Getting rid of the AF service uniform

[Short Field]

I'm not sure what your point is? Those organizations have similar guidelines to ours: Navy uniforms for those who meet guidelines and alternates for the F&F -- and they are not even a military aux.

http://www.usavr.net/

If you can afford to buy it, you can wear it...

[lordmonar]

I'm not sure what your point is? Those organizations have similar guidelines to ours: Navy uniforms for those who meet guidelines and alternates for the F&F -- and they are not even a military aux.

http://www.usavr.net/

If you can afford to buy it, you can wear it...

Now that is just mean, low, and down right funny! 

[OldSalt]

Basically the whole issue really is the double-standard in the wear of uniform accouterments on the grays as opposed to the AF blues. The only issue left unattended here is that with the blues we have a dress coat, and the grays have none. I made up the following "summary draft proposal" that shows what the problem really is and how to fix it:

Executive Overview

The current uniform policy as outlined within CAPM 39-1 contains language that is confusing to many senior members and appears to contain a definable "double-standard" in service dress uniform wear that perpetuates, as some members have expressed, a climate of unwarranted discrimination. This perception of discrimination significantly hampers our efforts to promote proper uniform wear, and to cultivate greater Esprit de Corp.

This proposal seeks to positively address and remedy this situation by offering clear and concise changes to the current policy as stated in CAPM 39-1, while continuing to promote the wear of currently authorized AF-Style and CAP Distinctive service dress uniforms that are in keeping with the highest professional standards of the Civil Air Patrol and the United States Air Force.

Foundation

The Civil Air Patrol, as the Auxiliary of the United States Air Force, has both the distinct honor and the charge to uphold the greatest aspects of professionalism and to exemplify our significant military tradition and heritage. From our inception in 1941, throughout World War II and the early days of our official relationship with the United States Air Force, the Civil Air Patrol (as a civilian paramilitary organization) adopted the use of military-style uniforms for its members. Over time, changes have been made to our overall mission and governance, and unfortunate conflicts of interest have arisen due to individual personalities that have allowed our proud uniform tradition to become muddied and unclear.

In recent years, and especially in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and the continuing Global War on Terror, there is a renewed interest in promoting both our military heritage as an organization, and promoting widespread recognition that many of our volunteer members are also themselves military veterans and proud of both their current CAP service and their continuing or prior military service.

As a side effect of our role as an all-volunteer civilian paramilitary community service organization and our bond with the United States Air Force as the Air Force Auxiliary; where there was once one uniform for all members, our uniform policy has been split into two separate paths – the first is known as the CAP Air Force Style (AF-Style) uniform and the second is known as the CAP Distinctive uniform. The irony is that while this progression (initiated with all good intentions) has been allowed to continue, the CAP Distinctive uniform is now in a position of being considered "second class" and less prestigious to wear than the CAP Air Force Style uniform, when in reality, both uniforms are "CAP Distinctive". Neither the AF-Style nor the CAP Distinctive uniforms are United States Air Force regulation uniforms. This perception of CAP Distinctive uniforms being "second class" (whether real or inferred) is perpetuated by regulations that do not treat the wearing of military service award ribbons and permanently awarded military aviation badges equally.

It is noted that these policies were not put in place specifically in order to curtail the wearing of lawfully earned military service awards on CAP uniforms, however, given that the wearing of the CAP AF-Style uniform is currently not available for wear to all members of CAP equally, the result is significant negative impact on unit cohesiveness and the overall Esprit de Corp of CAP's military veteran members.

By maintaining regulation language that maintains a "separate but equal" status between both tracts of CAP Distinctive uniforms, CAP as a whole is maintaining policies that are reminiscent of the very well known 1896 United States Supreme Court case of Plessy v. Ferguson. Only in CAP's case, the perceived discrimination is not founded along racial lines, but upon physical condition and grooming lines not directly related to a member's former military service. To those military veteran members who cannot wear the AF-Style uniform, CAP's message is clear – your military achievements are held in less regard than those members who can wear the AF-Style uniform.

