Making the BDU the new CAP corporate field utility uniform?

[MIKE]

I remember that patch... it was [darn] cool.  IIRC it wasn't really cartoonish and was well done.

[Hawk200]

First, you are entirely too literal with his metaphors - he was trying to point out that there is always room for improvement, not handing out grades to CAP.

I know he didn't mean literal grades. I'm literal minded, but not that bad. His statements indicate a belief that we aren't doing as well as we could with multiple uniforms, I was simply questioning using the same analogy. Obviously, he feels that we would improve our operations by consolidating to a single uniform, but he can't explain how. It's supposition without any equation to it. By saying something will improve there has to be a tangible result. He hasn't indicated one.

Now, it will be very difficult to hang numbers off of things that are intangibles, such as morale and performance.  However, I will try to lay out the assumptions and see where they take us.

In my old sqdn, we were working on ways to improve the team.  One of the ways to improve units is through raising morale and making the unit something they wanted to be part of.  We decided that we wanted to work on "unit branding."  No, this didn't involve hot irons on the BBQ grill, but establishing the sqdn through both images and actions.

One of the first things we did was create a patch, the "turtle with a Lewis Gun."  We used it for lots of things: the web site, off-duty polo shirts, etc.  But it's primary purpose was to ID members of the sqdn in uniform.  The problem was, which uniform?

CAP has a problem being recognized.  Part of this is due to the fact that there are so many uniforms we don't look, well, uniform.  There are different uniforms based on duty, fatness, and fuzziness.  Members also have varied and limited resources, so we want them to save their money for important things, such as ES gear, flying hours, and beer.  So we decided there would be only one required uniform for members of the sqdn, and they even get a choice.

So your efforts were to elevate morale. Seems like you had a well established plan. But, were people saying "Oh, I can do my job so much better because I'm dressed almost the same as everyone else." ? That's an example of quantifying the results.

The choices were the BBDU's, the utility jumpsuit, and the CAP blue aramid flightsuit.  We did this for a few reasons:

- We wanted to be a mission oriented sqdn.  While you can get away with business attire or formalwear for dinners and such, you need a working uniform for missions.

- This was a set of uniforms everyone could wear: big or little, fuzzy or smooth.  Any AF uniform wouldn't be for everyone.

- All of these uniforms look similar enough that the people wearing them looked like they were supposed to be together.

- All of the uniforms could have the "turtle and Lewis Gun" patch.  The members knew what sqdn they were from - and soon, so did the rest of the wing.

You utilized different uniforms in similar colors. Encouraging the wear of a unit patch was a good move. But how did having a single color array of uniforms improve the units effectiveness? That's the question I'm asking.

I was in a unit were we were pretty well known for our mission efforts, but didn't wear a single color. We did all wear the unit patch, the commander actually issued it to you, and since he did, he required you to wear it. BDU's or flightsuits, didn't matter. We all had it on.

This worked amazingly well.  We were noted for both our ability to get the job done and the image we cut when we showed up at mission base.  Passive peer pressure got some people "into the blue" even though they wore nothing but golf shirts or civvies up until then.

All well and good, if the folks joining buy into it. Do you tell them they can't have anything else? If you do, you're violating the manual. If you discriminate against those that don't decide to go blue by not letting them participate in certain functions then there is a problem. The concept is nice, but the nature of our organization doesn't permit too many mandates at the local level.

We still have other uniforms - members wear golf shirts for casual flying, AF dress for dressy affairs and BDU's for the CP types when they work with Cadets.  But we enforce (though it really enforces itself) uniform discipline for meetings and ES events.  More buy in makes people more interested in the mission - after all, you don't want to be left behind when the sqdn van pulls out of the parking lot.

Like I said above, long as it's voluntary. It's tough to justify some local mandates when you end up with complaints made to higher ups.

Can this be done in CAP?  Obviously, but it runs against the current custom which tends to go "if it's in 39-1, I can wear it."  The blue work uniforms have the aura of "second class suits," what you wear when you can't wear the real uniform.  The uniforms and the patches don't make them better members directly, but they are good ways to build esprit de corps.  And it is that team spirit that will drag a guy or gal out of bed at "0 dark thirty" and run a mission.

I've never ever considered the alternates as "second class" suits. There are people that wear them that I consider "second class" just as much as ones that wear the AF variants. But I've never considered the uniform itself as second class. Perhaps I'm open minded in the extreme about this, but I personally can't make the connection between the concept of "fat and fuzzy" and the concept of "second class". They just don't equate in any reasonable manner to me.

