Getting rid of the AF service uniform

[Eclipse]

Relevant at least to the evolution part of the discussion is the fact that ribbons on the Aviator shirts have only been approved at all since 2002, prior to that is was a black nametag.  At least having been moving in the right direction since then.

[Hawk200]

It's been pointed out that badges and decs are permitted on the white shirt.

There's a significant difference in what badges can be worn on the white shirt vs the AF shirt.
White shirt: One aeronautical and one other OR one other
AF shirt: Max of four, no more than two over the left pocket or above the ribbons

So, say two members each have GT, Command, and a few PD badges. Member A, wearing the AF shirt wears GT, Command, and senior Logistics. Member B, wearing the white shirt, can only wear ONE, despite the badges different wearlocations on the uniform.

Yeah, I know this. And that's the very reason that I advocated earlier in this thread, and numerous others, that blue shirts and white shirts shouldn't be any different.

So, what are you going to do about it? I'll send it up through my chain of command. Will you?

The tradition of Air Force officers not wearing decs is a moot point. CAP has no such "tradition". The manual permits it. Period. You can't claim that you're being discriminated against if you impose a restriction on yourself with no reality to it.

How many times are members told they shouldn't wear their ribbons on the shirt because AF officers don't? I have been told this many times, typically by non-veteran or non-military members. I have been told to take them off more than once for the same reason. Those folks don't care what is permitted, since the AF permits officers to wear their ribbons on the shirt, it's just tradition the prohibits it.

I run into all kinds of people that manufacture rules, and this is something pops up every now and then. Some of it is based on opinion and rumor, other times people reference outdated material.

I'm not going to mention any names, (primarily because the individuals exhibiting the behaviour will deny it), but there are people that believe that since it's Air Force officer tradition not to wear ribbons on dress shirts that for some reason it means that they are not allowed to wear anything at all on theirs. I can see the reasoning being put out there in a roundabout manner even if it's not being specifically written. I don't agree with it, I think it's garbage, but I can see that reasoning.

[ZigZag911]

Maybe we bring just back the WWII khakis and red loops and call it good. 

Works for me!

[ZigZag911]

USAF custom (practice?) is to wear badges only on shirts...to some extent this grew out of the mindset that all that really mattered was your aeronautical rating.

[Hawk200]

I have been told to take them off more than once for the same reason. Those folks don't care what is permitted, since the AF permits officers to wear their ribbons on the shirt, it's just tradition the prohibits it.

Are you talking about the blue or white shirts?

It is true that a lot of AF people (not just officers) don't wear ribbons on the blue shirt, but that's out of choice, not regs.

I think he's talking about both. I've seen to many people with misimpressions, opinions, and personal preferences try to tell seniors that they can't (not shouldn't)wear ribbons on their shirts.

However, others do.

One guy in my squadron has been in the Navy and Air National Guard in addition to CAP, and he wears all his ribbons, properly mounted and clean, on his blue shirt.

I typically do, too. However, there are occasions that all I have is rank and nametag. The reasons vary. I may not have had time to set up the shirt, I just don't feel like rocking the bling, or the function I attend is lower key. But, I'd have some choice words for someone that tries to tell me I can't.

[Hawk200]

Again, no reason to pretend I said things I didn't.

Try looking at the concepts of "implication" and "inference". Maybe you'll understand how people think they know what you're saying, when you haven't actually said it. Then you might wish to reread some of your own posts. The "let's not pretend may work with your grandkid, but not adults.

I don't want to deny anyone, anything, nor do I advocate dropping the USAF uniforms.  I simply want all members to have an equal level of dress for whatever occasions come up as pat of their normal duties.  The CSU addressed that, and the current ICL fixed the small issues it still had.  If we lose the CSU, then we're back where we started.

See the above definitions. Your "solution" results in some giving up so that everyone can be the same. That is a fact, not pretending. It may not be your intended logic, but it gives the appearance.

I never really cared for the CSU, primarily because the way it was introduced. To me, it seemed that it was overhyped, and people bought into it. That being said, it was an actual "uniform" uniform. The blazer combo was not, and never was. Military, police, fire departments, hospitals, many mechanics, etc. wear actual uniforms. The pieces are a standard pattern, in a standard color, have standard accoutrements, and required wear compliance criteria, and in many cases are actually issued to the member of whatever organization they're part of. Which is why I think now that the CSU should be kept. But, the manner it was introduced could be a severe stumbling block in it being kept.