Evidence

Below are graphic representations of the two uniform iterations in question taken from CAPM 39-1:
CAP AF-Style Short Sleeve CAP Aviator Short Sleeve
(pictures not able to be copied in here)

Specific wear policy criteria compared:
Grade Insignia: Same for both versions
Nameplate: Same for both versions
CAP Command Badge: Same for both versions
CAP Specialty Badges: Same for both versions
CAP Aviation Badges and Specialty Insignia: Same for both versions
Ribbon Placement: Same for both versions
CAP Ribbons: Same for both versions
Military Aviation Badges and Service Award Ribbons: AF-Style – May wear, CAP Aviator – May Not wear

Remedy

To end the current "separate but equal" status, end member confusion, increase unit cohesion, increase uniform acceptance and wear, unite community recognition of our organization, and increase Esprit de Corp, language contained within the current version of CAPM 39-1 should be changed so that there is no difference in the regulation concerning the wearing of lawfully earned military service awards and military aviation badges. Both CAP Distinctive uniform tracts, (currently known as the "AF-Style" and the "CAP Distinctive"), should be treated as fully-equal in their wear and appurtenances at all echelons within CAP, especially where both iterations of these uniforms are significantly the same in style and wear, and the only real difference between them is fabric color.

[Fuzzy]

Sir, that's just crazy.... The National Commander wears the CAP distinctive uniform. Many region and wing commanders do. I really doubt they're "segregating" themselves.

Its in poor taste that you would make that comparison between such vastly different situations. At least to me.

Second, I believe the military badge and ribbon issue was due to the armed forces themselves, not because of CAP.

[tdepp]

By maintaining regulation language that maintains a "separate but equal" status between both tracts of CAP Distinctive uniforms, CAP as a whole is maintaining policies that are reminiscent of the very well known 1896 United States Supreme Court case of Plessy v. Ferguson. Only in CAP's case, the perceived discrimination is not founded along racial lines, but upon physical condition and grooming lines not directly related to a member's former military service. To those military veteran members who cannot wear the AF-Style uniform, CAP's message is clear – your military achievements are held in less regard than those members who can wear the AF-Style uniform.

Newbie:

I understand what you're saying.  It's unfair that not all of our members get to wear the AF-style uniform (myself included).

But citing Plessy v. Ferguson is way over the top.  One can't do anything about their race.  But one has a choice as to at least grooming and, I'd argue for in the case of most people, weight as well.  Race is a protected class legally and faces the highest constitutional scrutiny.  Appearance is not la egally protected class UNLESS it is a pretext to discriminate on some other basis, such as race, gender, disability, national origin, religion, etc. 

And wearing a uniform, I would argue, is not a protected legal right.  It is a privilege based on membership, achievement, and following certain guildelines.  The USAF has the right to approve or disapprove how THEIR uniform is worn.  We work for them, they don't work for us.

If the denial of some CAP members wearing the AF-style uniform is a pretext for discrimination against people in the protected legal classes noted above, then it would be discrimination IMO.   So far, federal law does not recognize grooming and weight as protected classes.  Should they be?  It appears you would argue they should be.   I could see weight as maybe falling under disability under the right set of circumstances.  But overeating and not exercising don't suddenly give someone legal rights.  If they have a medically recognized disorder (such as what the Social Security Administration) recognizes, then I'd buy your argument as to weight.

At the most, if the uniform guidelines have some sort of rational basis to the performance of duties and the esteem in which the branch of the military is held, I don't see this being even remotely considered discrimination.

Even if these new groups are "protected," I'd say the corporate uniforms are a "reasonable accomodation" to those with grooming or weight issues.  Further, as I think Plessy says (it's been a while) or perhaps Brown v. Board of Education says, I find it hard to believe that wearing a corporate uniform in a voluntary organization is "a badge of discrimination" or shame or dishonor or whatever.  Could a creative lawyer make such an argument?  Certainly.  Is it a winner?  Doubtful IMHO.

It would be like us promoting Cadets, particularly to the major awards, and they have not met all the requirements.  Already, the USAF gives us 10% overweight bonus that they don't give their own members.

I can understand if people want to wear beards and ponytails (used to have one) or handlebar moustaches (know a member who has one) or wear their hair long.  But even the Dominos Pizza delivery guy or gal has certain minimum grooming standards.  And as to the fatties out there like me who have no one to blame but themselves?  Push away from the table and exercise.  Again, folks with medical conditions might be a different situation.

Perhaps CAP could turn this into a positive and institute PT or lifetime fitness as a part of the SM program. 

One of the things CAP teaches and maintains for all its members is standards and achieving those standards.  I know a former wing commander who used to be an F-4 USAF pilot who would not wear the AF-style uniform because he said he didn't want to dishonor it by not meeting the standards.  He wears the CSU, proudly I might add.  That gave me not just perspective but a role model--the uniform MEANS something. 