Our uniforms are a tool: not as directly applicable as aircraft or DF gear to our missions but, with a little work, it can be as useful.  CAP, unfortunately, does not take advantage of this possibility by developing a "uniform" uniform policy.

Agreed, they are tools. And as such, they have accompanying instructions. Our uniform manual keeps growing, excessively I might add. We should pare that down. The way I think I'm seeing your point, reducing what we have available might result in more "uniformity".

And that's what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown.

Cute, been years since I've seen one of those specials. The new ones aren't so good.

Anyway, I think that there are concepts worth exploring. I think it's possible to make AF and alternate uniforms similar enough that the association is obvious. Ditch some of the excessive stuff. The alternate uniform side is what keeps growing, the Air Force variant side only changes when the Air Force does.

Used to be just blues. Then blues, and an alternate blazer for those that didn't meet standards. Then blues, blazer, and some other funky stuff (remember guaybarra shirts? Eww). Then blues, blazer, polos. Now, blues, blazer, TPU, polos. And that's just the dress side. See where I'm going here? Only one uniform has been consistant throughout the CAP history, and that's the AF uniforms. We lose a lot to do away with them.

Overall, two variants is reasonable. Five is not. And the best way to start showing some solidarity is to start reducing the excessive options. CAP has done this to itself at the top levels. Maybe if they started to listen to the bottom, we wouldn't have this problem now.

[RogueLeader]

after all, you don't want to be left behind when the sqdn van pulls out of the parking lot.

You would really leave a qualified person home because he/she was in BDU's instead of BBDU's?     To be sure I would question Service Dress/Flight Gear/Golf Shirt uniforms to a GT mission.

If I were told: "You have to buy BBDU's to go on Missions."  I'd go find another unit.  I've put WAY too much money into my BDU's just to stick a good portion more into a uniform that I don't like, and can't envision me being in for any good length of time.

[Dragoon]

Back online.

Standardizing to blue utility/field uniforms had the following effects on our squadron.

1.  Senior member attendance at squadron meetings more than tripled.

2.  Retention amongst seniors climbed by over 30%

3.  Turnout for non ES squadron activities by seniors climbed by over 50%

4.  Within 1 year, the squadron was handling almost 50% of the Wing's missions with less than 10% of the personnell.

5.  Morale went way, way up.

6.  The unit aced its next compliance inspection.

7.  Cooperation with local outside agencies skyrocketed.

"Oh come on, dressing everyone alike did all that?"

Well, yeah.

The uniform was the centerpiece of a new focus on teamwork over individualism.  A change from "what CAP can do for me" to "what can I do for CAP."

Once we got everyone looking like a team, enthusiasm went through the roof.  People began to think of CAP as more than something they'd contribute to when they felt like it.  They began to feel an obligation to the team.

Everyone began showing up to meetings.  Which led to more training being conducted.  Which led to better trained staff officers and ES responders.

People began to volunteer to help each other out more, be it cleaning the airplane on a weekend or getting the files in shape for the big inspection.

As we worked in the local community, it was obvious that we were taken more seriously and looked on more favorably as an organization.  They assumed we were as good as we looked. 


I, frankly, was amazed at how much came out of such a simple thing.  But I shouldn't have been.  Corporations, schools and the real military all know the value of the uniform as a way of bringing people together.

As a team.


If it didn't work, they wouldn't waste the money.

I believe that standardizing CAP uniforms would result increased retention, better PR (which leads to all kind of good things) and a change in individual attitudes to more of a team focus, resulting in better results in all our missions.


As a commander, you're always looking for ways to bring folks together.  A single uniform (or as close to it as you can reasonably get) has this effect.

[Dragoon]

Now the last question "OK, so ya wanna make us all look alike.  What uniform would you pick?"

Well to begin with, it might not be ONE uniform.  It could be a bunch of uniforms that look pretty similary.

For example with some minor changes, the new corporate service dress blends pretty nicely with the USAF Service dress.  All ya gotta do is ditch the silver braid and the metal rank, and standardize on a single nametag for both suits.  Voila - more uniformity.

But truthfully, the service and dress suits aren't really that important. We do most of our work in utility suits.  And in this day and age, an Air Force guy can do everything from field to office work in BDUs/Flight suits.  I've attended Army conferences in public hotels where everyone wears ACUs.  CAP could easily do the same.

