I need to attend an anger management class today.

[RiverAux]

And since the USAF had already weighed in negatively on the issue, for whatever reason, then the NLO's comments were gratuitous, and therefore even more insulting.

I would hope that when a regulation proposal is put out for comment to all the folks that get to have their thoughts included on the agenda (NLO, CAP-USAF, NHQ staff, etc.) that each of them does their own independent analysis.  If that is the case, you can't expect the NLO to know what CAP-USAF is going to say.  And, really I would hope that he would stick to his opinion.  When it comes right down to it, both the NLO and CAP-USAF statements are opinions, it just happens that the CAP-USAF is the one that actually carries some weight.  Remember, even if the National Board approved this proposal, the AF could still put the kaibosh on it just like they did earlier version of the CSU that they thought were too military. 

[cap235629]

At the end of the day, its all bling - I have no issue with you wearing it, you should be able to considering our military auxiliary context, but CIB's, combat ribbons, and likewise don't have a lot of analog in CAP, nor are they really much indication any specific abilities that CAP is looking for, especially in the operational context.

Ok, then do not allow them on the AF style uniform either.  I have often said that this policy is a slap in the face of those who cannot or chose not to wear the AF uniform, for whatever reason, and are veterans.  Why is Lt. Skinny's service worthy of recognition but Lt. Heavy or Lt. Fuzzy's not?

Equal treatment, that is all that is asked for...............................

The CSU is by definition "civilian" attire and as such, the AF's role/input should be advisory, not regulatory except for Air Force awards or badges, as they still own the rights, so to speak, to them.  I am an honorably discharged Army veteran of wartime service who cannot meet weight requirements due to a service connected disability/injury.  AR 670-1 allows me to wear my decorations on any civilian clothing in an appropriate setting.  Volunteer service to ones Nation that allows me to continue to uphold my oath of enlistment seems to be appropriate, don't you think?

[RiverAux]

The CSU is by definition "civilian" attire and as such, the AF's role/input should be advisory, not regulatory except for Air Force awards or badges, as they still own the rights, so to speak, to them. 

Except that when it comes down to it, the Air Force has the authority to say whether or not it is civilian enough to pass muster. 

AR 670-1 allows me to wear my decorations on any civilian clothing in an appropriate setting. 

And pretty much defines those appropriate settings in a very restricted manner for basically special occassions. 

[Eclipse]

The CSU is by definition "civilian" attire and as such, the AF's role/input should be advisory, not regulatory except for Air Force awards or badges, as they still own the rights, so to speak, to them. 

Except that when it comes down to it, the Air Force has the authority to say whether or not it is civilian enough to pass muster. 

AR 670-1 allows me to wear my decorations on any civilian clothing in an appropriate setting. 

And pretty much defines those appropriate settings in a very restricted manner for basically special occasions. 

+1 on both.

The intention of 670 is to allow for ceremonial wear on special occasions, and in situations where a local rule or custom does not preclude their wear.  An example is the oft-cited allowance by some departments that allows police officers to wear military decorations on their police service uniforms.

There are plenty of departments that don't even have ribbons on their uniforms, and would certainly tell you not to wear military decorations, etc. 

The same goes for active services - as it stands today, the USAF precludes and regulates any number of other-service decorations and badges for their active-duty personnel.  Take the CIB / CAB, for example.  Airmen can only wear it while assigned to an Army unit, then it is supposed to come off.  The fact that some don't remove it doesn't change the policy, or necessarily indicate that the USAF thinks Army service is inferior.  Someone in the USAF decided it was inappropriate for their uniform, period.

There is no carte-blanche wear of anything, anywhere, active service, civilian, whatever.  Some things are authorized, some things aren't - let's make sure to seperate that from the inconsiderate remark by one person.

[arajca]

Something I have suggested here (and other places) would be to have CAP/CC write a letter to each of the service secretaries or Chiefs of Staff to request authorization to wear their respective awards on the CAP uniforms - AF style and corporate (blues and greys). So far, I have not heard of such a thing being done.