Sorry for going on so long.  You know us lawyers. . .

[OldSalt]

Sir, that's just crazy.... The National Commander wears the CAP distinctive uniform. Many region and wing commanders do. I really doubt they're "segregating" themselves.

Its in poor taste that you would make that comparison between such vastly different situations. At least to me.

Second, I believe the military badge and ribbon issue was due to the armed forces themselves, not because of CAP.

Sorry, I have a long reply but it got removed when I used spell check and the system said someone posted while I was replying. I'll redo it and resubmit.

[tdepp]

Sir, that's just crazy.... The National Commander wears the CAP distinctive uniform. Many region and wing commanders do. I really doubt they're "segregating" themselves.

Its in poor taste that you would make that comparison between such vastly different situations. At least to me.

Second, I believe the military badge and ribbon issue was due to the armed forces themselves, not because of CAP.

Sorry, I have a long reply but it got removed when I used spell check and the system said someone posted while I was replying. I'll redo it and resubmit.

Newbie:

I hope you didn't think I cam down on you too hard.  Seeing a comparison to one of the worst results in US Supreme Court history that kept blacks and other minorities from their full measure of civil rights as Americans and not being able to wear a certain uniform kind of set me off.

Thanks for joining CAP and participating on this board in a respectful manner.  We all learn from each other's ideas and perspectives.

[Eclipse]

I don't think we should look in the direction of any insinuation this is a legal issue.  Comparing ourselves to landmark civil rights cases may make for easy conversational shorthand, but is somewhat disrespectful to those who really suffered and shows a little hubris as well.

The issue is one of basic equal respect for equal effort for all volunteers.  A significant and important portion of our membership, people in key roles who would be missed, will never be able to wear a USAF combination under the current rules.

At a minimum they deserve the same respect for their service and the same options to show off their accomplishments as every other member.   The solutions are simple, but require some compromise on all sides, and a little will in the head office.

That's all this is.

[OldSalt]

Sir, that's just crazy.... The National Commander wears the CAP distinctive uniform. Many region and wing commanders do. I really doubt they're "segregating" themselves.

I do not believe the National Commander is an active-duty military veteran herself, so she has no military achievements to display whether choosing to wear the CAP "Distinctive" dress uniform or the CAP AF-Style. She has no need to feel that her military achievements go unnoticed or under-appreciated by her peers. Please don't misunderstand me, I do not mean any disrespect to any CAP member whether they are a military veteran, or not. CAP service is honorable and very worthy of praise and recognition.

Its in poor taste that you would make that comparison between such vastly different situations.

You are missing the point I am making. By making reference to the Plessy v. Ferguson case I am more specifically referencing the commonly held legal doctrine of the time that said that there was no problem in having two "separate but equal" ways of treating the same citizens. This applies perfectly in our case because CAP is saying that there is no difference in the way that military veterans are treated in CAP no matter which dress uniform is worn – the CAP "AF-Style" or the CAP "Distinctive". This simply is not the case as it works out in reality. Both dress uniforms are designed in essentially the same style and for the same purposes. They are both worn interchangeably under the same circumstances. The only major differences are in the accouterments worn and the colors.

With the current regulations, a military veteran CAP member can wear the CAP AF-Style uniform and display their past military achievements without fuss, but take that same military veteran CAP member and have them gain too much weight so they can no longer wear the CAP AF-Style uniform and they are now stripped of the ability of being able to display those same military achievements.

This is a clear double-standard in CAP where the result is that military veteran members are segregated out from other military veterans just for gaining weight? What we're saying to our military veteran members is that visibly recognizing your military achievements is not dependent on whether or not you earned them lawfully, but whether or not you are overweight. This is especially disturbing where the organization enforcing this is specifically military oriented and who has a mission that specifically promotes the virtues of military service.

Second, I believe the military badge and ribbon issue was due to the armed forces themselves, not because of CAP.

This is a Red-Herring mythical argument not based on fact. Both the CAP "AF-Style" and the CAP "Distinctive" uniforms are civilian organization clothing. They both are not military service uniforms and they both are distinctly CAP corporate uniforms. Show me the military service regulations (including the AF) that specifically state that CAP dress uniforms of any style are military service uniforms where the wearing of military awards and decorations is arbitrarily accepted as it is between the various military services.