The place where uniformity helps the most is in the utility uniforms.  That's what the public will see us in when we're doing most of our jobs.

I think the first choice would be to revisit weight standards with USAF.  If we could get those lifted, we could put everyone in BDUs and green Nomex with their grade insignia..   There's already a precedent - deploying USAF civilians can wear these uniforms regardless of weight.  We may have to sacrifice beards, or add some additional do-dad to make it clear that the big guy in the corner is not a USAF officer.  But I think the attempt should be made.

Failing that, I'd standardize on a set of corporate utility/flight uniforms that are all the same basic color and style.  It doesn't have to be the Navy Blue we're using now, but they'd probably work.  Smart guys might come up with something better.

The golf shirt, IMHO has got to go.  An izod shirt with no grade and grey slacks is not much of uniform, and doesn't really fit with our paramilitary culture.    Somehow USAF manages to get buy without putting half its airmen in golf shirts - I think we can manage.  If we went with corporate utilities, we could come up with some hot weather short sleeve version for places that need it, and still blend in with the rest of the team. 

But the real key is to embrace the goal of uniformity, and then get smart guys working on the best way to get there.

[ddelaney103]

after all, you don't want to be left behind when the sqdn van pulls out of the parking lot.

You would really leave a qualified person home because he/she was in BDU's instead of BBDU's?     To be sure I would question Service Dress/Flight Gear/Golf Shirt uniforms to a GT mission.

If I were told: "You have to buy BBDU's to go on Missions."  I'd go find another unit.  I've put WAY too much money into my BDU's just to stick a good portion more into a uniform that I don't like, and can't envision me being in for any good length of time.

Probably not for a real mission, as they tend to be "come as you are" events (though the blue bag/shoes/t-shirt make a pretty small package in the trunk of your car).

But if you publish orders that say "show time 0730. uniform BBDU/blue bag?"  They better have the mother of all excuses if they expect to not be left behind.

Your last is the problem with CAP - we given people so many choices they think it's their right to pick their uniform.  I have piles of AF uniforms for the Guard, but I know I have two choices when I go to work: summer weight or winter weight.  CAP would be better served if it came up with a default suit for everyone and then authorize optional uniforms that may be worn.

[MIKE]

How about these.  We can be ahead of the curve for a change. 

[Dragoon]

I actually saw those this weekend - I was in Lousville for a conference and stopped by the Cav Store in Fort Knox.

Right next to these were ACUs in Navy Blue......

[Hawk200]

Back online.

Standardizing to blue utility/field uniforms had the following effects on our squadron.

1.  Senior member attendance at squadron meetings more than tripled.

2.  Retention amongst seniors climbed by over 30%

3.  Turnout for non ES squadron activities by seniors climbed by over 50%

4.  Within 1 year, the squadron was handling almost 50% of the Wing's missions with less than 10% of the personnell.

5.  Morale went way, way up.

6.  The unit aced its next compliance inspection.

7.  Cooperation with local outside agencies skyrocketed.

"Oh come on, dressing everyone alike did all that?"

Well, yeah.

The uniform was the centerpiece of a new focus on teamwork over individualism.  A change from "what CAP can do for me" to "what can I do for CAP."

Now you've gone from one extreme to the other, with sufficient reason to leave me skeptical about it.

Looking at it, one by one, I find it hard to believe that each person that showed up, or renewed, or a unit passed a compliance inspection, or increased cooperation with outside agencies because of one color. ddelaney103 didn't make the points so rigidly.

Once we got everyone looking like a team, enthusiasm went through the roof.  People began to think of CAP as more than something they'd contribute to when they felt like it.  They began to feel an obligation to the team.

Seems like the team you've got bases its cohesiveness on what you're wearing. You kinda put your team together on a reverse engineering basis.

Everyone began showing up to meetings.  Which led to more training being conducted.  Which led to better trained staff officers and ES responders.

People get trained if they show up. Kinda how the concept works. Still not seeing how a single color was the magic bullet.

People began to volunteer to help each other out more, be it cleaning the airplane on a weekend or getting the files in shape for the big inspection.

People in my unit do this, right now. And none of us wear the exact same thing. I'm usually the one wearing BDU's, the CC wears BBDU, DCP tends to rotate blues and BDU's, everyone else wears golf shirt. We help each other out regularly, a lot of time between meetings when no one is wearing a uniform.

