CF issued kit use for civi purposes

[BDTyre]

I've been wearing my boots periodically throughout the summer, not because I want to or because they are great accessories to any outfit, but solely for the purpose of breaking them in. 

When I was first issued them, I wore them quite a bit to get them broken in, and then I wore them very little at all.  Now with stand-to just over a week away, I'm wearing them a bit more to help break them in some more.

 

[Lost_Warrior]

I'd like to see this.  Surely it refers to privately purchased examples of military kit rather than military kit you were issued?  Wearing a pair of combat boots you bought is one thing, using boots issued to you strikes me as misuse of government property - even if the two pairs of boots are identical.  One was paid for by you, the other by the Crown.

I think these guys might be right.  I remember hearing an officer while on course talking to one of our course staff.  He pretty much said what loyaleddie87 said.  As long as there is nothing on the kit that distinguishes you as CF, you can wear it.  The officer was refering to his boots to be more specific.

 

[gun plumber]

I'd like to see this.   Surely it refers to privately purchased examples of military kit rather than military kit you were issued?   Wearing a pair of combat boots you bought is one thing, using boots issued to you strikes me as misuse of government property - even if the two pairs of boots are identical.   One was paid for by you, the other by the Crown.

Sounds like a challenge!
Tomorrow I will post pub#,chap and para for everyones info.The dress regulations are very clear on the point that such items DO NOT identify the individual as a member of the CF.The wearing of combats with an epulatte and flag would constitute a no no,but a pair of black boots or green undies is fine.

 

[gun plumber]

Quote from: CF Publication A-AD-265-000/AG-001
Canadian Forces Dress Instructions from 2001-06-15
Wear of Civilian Clothes
47. Visible civilian items of apparel shall not be worn my members with any uniform, except where specifically authorized in these instructions. Conversely, items of uniform shall not be worn with civilian attire, except for accessories and garments (e.g., top-coat, raincoat, gloves, scarf and footwear) which do not include any CF insignia and by themselves do not explicitly identify the wearer as a member of the CF.

 

[theoldyoungguy]

dude u could probably get away with wearing anything, just make sure b4 u wear anything or use anything that all flags and rank insignia are removed. and as far as combats go i think thats the only thing i wouldnt use for civi purposes but u can get away with it if u have all rank insignia and flags removed as stated above. but just remember even tho its arguable as to whether or not u can "readily identify" as a CF member, ppl will assume u are if u got a short haircut, clean shaved and have anything cadpat. so just present urself in a manner befitting a CF member and ull never have any problems.

 

[George Wallace]

dude u could probably get away with wearing anything, just make sure b4 u wear anything or use anything that all flags and rank insignia are removed. and as far as combats go i think thats the only thing i wouldnt use for civi purposes but u can get away with it if u have all rank insignia and flags removed as stated above. but just remember even tho its arguable as to whether or not u can "readily identify" as a CF member, ppl will assume u are if u got a short haircut, clean shaved and have anything cadpat. so just present urself in a manner befitting a CF member and ull never have any problems.

After this sound advice, I would say that to be safe...Don't wear CADPAT.

 

[mudgunner49]

dude u could probably get away with wearing anything, just make sure b4 u wear anything or use anything that all flags and rank insignia are removed. and as far as combats go i think thats the only thing i wouldnt use for civi purposes but u can get away with it if u have all rank insignia and flags removed as stated above. but just remember even tho its arguable as to whether or not u can "readily identify" as a CF member, ppl will assume u are if u got a short haircut, clean shaved and have anything cadpat. so just present urself in a manner befitting a CF member and ull never have any problems.

loyaleddie87,


Not to be an ass, but would you mind using the King's English and spelling words in their entirety??  I'm know for a fact that I'm not the only one on this board who finds "chat room slang" to be more tha just annoying.  I really have a hard time taking anyone who communicates in such a manner seriously at all, in spite of how much they may in fact actually know...

cheers,

blake

 

[Mineguy]

Oh my...I have to say this one:

Got a freind who joked about how he had a small triwall of surplus cf great coats and a stack of new generals epaulets..he was gonna put them on the coats and hand them out to all the homeless in ottawa...wonder if he ever did.... ;D

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Quote from: CF Publication A-AD-265-000/AG-001
Canadian Forces Dress Instructions from 2001-06-15
Wear of Civilian Clothes
47. Visible civilian items of apparel shall not be worn my members with any uniform, except where specifically authorized in these instructions. Conversely, items of uniform shall not be worn with civilian attire, except for accessories and garments (e.g., top-coat, raincoat, gloves, scarf and footwear) which do not include any CF insignia and by themselves do not explicitly identify the wearer as a member of the CF.

This doesn't say anything about wearing issue stuff.  It could refer to stuff you buy at a surplus store. Since these items are available online from the logistikcorp site, I would guess that it isn't a big deal - you can be said to have "purchased" the stuff yourself if using your points, and you really can purchase the stuff by credit card.

It says absolutely nothing about wearing your Gore-Tex jacket or operational kit out hunting.  And I still say that represents a misuse of government property.  This snippet just justifies wearing certain items of DEU with civilian clothes.