CAP's Governance is very intertwined with the U.S. Air Force and does not stand alone. Our Board of Governors is in part made up of U.S. Air Force members, and CAP-USAF is staffed by U.S. Air Force personnel. These positions are filled with personnel based solely upon their Air Force status and not any CAP status. It is CAP (including its AF components) that is in charge of our uniform regulations. To say that "it is the armed forces themselves" intimates that the Air Force is not involved in any way and completely divorced from regulating and governing CAP. This simply is not true.

CAP is not the Air Force, and CAP Officers are not Air Force Officers and I can certainly understand that some current Air Force Officers may not want to be confused with any potential "overweight and unshaven CAP pretenders", however, there are many past Air Force and other U.S. military services veterans and decorated combat veterans who are CAP Officers. Are their past or current military achievements any less worthy of display on their U.S. Air Force Auxiliary dress uniforms than yours are on your Air Force uniform?

If you're an overweight military veteran CAP member, the answer according to the current regulations is, YES.

[lordmonar]

The point is.....right now.....in the field there IS a class distinction between those in different uniform.  It is not really that big of a player, but it does exist.

Secondly.....The main issue IMHO is not about fairness to one group or the other.....it is about why we wear uniforms.  We wear them to show unit...both internally and externally.

Right now...today.....if you were to open a large exercise you will get 8 different uniforms.

BDUs
BBDUs
Green Flight Suits
Blue Flight Suits
Blue on Blue USAF
White on Blue CSU
White on Grey Corp Uniform
Polo on Grey Corp Uniform

And that is before you add the variations (long sleeve, short sleeve, tie/no tie, Jackets, service coats, sweaters, etc, etc, etc, ad nausium.

When our customer has to ask why one pilot is in blue flight suit and the other in green....the explanation is almost given in negative terms....."Oh, he can't wear the green flight suit because he does not meet USAF standards".

"He does not meet standards" is NOT something our customers want to hear.

I want to eliminate the two uniform systems...because we don't need two uniforms!  We need one...that is acceptable to both CAP and the USAF.

I like the idea of just using the USAF Coat, hat, etc, with Gray Pants and the gray epaulets.  The only thing we would need to change is to standardise the pants....and that should not really be that hard.

We go with the BBDU.....or maybe even switch to a different color....Proper makes a nice looking Gray one.
We could probably get everyone into the green flight suits if we removed the rank from the shoulders....if we are too married to keeping the rank on the shoulders then we need to switch to a blue flight suit and just live with the fact that there will be no way to find a surplus supply and have to pay full price.  An alternate to this is just make the BBDU/GBDU the standard flying uniform and go away from flight suits altogether.

Of course all of this is only for the Senior Members.  Cadets stay with USAF uniforms.

[MichaelAGates]

I'm not sure what your point is? Those organizations have similar guidelines to ours: Navy uniforms for those who meet guidelines and alternates for the F&F -- and they are not even a military aux.

http://www.usavr.net/

If you can afford to buy it, you can wear it...

Some groups outside the Armed Forces have offical permission to wear uniforms of the Armed Forces. Those groups are listed in federal law and in the regulations of the various branches, along with any limitations on wear. State Defense Forces for example are mentioned in Army Regulation 670-1, Section 30-8. However, groups like the United States Army Volunteer Reserve could have its members arrested as they are breaking the law by wearing military uniforms without authority. I am part of a project being organized to draw more attention to the criminal activity of those in military uniforms without authority.


United States Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 33,Sec. 702.

TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 33 - EMBLEMS, INSIGNIA, AND NAMES

Sec. 702. - Uniform of armed forces and Public Health Service

Whoever, in any place within the jurisdiction of the United States or in the Canal Zone, without authority, wears the uniform or a distinctive part thereof or anything similar to a distinctive part of the uniform of any of the armed forces of the United States, Public Health Service or any auxiliary of such, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

...and...

United States Code Title 10, Subtitle A, Part II, Chapter 45

§ 771. Unauthorized wearing prohibited

Except as otherwise provided by law, no person except a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps, as the case may be, may wear—

(1) the uniform, or a distinctive part of the uniform, of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps; or

(2) a uniform any part of which is similar to a distinctive part of the uniform of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps.

[tdepp]

Newbie:

I think you make a good point about the military ribbons.  Seems if you earned them you should be able to wear them on either the AF or CSU uniform.  Perhaps someone can explain why the difference exists? 