As we worked in the local community, it was obvious that we were taken more seriously and looked on more favorably as an organization.  They assumed we were as good as we looked. 

Have you ever heard the saying "Clothes don't make the man." ? There's a reason it's valid. Ever consider the fact that they just saw y'all working well together?

I, frankly, was amazed at how much came out of such a simple thing.  But I shouldn't have been.  Corporations, schools and the real military all know the value of the uniform as a way of bringing people together.

As a team.

If it didn't work, they wouldn't waste the money.

I believe that standardizing CAP uniforms would result increased retention, better PR (which leads to all kind of good things) and a change in individual attitudes to more of a team focus, resulting in better results in all our missions.

As a commander, you're always looking for ways to bring folks together.  A single uniform (or as close to it as you can reasonably get) has this effect.

I remember my first five days in that great thing called Air Force Basic training. Those first five days, we didn't have uniforms. We were acting like a team before we even got those uniforms. Because we had someone in charge of training us.

I think the concept of dressing everyone alike to create a team is backwards. Train them together, let them work together, and they'll bond. Teach them the goals of the organization, train them to lead. It may have worked in your case, but I think it was done the hard way.

As an experiment, I may suggest it to my commander for a time period, look at it from a personal standpoint. If it works, I'll see it. But I'm not going to just agree that it's the be-all, end-all of producing a team. I learned teamwork in a different manner.

[Dragoon]

Kind of expected that response.  It's the standard "who cares what we look like if we can do the job" thing that is pretty standard for CAP culture.

I just really disagree with it, based on CAP and Army command experience.

It pretty much a given that branding works. Giving the public an easy way to recognize your company increases their good feelings toward you.  There's a reason UPS puts all their guys in the same uniform and paints their trucks brown.  Ditto your local police department and even the guys down at McDonalds.

And it sure seems that uniforms affect morale and team spirit - why the heck would so many organizations do it if it was a waste of time and money?

Uniforms are symbols - they have great influence over people.  If people dress like a team, they are more likely to feel like a team.  And to the general public, where first impressions count, a uniform appearance immediately gives the impression that you ARE a team. 

Sure, it's not the only step in the equation - it's another tool in the toolbox.  But it's a tool of great power.  I've seen in work in CAP and in the Army.  I do not think I could have taken the squadron where I took it without that tool.

What it takes, though, is clear communication with the members.  There are normally three objections to uniformity.

1.  Cost.  This is a viable concern.  Any change has to be done with great respect to wallets of the members.  That's why the corporate blue utility/field uniforms. weren't a hard sell - we're talking around $60 bucks.  And you had your choice of a BDU type suit or a flight type suit.  Give people a year or so to phase into it, and it's not that big a deal.  It WOULD be a big deal to make folks buy new service dress coats.

2.  Resistance to change.  Basically, some folks don't like things to change.  Call it inertia, skepticism, lazyiness, whatever.  Because, frankly, not all change is good.  But this one can be addressed by laying out the vision, and rewarding the early adopters.  By getting the majority signed up for the change, the stick-in-the-muds begin to see the results and get with the program.

3.  Folks who are more concerned with showing off their individualism than being part of a team.   Hard to fix this.  Sometimes, though, these folks leaving can be a good thing......

[RiverAux]

2.  Resistance to change.  Basically, some folks don't like things to change.  Call it inertia, skepticism, lazyiness, whatever.  Because, frankly, not all change is good.  But this one can be addressed by laying out the vision, and rewarding the early adopters.  By getting the majority signed up for the change, the stick-in-the-muds begin to see the results and get with the program.

You're assuming that all change is good...

[Hawk200]

Kind of expected that response.  It's the standard "who cares what we look like if we can do the job" thing that is pretty standard for CAP culture.

No, it's not such a standard response. I don't believe in "who cares...etc." because I make certain that the members of our unit wear uniforms properly. I do care.

The ones that don't wear a uniform properly are the ones that don't care. And units with people like that are the ones that have the most trouble. They have fewer people attending, because they figure that since they're not held to a standard, it doesn't matter if they don't show up.

We have 9 seniors, 8 cadets active, out of 21. One senior doesn't show up, because he was told that he needed to wear the uniform properly. He was against being part of the team in the first place. The rest show pride in what they're wearing.

