3.2 and 3.3 are pretty clear. Not a whole lot of interpretation needed.

I think this is a biggie that gets kicked aside by units:
"Additionally, even if not in Corporate-style uniform and wearing civilian attire, members are expected to comply with these guidelines when at CAP events or on official CAP duty."

Don't look like you just got out of bed.
Appear to have some level of hygiene.
No pink hair.
Make sure birds aren't nesting in your beard.
Cover up your tattoo sleeves.
Ditch the nose ring.
No gold grills in your mouth.

Please don't look like a meth addict.
Report to moderator   Logged
Flying Pig
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 5,086

« Reply #6 on: November 04, 2019, 03:16:21 PM »

I denied membership for a guy who wanted to be a Chaplain and was the chaplain for the local biker "clubs".  Gauged ears, tats on his hands and neck.  It was a fairly easy decision for me.   He said he was going to appeal to Wing.  I never heard back.  Its fairly simple.
Report to moderator   Logged
Spam
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,376
Unit: GA-090

« Reply #7 on: November 04, 2019, 06:11:35 PM »



Since you ask specifically about dreads, we supported our encampment staff this past summer for taking a guy to the base barber to removing a set of locks.


I did have a Group/CC, back in the 80s in FLWG, who as a retired USAF SNCO had tats all down his arms. When Rodney got remarried to a young thing in her 40s, she made him go get a modest swimsuit tattooed onto/over the buxom Filipina on his arm...  ;D



I thought the below from Hurlburt Field captured the AFI appearance guidance pretty well, in a humorous fashion:
https://www.hurlburt.af.mil/News/Commentaries/Display/Article/206286/dress-and-behave-for-success-use-afi-36-2903/


V/r
Spam









Report to moderator   Logged
Gunsotsu
Forum Regular

Posts: 189

« Reply #8 on: November 04, 2019, 06:36:18 PM »

Ma Blue's tattoo policy is much more tolerant than CAPs. It's olds being olds. But these discussions trying to shame what doesn't fit your definition of decent or professional are so full of holes. Dreads are BAD! But the morbidly obese member in corporate, that's ok because they're trying.

So hilarious that the mods are so quick to pull the trigger on benign discussion, but this nonsense can. Keep. COMING. UP!

Shut it down.
Report to moderator   Logged
Spam
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,376
Unit: GA-090

« Reply #9 on: November 04, 2019, 06:47:08 PM »

Ma Blue's tattoo policy is much more tolerant than CAPs. It's olds being olds. But these discussions trying to shame what doesn't fit your definition of decent or professional are so full of holes. Dreads are BAD! But the morbidly obese member in corporate, that's ok because they're trying.

So hilarious that the mods are so quick to pull the trigger on benign discussion, but this nonsense can. Keep. COMING. UP!

Shut it down.

I should clarify - the guy with dreads I mentioned was in USAF style and thought he could pin them up.

Sorry for the confusion.

V/r
Spam

Report to moderator   Logged
Майор Хаткевич
200,000th Post Author
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 6,097
Unit: GLR-IL-049

« Reply #10 on: November 04, 2019, 08:00:06 PM »

Ma Blue's tattoo policy is much more tolerant than CAPs. It's olds being olds. But these discussions trying to shame what doesn't fit your definition of decent or professional are so full of holes. Dreads are BAD! But the morbidly obese member in corporate Air Force Style Uniforms, that's ok because they're trying.

So hilarious that the mods are so quick to pull the trigger on benign discussion, but this nonsense can. Keep. COMING. UP!

Shut it down.


I got this fixed for you.
Report to moderator   Logged
Hawk200
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 4,659

« Reply #11 on: November 04, 2019, 11:55:03 PM »

Was just kind of wondering as to thoughts on it, didn't even think about the regs on it.

There's a few people that I think would make good contributing members, but they fall into the "way out" appearance I mentioned.

Regardless of how I feel, against regs is against regs.

Thanks for the replies and pointers.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

Report to moderator   Logged
Fester
Seasoned Member

Posts: 362

« Reply #12 on: November 05, 2019, 02:05:50 AM »

You asked for thoughts?

I think the rewrite of 39-1 is LONNNNNG past due.  And I'm hoping it has more leniency within the standards for those wearing Corporates. 

