AFI 36-2903 and dress/uniform regs and issues

[HoHum]

C-130 had a forced landing in Central America amid an anti-drug mission. Mid 90s? Anyway, one item from the debrief/investigation/interviews revealed that the guys on the ground (drug runners) "saw the American flag and declined to engage further."

Peru

Collier Trophy

[noxnatio]

I thought it was interesting.

The Chief prefaced his answer with a statement that "If you're getting so much morale from a t-shirt that you're getting upset over the color of your shirt, then there's probably bigger problems at hand." I would agree with that.

To be honest I felt like they didn't quite know how to answer the question so they sidestepped it and tried to trivialize the matter. They said the color of your t-shirt didn't matter so it was a non-issue, but that begs the question of why, if such a thing was trivial, we wasted brainmatter on writing a reg to get rid of it. I felt like they dodged the issue entirely. It might seem stupid for folks to see guys arguing about their shirt colors, but the fact that so many people are upset about it demonstrates that there is an issue here that needs to be addressed, and rather than looking at that issue, the response I got felt like it was a "you-guys-are-crying-about-not-having-colored-shirts-suck-it-up" deal.

One of the Chiefs mentioned that it was important for us to be standardized and following the regs because, if we didn't, Airman Snuffy would see us breaking the rules with our colored shirts and think that if rules didn't apply to officers, they would emulate that in their own place. Which I found weird, because the colored shirts were never against the rules until they made them against the rules, so it didn't quite answer the question of why it was necessary to write them out of the regs.

Someone brought it up as a heritage issue and they mentioned that heritage wasn't about the shirt color but it was an attitude and about history. When someone mentioned that morale shirts dated back to Vietnam (dunno how accurate his statements were since I don't know much about it yet) it was dismissed as not really heritage because heritage was something intangible we got from patriotism and work ethic. While I'm not knocking the idea that there are intangible character traits as part of Air Force heritage, I think there are definitely physical ones too that are being crushed.

tl;dr version: I don't think they could answer that question honestly since they didn't know, so they defaulted to what the standard reason was, which is sort of feeding back into the strange rationalization for it and somehow making it seem acceptable, since it's almost a confirmation that getting rid of all this stuff is a good thing.

I think they ended by suggesting that if we wanted the tangible stuff to be heritage we should donate to a base museum so it can be preserved for future generations. Which made me sad.

[Dupe]

I have a theory that sweeping uniform changes are a sign of hard times in the Air Force. HQ USAF has little control over our high dollar programs weapon systems programs, the AF's end strength, or where our troops are committed to globally. What HQ USAF does have control over is uniforms and PT tests. Look at the early / mid-1990s when the USAF had bases BRACed left and right. We'd gone from the pillar of the Persian Gulf War to settling into a never ending train of ONW/OSW deployments. What was the big issue at the time? That's right: a business-coat like service dress, service dress sleeve stripes and aircrew leather name-tags on BDUs. Now we're bitching about Friday shirts and morale patches. At the same time, the Air Force has dropped TA support from 100% tuition down to 75% and barely anybody noticed. Once upon a time, the DoD stood firm on the supportabiliy of 2 1/2 wars. Now, we're flumuxed by our couple of nation rebuilding efforts. Uniform changes are the AF's great chaff bundle. I liked my Friday shirt, but I've got much bigger issues to deal with.

[Herkdrvr]

Speaking of uniforms...

FTA:

"Take the mavericks in your service," he tells new officers, "the ones that wear rumpled uniforms and look like a bag of mud but whose ideas are so offsetting that they actually upset the people in the bureaucracy. One of your primary jobs is to take the risk and protect these people, because if they are not nurtured in your service, the enemy will bring their contrary ideas to you." --Gen James Mattis, USMC

Linky

[Guest Hueypilot812]

Most of this shit wouldn't be against the rules if we didn't create literally thousands of needless rules in the first place. I can still remember raising an issue about procedures flying around in Kuwait with non-TCAS aircraft that fell on deaf ears while the leadership was out measuring sock height and prowling for reflective belt usage.

As for the article where the chief is asking the question of "if you can't take care of your sideburns how can I trust you to fly a jet"...well chief, if I up the flying part, I die. If I up my sideburns, I just look funny. Most people with common sense can figure that out.

[BitteEinBit]

I thought it was interesting.

The Chief prefaced his answer with a statement that "If you're getting so much morale from a t-shirt that you're getting upset over the color of your shirt, then there's probably bigger problems at hand." I would agree with that.

...

One of the Chiefs mentioned that it was important for us to be standardized and following the regs because, if we didn't, Airman Snuffy would see us breaking the rules with our colored shirts and think that if rules didn't apply to officers, they would emulate that in their own place. Which I found weird, because the colored shirts were never against the rules until they made them against the rules, so it didn't quite answer the question of why it was necessary to write them out of the regs.