It pretty much a given that branding works. Giving the public an easy way to recognize your company increases their good feelings toward you.  There's a reason UPS puts all their guys in the same uniform and paints their trucks brown.  Ditto your local police department and even the guys down at McDonalds.

And it sure seems that uniforms affect morale and team spirit - why the heck would so many organizations do it if it was a waste of time and money?

Uniforms are symbols - they have great influence over people.  If people dress like a team, they are more likely to feel like a team.  And to the general public, where first impressions count, a uniform appearance immediately gives the impression that you ARE a team. 

Sure, it's not the only step in the equation - it's another tool in the toolbox.  But it's a tool of great power.  I've seen in work in CAP and in the Army.  I do not think I could have taken the squadron where I took it without that tool.

I don't think the military is an appropriate comparison. People don't join the military, or McDonalds, or UPS for the uniforms. It's a means of identifying the group you're part of, not a means of adding to it.

What it takes, though, is clear communication with the members.  There are normally three objections to uniformity.

1.  Cost.  This is a viable concern.  Any change has to be done with great respect to wallets of the members.  That's why the corporate blue utility/field uniforms. weren't a hard sell - we're talking around $60 bucks.  And you had your choice of a BDU type suit or a flight type suit.  Give people a year or so to phase into it, and it's not that big a deal.  It WOULD be a big deal to make folks buy new service dress coats.

2.  Resistance to change.  Basically, some folks don't like things to change.  Call it inertia, skepticism, lazyiness, whatever.  Because, frankly, not all change is good.  But this one can be addressed by laying out the vision, and rewarding the early adopters.  By getting the majority signed up for the change, the stick-in-the-muds begin to see the results and get with the program.

3.  Folks who are more concerned with showing off their individualism than being part of a team.   Hard to fix this.  Sometimes, though, these folks leaving can be a good thing......

I will agree with these completely. Cost is an issue. Resistance is an issue. And the individualism I've noted is people wanting to wear the BDU's as "hip hangers" and their hats off to the side like rappers that creates problems. And allowing those utility jumpsuits instead of just BBDU's or Blue flightsuits is allowing a little "individuality" as well.

The cost issue: Why should I buy a blue flightsuit for $175 when I can get a green one brand new off eBay for $50? Why should I spend 65 or 70 dollars for BBDU, when I can get the others from AAFES for 45? Why should I go get a utility jumpsuit that doesn't even really have a legitimate place when there is an appropriate uniform already?

Resistance: I already have perfectly usable uniforms, why should I get rid of them? 

Individualism: I can be dressed just like everyone else, and still maintain my individualism. My nametag still says something different from everyone else, I'm still a unique person with different experiences. Individualism and uniformity are not mutually exclusive concepts.

But another point: Cadets typically wear the AF uniforms, they're easier to get, and usually cheaper. How did you address that issue? Do you think the Air Force would foot the bill on a free uniform to cadets that wasn't the same as what they wear? They are concerned about their pocketbook lately too. Are you willing to sacrifice that for the idea of "uniformity"?

That aside, maybe I'm getting it wrong, but I get the idea that you have the impression that since I don't agree with you, or choose not to do it your way that I don't care. Nothing is further from the truth. I'm not new to this game either, my experiences have been different. And I can agree to disagree. But don't treat my views as inferior because they don't agree with yours.

[ddelaney103]

2.  Resistance to change.  Basically, some folks don't like things to change.  Call it inertia, skepticism, lazyiness, whatever.  Because, frankly, not all change is good.  But this one can be addressed by laying out the vision, and rewarding the early adopters.  By getting the majority signed up for the change, the stick-in-the-muds begin to see the results and get with the program.

You're assuming that all change is good...

Whiskey Foxtrot, over...

[RiverAux]

Yes, I saw that in there, but overall his statement assumed that the uniform changes they made were good. 

[Dragoon]

I don't think the military is an appropriate comparison. People don't join the military, or McDonalds, or UPS for the uniforms. It's a means of identifying the group you're part of, not a means of adding to it.

Most recruiters I know, especially Marines, would disagree.  The uniform is an extremely valuable recruiting tool. 

But another point: Cadets typically wear the AF uniforms, they're easier to get, and usually cheaper. How did you address that issue? Do you think the Air Force would foot the bill on a free uniform to cadets that wasn't the same as what they wear? They are concerned about their pocketbook lately too. Are you willing to sacrifice that for the idea of "uniformity"?