[Eclipse]

See the above definitions. Your "solution" results in some giving up so that everyone can be the same. That is a fact, not pretending. It may not be your intended logic, but it gives the appearance.

Yep - welcome to the big boy pool, where compromises result in everyone being equally unhappy, however since I am not advocating
any changes to the USAF uniforms, I'm not sure who would be giving up what. I simply want everyone to be able to share equally
in the display of their feathers.  There's no reason anyone has to give up anything for that to happen - you throw the CSU jacket on the gray pants, let everyone wear the black Army / Navy jacket and call it "done".

[Hawk200]

USAF custom (practice?) is to wear badges only on shirts...to some extent this grew out of the mindset that all that really mattered was your aeronautical rating.

Practice is probably more of an appropriate term, customs have some pretty deep roots in history. A salute is a custom, but is now a mandatory courteousy in the uniformed services. But it's based on hundreds of years of custom.

Just supposition, but I think a lot of the idea that an aeronautical rating is all that mattered is based on the fact that aeronautical ratings were pretty much the only original badges. There weren't many others in the beginning. So, the only badges really worn were aircrew. Unfortunately, people think that it makes it custom, even though it's really only a case of those badges were all that were available.

McPeak basically reinforced that wings(and by extension the jobs that had them) were more important when they were the only allowed second badge on a service coat. It seemed to attempt to establish a "tradition" that only wings mattered. Unwise on his part.

It's strange how many people advaocate doing away with tradition. CAP has traditionally worn a variant uniform of the branch it was attached to. I find it odd that people wish to do way with that tradition. We have never been "unattached", so I don't understand why people would want something that gives an appearance of it.

[OldSalt]

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.

Your end logic that we can do whatever we want with blues is in direct contradiction (and a woefully uninformed opinion) with the Air Force Instruction (which, by the way is 10-2701). I've said before, CAP is in no way, shape or form an autonomous organization. CAP members need to realize that, and break themselves of the habit thinking that it is. Recent history shows what happens when someone thinks in such a manner.

The appropriate reference (page 8, para 1.3.2.) states: "The Air Force controls the configuration of the Air Force-style uniform worn by CAP members.''

Personally, I have a little bit of issue with the semantics of it, but that's off the subject, so I won't bother.

Hawk200 I understand what you are saying and the AFI quotes you are referencing – however your overall interpretation (in my opinion) is incomplete here. You stated it correctly when you said that the semantics are a bit unclear – but regulations, manuals, orders, directives, etc. are all about semantics, grammar, and word-smithing.

While the AFI states that the AF controls the configuration of the CAP AF-Style uniform, it does not say that the CAP AF-Style uniform is a regulation AF uniform, nor does it state that the uniform is in fact a military service uniform. All it is saying here is that if we're going to have an AF-Style uniform, then the AF controls what elements make it up. The point being, the AF controls it so that they can decide what it takes to make the CAP AF-Style sufficiently different from regulation AF uniforms so that confusion between the two does not readily occur.

Also, you missed the part in the same paragraph (1.3.2) where it states, "CAP members are authorized to wear CAP or Air Force-style uniforms in accordance with CAP regulations." This specifically states that CAP members' uniforms are regulated not by AFIs or other AF directives, but by CAP regulations alone.

I don't think anyone has a problem with the AF controlling the configuration of the CAP AF-Style uniform. Also, I don't see here where this states the AF controls the wear criteria (i.e. weight and grooming standards) for CAP members – only the actual uniform configuration. Splitting hairs – maybe, but authority to do something must be specifically delegated by someone else who has the authority to grant it – not just assumed.

Now having said that, there may be some credibility to your argument using AFI 10-2701 where Paragraph 1.2 states that when CAP members are acting lawfully under AFAMs, "CAP is deemed to be an instrumentality of the United States while carrying out missions assigned by the Secretary."

Using this, the argument could stand that the uniforms worn by CAP members during an AFAM are considered to be official U.S. Government uniforms and as such, subject to government control and regulation.

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).

And back to that AFI, page 9, para 1.4. "Air Force Authority and Control. By law, the SECAF, or his designee, may regulate and impose limitations on CAP."