(to the panel Chief quoted above) Well Chief you're probably right, only a little morale comes from wearing a colored T-shirt and showing unit pride on Fridays. It is the last of any morale and pride left in units these days. Lets just do away with unit pride altogether...squadrons shouldn't even have colors. Standardize all flight suit patches so they are the same color...squadron patches can just be a big white patch with bold black letters (insert unit here) so people know which squadron you're from. We'll make name patches Air Force blue so everyone looks the same (although you'd probably f*ck that up trying make a "rule" to determine which shade of blue to use).

You're obviously disconnected from your "troops" if you can't understand how important a little bit of unit pride and morale (regardless of how small) means to a squadron in which morale is lacking because of all the BS they have to put up with on a daily basis...and yes, that is part of a bigger problem that you're too disconnected to see. We've been wearing squadron T-shirts as far back as I can remember (wasn't 'against the rules' that whole time)...and in 35 years I don't remember Amn Snuffy ever being confused about breaking rules regarding which T-shirt to wear until you made all of these stupid rules to follow. If you are worried about Amn Snuffy being "confused" about breaking rules because people are wearing colored T-shirts, then yes, we have bigger problems that standardizing T-shirts will not fix. I would put more focus on making sure Amn Snuffy is familiar with rules and AFIs that apply to his job so he can do it more efficiently and less focus on what you think Amn Snuffy will think just because I'm wearing a yellow T-shirt on Friday.

How can you trust Amn Snuffy to do his job if he can't follow the small rules? I really hope that shiny boots and clean sideburns is not how you determine if you trust Amn Snuffy to do his job correctly.

Good luck Chief...we're all counting on you!

[aspec]

Did anyone ask why we're no longer allowed to wear black t-shirts and boots? I'm curious about the reasoning (bullshit) behind that change.

[tac airlifter]

Did anyone ask why we're no longer allowed to wear black t-shirts and boots? I'm curious about the reasoning (bullshit) behind that change.

I was told at a meeting here at Hurlburt recently that the change was made so we (flight suit wearing types) match people wearing the ABU, who are wearing tan shirts and green boots because it "looks sharper with those colors and that pattern." Also was told eventual plan is to phase out tan boots downrange completely, and have green boots be the only color we wear. Follow up question- are we really taking care of our people by making every airmen shell out $ to trade out their entire stash of black shirts for tan ones just so we can look better aestetically? Answer: bullshit dodge about officers having plenty of money. Another fun comment about the switch from black boots to green "you guys weren't shining them and it looked awful, so you should be thanking us for the switch to green suede you don't have to shine." We're issued black boots that don't shine, by the way.

[zrooster99]

The real reason is that it pissed off the shoes that we were different. It feeds their inferiority complex. What sucks is that the supposed flyers in charge let them get away with it.

At least when you close the hatch you're still in a shoe free environment (for the most part)... There, I can push up my sleeves, wear whatever-the-fuck kind of sunglasses I want... Hell, I can even wear my favorite hat and those fuckers can't do a goddamn thing about it...at least for the duration of that sortie. That ball-cap has seen more combat sorties than these douche canoes ever will...

[Splash95]

Just received this morning...

XXXXX,

General ### has come out and publically stated we need to start complying completely with the New AFI 36-2903, Dress and Appearance of Air Force Personnel.

He words are below:

1. We’ll have to follow the AFI… no morale shirts or morale patches … it’s the AFI, and doesn’t give us an out. (This Includes pen pouch patches)

2. ### is working internally to see if we can revise for the Fridays… but in meantime we have to follow the AFI.

3. This has been tradition for about 20 years… but most of the 3 and 4 stars said it wasn’t in existence when they started… started shortly after they came in… so not a real long tradition anyways.

4. We need to get right before Chief XXXX gets here…

Thank you,

XXXXXXXXX, Lt Col, USAF

Commander, ### ###

TAMInated, is it too late for me to get in on that 'NO MORALE' patch order?

[Gravedigger]

Did that Lt Col have his 5 year-old write that message?

[Soon To Be E6B]

Quick question, why does everyone suddenly care that morale patches are not authorized? Last time I checked they have been verboten for quite some time.

[ClearedHot]

Quick question, why does everyone suddenly care that morale patches are not authorized? Last time I checked they have been verboten for quite some time.

Maybe they were verboten in some obscure reg kept in a deep dark recess of USAF/HQ...and completely ignored by everyone including the CSAF. Now the Shoes have won another battle in the endless war of queep, soon, they will conquer us and all that is good.

A Lt Col Afraid of a CMSgt...UFB!

[Striper_WSO]

For those of us in the ASOS world, the new AFI prohibits anyone in the Air Force from wearing any Army badges on their ABUs. So if you've earned the right to wear a Pathfinder badge, Air Assault, Ranger Tab, or an Army Combat Action Badge, you can't wear it in ABUs. Wing and Group leadership is on the bandwagon to enforce this. UFB.

