AFI 36-2903 and dress/uniform regs and issues

[backseatdriver]

Hacker, nsplayer, et al -

The Air Commando hat has been in 2903 for a while - it's not a new addition. The only change was specifically mentioning ABUs. It used to just say BDUs.

What I find interesting is everyone being so up in arms over the newest version of 2903. A LOT of the stuff mentioned has been in there for YEARS (morale tabs, wheel cap for FGOs, AFSOC bush hat, etc) and all of a sudden now everyone is getting all butt hurt about it.

[Cap-10]

You can still wear black boots.....on Mondays with your blues. Next time I'm not flying on a Monday, you can bet your ass I'm wearing my black boots with my blues!

[nsplayr]

You can still wear black boots.....on Mondays with your blues. Next time I'm not flying on a Monday, you can bet your ass I'm wearing my black boots with my blues!

Did it last week...among the best decisions of my career. I challenge a shoe to try to chief me on my...shoes.

Edited November 14, 2011 by nsplayr

[Dead Last]

You can still wear black boots.....on Mondays with your blues. Next time I'm not flying on a Monday, you can bet your ass I'm wearing my black boots with my blues!

Unless your squadron commander further restricts the reg... Which happened here at the morale center of the universe that is Cannon...

FML

Cheers

[Skitzo]

HRT is prohibiting the wear of the commando hat. WIE UFN. The reasoning is that there is no wear guidance in the shoe clerk vol 3

[nsplayr]

YGBFSM. When did that snowflake come down the pipe? If shoe clerks are so good at writing "guidance" tell them to write some. How god damn hard is it to wear a hat??

[OregonHerc]

Question for everyone.

At a certain base in Arkansas today, I was chiefed on wearing an LED light on my flight suit zipper. Was I wrong in responding "no" when he said "you need to take that light off"?

[Guest Hueypilot812]

I don't know of any specific prohibition from wearing them. People wear them all the time, even in ABUs. I asked someone else in my office and they gave me the ever-predictable "well it doesn't say you CAN wear them either". True, but the AFIs don't specifically authorize you to breathe or take a shit either, so that line of logic is idiotic. I say tell the good Chief to show you where it's not authorized. Then if he gives you the "it doesn't say you can in 36-2903" then ask him where that reg specifically authorizes reflective belts...

[Toro]

Then if he gives you the "it doesn't say you can in 36-2903" then ask him where that reg specifically authorizes reflective belts...

You may lose that battle - some bases have a local sup that details when the reflective belt will be worn.

[brabus]

I think a simple no was the best response. He was probably completely expecting you to just give in and got the opposite. Playing the reg game just doesn't seem to work as well as the simple "no Chief" and then go on your way.

[B52Herc]

Question for everyone. At a certain base in Arkansas today, I was chiefed on wearing an LED light on my flight suit zipper. Was I wrong in responding "no" when he said "you need to take that light off"?

To address your question:

Saying "no" and walking off is not wrong provided you are an O-1 or above and provided the chief was not being disrespectful in tone, words, or approach (insofar as we're addressing good order and discipline). If the chief was in anyway disrespectful, then pausing for correction is in order provided the circumstances allows for this to be accomplished constructively - if not then report the chief's conduct to your commander.

(If your commander does not seem to care, that's a shame, but for your part you can recall this event when you're the commander and your folks come to you with similar experiences)

Assuming the chief was being respectful, but possibly mistaken (or perhaps you are mistaken), don't you think it preferable to take charge of the situation and discuss a little more fully? - e.g. introduce yourself, get his/her name unit and contact information, let the chief know that you're not aware of a published rule that clearly prohibits this small utility light, and since you are not subject to his/her direct authority you will continue to wear the light until presented with proof of this rule. Keep your words and tone good natured and professional. State your position clearly and move along - you are under no obligation to engage in debates with the enlisted force.*

(*I am not suggesting that being routinely dismissive of the opinions and ideas of our enlisted members is an acceptable SOP, but the scenario you present would be resolved by reference to published directives - no need for a debate)

I might anticipate replies that my comment demonstrates ignorance of how things actually are with regard to officer/chief conduct and authority. I know full well how it is, but the chiefs are not going to fix this - it's up to ALL the officers.