In keeping with the topic, when the NLO makes a comment like that as an official opinion - which it is being in the NB agenda - members have every right to be offended. The fact that the NB failed to rebuke the NLO is likewise reason for offense. I suspect most of us glanced over that comment, since I think many of us realize that whatever the NB decided, it would not have any standing or result in any changes, so we did not waste our time reading the complete agenda item.

[Hawk200]

Judging from some of the responses, we could all probably benefit from some anger management classes.

I would be interested in hearing the NLO's comment in full context, but the statement itself is troubling. I agree that the branches have a right to allow or disallow their decs on other clothing, but the Army has already established precedent for allowing decs on civilian clothing.

Wear of decorations on the CSU seems perfectly fitting, and very much inline with the spirit of what the Army allows. As to the Air Force, it's puzzling to me that they wouldn't permit the wear of decs on their Auxiliary's uniform, especially considering the Army precedent. The Marines can be restrictive, and I don't see them changing that anytime soon. However, the other branches would be fair play. I agree that an effort should be made to obtain permission from each branch permitting wear on the CSU.

As to the comraderie shown by various groups, that isn't just limited to military vs. CAP. Tonight, I had a conversation with an Air Force cop at an ECP about how the Air Force is nowadays. I noted the change on his face when I told him that I was former Air Force, and he realized that I wasn't just "another stupid grunt" (a viewpoint that is out there, but not valid). My prior service in the Air Force gave me a credibility with him, instantly, that I would probably would never have had.

Prior service can build bridges, but any commonalities with any agencies we work with is beneficial. It can be anything, LE, teaching, working for the power company, being an accountant. Even my experience delivering pizza has proven to be a bridge (who would have thought that?). No one is second class here because of being non-prior service. Ever.

As to the uniform, the CAP blues are an Air Force uniform with CAP distinctive insignia. The uniform components are required to be from Air Force approved sources, and should be worn with all due respect to those airmen that have served in it and died for it. I can put Buick badges on a Mercedes, but that won't change what it is.

I strongly believe that this attitude that it is an "Air Force style" uniform is what contributes to many of our members wearing it improperly because they don't consider it important enough. That attitude is garbage, unprofessional, disrespectful, and dead wrong. If you don't feel that the Air Force variant is important enough to wear properly, then end your membership. Your behaviours are an impediment to our organization.

Personally, I'm am proud of, and honored to work with, members with no prior service that wear it with the same attention to detail, sometimes more so, than prior service members. It shows me a professional person that I can rely on. and our organization needs far more "professionals" than we have. Too many wear our uniforms as simply another set of clothes, instead of the symbol it is.

[Eclipse]

I strongly believe that this attitude that it is an "Air Force style" uniform is what contributes to many of our members wearing it improperly because they don't consider it important enough. That attitude is garbage, unprofessional, disrespectful, and dead wrong. If you don't feel that the Air Force variant is important enough to wear properly, then end your membership. Your behaviors are an impediment to our organization.

I assume your referring to the intent and effort to do things right out of respect, and not suggesting those who can't wear it, for whatever reason, should quit.

The fact remains that the term "USAF-Style" uniform is the proper terminology, look it up.  The blue service dress, BDU's and flightsuits are made up of (mostly) the same mil-spec components as the USAF uniform, are worn IAW regulations and traditions that are similar-to, or based-on USAF regulations and traditions, but they are not USAF uniforms.  That's based on regulation, not opinion.  Read 39-1.

Its not civilian dress by any means, but its not a military uniform, its a military-style uniform.  [darn] straight it needs to be respected, worn right, and appreciated for the honor it is to wear it, but we can't ignore the distinction and terminology just because it might degrade an argument.

As to the CSU, and even the Aviator whites, they may be comprised of civilian components, but the components themselves don't make their combined use "civilian dress" any more than the military components make CAP blues a military uniform. Especially in the context of an AR670 argument about being able to wear a decoration on them because they are "just" civilian clothes.  I don't think you guys mean it, but that is insulting to those of us who where them and take the time and effort to get it right.  The insinuation that its ok to break the corporate uniform regs because of some "ex-military mojo" just doesn't fly, and really set a distasteful tone that I doubt you actually mean.

