MOAA Magazine

[RogueLeader]

It looks like he was both CC and a Chaplain.  Hmmm.

Isn't this an improper use of the uniform? Isn't something being sold here?

I doubt it.  He's not seeking private employment in uniform, and I don't think the org is against the US interests.  Could be by implying USAF approval of ad.

[_]

From 39-1 in the section with when not to wear the uniform:

when furthering private employment or commercial interests, if official sponsorship might be inferred.

emphasis is mine

I think wearing a military style uniform in an ad that is meant to attract military personnel by saying, "military people already like us"  constitutes inferred sponsorship of this place by the military, using the name of the CAP.  The member may not be purposely implying sponsorship but the advertising people definitely are which makes the appearance in the ad in an uniform improper.

[A.Member]

From 39-1 in the section with when not to wear the uniform:

when furthering private employment or commercial interests, if official sponsorship might be inferred.

emphasis is mine

I think wearing a military style uniform in an ad that is meant to attract military personnel by saying, "military people already like us"  constitutes inferred sponsorship of this place by the military, using the name of the CAP.  The member may not be purposely implying sponsorship but the advertising people definitely are which makes the appearance in the ad in an uniform improper.

Agreed.  This ad is problematic on a number of levels and it should be pulled.

[JohnKachenmeister]

I respectfully disagree.

This is a publication aimed at military people, and he is saying that his personal choice was to live in this community.  The fact that he identified a military affiliation to establish his bonafides does not change the fact that he is expressing a personal opinion with regard to this retirement community.

There is no sponsorship implied.

[RiverAux]

If he wasn't wearing a CAP uniform while doing it, I would agree with you.  In uniform he does imply CAP sponsorship. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

In that particular magazine, use of military titles is common, and use of photos in uniform is not unheard of.  Page 18 has a photo of a retired general now and in uniform during World War II.  Page 6 has an ad. for "Air Force Village West" with official seals from all 7 uniformed services.

Given the context, a magazine circulated among active and retired military officers, I don't think anyone will be fooled into thinking that CAP has endorsed or sponsored a retirement community.

If this appeared in a magazine of general public circulation, I would tend to agree with you.

[RiverAux]

Didn't you ever listen to your mother -- just because everyone else is doing it, doesn't mean its right.

[Eclipse]

This is an >advertisement< from a real estate company selling houses.

Him standing there in a golf shirt and bad plaid shorts is not going to have the same eye-appeal as what appears at first glance to be a full-bird USAF Colonel.

My guess is that using his photo actually works against them from a credibility standpoint with anyone in the RealMilitary®, but regardless, they are obviously trading on his perceived credibility as a "retired" "officer".

IMHO this is exactly the kind of thing the reg is against - no different than standing in front of an FBO in uniform and saying "As a CAP member, I get all my fuel and maintenance from AV-PRO.  You should too!"

[Ned]

It is pretty clearly improper.

The 39-1 spells out when the uniform can be worn in Chapter 1.  Members can wear the uniform while conducting CAP business and necessary travel.

It specifically says members may NOT wear the uniform "when furthering private employment or commercial interests, if official sponsorship may be inferred" which is definately possible here.

Or "when engaged in private employment," which also seems likely here.

(See table 1-1)

Further, retired members are not authorized to wear service dress in any event -- see CAPR 39-3, specifically para 3-1(c) which suggests that the only uniform authorized for retired members is the blazer combination.


So, I'd like to think that this retired officer either made an innocent mistake or received bad advice.

It's also possible that the regulations have changed since he retired and no one told him.

But it is a little unsavory for anyone to sell anything using a CAP uniform as a prop.

Ned Lee

[Stonewall]

How friggin ironic is this?

Went to my in-laws for a little shindig and I notice the MOAA magazine so I check out the USAF AUX Colonel.  Dad-in-law comes up to me and says "by the way, I hope you don't mind but I put you in for a 12 month subscription for you as a USAF Auxiliary Lt Col".  On any other day, I wouldn't have thought twice about it.  Funny, huh?

[mikeylikey]

How friggin ironic is this?

Went to my in-laws for a little shindig and I notice the MOAA magazine so I check out the USAF AUX Colonel.  Dad-in-law comes up to me and says "by the way, I hope you don't mind but I put you in for a 12 month subscription for you as a USAF Auxiliary Lt Col".  On any other day, I wouldn't have thought twice about it.  Funny, huh?

Yeah.....MOAA ran a December promotion to allow members to give other non-members a free membership for a year.  You will get a pretty neat new member package.  The organization is great, they are very active in Washington and their other magazine "Today's Officer" is really good.

[JohnKachenmeister]

It is pretty clearly improper.

The 39-1 spells out when the uniform can be worn in Chapter 1.  Members can wear the uniform while conducting CAP business and necessary travel.

It specifically says members may NOT wear the uniform "when furthering private employment or commercial interests, if official sponsorship may be inferred" which is definately possible here.

Or "when engaged in private employment," which also seems likely here.

(See table 1-1)

Further, retired members are not authorized to wear service dress in any event -- see CAPR 39-3, specifically para 3-1(c) which suggests that the only uniform authorized for retired members is the blazer combination.


So, I'd like to think that this retired officer either made an innocent mistake or received bad advice.

It's also possible that the regulations have changed since he retired and no one told him.

But it is a little unsavory for anyone to sell anything using a CAP uniform as a prop.

Ned Lee

Except Ned, you don't know when the picture was taken.  He could have been still active at the time, and gave the developer an old photo of him in uniform to use on the ad. 

Again, GIVEN THE READERSHIP of this publication, and the fact that such personal endorsements by retired officers is not uncommon in this publication, I do not think it implies any sponsorship by CAP.  If this were in a magazine designed to be read by the general public, I would probably feel differently.

[Ned]

Except Ned, you don't know when the picture was taken.  He could have been still active at the time, and gave the developer an old photo of him in uniform to use on the ad. 

That would only affect the "retired guys can't wear service dress" prong.

It doesn't affect the impropriety of wearing the uniform for commerical purposes.

Assuming for a moment that some rogue real estate developer did not steal this guy's picture off the refrigerator or dummied up a totally ficticious photo, it means that a retired officer knowingly allowed the name and uniform of CAP to be used to make a buck. 

And that's just wrong.  Morally and possibly legally.  And violates the regulations that bind all members, active and retired. 

He's free to endorse any product he'd like as an individual.  But the only reason the developer used him was for his CAP title and unform in an attempt to lure military types into spending some money they wouldn't have spent if the picture was just the guy in a civilian suit and tie without a mention of his CAP service.

That's the reaon we have these kind of regulations.