[StoleIt]

Why is it I see all these non-rated guys walking around without any AFSC badges on on their ABUs?

At first I thought it was all just brand new airmen that hadn't qualified in anything...but I started to notice SNCO's without any badges on either. I am all for not having a million patches on the ABU (think BDU) but it looks equally weird with just name tapes on.

[Champ Kind]

Can you actually tell what their actual stupid badge looks like, and if so, do you know which career field they represent?

I'll go ahead and say it: with the exception of MX, if they aren't wings (as in aircrew), I don't care.

Edited September 5, 2011 by Champ Kind

[BQZip01]

Why is it I see all these non-rated guys walking around without any AFSC badges on on their ABUs?

At first I thought it was all just brand new airmen that hadn't qualified in anything...but I started to notice SNCO's without any badges on either. I am all for not having a million patches on the ABU (think BDU) but it looks equally weird with just name tapes on.

non-rated badges are optional (there are a few exceptions)

[Hacker]

Why is it I see all these non-rated guys walking around without any AFSC badges on on their ABUs?

At first I thought it was all just brand new airmen that hadn't qualified in anything...but I started to notice SNCO's without any badges on either. I am all for not having a million patches on the ABU (think BDU) but it looks equally weird with just name tapes on.

Do any of you guys remember a time before "everyone has to have a badge"? I do.

[GovernmentMan]

non-rated badges are optional (there are a few exceptions)

I never understood why some are optional and some are not. It's your badge. It designates your job. Harden The Fvck Up and just wear it.

Then again, sometimes they are awarded for weird stuff. Like the jump badge (mandatory): go to the Zoo, jump out of a Twin Otter a handful of times and ta-da.

Also, wings from other services are authorized (optional). Dunno wtf is up with the restriction against other legitimately earned badges/tabs.

Finally, check this out. Fast fwd to 2:10 to see what I'm talking about. His discription is a little melodramatic and really dumbed down, but he gets cool points for rocking this tab on national TV:

(sorry for the poor quality...CNN's website doesn't provide URLs to link to specific videos, so I had to get a bootleg)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBCFZ8ABZSI#t=2m10s

Edited September 6, 2011 by GovernmentMan

[SurelySerious]

And from AFI 11-410, Section 6.3, USAFA jump wings aren't authorized to be worn outside of USAFA, anyways (unless earned from before August of '94).

That's not what it says. In section 6.3 USAF Basic Parachutist Rating there are two categories: Initial Static Line Qual (allows one to perform S/L duties with currency requirements) and USAF Academy Parachutist Qual (allows one to perform Academy-based jump duties). AM-490 prior to August 1994 counts towards Initial Static Line jump qual. Afterwards, it doesn't. Completing programs in either 6.3.1 or 6.3.2 results in being awarded the Basic Parachutist Rating. You can wear the badge anywhere, but you can't walk into a jump assignment and be qualified without completing another program listed in 6.3 or 6.6 if you did AM-490 after August 1994.

But back to the new 36-2903, where no morale patches are authorized...

[di1630]

One more who doesn't get it.

Rebellion in the Air Force

[PET-Shot]

One more who doesn't get it.

Rebellion in the Air Force

So he is encouraging people to be rebellious...as long as you follow the rules?

Good grief...

Edited September 12, 2011 by PET-Shot

[Login Name]

He's telling you to be rebellious and make changes but to go about it the right way. It's really not that novel of an idea. I guess I'm missing how he "doesn't get it".

[Hacker]

There used to be a time when rebellion was encouraged and embraced...when we WERE the rebellion in the Army's ranks. A time when they named airplanes after you if you'd rebelled so vigorously that you'd been Court-martialed.

This MSgt, like so many today, has it wrong, wrong, wrong.

In telling us to "rebel correctly", he's really saying "comply, peon".

[Guest]

There used to be a time when rebellion was encouraged and embraced...

Doesn't really go with...

...you'd been Court-martialed.

But I think I know what you mean.

My biggest issue with all the SNCOs out there talking about leadership is that they seem to be talking to the pilots, not the Airmen. Why the fuck do they have to keep using aviation terminology? They never get the context right and they always look stupid. Sometimes the best comm, even in combat, is plain english.

As for the constant ref of Robin Olds by the SNCO corps...enough already. None (or damn few) ever met the man. Those who did are not writing stupid shit and attaching his name to it for credibility. The posers have no idea what he would really think or do. Robin Olds was a total prick to 90% of the people he met who thought they were special. Talk was the cheapest of cheap to that guy. He would punch every one of these fucking quoters in the throat if he could see how badly they took him out of context to support their points.

That said, he was willing to eat plenty of shit sandwiches if that's what it took to get to the merge.