Public Law 106-65-OCT. 5, 1999 (Defense Authorization Act of 2000) cited as the defining moment for the creation for the CAP Board of Governors states the following about CAP management:
SEC. 934. MANAGEMENT OF CIVIL AIR PATROL.
(a) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that
no major change to the governance structure of the Civil Air Patrol
should be mandated by Congress until a review of potential improvements
in the management and oversight of Civil Air Patrol operations
is conducted.
(b) GAO STUDY.—The Comptroller General shall conduct a
study of potential improvements to Civil Air Patrol operations,
including Civil Air Patrol financial management, Air Force and
Civil Air Patrol oversight, and the Civil Air Patrol safety program.
Not later than February 15, 2000, the Comptroller General shall
submit a report on the results of the study to the congressional
defense committees.
(c) INSPECTOR GENERAL REVIEW.—(1) The Inspector General
of the Department of Defense shall review the financial and
management operations of the Civil Air Patrol. The review shall
include an audit.
(2) Not later than February 15, 2000, the Inspector General
shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on
the review, including, specifically, the results of the audit. The
report shall include any recommendations that the Inspector General
considers appropriate regarding actions necessary to ensure
the proper oversight of the financial and management operations
of the Civil Air Patrol.

Now, this alone doesn't say that the BOG should be instated, but that the DOD/IG shall review and audit the operations and submit a report including recommendations.
The reports were filed (D-2000-075 and -193) and are available for public review here: http://www.dodig.mil/Audit/reports/

The most relevant regulation / document that supersedes everything else at this time is 10 USC CHAPTER 909 – Civil Air Patrol, dated 01/05/2009.

This federal law states in clear language what the Civil Air Patrol is and within Section 9447 that, "the Board of Governors of the Civil Air Patrol is the governing body of the Civil Air Patrol."

The powers granted to the BOG are found in Section 9447, paragraph (e) are as follows: "The Board of Governors shall, subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), exercise the powers granted to the Civil Air Patrol under section 40304 of title 36."

So, what does section 40304 of Title 36 state? Here you go:

Sec. 40304. Powers
-STATUTE-
The corporation may -
(1) adopt and amend a constitution, bylaws, and regulations;
(2) adopt and alter a corporate seal;
(3) establish and maintain offices in the District of Columbia and the States, territories, and possessions of the United States to conduct its affairs;
(4) acquire, own, lease, encumber, and transfer property as necessary to carry out the purposes of the corporation;
(5) sue and be sued; and
(6) do any other act necessary and proper to carry out the purposes of the corporation.

Both 10 USC and 36 USC apply above every other CAP regulation, directive, or order which means that, unless specifically specified under some other equally binding federal law (i.e. some other USC), these rule the day.

The bottom line is, at least according to our federal government, all aspects of governing of the Civil Air Patrol, not specifically delegated to the Air Force under the conditions of Air Force Assigned Missions, are delegated to the Board of Governors. This means that it is the Board of Governors alone that determine the wear criteria and configuration of all of our uniforms so long as it does not interfere with the Air Force's control over Air Force Assigned Missions.

In short, AFI 10-2701 (or any other AF Regulation) is subordinate to 10 USC and 36 USC, and if it does not comply, is not legitimate.

Now, having said all this, I certainly do not advocate a split or divorce of CAP from the Air Force, and in fact, according to the federal laws quote above, the Air Force and CAP are equally invested in ensuring the health, proper management, and appropriate operations of the Civil Air Patrol.

In short, Congress did us a favor by creating the BOG and making it the supreme authority for CAP. It divided up the governance of CAP equally between the AF and CAP, and added in some civilian oversight as well with the inclusion of the 3 members of the BOG who are not either CAP, nor AF.

I submit to everyone that if the BOG decided to do something about uniforms, no one could argue it.

For NATHQ to defer to the AF in the matter of uniforms is a refusal to exercise their governing powers under federal law and those members who allow our NATHQ to gloss over this are only perpetuating the problems. By the way, there is currently an open position on the BOG for any interested member.       

[Hawk200]

See the above definitions. Your "solution" results in some giving up so that everyone can be the same. That is a fact, not pretending. It may not be your intended logic, but it gives the appearance.

