Getting rid of the AF service uniform

[lordmonar]

Unless you have the required equipment for a given qualification, you are not allowed to perform in that capacity.  One of the first things on the list for Ground Team & UDF members is a Uniform. 

No uniform, no qualification, no play.

I don't know where Ned is coming up with this assertion that uniforms aren't required during ES.

Since when has the Task Guides been regulatory?

I mean Hell!  Gortex jackets were authorised in the task guides long before the USAF signed off on them.....and last time I look the task guide mentions boonie hats in a couple of different places!

[Hawk200]

Unless you have the required equipment for a given qualification, you are not allowed to perform in that capacity.  One of the first things on the list for Ground Team & UDF members is a Uniform. 

No uniform, no qualification, no play.

I don't know where Ned is coming up with this assertion that uniforms aren't required during ES.

Since when has the Task Guides been regulatory?

I mean Hell!  Gortex jackets were authorised in the task guides long before the USAF signed off on them.....and last time I look the task guide mentions boonie hats in a couple of different places!

If the task guide just said "uniform", it would be fine. The problem lies in authorizing items that aren't permitted.

The boonie hat issue is much like one that a friend faced in the Air Force. Something expressly forbidden in one reg was locally circumvented by allowing it in a local policy. He stood by the published Air Force reg, and refused to acknowledge the local policy on that issue. The rest of the policy he didn't have any trouble with, it didn't contradict any Air Force level directives.

Adding things to publications is permitted, but contradicting the orginal pub is not. At best, it's unethical. Many might consider it insubordination.

[SarDragon]

I currently have copies of the following versions of CAPM 39-1: 1964, 1983, 1987, 1997, and 2005. The basic wear policy is essentially the same for all but 1964, and the text is unchanged from 1983 to 1997. The 2005 version has a chart instead of the text paragraphs, but the conveyed information is the same.

CP and flying - must wear; for everything else it's pretty much optional, but the commander may prescribe a specific uniform for an event.

What he said, except to now acknowledge line 6 of "Table 1-1, CAPM 39-1", which is not in a logical sequence, being 4 lines below the first 2 relevant lines, which refer to CP and flying.

[Wear] when engaged in normal duties as a CAP member or attending local, wing/region, or national CAP functions (see note 1).

This text was not a part of the other referenced versions.

[lordmonar]

If the task guide just said "uniform", it would be fine. The problem lies in authorizing items that aren't permitted.

No.....you missed the point.

The task guide is not a regulation, pamplet, nor manual and is not in line with real regulations.

[SarDragon]

If the task guide just said "uniform", it would be fine. The problem lies in authorizing items that aren't permitted.

No.....you missed the point.

The task guide is not a regulation, pamplet, nor manual and is not in line with real regulations.

Well, the SQTR is called out in the reg (60-3) as the documentation for the training. Completion of the SQTR is not possible w/o doing the tasks in the task guide, making the task guide regulatory.

[lordmonar]

So...the task guides (or more specifically the reference materials) say that ground teams should wear boonie hats....does that trump 39-1 or not?







I will grant the philosophical point that the Task Guides are mandatory....in establishing training standards......regs or no regs......but the equally important technical point that regulations establish how we operate not the training guides.


One of the points that Ned and Shortfield are trying to point out is.......our regulations do not cover everything that we do.  We make a lot of assumptions about them....just as the writers did when they put it down on paper.  We end up with intresting situations.  The writers of 52-16 wanted all senior members working with cadets to wear a uniform.  They did this because many seniors did not wear uniforms at all.  39-1 says you should wear a CAP uniform at CAP activities.....but does not say that you MUST wear one.

If you MUST wear one.....when and how?  I mean if I am at home an start doing some CAP work (like planning a SAREX)....MUST I first put on my polo shirt and gray slacks?

If you say no to that idea....where on the spectrum between working on CAP at home and "Working with Cadets" or "flying in a CAP plane" do you have to put on a uniform?

[SarDragon]

It looks like we're trying to pick fly poop out of pepper now.

Boonie hats - equipment, not uniform, just like the orange vest; YMMV.

Line 6 of the table is stated in exactly the same manner as lines 1 and 2. If you deem the latter mandatory (or at least strongly encouraged), then it follows that the former bears the same weight.

Defining a "CAP activity"? If it's a group activity, doing CAP business, then it can likely be labeled a "CAP activity". Working alone at home falls outside that definition.

In any case, common sense should prevail.(But we all know about that, too.)

[lordmonar]

In any case, common sense should prevail.(But we all know about that, too.)

+1

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

One of the points that Ned and Shortfield are trying to point out is.......our regulations do not cover everything that we do.  We make a lot of assumptions about them....just as the writers did when they put it down on paper.

Like the "one hour to/from" rule...it takes me at least 30 minutes driving time to get from my house to the Squadron meeting site.  If I have to go to the can enroute either way, I'm not going to hold it until I get to the unit/home just because I'm in uniform.  I'm not going to stop at a restaurant and order a full-course meal, but if I haven't eaten and my stomach's growling, I'm going to take 15 minutes at McDonald's to quell that.

