Here is the draft: SSIC CODE/SERIAL 4 DEC 2007 From:__LT Master Bates XXX-YY-ZZZZ/1310 To:_____Navy Uniform Board OPNAV N131U Via:_-_(1)Commanding Officer, My Squadron (VT-XX) _______(2)Commander, My Wing (TW-Y) _______(3)Chief of Naval Air Training (CNATRA) _______(4)Chief of Naval Education and Training (CNET) Subj: Aviation Green Uniform 1. Respectfully request that Aviation Working Greens not be retired, but instead be changed to Aviation Service Greens, to more accurately reflect their current manner of wearing. Aviation Greens are a historical uniform that dates back to 1917, and projects a positive image on the Naval Service as a whole. 2. Request Aviation Greens be maintained as an optional uniform as not to interfere with the objective of cutting the sea bag's total cost. For the authorized variant wearing the Leather Flight Jacket in place of the Aviation Green blouse, the cost is under $75.00 for one pair of trousers and a Aviation Green garrison cap. 3. Recommend NEX stock AWG Trousers and Jacket in common sizes. Cost would be less if NEX stocked the Aviation Green specific components, versus being a special order item. Trousers, Jacket, Garrison and Combination Cover are are the only Aviation Green specific uniform items. C. A. BATES
Trying to find an appropriate SSIC code. So far I can find searching SECNAV 5215 the following: 1020 UNIFORMS RECORDS 10122 OFFICER CLOTHING AND UNIFORMS RECORDS Not much else I can dig up under Uniform. Any other ideas for SSIC?
Isn't it NETC now. I believe it's Commander, Naval Education and Training Command changed back in 2003 I think. Command Hierarchy CNO -> NETC (Naval Education and Training Command) -> NPDC (Naval Personnel Development Command) -> CNATT (Center for Naval Aviation Technical Training)
It is NETC... https://www.netc.navy.mil/ Also, I think the "jacket" is referred to in the uniform regs as a "coat."
Make sure Aviation Working Green is in the subj line iaw uniform regs nomenclature. If you want to reference the leather flight jacket option, it's 6803.2.b.(2). of the regs. rock on, brother.
Note: On March 9, 2006, the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) approved the alignment of CNATRA under Commander, Naval Air Forces (CNAF) (from CNATRA strategic vision doc). Accordingly, you will note NETC does not include CNATRA as a subordinate command.
I'm also confused as how to address that.. As the NAVADMIN states that Training Commands shall route via NETC. Are TRACOMS no longer "TRACOMS" now?
I may be dating myself, but unit Admin Dept used to keep hard copy of all outgoing correspondance (if they do it digitally now, this still works). Check their recent correspondance and my guess is you'll find something going up the chain that suits your purposes. Since they will generate format for your letter when your CO endorses it, they should be helpful anyway. I'd also check the NAVADMIN and if it predates the change or hasn't picked up CNATRA's routing chain change, that is why there's a disconnect.
By "Training Commands" they're referencing accession commands and initial technical training schools, etc. (BUD/S, CNATT, SWOS, sub school, NCOBC, NIOBC, and the like). TRACOMs as we know them now belong to CNAF.
Gotcha. Run via Local-Wing-CNATRA-CNAF route. The Admin dept here is all contractors. I went in asking if they had a dummy letter and I got the deer in headlights look. I will go seek the retired YNC out tomorrow.
I check in on this thread from time to time just to see how the train wreck is progressing. Jesus Christ - It's like the blind leading the blind in here. For those officers who are post 1st sea tour and are struggling with how to cobble together basic correspondence - just kill yourselves now so the selection & screening boards won't have to. Brett
Brett, I have a copy of the Naval Correspondence Manual. I am trying to make this a chop-free as I can. Let me guess, you can make a Naval Letter from you to a 3-star including the entire endorsing chain, from memory.
The first guy in the chop chain (if he's worth his salt) is going to chuckle, shake his head, and toss all your hard work into the shitcan - right where it belongs. Brett
Brett, I have been receiving support/encouragement from my COC on this. If you have a problem with me, take it to PM. I'm trying to do what I can here without this devolving into a Master vs Brett-Hinge pissing contest. Comment on AWG, critique my writing good or bad, or STFU.