Yep - welcome to the big boy pool, where compromises result in everyone being equally unhappy, however since I am not advocating
any changes to the USAF uniforms, I'm not sure who would be giving up what. I simply want everyone to be able to share equally
in the display of their feathers.  There's no reason anyone has to give up anything for that to happen - you throw the CSU jacket on the gray pants, let everyone wear the black Army / Navy jacket and call it "done".

Since that's the way you want to put it, here's a call to join the ocean: Come up with something that will actually pass. You know that idea won't.

I will clarify that the CSU is actually a nice looking "uniform" uniform. Appearance isn't the problem. It's history is. When it was introduced it didn't violate the letter of  AFI 10-2701, but probably did violate the spirit. It presented a unique military appearance, and was introduced rather suddenly.

I've suggested a few alternate ideas on things that might work. But it seems that to many it's not equality for those that can't wear blues unless CAP has a distinct alternate uniform with an intentional military appearance. It was stated in some of the notes that have been posted here from National that an alternate military looking uniform was not intended to be an option. I think the CSU was why that statement was made. People want the collar brass, the braid, and the epaulets; all the aspects that present the military appearance.

And that's were the debate really is. Eliminating the blues might make everyone equal, but the organization loses one of it's biggest features to it's identity.

If it's simply a matter of wearing decs and badges, that's pretty easy. But no one wants that simple option. It's seems to be a case of "everyone gets the same thing, or no one does".

[Eclipse]

Since that's the way you want to put it, here's a call to join the ocean: Come up with something that will actually pass. You know that idea won't.

Why?It works 100% for the need today.  Who cares how we got here?  We're here.  If anyone from NHQ on down is going to dismiss the
CSU as the continued alternative because of its history, vs. its merits, they need to go back to the zero-depth wader for awhile.

It's seems to be a case of "everyone gets the same thing, or no one does".

Why are you struggling with fairness, especially in a volunteer organization?

[Hawk200]

It's seems to be a case of "everyone gets the same thing, or no one does".

Why are you struggling with fairness, especially in a volunteer organization?

Why are you? Seems like it's OK if you lose nothing, but it's not OK for you not to be allowed something that others are. Decs, and badges, as a reminder.

But we can go on your take: You wear the alternative uniform because you don't comply with a standard. Either work to meet the standard or do without. Life's not fair, you know what to do.

[Eclipse]

It's seems to be a case of "everyone gets the same thing, or no one does".

Why are you struggling with fairness, especially in a volunteer organization?

Why are you? Seems like it's OK if you lose nothing, but it's not OK for you not to be allowed something that others are. Decs, and badges, as a reminder.

But we can go on your take: You wear the alternative uniform because you don't comply with a standard. Either work to meet the standard or do without. Life's not fair, you know what to do.

Please stop insinuating this is a "vs" situation. This is about the third time you're saying I'm trying to take something from others.
Nor should you infer which uniform I wear based on these conversations.

I'm not.  USAF-style uniforms stay the same in my world.

I just want equal plumage and recognition for all.  No one loses anything and we all gain from the image of uniformity and the good-will of the members effected.

[Hawk200]

It's seems to be a case of "everyone gets the same thing, or no one does".

Why are you struggling with fairness, especially in a volunteer organization?

Why are you? Seems like it's OK if you lose nothing, but it's not OK for you not to be allowed something that others are. Decs, and badges, as a reminder.

But we can go on your take: You wear the alternative uniform because you don't comply with a standard. Either work to meet the standard or do without. Life's not fair, you know what to do.

Please stop insinuating this is a "vs" situation. This is about the third time you're saying I'm trying to take something from others.
Nor should you infer which uniform I wear based on these conversations.

I'm not.  USAF-style uniforms stay the same in my world.

I just want equal plumage and recognition for all.  No one loses anything and we all gain from the image of uniformity and the good-will of the members effected.

I don't think you even get what I'm trying to say, or how others are percieving it.

But that's OK, I won't take any more of your precious time arguing it.

[Eclipse]

You keep saying I want others to lose something?  Where are you getting that?

[Slim]

Hawk,

Please check your quote tags.  Of those quotes, the only ones I made are the first two.  The other quotes you attributed to me were actually Eclipse.

Sorry, Slim, I'll get to cleaning that up.

Thanks.  Like I said, I own what I say, but I'd like to say it before I own it.

[OldSalt]

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.