 

[theoldyoungguy]

ur right it doesnt say anything about some items such as combat jackets. thats why almost all senior NCOs ive heard from have told me the same thing. use kit as u wish, just take into account if damaged from ur own personal use you are morally obligated to take responsibility for it. also again making sure all insignia is removed from it. as far as cadpat goes i use my cadpat small pack all the time. even those cadpat gortex gloves. its not hurting anyone by you using them. ive been told repeatedly by senior and junior NCOs use what u want as long as its not the uniform, and if u are using the uniform for say paintballing... make sure al rank and flags are removed. so my advice would be to just be careful. act as a canadian soldier should, if youve damaged kit thru personal use step up, and make sure all rank insignia is removed along with flags and i cant say u getting in shit.

 

[George Wallace]

loyaleddie87

Could you clean up you English?

You are a real pain in the butt to read. [Edit} and take serious.

 

[theoldyoungguy]

sorry im used to trying to type as fast as possible, disregarding proper grammer.

 

[Neill McKay]

This doesn't say anything about wearing issue stuff.   It could refer to stuff you buy at a surplus store. Since these items are available online from the logistikcorp site, I would guess that it isn't a big deal - you can be said to have "purchased" the stuff yourself if using your points, and you really can purchase the stuff by credit card.

It says absolutely nothing about wearing your Gore-Tex jacket or operational kit out hunting.   And I still say that represents a misuse of government property.   This snippet just justifies wearing certain items of DEU with civilian clothes.

Perhaps someone (not me) will be ambitious enough to do a pub crawl and find the order or regulation that supports that side of the argument.

 

[D-n-A]

For those who want to wear their uniforms for paintball, airsoft, etc read this

copy an pasted off another forum

"This is just a reminder for everyone serving, both reserve and reg force, that wearing your uniform, or any of the highspeed tac gear you have been issued to an airsoft game is strictly verboten.

There has recently been an incident involving some members of a reserve unit based out of Toronto - you guys know who you are. This was a serious incident that could have potentially led to charges for the members, and a whole whack of negative publicity for airsoft. It behooves us all as CF members to police ourselves to avoid such incidents in the future.

As CF members, we have to always strive to project a positive image of both the Canadian Forces and ourself both on and off duty. Behaviour such as previously mentioned brings immense dishonour both on the individuals and on the CF as a whole.

Most of us play by the rules, as always, it's the select few ruining things for the rest of us. Please, post and discuss below, but keep it clean guys, no need for a flame war or any res/reg bashing.

For the barrack-room lawyers amoung you;
http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/admfincs/subjects/qr_o/vol1/ch017_e.asp#17.06 "

 

[kyleg]

To quote an aquaintance of mine: "Cheating is allowed. Getting caught isn't."

Now, I understand and accept that some - perhaps many - people will not be pleased by this comment. However, I tend to live by the rule "no harm, no foul." Usually. There are always exceptions, of course.

What ACTUAL harm is there in, say, wearing one's issue gore-tex jacket hunting? "The problem is that you're breaking the rules!" I can hear some of you shouting at your computer screens. And that is a very valid argument. But ask yourselves, who do these rules protect? Is that not the reason we have most rules in our society, to protect ourselves and others from harm? Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I can tell, disallowing the wearing of a gore-tex jacket by a member of the CF while hunting does not protect anyone. The uselessness of this regulation is accentuated by the fact that civilians are not at all forbidden from wearing the same gore-tex jacket during the same activity (or any activity for that matter).

As a second example, my CF issue sleeping bag happens to be the best I own for cold weather. Regulations aside, how is there any harm in me using my CF issue sleeping bag during a winter camping trip?

The long and the short of it is, I see no problem in using issued kit civy side if it does no actual harm to yourself or anyone else.

Cheers,
Pinky

 

[BDTyre]

I can agree with your stance, but I can also agree with the others.

Technically, none of this stuff issued to me is mine.  It still belongs to the Crown.  Therefore, if I damage something, I've damaged an item loaned to me in good trust.  Of course, if someone happens to ruin something on their own time, they should be made to pay for it.

Having said that, it is likely far easier to make a regulation outright prohibiting the use of issued equipment in the civy world than to try and deal with all the damage claims and people trying to get out of it by blaming it on someone else, or saying the item was defective from the start, etc., etc.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

What if you lose/damage a piece of equipment and then get tasked out before you can replace it? You automatically have cut your effectiveness for you and your unit down all because you see nothing wrong with using your issued equipment for personal use.

 

[paracowboy]

listen up, troops. I don't give a rolling rat's ass about what you "think" is right or wrong, here. The Crown says "Don't do it". So you don't do it. Period. Whether you 'don't see the harm' or not, you were given a lawful command. Do you get to pick and choose which legal orders you will follow now? I must have missed the memo.

You want to be considered a professional soldier, you act like it, and that includes following the lawful orders you don't agree with.

Give your damn heads a shake.  :

 

[Pte_Martin]

i agree with paracowboy! We soldiers were trained to follow orders, even the ones that the officers tells us to run and take out the machine gun nest. Why disobey a order that's so easy to follow?

 

[kyleg]

I both understand and agree with your point paracowboy. However I still think that it is our right to discuss and debate the meaning and validity of such orders. Obviously I don't mean that just because we can discuss them we should be able to come to our own conclusions and pick and choose which orders to follow. But in my short experience on this planet it seems to me that progress is only made when people sit down and try to figure out how the current system could be improved.

Cheers,
Pinky