I don't understand the big deal... I mean, isn't the purpose of the uniform board not just to promulgate uniform regulations, but also to take input from service members with regards to the current/proposed uniforms? Or is it better to just drink the kool-aid, say "aye, aye sir" and sit on the fringes and bitch about "the Man?" Not that it matters to me, I was just curious.
Here is the newest draft: SSIC CODE/SERIAL 5 DEC 2007 From:__LT Master Bates XXX-YY-ZZZZ/1310 To:_____Navy Uniform Board, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (OPNAV N131U) Via:_-_(1)Commanding Officer, My Squadron (VT-XX) _______(2)Commander, My Wing (TW-Y) _______(3)Chief of Naval Air Training (CNATRA) _______(4)Commander, Naval Air Forces (CNAF) Subj: Aviation Working Green Uniform 1. Respectfully request that Aviation Working Green uniform not be retired, but instead be changed to Aviation Service Green, to more accurately reflect their current manner of wearing. Aviation Working Green is a historical uniform that dates back to 1917, and projects a positive image on the Naval Service as a whole. Changing of the uniform to Aviation Service Green would allow wear outside of aviation activities, and would present a sharp, professional image when worn in view of the public. 2. Request Aviation Green, either as the current Aviation Working Green or as Aviation Service Green be maintained as an optional uniform as not to interfere with the objective of cutting the sea bag's total cost. For the authorized variant wearing the leather flight jacket in place of the Aviation Green coat, the cost is under $75.00 for one pair of trousers and an Aviation Green garrison cap. 3. Suggest NEX stock Aviation Green trousers and coat in common sizes. Cost would be less if NEX stocked the Aviation Green specific components, versus being a special order item. Aviation Green trousers, coat, garrison and combination cover are are the only Aviation Green specific uniform items. C. A. BATES
Masterbates...I commend you on what you're doing. I think that if the uniform is going to stay it's only going to stay if there is support for it from the JOs and they know there is support from the JOs. Keep up the drive and I look forward to reading it in Approach or whichever magazine it makes it to. I want them around long enough for me to wear... FYI: about the embroidered wings, Abbott Uniform carries them.
minor grammar changes, passive voice removal, etc.,... 1. Respectfully request the Aviation Working Green uniform not be retired, but be retained and modified to Aviation Service Green, to more accurately reflect the current manner of wear. The Aviation Working Green, a historic uniform that dates to 1917, projects a positive image on the Naval Service. Modifying the uniform to Aviation Service Green permits wear beyond aviation activities, and presents a sharp, professional image in public view. 2. Request the Aviation Green uniform, either as the current Aviation Working Green or as Aviation Service Green, be retained as an optional uniform not to interfere with the objective of reducing total sea bag cost. The authorized alternate wearing of the issue brown leather flight jacket in lieu of the Aviation Green coat reduces out of pocket cost for the uniform components to less than $75.00 for one pair of trousers and a Aviation Green garrison cap. 3. Suggest NEX stock Aviation Green trousers and coat in common sizes. Stocked the Aviation Green specific components mitigate costs, unlike special order items. Aviation Green trousers, coat, garrison and combination cover are the only unique Aviation Green uniform items.
Thank you Hozer. The Admin lady has it for ensuring the headers, addressees are correct, and it will probably be in to the XO this afternoon. I am sending a copy of the article into Rotor Review. (think The Hook for Helos) Is there any bubba who is a Tailhook member that would submit it to The Hook on my behalf? I'll look into seeing if I can get it into Naval Aviation News or other such pubs. Any more suggestions on either front?
I'll gladly ship it off to Tailhook for you. I'm in transit back to the states (via a bunch of stops) so I won't be able to do it for about 2 weeks... But then I will gladly do it!
Just got an email from Proceedings: I want to get this out in as many venues as possible. But I know just changing the article around a little bit is not going to cut it. Can someone else take the ball and run with it for The Hook? I really don't have the time to do a complete rewrite at the moment. The ideas are there. Many of you have helped me with it. Perhaps someone can write about the subject from another point of view or style and send it to The Hook. Or Naval Aviation News. Back to studying for my sim tonight..
Maybe ... the current E.D. of the Association is an Amigo of mine -- let me see if I can get hold of him via phonecon this week.
