I need to attend an anger management class today.

[MIKE]

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

You can wear military ribbons and badges on the service uniforms (Trops, SDB, etc) IAW AUXMAN Chapters 10/11... but IIRC the utility uniforms (ODU or working blue) and bags restricted WRT badges at the moment.  But... the rule on uniforms is pretty much you can wear it if you can get one that you can fit into... and your beard meets specs... And if you don't, wear the blazer.

[Eclipse]

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

Simpler as in the McPeak-style?  The last round of updates to the service coat would seem to conflict with that - they have been moving back to the 4-pocket Hap Arnold style.

[ßτε]

CAPM 39-1, 1 Jan 77 (Earliest I have)

Civil Air Patrol members are authorized to wear a uniform similar to the US Air Force uniform, the difference being that distinctive emblems, buttons, insignia, and badges are employed to identify the wearer as a member of CAP.

I added the emphasis. Note that at the time, the USAF had complete control over the uniform.

[JohnKachenmeister]

I think somewhere in the AFI it refers to CAP being authorized to wear the USAF uniform "With certain distinctive identifying insignia."

[Eclipse]

I think somewhere in the AFI it refers to CAP being authorized to wear the USAF uniform "With certain distinctive identifying insignia."

Good call.

1.3. Status of CAP Personnel. CAP is not a military service and its members are not subject to the
UCMJ. CAP members voluntarily perform Air Force-assigned missions. CAP membership does not confer
upon an individual any of the rights, privileges, prerogatives or benefits of military personnel, active,
reserve, or retired. While CAP is not a military service, it uses an Air Force-style grade structure and its
members may wear Air Force-style uniforms when authorized. Air Force protocol requirements do not
apply to CAP members.

So at least 32 years of CAP regs, as well as the official regulation which governs the USAF relationship with CAP, refer to the blue service dress as "similar" or "style".  That's not semantics, and its not a mistake.  That's a deliberate distinction made for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is support non-military status.

Also, for the record regarding out designation:

The Civil Air Patrol (CAP) is a Federally chartered non-profit corporation that may be utilized as a civilian
volunteer auxiliary of the Air Force. The Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF) can employ the services
of CAP in lieu of or to supplement Air Force resources to fulfill the non-combat programs and missions
of the Air Force. Such services may include Air Force-assigned missions (AFAMs) in support of homeland
security operations, consequence management, support to civilian law enforcement, and other civil
support. Certain CAP cadet and aerospace educational programs may also be approved and assigned as
Air Force non-combat missions. When performing Air Force-assigned programs and missions, CAP
assets function as an auxiliary of the Air Force. CAP is not authorized to perform AFAMs outside of the
territories of the United States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico without specific authorization.
Refer to Appendix 1 for the history and organization of the Civil Air Patrol.

[JohnKachenmeister]

How far we have come:

"The greatest honor that a man can receive is to bear arms under his country's flag."

--  George S. Patton, 1945.


"We are a non-combatant organization, therefore all combat badges of whatever type are inappropriate for wear."

--  Civil Air Patrol NLO, 2009

[Eclipse]

I think you're reaching a bit, John.

[JohnKachenmeister]

I think you're reaching a bit, John.

I don't think so.  The impression I get is that at least the NLO is embarrassed to have combat veterans in his "Non-combatant" organization.  In order to "Fit in" we will need to divest ourselves of the indicia of our combat service.

[RocketPropelled]

I don't think so.  The impression I get is that at least the NLO is embarrassed to have combat veterans in his "Non-combatant" organization.  In order to "Fit in" we will need to divest ourselves of the indicia of our combat service.

I'll play Devil's advocate -- while wearing a corporate service uniform, why does one need to wear proof of one's combat service?  I tend to believe this is the point to Col Herrin's statement, rather than some sort of anti-military agenda.  At the very least, Col Herrin's certainly had enough experience at the squadron, group, wing, and region level that any anti-military hate would've probably cost him considerably by now. (Col Herrin's also not a bad guy, from what I could tell in person. But I could be wrong.)

No one's trying to remove the approved (and documented) military insignia from the Air Force variant uniforms, last I checked. So if a member wears the military uniform, the member can still wear his or her military insignia.

I'm pretty sure no one intended to personally insult combat veterans and their honored service by saying "y'know, maybe the CIB and Air Assault badge and the military ribbons shouldn't go on this uniform."

Unintended consequences? Obviously.

Anti-military witch hunt? Doubtful.

[billford1]

Aux, Last year there was a pretty ambitious effort to make changes to the corporate uniform set in terms of its makeup and who could wear it. At some point I suppose the AF weighed in and the whole thing it seems went radio silent. Are you aware of specifics from the AF regarding changes to the TPU/CSU and what final ruling has been handed down to put an end to what was to amount to a corporate uniform alignment?

[JohnKachenmeister]

I don't think so.  The impression I get is that at least the NLO is embarrassed to have combat veterans in his "Non-combatant" organization.  In order to "Fit in" we will need to divest ourselves of the indicia of our combat service.

I'll play Devil's advocate -- while wearing a corporate service uniform, why does one need to wear proof of one's combat service?  I tend to believe this is the point to Col Herrin's statement, rather than some sort of anti-military agenda.  At the very least, Col Herrin's certainly had enough experience at the squadron, group, wing, and region level that any anti-military hate would've probably cost him considerably by now. (Col Herrin's also not a bad guy, from what I could tell in person. But I could be wrong.)