Your end logic that we can do whatever we want with blues is in direct contradiction (and a woefully uninformed opinion) with the Air Force Instruction (which, by the way is 10-2701). I've said before, CAP is in no way, shape or form an autonomous organization. CAP members need to realize that, and break themselves of the habit thinking that it is. Recent history shows what happens when someone thinks in such a manner.

The appropriate reference (page 8, para 1.3.2.) states: "The Air Force controls the configuration of the Air Force-style uniform worn by CAP members.''

Personally, I have a little bit of issue with the semantics of it, but that's off the subject, so I won't bother.

Hawk200 I understand what you are saying and the AFI quotes you are referencing – however your overall interpretation (in my opinion) is incomplete here. You stated it correctly when you said that the semantics are a bit unclear – but regulations, manuals, orders, directives, etc. are all about semantics, grammar, and word-smithing.

While the AFI states that the AF controls the configuration of the CAP AF-Style uniform, it does not say that the CAP AF-Style uniform is a regulation AF uniform, nor does it state that the uniform is in fact a military service uniform. All it is saying here is that if we're going to have an AF-Style uniform, then the AF controls what elements make it up. The point being, the AF controls it so that they can decide what it takes to make the CAP AF-Style sufficiently different from regulation AF uniforms so that confusion between the two does not readily occur.

Also, you missed the part in the same paragraph (1.3.2) where it states, "CAP members are authorized to wear CAP or Air Force-style uniforms in accordance with CAP regulations." This specifically states that CAP members' uniforms are regulated not by AFIs or other AF directives, but by CAP regulations alone.

I don't think anyone has a problem with the AF controlling the configuration of the CAP AF-Style uniform. Also, I don't see here where this states the AF controls the wear criteria (i.e. weight and grooming standards) for CAP members – only the actual uniform configuration. Splitting hairs – maybe, but authority to do something must be specifically delegated by someone else who has the authority to grant it – not just assumed.

Now having said that, there may be some credibility to your argument using AFI 10-2701 where Paragraph 1.2 states that when CAP members are acting lawfully under AFAMs, "CAP is deemed to be an instrumentality of the United States while carrying out missions assigned by the Secretary."

Using this, the argument could stand that the uniforms worn by CAP members during an AFAM are considered to be official U.S. Government uniforms and as such, subject to government control and regulation.

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).

And back to that AFI, page 9, para 1.4. "Air Force Authority and Control. By law, the SECAF, or his designee, may regulate and impose limitations on CAP."

Public Law 106-65-OCT. 5, 1999 (Defense Authorization Act of 2000) cited as the defining moment for the creation for the CAP Board of Governors states the following about CAP management:
SEC. 934. MANAGEMENT OF CIVIL AIR PATROL.
(a) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that
no major change to the governance structure of the Civil Air Patrol
should be mandated by Congress until a review of potential improvements
in the management and oversight of Civil Air Patrol operations
is conducted.
(b) GAO STUDY.—The Comptroller General shall conduct a
study of potential improvements to Civil Air Patrol operations,
including Civil Air Patrol financial management, Air Force and
Civil Air Patrol oversight, and the Civil Air Patrol safety program.
Not later than February 15, 2000, the Comptroller General shall
submit a report on the results of the study to the congressional
defense committees.
(c) INSPECTOR GENERAL REVIEW.—(1) The Inspector General
of the Department of Defense shall review the financial and
management operations of the Civil Air Patrol. The review shall
include an audit.
(2) Not later than February 15, 2000, the Inspector General
shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on
the review, including, specifically, the results of the audit. The
report shall include any recommendations that the Inspector General
considers appropriate regarding actions necessary to ensure
the proper oversight of the financial and management operations
of the Civil Air Patrol.

Now, this alone doesn't say that the BOG should be instated, but that the DOD/IG shall review and audit the operations and submit a report including recommendations.
The reports were filed (D-2000-075 and -193) and are available for public review here: http://www.dodig.mil/Audit/reports/

The most relevant regulation / document that supersedes everything else at this time is 10 USC CHAPTER 909 – Civil Air Patrol, dated 01/05/2009.

This federal law states in clear language what the Civil Air Patrol is and within Section 9447 that, "the Board of Governors of the Civil Air Patrol is the governing body of the Civil Air Patrol."