All-in-all, even if you were mistaken on the rule on the wearing of the light, what you did was better than removing the light and conveying that the chief has authority to direct your actions. But, if you knew you were in error, then you should not have been wearing the %$&# light on your uniform out where this chief was going to see you (sorry guys).

[Guest]

You can also simply ignore him and remain silent. Many argue that this approach will not work but that's only because they haven't tried it.

Consider the Chief's options if you had ignored him and walked away. He has very few and none of them make him look good and all of them are easily defeated.

He cannot physically detain you so all he can do is follow you around and most Chiefs will eventually lose their composure and make the critical "lack of respect" mistake if they pursue.

You still have the options B52Herc ponders if he decides to pursue "the issue" up the chain.

Tecnique only.

[Karl Hungus]

You can also simply ignore him and remain silent. Many argue that this approach will not work but that's only because they haven't tried it.

Consider the Chief's options if you had ignored him and walked away. He has very few and none of them make him look good and all of them are easily defeated.

He cannot physically detain you so all he can do is follow you around and most Chiefs will eventually lose their composure and make the critical "lack of respect" mistake if they pursue.

You still have the options B52Herc ponders if he decides to pursue "the issue" up the chain.

Tecnique only.

Technique attempted several times. Chief still threw a tantrum to his O-6 buddy (note I didn't say "boss"), and then I still had to explain my actions (or rather, lack thereof) to my boss. A complete waste of time for all involved, all over something THAT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER.

In one instance a Chief physically attempted to remove a tab patch from my flight suit. I broke the silent treatment on that one, and told him to keep his fucking hands off of me.

I know it's been several years since you've been AD, but I can't stress enough how bad it's gotten. Do you ever call out your friends (I assume you have friends that are 0-6s) still on AD and ask them WTF is wrong with them?

[contraildash]

Try this one on for size: getting cheifed while stepping to the jet (it's a bit of a walk) because you are sanitized and have no hat...

[Tank]

The best was getting chiefed while sitting alert in the desert - no weapon because it was already sitting in the jet, no patches, no hat, wearing an LED light. Those were the fun days of telling them to ###### off!

[backseatdriver]

The best response to why you don't have a gun at the chow hall - "The Chaplain said I shouldn't carry it for a while."

[Cap-10]

I have two stories, both while deployed to Bagram this year:

1) Chiefed (by the Command Chief) in the bathroom at 0330 becuase I was wearing my issued desert colored thermals under my PT gear when I went to go take a leak (inside my RLB). Instead of asking why I was wearing them, he just said "you know that's not an authorized combo, right?" to which I replied "Yup: and continued to take my leak. He then told me not to wear it anymore, at which point i told him that I was sleeping in my thermals and pt gear becuase it was January, it was snowing outside, and my heater had been broken for 6-9 days and i was trying not to freeze to death and all the camp mayor would tell me was "the work order has been submitted" but as soon as he could get my heater fixed, i would be more than happy to stop sleeping in my thermals....heater was fixed the next day.

2) Was sitting alert (sanitized uniform, no hats) and took the alert truck to get chow. As we were taking our to go lunch back to the squadron, we walked past the MXG/CD and he lost his mind becuase we didn't salute (hands were full), and the fact that we weren't wearing patches and hats...he obviously didn't care that we might have to be airborne, responding to a TIC in less than 15 minutes from the horn going off....MFP!