And as we pointed out in another thread, the tags don't help the argument either - since the service coats from either one don't have a mil-spec tag, it could be argued that the CSU actually contains more mil-spec components than the USAF-Style blues because of the military grade epaulet sleeves and metal grade (its probably a wash).

Wouldn't this be a lot better if we all just respected each other, stopped trying to see who can mark the wall higher by comparing services and worried about the mission and the experience instead of the clothes?

[BuckeyeDEJ]

I wrote on another thread that the Air Force uniform that we wear is not an "Air Force-style" uniform. It's the Air Force's uniform with distinguishable CAP markings, as dictated and approved by the Air Staff through CAP-USAF.

While CAPM 39-1 uses that "Air Force-style" terminology, it's dead wrong. If it wasn't a real Air Force uniform, the Air Force wouldn't retain control over it, and the National Board could approve whatever it wanted. Whomever coined the name "Air Force-style uniform" misled a lot of people, and probably should be forced to wash a few dozen airplanes, at least.  (Unless that person will do some "style" of wash job.)

CAP can do whatever it likes with the white-and-grays, the golf shirt, whatever, even the expired-ICL TPU. But when it comes to the service blues, the BDU and the sage-green flight suit, the Air Force tells CAP what it can and cannot do. That's because those uniforms are Air Force uniforms.

There's no "style" about it.

[Eclipse]

^ That's where the argument falls apart - CAP is not free to "do whatever it wants with the whites" - we wear what big brother blue tells us and approves, regardless.

The fact that they don't always intervene when they see something they don't like doesn't limit their power over the corporate combos - the changes made (and recently not made) to the CSU are evidence of that.

Thinking anything else is just schoolyard lawyering that would not stand up.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

^ That's where the argument falls apart - CAP is not free to "do whatever it wants with the whites" - we wear what big brother blue tells us and approves, regardless.

The fact that they don't always intervene when they see something they don't like doesn't limit their power over the corporate combos - the changes made (and recently not made) to the CSU are evidence of that.

Thinking anything else is just schoolyard lawyering that would not stand up.

Eclipse, ol' buddy, did CAP-USAF approve the Pineda suit? Does it dictate the white-and-grays? Or the blazer combination, or the golf shirt?

Changes to the Pineda suit were made because of backtracking and Air Force pressure, and with good reason. The double-breasted uniform was conceived to subvert Air Force jurisdiction, and I would dare say, leave a lasting visual legacy for the former national commander.

I'd venture to say that as long as CAP members are wearing an "authorized uniform" aboard CAP airplanes and in CAP activities, the parent service doesn't care about the CAP civilian combinations.

But boy, I'd enjoy the Air Force stepping in more often. And if there's an anti-military feeling in our ranks, or a feeling that CAP needs to be more civilian or "softer," I'd really enjoy seeing that squeezed out in a hurry. We joined the Air Force's uniformed civilian auxiliary to make a difference in what is at least a semi-military environment. We didn't join the Boy Scouts or the Peace Corps.

Kach has every right to be put out, if you ask me. I didn't hear the national legal officer's comments, but if what's been put forth here is true, I'm shocked.

[Eclipse]

But boy, I'd enjoy the Air Force stepping in more often. And if there's an anti-military feeling in our ranks, or a feeling that CAP needs to be more civilian or "softer," I'd really enjoy seeing that squeezed out in a hurry. We joined the Air Force's uniformed civilian auxiliary to make a difference in what is at least a semi-military environment. We didn't join the Boy Scouts or the Peace Corps.

Here we agree, and your point above is probably the only thing that really matters in all this..

[jb512]

I'm glad I missed this thread until now because I'd have jumped in the middle and twisted off on a few things that seem to have been hashed out now.