What good reason do we have to turn away someone who is wanting to volunteer their time, money and energy SIMPLY because they have tats or gauges or pink hair?
Report to moderator   Logged
1stLt, CAP
Squadron CC
Group CPO
Eaker - 1996
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time With Silver Clasp
*
Posts: 30,546

« Reply #13 on: November 05, 2019, 02:34:32 AM »

People who change their appearance to be radically different then the mid-point of societal norms
do so for a reason - to be "separate from the crowd".

That's a purposeful decision, and choices have consequences, especially when the choices you
make were specifically intended to make you stand out and be different.
Report to moderator   Logged


Fester
Seasoned Member

Posts: 362

« Reply #14 on: November 05, 2019, 03:24:51 AM »

People who change their appearance to be radically different then the mid-point of societal norms
do so for a reason - to be "separate from the crowd".

That's a purposeful decision, and choices have consequences, especially when the choices you
make were specifically intended to make you stand out and be different.

Who's idea of the "mid-point" of "societal norms?"

And what is it about that uniqueness that prevents them from being valuable members of our Organization?
Report to moderator   Logged
1stLt, CAP
Squadron CC
Group CPO
Eaker - 1996
Gunsotsu
Forum Regular

Posts: 189

« Reply #15 on: November 05, 2019, 06:20:47 AM »

Quote from: Fester
Who's idea of the "mid-point" of "societal norms?"

Olds. Olds idea of "societal norms."
Report to moderator   Logged
THRAWN
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,042

« Reply #16 on: November 05, 2019, 12:50:08 PM »

People who change their appearance to be radically different then the mid-point of societal norms
do so for a reason - to be "separate from the crowd".

That's a purposeful decision, and choices have consequences, especially when the choices you
make were specifically intended to make you stand out and be different.

Who's idea of the "mid-point" of "societal norms?"

And what is it about that uniqueness that prevents them from being valuable members of our Organization?

The organization has rules and standards. If you do not or will not meet those standards, find another way to serve. They can be the best thing since squeezable ketchup, but if they don't want to conform this isn't the place for them.
Report to moderator   Logged
Strup
"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
Dwight Dutton
Seasoned Member

Posts: 273

« Reply #17 on: November 05, 2019, 04:02:37 PM »

You asked for thoughts?

I think the rewrite of 39-1 is LONNNNNG past due.  And I'm hoping it has more leniency within the standards for those wearing Corporates. 

What good reason do we have to turn away someone who is wanting to volunteer their time, money and energy SIMPLY because they have tats or gauges or pink hair?

Fully agree.  The corporate uniforms exist specifically to accommodate this.    The standards should be about what they are for wearing anyone elses corporate uniform.

USAF standards are very well defined and beyond debate, at least here.
Report to moderator   Logged
Toad1168
Forum Regular

Posts: 189
Unit: NCR-MO-001

« Reply #18 on: November 05, 2019, 08:26:13 PM »

You asked for thoughts?

I think the rewrite of 39-1 is LONNNNNG past due.  And I'm hoping it has more leniency within the standards for those wearing Corporates. 

What good reason do we have to turn away someone who is wanting to volunteer their time, money and energy SIMPLY because they have tats or gauges or pink hair?

Fully agree.  The corporate uniforms exist specifically to accommodate this.    The standards should be about what they are for wearing anyone elses corporate uniform.

USAF standards are very well defined and beyond debate, at least here.

This statement alone opens up a wide variety of standards.  Many private companies have standards that do not allow what was described above.
Report to moderator   Logged
Toad
NovemberWhiskey
Member

Posts: 94
Unit: NER-NY-301

« Reply #19 on: November 05, 2019, 11:36:12 PM »

And what is it about that uniqueness that prevents them from being valuable members of our Organization?

The organization has rules and standards. If you do not or will not meet those standards, find another way to serve. They can be the best thing since squeezable ketchup, but if they don't want to conform this isn't the place for them.

I don't think that's really an answer, is it? I understand the regulation says what it does. It says, for example, that someone who has a sleeve tattoo on their arm to the wrist cannot conform to CAP's grooming and appearance standards for either USAF-style or corporate uniforms and therefore that person cannot be a member.

The question posed is: why is that regulation necessary if it excludes people who would otherwise be beneficial to our organization? The answer cannot be an appeal to military standards as the USAF now permits such tattoos (ref. AFI 36-2903).
« Last Edit: November 05, 2019, 11:41:54 PM by NovemberWhiskey » Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1] 2  All Send this topic Print 
CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Uniforms & Awards  |  Topic: Standards for "Way out" appearances
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.053 seconds with 25 queries.