The powers granted to the BOG are found in Section 9447, paragraph (e) are as follows: "The Board of Governors shall, subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), exercise the powers granted to the Civil Air Patrol under section 40304 of title 36."

So, what does section 40304 of Title 36 state? Here you go:

Sec. 40304. Powers
-STATUTE-
The corporation may -
(1) adopt and amend a constitution, bylaws, and regulations;
(2) adopt and alter a corporate seal;
(3) establish and maintain offices in the District of Columbia and the States, territories, and possessions of the United States to conduct its affairs;
(4) acquire, own, lease, encumber, and transfer property as necessary to carry out the purposes of the corporation;
(5) sue and be sued; and
(6) do any other act necessary and proper to carry out the purposes of the corporation.

Both 10 USC and 36 USC apply above every other CAP regulation, directive, or order which means that, unless specifically specified under some other equally binding federal law (i.e. some other USC), these rule the day.

The bottom line is, at least according to our federal government, all aspects of governing of the Civil Air Patrol, not specifically delegated to the Air Force under the conditions of Air Force Assigned Missions, are delegated to the Board of Governors. This means that it is the Board of Governors alone that determine the wear criteria and configuration of all of our uniforms so long as it does not interfere with the Air Force's control over Air Force Assigned Missions.

In short, AFI 10-2701 (or any other AF Regulation) is subordinate to 10 USC and 36 USC, and if it does not comply, is not legitimate.

Now, having said all this, I certainly do not advocate a split or divorce of CAP from the Air Force, and in fact, according to the federal laws quote above, the Air Force and CAP are equally invested in ensuring the health, proper management, and appropriate operations of the Civil Air Patrol.

In short, Congress did us a favor by creating the BOG and making it the supreme authority for CAP. It divided up the governance of CAP equally between the AF and CAP, and added in some civilian oversight as well with the inclusion of the 3 members of the BOG who are not either CAP, nor AF.

I submit to everyone that if the BOG decided to do something about uniforms, no one could argue it.

For NATHQ to defer to the AF in the matter of uniforms is a refusal to exercise their governing powers under federal law and those members who allow our NATHQ to gloss over this are only perpetuating the problems. By the way, there is currently an open position on the BOG for any interested member.     

[Spike]

Everyone seems to be blaming each other here for the mess we are in.  Actually we can blame those Wing and Region Commanders as well as the Uniform Committes that were in control between 1988 and 1995. 

Everyone here needs to go back and look at what happened at those uniform committee meetings, what the National Boards approved and what they tabled.  I have records of each uniform committee meetting as far back 1985.  They actaully published them and sent them to each Wing. 

You would be surprised who (making what they thought was a good decision at the time) actaully did.  It got out of control, they upset the Air Force, the Air Force slapped back, The Air Force offered a return to metal rank and blue rank slides, yet CAP leaders "shpwed the Air Force" by not accepting.

Then, the committes and boards created the mess we have today.  Anyone have copies of the CAP News from 1988 thru 1997?  Check out each article on the results of the uniform comittee and what was voted on.

I place balme squarely on those members serving in leadership positions all those years ago. 

[Eclipse]

The Air Force offered a return to metal rank and blue rank slides, yet CAP leaders "shpwed the Air Force" by not accepting.

Then, the committes and boards created the mess we have today.  Anyone have copies of the CAP News from 1988 thru 1997?  Check out each article on the results of the uniform comittee and what was voted on.

I would really like to see that in writing, because that flies in the face of the wives tales...

[davidsinn]

Everyone seems to be blaming each other here for the mess we are in.  Actually we can blame those Wing and Region Commanders as well as the Uniform Committes that were in control between 1988 and 1995. 

Everyone here needs to go back and look at what happened at those uniform committee meetings, what the National Boards approved and what they tabled.  I have records of each uniform committee meetting as far back 1985.  They actaully published them and sent them to each Wing. 

You would be surprised who (making what they thought was a good decision at the time) actaully did.  It got out of control, they upset the Air Force, the Air Force slapped back, The Air Force offered a return to metal rank and blue rank slides, yet CAP leaders "shpwed the Air Force" by not accepting.

Then, the committes and boards created the mess we have today.  Anyone have copies of the CAP News from 1988 thru 1997?  Check out each article on the results of the uniform comittee and what was voted on.

I place balme squarely on those members serving in leadership positions all those years ago.

Please scan those I would like to see them.