Thanks.

[vmstan]

Wow Newbie, I was with you the 100% the entire way until the Plessy v Ferguson part, when you really jumped off the deep end.

[Slim]

I don't think we should look in the direction of any insinuation this is a legal issue.  Comparing ourselves to landmark civil rights cases may make for easy conversational shorthand, but is somewhat disrespectful to those who really suffered and shows a little hubris as well.

The issue is one of basic equal respect for equal effort for all volunteers.  A significant and important portion of our membership, people in key roles who would be missed, will never be able to wear a USAF combination under the current rules.

At a minimum they deserve the same respect for their service and the same options to show off their accomplishments as every other member.   The solutions are simple, but require some compromise on all sides, and a little will in the head office.

That's all this is.

I think I know where Bob's going with this.  Let me see if I'm right.

First, regarding equal respect.  Prior to the introduction of the CSU, customs and courtesies were not clearly applied to corporate, distinctive uniforms.  Example, a cadet approaches two officers, and renders the proper courtesy (a salute in this case), the senior of the two returns it.  However, the senior of the two is wearing grey/white, and the cadet says "I wasn't saluting you, I was saluting Capt Highspeed", who was in the AF style uniform.  True story, it happened to me.

CAPP 151 used to say that members in corporate uniforms didn't salute during the National Anthem, but instead stood with their hand over their heart.  Member in white/grey, serving as a deputy encampment commander, standing on the reviewing stand, saluting during the National Anthem is nudged persistently by a visiting officer from NHQ during the entire time, practically to the point of physically lowering the member's arm.  Afterwards, it's pointed out that we can't salute unless we're in a military uniform.  My response was "Neither is my fire dept uniform, but you can bet we salute every day when we raise or lower the colors in front of the house."  My chief was an Army reserve DI at the time; you better believe we rendered courtesies, and did it properly.

CAPP151 used to state something along the lines of "Render proper courtesies to all officers in military uniform, and to all officers in civilian clothes when you know they're an officer."  So, if you wore corporate style during the day, you weren't entitled to courtesies.  Change into civvies in the evening, and someone knows you're an officer, you're now entitled to them.  As I moved through the upper echelons of command at encampment (which was the most prominent place this issue came up), I used that clause easily.  If corporate uniforms equal civilian attire, you can recognize an officer by the rank displayed, and render proper courtesies.  In other words, if it's got grade displayed on it, you salute it.

Another inequity.  On AF style service uniforms (and the current CSU), members can wear up to five specialty and qualification badges.  For example, I can wear observer wings, EMT badge (or GTM badge at my option), and specialty badges for CP, comm and logistics (any two if my choice).  If I was a commander, I would have the option of wearing that badge as well.  That's alotta bling!  And I have seen members wearing that much.  But, with the current grey/white combo, I'm limited to only two badges total.

Military ribbons and decorations are another animal entirely.  I'm eligible to wear two military ribbons, both USCG awards.  But, because I earned them in the CGAux, the regs are sufficiently muddied that it was easier not to wear them at all (before being forced into corporate uniforms) than listen to the crowd that says I didn't earn them in active military service.  Should they be allowed on corporate uniforms?  I don't know, and really don't have a dog in that hunt. 

Where my issue is in this debate is that our members qualifications, training and accomplishments aren't recognized equally based on the uniforms that they wear.  If you're in the crowd that doesn't need the esteem-boost of having your service, training and background instantly recognized by someone else, good for you.  But (to paraphrase a good friend of mine), I'm a fat kid, I have to compensate.

[Short Field]

I do not believe the National Commander is an active-duty military veteran herself, so she has no military achievements to display whether choosing to wear the CAP "Distinctive" dress uniform or the CAP AF-Style. She has no need to feel that her military achievements go unnoticed or under-appreciated by her peers.

Wow - CAP members who feel unnoticed or under-appreciated by their peers because they can't wear their military rack!  Strangely I am unmoved by their pain.... 

[MIKE]

I think you make a good point about the military ribbons.  Seems if you earned them you should be able to wear them on either the AF or CSU uniform.  Perhaps someone can explain why the difference exists?

Because some services uniform regulations/manuals prohibit it.