[WABoom]

I get all the "Chiefed" situations and grumblings, happens to me too. The thing is, it's not always the CMSgt's fault but the guy he works for. I would say for the most part that if a WG/CC or whoever didn't give his ok to do it, that it wouldn't happen as often. There is certainly a culture right now where pointing out dumb uniform infractions is the norm, unfortunately it's probably because the AF seems to think our mission is uniform changes/updates are the priority and not Fly, Fight, Win. And yes I just puked in my mouth for spouting the motto, but in essence we should be focused on killing bad guys and blowing shit up.

I guess in some way as a T.E.D. I feel some sense of duty to stick up for my own kind, but a lot of Chiefs/First Sergeants are making it harder and harder to do each day.

Edited November 24, 2011 by WABoom

[Duck]

thinking about lowering my name tag..

Ha ha! I was just told about a Lt Col (guard) at the Deid who was told that "your zipper needs to be in the middle of your nametag" by some Chief. The Lt Col then took his name tag and moved it down so just the top of the nametag was attached to the bottom of the velcro square and then walked away. Awesome.

[nsplayr]

We've seriously contemplated having a "lower patches" Friday in place of heritage patch Friday, which is now verboten. Take all four patches on your flight suit and place them as low on the velcro as possible. It looks ridiculous, and from my preliminary research, is totally legal.

[Skitzo]

I think the heritage patch issue is a USAF heraldry institute problem. Back in the day I was wearing this patch

And then word came down from on high that since it did not have rocker on the bottom it would have to be changed. Nevermind that was THE patch for over half of a century, it didn't have a rocker. I believe every squadron patch has to be vetted by those guys.

Thank god they prevailed this is much better

[Whitman]

Think there's something about the us flag being x amount of inches from the seam. Let us know how this turns out! The heritage patch removal is sad to hear. Lots of great Friday patches at HRT. The 14th WPS "puff the magic dragon" one is pretty awesome.

We've seriously contemplated having a "lower patches" Friday in place of heritage patch Friday, which is now verboten. Take all four patches on your flight suit and place them as low on the velcro as possible. It looks ridiculous, and from my preliminary research, is totally legal.

Edited November 27, 2011 by Whitman

[POKESC17]

We ran into a problem with Friday patches at Charleston. It's not written that we couldn't wear them but still caught flak over it, or at least our Chief caught flak over it. His end around was to get it added to the 2903 Wing sup that we could wear our Friday "Heritage" patch and a matching name tag. Until the Friday shirt got banned it was added as well. I personally never saw anyone or heard anyone ever complain about the patches and T-shirts except when he brought it up in a staff meeting that he was catching flak for it from the Chief's council. They were probably the only ones worried about it.

[Napoleon_Tanerite]

The biggest problem out there is that there is this "theory" that is being taught (and misunderstood) at all levels of PME stressing the importance of "attention to detail" and "if I can't trust you to wear your uniform right, how can I trust you to perform your job accordant to the AFIs and T.O.s." The reality is that most people DO wear their uniforms right but we still have people who are ######ing up in their jobs. They know to tuck in their shirts for PT, but damn if I ask a basic question about pay and allowances and get a blank stare. Ok I got it, we want people to look good, that is the easy AFI to enforce, now put that much effort into making people know their own AFIs for their primary job so it doesn't feel like Im the first person to ever ask about amendments to orders or how to renew a security clearance.

It's not just the drool being taught at PME that is the problem, it's the leadership mentality that a leader is ineffective if he/she is not continually doing SOMETHING. The fact of the matter is that by and large the Air Force is knocking it out of the park with regard to accomplishing assigned taskings. Leadership seems to think that they have run out of large rocks to crush, and thus have turned their attention to small rocks (uniforms, etc). Furthermore, leaders are pressured to change things for the better within their organization, thus leading to a desire to fix what isn't broken. Uniforms are a quick and easy thing to change that has no mission impact (aside from crushing morale, but that was shot YEARS ago, so no loss there).

[nsplayr]

Seriously agree. I would love to see an OPR or award package read, "Took over highly successful, operationally excellent shop/Squadron/Group/Wing. Maintained excellence, made no unnecessary changes." THAT guy gets a high five in my book.