If you read my earlier post on suggested solutions, you may recall that my first choice would be to put everybody in BDUs and green nomex.

But if that failed, I'd keep cadets in USAF suits, while standardizing seniors on something else that all could wear.  The USAF uniform is part of the draw of our cadet program (recruiting, dontcha know) and USAF lets all cadets under 18 wear it regardless of weight.  Plus they give 'em out for free!

Having one suit for cadets and one for seniors is a compromise, but might have some advantages.  It would, for example, make the senior leaders stand out at cadet activities.

[Dragoon]

Yes, I saw that in there, but overall his statement assumed that the uniform changes they made were good. 

Yup.  And that proved to be correct, so I stand by it.

Not all change is good. But that changes we made were good.  They worked.

[ddelaney103]

Uniforms are important.  If you don't think so, take a quick trip to AF Enlisted Forums or check out all the ticked off Rangers when their "sacred headgear" was given to the unwashed masses. 

The Marines wouldn't waste money of those fancy suits if they didn't add to the image of the Marines.  People may not join the Marines for the uniform, but they do join for the image of the Marines, and the uniform is an integral part of that image.

Think of the images of the services.  If you think of Marines, you probably see a person in the dress uniform or MARPAT.  "Soldier" conjures images of people in kevlar hats.  AF is all about the flight suits and Sailors are seen in dixie cups and crackerjack suits.  Now, think "CAP."  Who knows what image comes to mind?

We get a lot of flak from people who say, "we want to look like the AF."  Why would that happen unless the image matters?

Uniforms are not, however, a magic bullet.  If that were the case we could just hand out berets to everyone and watch our problems go away.  We could, however, not shoot ourselves in the foot image-wise by coming up with something for all our SM's. 

Cadets, being a military style program, is a different story - they need the AF suits.  The rest of us do not.

[SarDragon]

How about these.  We can be ahead of the curve for a change. 

You spell it TRUS, I spell it trews.

[Hawk200]

I still dislike the idea of ditching all but one uniform for seniors. It leaves me with a bad feeling. I've learned to trust those bad feelings.

I think that we could easily have alternates that are similar to Air Force ones. The TPU is a prime example of this. White shirt instead of blue, but go with the same accoutrements as the blues. Except for shirt color, there would really be no real difference. I think it would result in the same "branding". The kind of confusion on uniformity could be just as easily created with some people wearing blues, and others in the unit at the same time wearing BDU's.

I think that the biggest problem with the stigma of the corporates is that no one really has the fortitude to say "That uniform? Well, that person doesn't meet the weight and grooming standards that the military requires to wear their uniforms." I think the stigma is one that people are creating. There's really no problem with a person being overweight, unless it's a case of the person is just not willing to do something about it. There are people with legitimate reasons for being overweight, but a lot of the people I know don't really have one. Why should we cater to the ones that don't?

The point was brought up that uniforms are part of the draw. So how do you account for the fact that going to a non-military uniform will reduce it? If the military uniform is one of the things that bring people in, then we're not going to be doing ourselves any favors by eliminating one of the things that bring people in.

Flightsuits: We used to allow people not meeting weight/grooming to wear them without rank insignia. They still had the rank on their nametag, so I never saw an issue there. You still knew what rank they were. I think eliminating that option was stupid. An overweight or bearded member is entitled to the same protection that one meeting standards is. Might be worth finding out who killed it. Those flightsuits are far cheaper, and the Air Force isn't going to get rid of them anytime soon. We could push that back up on both of those little facts.

BDU's: had the same option as flightsuits. The BBDU is a radically different color that does set them apart. Should have gone with green, it wouldn't have been a drastically different change. The similar colors and accoutrements would have shown the association.

Utility jumpsuit: Why do we even have this? It's not the same as a flightsuit. It may have served a purpose at one time, but that time is gone. We have BBDU's now. Use those. Just because Space Command decided to go with flightsuits instead of their blue jumpsuits doesn't mean that their stocks should have been dumped on CAP. And that looks like what most of the early ones were.

All in all, I think we could use a few changes. But radical ones are not going to happen. I'd bet that if you proposed eliminating the Air Force uniform to the BoG, you'd get laughed out of the room. And will in the future.

[JC004]

When teaching at our last SLS, I got two questions that I couldn't answer with especially good replies...1. Why do we change the uniforms so often?  2.  Why are there so many uniforms?

Still haven't come up with an outstanding answer...