Military ribbons and decorations are another animal entirely.  I'm eligible to wear two military ribbons, both USCG awards.  But, because I earned them in the CGAux, the regs are sufficiently muddied that it was easier not to wear them at all (before being forced into corporate uniforms) than listen to the crowd that says I didn't earn them in active military service.  Should they be allowed on corporate uniforms?  I don't know, and really don't have a dog in that hunt.

Me too!  I can imagine the double takes I would get with this. 

[SarDragon]

I think you make a good point about the military ribbons.  Seems if you earned them you should be able to wear them on either the AF or CSU uniform.  Perhaps someone can explain why the difference exists?

Because some services uniform regulations/manuals prohibit it.

To expand on that, the corporate uniforms are classed as civilian clothing. As such, wear of military ribbons and insignia is prohibited, unless covered as a specific exception. CAP corporate uniforms are not covered by any exception that I know about.

[Ned]

Right now...today.....if you were to open a large exercise you will get 8 different uniforms.

(. . .)

If I were to walk around the BX at Nellis, I would probably see about that many uniform combinations, wouldn't I?

BDU
ABU
Green Flight Suits
Tan Flight Suits
Blue Flights Suits (if the TBirds were in town  )
Cooks Whites
Medical Whites
Service Dress
PFU

And somehow they manage to hold it together long enough to fight and win our nation's wars.

This is a Red-Herring mythical argument not based on fact.

The Department of Redundancy Department wants their sentence back.

But beyond that, I'm not sure why it is important whether the CAP uniforms are technically civilian clothing, the uniform of an authorized military auxiliary, or military service clothing.

The USAF controls the display of military insignia, ribbons, badges, etc on CAP uniforms.

Honest.  There are a lot of Army badges I earned while serving my uncle that I cannot wear on any CAP uniform.  Why, 'cuz the AF says so.  CAP is not in that loop.

Looking at the most recent NB meeting materials, it appears that the USAF believes they also control the appearance, badges, and insignia on any military style uniform.  If only to ensure "distinctiveness."  And chances are, if they feel that they do, they do.

Folks, it is worth remembering that CAP isn't the "bad guy" here.  CAP has a long and distinguished history of proving professional-appearing uniforms for our members.  (Sure, one of those is being discontinued in part because of AF non-approval.)

But it simply does no good to bash each other over this issue.  Literally no one disagrees that all of our members should be treated with dignity and respect.  No one disagrees that everyone should be treated equally whenever possible.

We need to approach the AF with a united voice and seek a return to the "pre-1985" status quo ante, or some other reasonable alternative.

But this kind of bickering over who can lose weight if they want to, or who "deseves" to be able to wear military badges is at best a waste of time and bandwidth, but worse actually undercuts our ability to approach our AF colleagues with a consensus proposal.

[MIKE]

I think you make a good point about the military ribbons.  Seems if you earned them you should be able to wear them on either the AF or CSU uniform.  Perhaps someone can explain why the difference exists?

Because some services uniform regulations/manuals prohibit it.

To expand on that, the corporate uniforms are classed as civilian clothing. As such, wear of military ribbons and insignia is prohibited, unless covered as a specific exception. CAP corporate uniforms are not covered by any exception that I know about.

Link to my previous leg work: http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=5575.msg106595#msg106595

[OldSalt]

Folks,

It seems some people are getting it and some others are not. Maybe I've been too long winded. Here is the short version (minus the emotional Plessy v. Ferguson reference for those who got lost earlier  )

1. All CAP uniforms are CAP corporate uniforms - even the AF-Style. CAP does not wear AF regulation uniforms. CAP uniforms are not military service uniforms, even the AF-Style.
2. As such, if a veteran can wear their military ribbons on the AF-Style, then why not the Aviator combo? Double-Standard.
3. CAP is governed by CAP and AF together; not CAP alone, nor AF alone. The Board of Governors has 4 AF Members and 4 CAP members who are equal in authority. (However, I would argue that CAP leadership takes precedence).

Until we all recognize these facts, we're not going to go anywhere on this.

I for one am getting real tired of the "old salty dog" who uses false humility as a ploy to discourage other veterans from taking pride in wearing their military awards and decorations. If you want to wear them and can, you should be able to, if you don't then don't.

and lastly, I wonder if the tables were turned, and you could wear your military ribbons on the "Distinctive" but not on the "AF-Style, how many members would ditch the AF-Style in a heartbeat - afterall, they are equal uniforms - right?

Ok, maybe a bit too much sarcasm, sorry.