No one's trying to remove the approved (and documented) military insignia from the Air Force variant uniforms, last I checked. So if a member wears the military uniform, the member can still wear his or her military insignia.

I'm pretty sure no one intended to personally insult combat veterans and their honored service by saying "y'know, maybe the CIB and Air Assault badge and the military ribbons shouldn't go on this uniform."

Unintended consequences? Obviously.

Anti-military witch hunt? Doubtful.

It isn't a matter of "Need" to prove combat service.  The NLO thinks we should CONCEAL it as "Inappropriate."

[SarDragon]

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.

The 1987 version of 39-1 calls it "military style Air Force uniform." The 1968 version makes no such mention or distinction.

[Hawk200]

The 1968 version makes no such mention or distinction.

As an aside, would you have a spare copy of that 1968 manual? Trying to build my collection of older uniform manuals.

[Hawk200]

It isn't a matter of "Need" to prove combat service.  The NLO thinks we should CONCEAL it as "Inappropriate."

Ironic, considering that I've seen ads online, and military distribution messages that attempt to actively recruit current, prior and retired military personnel. Apparently, they want the experience the military brings, but some consider the trappings "inappropriate".

Kinda reminds me of the dogs that Sean Connery talked about in the "Presidio".

[SarDragon]

The 1968 version makes no such mention or distinction.

As an aside, would you have a spare copy of that 1968 manual? Trying to build my collection of older uniform manuals.

Nope. I got that one on eBay for $20. Nor am I willing to disassemble it to copy or scan it.

[Hawk200]

Nope. I got that one on eBay for $20. Nor am I willing to disassemble it to copy or scan it.

Perfectly understandable, I wouldn't do it with any of mine either. Got a few of them, but I'm not even sure which ones I'm missing.

[JayT]

I don't think so.  The impression I get is that at least the NLO is embarrassed to have combat veterans in his "Non-combatant" organization.  In order to "Fit in" we will need to divest ourselves of the indicia of our combat service.

I'll play Devil's advocate -- while wearing a corporate service uniform, why does one need to wear proof of one's combat service?  I tend to believe this is the point to Col Herrin's statement, rather than some sort of anti-military agenda.  At the very least, Col Herrin's certainly had enough experience at the squadron, group, wing, and region level that any anti-military hate would've probably cost him considerably by now. (Col Herrin's also not a bad guy, from what I could tell in person. But I could be wrong.)

No one's trying to remove the approved (and documented) military insignia from the Air Force variant uniforms, last I checked. So if a member wears the military uniform, the member can still wear his or her military insignia.

I'm pretty sure no one intended to personally insult combat veterans and their honored service by saying "y'know, maybe the CIB and Air Assault badge and the military ribbons shouldn't go on this uniform."

Unintended consequences? Obviously.

Anti-military witch hunt? Doubtful.

It isn't a matter of "Need" to prove combat service.  The NLO thinks we should CONCEAL it as "Inappropriate."

Is that really what he said, or is it what you think he meant?

[PORed]

Could you go back and point out where I said you or anyone else was a second class citizen? 

He is not saying that a non-prior service member is not worth as much as a a prior service member. He is saying that when you are able to wear your ribbons , show people where you have been and what you have done, you have an easier time in establishing a comminality with other military members. With ribbons, medals and badges, you can show what you have done military service wise. If he was not wearing his ribbons at the time, the USMC members would not have approached him about CAP and as such was able to talk to them about CAP, set them straight on it and maybe got them interested in work with it.

[JohnKachenmeister]

I don't think so.  The impression I get is that at least the NLO is embarrassed to have combat veterans in his "Non-combatant" organization.  In order to "Fit in" we will need to divest ourselves of the indicia of our combat service.

I'll play Devil's advocate -- while wearing a corporate service uniform, why does one need to wear proof of one's combat service?  I tend to believe this is the point to Col Herrin's statement, rather than some sort of anti-military agenda.  At the very least, Col Herrin's certainly had enough experience at the squadron, group, wing, and region level that any anti-military hate would've probably cost him considerably by now. (Col Herrin's also not a bad guy, from what I could tell in person. But I could be wrong.)

No one's trying to remove the approved (and documented) military insignia from the Air Force variant uniforms, last I checked. So if a member wears the military uniform, the member can still wear his or her military insignia.

I'm pretty sure no one intended to personally insult combat veterans and their honored service by saying "y'know, maybe the CIB and Air Assault badge and the military ribbons shouldn't go on this uniform."

Unintended consequences? Obviously.

Anti-military witch hunt? Doubtful.

It isn't a matter of "Need" to prove combat service.  The NLO thinks we should CONCEAL it as "Inappropriate."

Is that really what he said, or is it what you think he meant?

My quote was accurate and I have provided the context.  It is on page 81 of the NB Agenda if you want to check it out yourself.

[PORed]

John,
the NLO can only suggest it because he has no control over the USAF uniforms. If the USAF didn't want badges on its uniforms they would do something similar to what the USCG did, that you can only wear Badges that you earn in USCG service. Now the NLO can say you can not wear ribbons, medals, and badges on the corporate uniforms because it is a CAP created uniform. I would say wear the SDBs. I have some larger guys in my unit and wing that still wear the USAF uniform. A bunch of the guys are prior and wear their CIB so I say don't sweat it.