If you MUST wear one.....when and how?  I mean if I am at home an start doing some CAP work (like planning a SAREX)....MUST I first put on my polo shirt and gray slacks?

NO.  Mess Dress preferred; AF blue service dress acceptable.

If you say no to that idea....where on the spectrum between working on CAP at home and "Working with Cadets" or "flying in a CAP plane" do you have to put on a uniform?

What I used to do at a former job that was relatively near the meeting site of a former squadron was to take my uniform and hang it in my car in its garment bag.  When I got off work and was off the clock (due to the reg about not performing private employment in uniform), I'd get my uniform out of the car, change in the can and go on to the meeting.

[Spike]

Well.

After carefull consideration on my part, and reading all of the posts again I have come to a personal conclusion.  We should NOT get rid of the AF-Style Service Dress.  That uniform is a gift by the United States Air Force to CAP.  It represents the fact that CAP is part of the Air Force Team.  Even if one-third of our members currently wear it, it is still recognition of CAP on the Air Forces part.

If we take that away what will follow next?  Will we have to eliminate the "United States Air Force Auxiliary" from the letterheads or seals?  We need to make sure we do not become more "corporate".

I also agree that the modified CSU should be kept for those that are incapable of wearing the AF-Style. 

I would like to see ALL Members in AF-Style, but we ALL know that would never happen.  The Air Force has made that very clear over the past 15 years. 

I think this thread has gotten so far off topic.  You may all go back to arguing whether a boonie hat is equipment or a uniform item............

[heliodoc]

Off topic??

CAPTalk??

This thing could get derailed so quickly, the Federal Railroad Administration, UP, BNSF, CP Rail, Norfolk Southern, CSX, couldn't keep up, keeping the tracks clear

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I too agree with retaining the modified CSU.

This wouldn't happen, but I found this on Evilbay.  It would look quite sharp for a CAP-distinctive service coat, I think.

http://tinyurl.com/FrenchUni

[indygreg]

I too agree with retaining the modified CSU.

I haven't seen the modified CSU, but I don't think it would look bad.  I would be in favor of keeping it, in the interest of uniformity.  I've already got the shirt and the accessories, I'd be willing to buy the pants and flight cap. I'd even consider the double breasted coat.

[FlyingTerp]

Since the CAP-USAF CC has made it clear that height/weight and grooming standards will be applied to any military style uniform, the chances of keeping the modified CSU are slim at best.

Reference:  http://captalk.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9764.0;attach=4223 - 3c CAP-USAF Commanders Comments

Not saying I agree or disagree either way...

[RiverAux]

If we can't get everyone into the AF service dress (which would be my preference), then I think the next best option is to ditch the gray/whites and put everyone that can't wear AF service dress in the modified CSU, which presents a much more uniform and professional appearance than the gray/whites.  This would eliminate at least one uniform combination.

However, I don't think the AF likes the modified CSU.  The "evidence" for this is that if these modifications were enough to address their concerns, the uniform wouldn't be phasing out entirely.  If they thought the modified CSU was different enough, we would just have announced the modifications and moved on. 

So, if the AF doesn't even like modified CSU, presumably because they don't want people thinking the fat guys are in the AF, then the liklihood of us getting everyone back in AF service dress is quite low. 

Therefore, the most likely situation is that we're just going to end up with the same suite of uniforms that we had before the CSU.  I just don't see the new CAP uniform committee recommending that CAP drop AF service dress entirely and come up with a very distinctive equivalent required for all members.  I don't rule it out since so many CAP members (including the National Commander who now has complete authority over our uniforms) can't wear AF style, but think they will anticipate the firestorm that would happen if those that can are forced to change because the F&Fs can't/won't do what needs to be done. 

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I would just be glad to get rid of the grey/whites.

[SarDragon]

I would just be glad to get rid of the grey/whites.

And what is your proposed replacement, for all of the folks who can't wear AF-style?

[billford1]

The modified CSU shouldn't be such a big deal. Getting rid of the hard rank along with the other changes should be enough to make  a uniform set that EVERYONE could be eligible to wear which should include the old BDU that is all but finished as a Military uniform.

[vmstan]

I don't rule it out since so many CAP members (including the National Commander who now has complete authority over our uniforms) can't wear AF style, but think they will anticipate the firestorm that would happen if those that can are forced to change because the F&Fs can't/won't do what needs to be done.

This is one thing that I've seen recently that I'd like to point out to those members who feel like the blazer combo isn't enough when leading your squadron/group/wing/region/etc... obviously the national commander is wearing it and I don't think anyone would question her ability to lead based on that choice.

However I do think it would be better for the appearance of the organization if she could get back into the AF-uniform. But that is her problem, not mine.

[Spike]

^ She had the CSU.  She wore it often!  She did not wear it to the Board meeting most likely to show a solidarity with the CAP-USAF side of the house, and not add any more crap to members conversations about the ditching of the CSU.

That is called politics.