I'm one of those who joined the "Air Force Light" because of how some people in the CAP community are and how it is viewed by outside agencies.  I was a cadet, been in law enforcement for 12 years, and came back into CAP.  I saw quite quickly how the organization was viewed and how some members handled their business and that's what pushed me to join the AF Reserve.

It's just a basic fact that if you walk into a scene as a CAP member and you have law enforcement/fire/ems and/or military experience, you get some pretty instant "street cred" and that's just human nature.

To make a remark that military ribbons or badges are "inappropriate" on a military auxiliary uniform was nowhere near an intelligent response.  I believe I will be writing a letter also.

Just my two cents a little late in the thread, I know.

[Hawk200]

I assume your referring to the intent and effort to do things right out of respect, and not suggesting those who can't wear it, for whatever reason, should quit.

Yes, I was referring to it being worn properly out of respect, and had nothing to do with those who are wearing an alternate. I also resent your skewing it by stating that assumption in that manner. That's twisting words into something different.

The fact remains that the term "USAF-Style" uniform is the proper terminology, look it up. 

I know quite well what it says, but it's inaccurate. It's an Air Force uniform, utilized by the Air Force, approved by the Air Force for Civil Air Patrol wear with CAP distinctive insignia. And if you recall previous versions of 39-1, you'd know that it didn't always call it an "Air Force style" uniform. Like I said before, I can put Buick badges on a Mercedes, but it doesn't change what it is. That's what the writer of 39-1 is trying to, probably unintenionally.

The blue service dress, BDU's and flightsuits are made up of (mostly) the same mil-spec components as the USAF uniform, are worn IAW regulations and traditions that are similar-to, or based-on USAF regulations and traditions, but they are not USAF uniforms.  That's based on regulation, not opinion.  Read 39-1.

Its not civilian dress by any means, but its not a military uniform, its a military-style uniform.  [darn] straight it needs to be respected, worn right, and appreciated for the honor it is to wear it, but we can't ignore the distinction and terminology just because it might degrade an argument.

You're trying to win the argument based on technicalities and semantics, not on reality. I know what the pub says, I read it monthly, along with the ICL's on uniforms. Doesn't change fact. You can technically win the argument, which I know is all that matters to you, but it's not keeping in with reality. But if it's that important to you, you win.

Wouldn't this be a lot better if we all just respected each other, stopped trying to see who can mark the wall higher by comparing services and worried about the mission and the experience instead of the clothes?

From the tone of the thread, no one is trying to make anything higher than anything else. It's simply a matter of terminology that needs to be accurate, and points about what service is. Nothing about anything being superior to anything else.

As to the "respect", the NLO's statement shows a distinct and blatantly ignorant lack of it. That's an issue that should be addressed as well.

Maybe it's best this thread dies. I don't think anything good is gonna come out of it.

[Major Carrales]

Point of Order...

We have been debating alleged words from an NLO (National Legal Officer)...

Who is the National Legal Officer?  Is it not called a General Counsel?

[Eclipse]

You're trying to win the argument based on technicalities and semantics, not on reality. I know what the pub says, I read it monthly, along with the ICL's on uniforms. Doesn't change fact. You can technically win the argument, which I know is all that matters to you, but it's not keeping in with reality. But if it's that important to you, you win.

I'm making the point that the USAF had a very good reason for the "semantics" it used - you don't come up with terminology like that by accident.

Its interesting how regulations and terminology matter when they support someone's point, but are just either "semantics" or  a mistake when they don't.

Quoting what a reg used to say doesn't mean much here either. CAP used to do a lot of things. If anything it adds more weight to my point, someone or some group of CAP and USAF people fairly recently, thought is was important enough to make the distinction, my guess it happened sometime in the berry-board era, a distinction that is made in every official reference to USAF uniform parts worn by CAP members.

The clear intent of the term "USAF-style uniform" was to seperate it from being a "military" uniform or a "USAF uniform".

[Hawk200]

OK, tell you what. I'll throw in a situation that's probably far less hypothetical than it sounds.

An Air Force officer, who is also a CAP officer, goes to work one morning, wearing blues. For the sake of the hypothesis, we'll call it short sleeve blues, no tie, no ribbons, nothing fancy. Figuring that he will probably be working a little later, he carries in his pocket a CAP nametag, a pair of CAP officer epaulettes, and a CAP officer hat device.

Upon leaving work, he goes to a meeting that night. While sitting in his POV, he changes his nametag, epaulettes, and his hat device to CAP insignia. Now what has fundamentally altered his atttire that he is no longer wearing an Air Force uniform? What has magically changed his attire to something that isn't Air Force? Do you see the point I'm making?

Now, I personally consider it an Air Force variant. Much like Air Force members that wear ACU's are wearing an Army variant uniform. It's a matter of insignia. Just changing the tags doesn't alter what it is, it doesn't become an Army "style" uniform.

Second, you and I both know that the Air Force did not write the current, or probably even the last three CAPM 39-1's. I'd imagine that the last one they did have a hand in was probably the 1970 dated one, if even that one. I would seriously doubt that they had any actual input on the 39-1 in almost the last 40 years. It would probably be far better organized if they did.

But back to the original question of mil decs on the CSU. Would it be so horribly wrong to even ask the various branches if it would be OK? How do we know that the various branches wouldn't be all for it? I don't think anyone here can say with any legitimate proof (not conjecture, but hard evidence) that they would all say no. Maybe if we packaged it right, made sure it sounded like a request rather than a demand, we might get their blessings.

[Eclipse]

Upon leaving work, he goes to a meeting that night. While sitting in his POV, he changes his nametag, epaulets, and his hat device to CAP insignia. Now what has fundamentally altered his attire that he is no longer wearing an Air Force uniform? What has magically changed his attire to something that isn't Air Force? Do you see the point I'm making?

I see the point you're reaching for and it doesn't hold.  While configured as required by CAP, it is not a USAF "variant", if for no other reason than no one in the Air Force could wear it legally while on Air Force duty.

Its not the components that define whether something is a military uniform or not, or even a uniform at all, it is the specific configuration and wear of the components together that delineate that.

It would only be an Air Force "variant" if members of the USAF could wear it on USAF duty.

And obviously the USAF most certainly did approve and had input into the current 39-1, its a regulation that requires compliance with their directives.   The term "USAF-style" predates me, so that's at least 10 years, and as I said, my guess is the term came with or around the time of the berry boards, though perhaps someone else would know.

The berry board situation, as well as the ongoing issues with our general officer grade, subdued on the flightsuit, etc., etc., should be evidence enough of ongoing USAF involvement in 39-1.

[Fifinella]

I probably should just let it go, but...

I find it interesting that in defending one person's honor, folks here have managed to insult others' honor.  Not our finest moment. 

[Hawk200]

I probably should just let it go, but...

I find it interesting that in defending one person's honor, folks here have managed to insult others' honor.  Not our finest moment. 

Point taken.

[ZigZag911]

Actually we're dealing with two diverse attitudes toward uniforms which, in this particular instance, merge to the disadvantage of CAP members whoa re veterans:

1) the historic USAF desire for a "plain blue suit" when they split off from the Army in 1947; I've always viewed this as the "if you're not wearing wings, who cares what else you've accomplished" point of view...perhaps I'm being harsh, but that's always been my interpretation....anyway, there is certainly a school of thought today in USAF that wants to return to the far simpler uniform

2) CAP "corporate mentality", which has been discussed elsewhere here in great detail; essentially, those who hold this view would prefer all seniors wore the blazer, very plain flightsuit or something similar for field work

Frankly, I've felt for a long time that it is scandalous that CAP (or the Air Force) restricts veterans from wearing their earned recognition in CAP uniform; if it requires a change in federal law, then we ought to request it.

Please note that I am not a veteran.

One last thought -- does anyone know how this is handled by Coast Guard Auxiliary? It would make an interesting comparison.