PDA

View Full Version : Upcoming changes to AR 670-1



Creaminess
01-18-2012, 08:11 PM
These are some notes from the Sergeant Major of the Army's Board of Directors meeting that took place 9-11 January 2012. They are not yet in effect but will be published and clarified in an upcoming update to AR 670-1.

Some of these are going to cause quite an uproar. I'm dying to hear comments on these!

*AR 670-1 update
-Many changes are coming to AR 670-1. This is just a summary of some of them. Do not begin to enforce until the regulation is complete and published!
-New revision of the regulation will define the following terms; eccentric, faddish, conservative, inconspicuous, unsightly, hair braids/plaits.
-AR 670-1 will be a punitive order in the future.
-Sideburns will not extend below the top of the ear.
-Soldier will be clean shaven on and off duty.
-Female and male hair grooming standards will become more restrictive and better defined.
-Females will be allowed to put their hair into a pony tail during PT.
-Males will be prohibited from wearing cosmetics to include nail polish, females may wear cosmetics conservatively, but can only wear nail polish in service, mess or dress uniforms.
-Females fingernail length will not exceed ¼ in, no fake nails, add-ons, or extensions will be authorized.
-Tattoos will not be visible above the neck line when the IPFU is worn. Tattoos will not extend below the wrist line and not on the hands. Sleeve tattoos will be prohibited (this one will be grandfathered).
-Soldiers will not walk while engaged in activities that require the hand salute. (eating, cell phone use, etc…)
-ACUs will not be commercially pressed; hand ironing of the ACU (UCP) only will be authorized.
-Bags worn over the shoulder will only be black or ACU without logos.
-The new regulation will specify civilian clothes standards both on and off duty and both on and off post.
-No visible body piercings on or off duty and on or off post, males will never wear earrings. Ear gauging will be unauthorized.
-No dental ornamentation will be authorized.
-Soldiers will be authorized to wear authorized ballistic eyewear in garrison.
-Officers will wear non-subdued rank on their headgear in garrison.

justin0495
01-19-2012, 02:57 AM
Er, source? Obviously many of these changes are controversial to state the least. Until they are official and until a source on these changes are given, I’ll believe it (and comment on it) when I see it.

11Bravo
01-19-2012, 07:27 PM
Some of these new standards seem overboard. Dictating your cleanliness and fashion style while off post/off duty?

What is your source for this? post a link.

Creaminess
01-19-2012, 08:35 PM
This was from an email I received yesterday about the SMA's BOD that took place last week. My guess (and this is only a guess) is that some of this stuff is going to have to be revised prior to implementation. I can certainly agree with SOME of it, but telling me I have to shave every freakin' day, even on leave and weekends? Telling my I have to have my sideburns at the top of my ears? Then you don't have sideburns, right? There are some who take liberties with AR 670-1...we all know that. But who's to decide what's acceptable off-duty attire? If the new reg says you can't wear anything "offensive," then that's pretty open to interpretation because anything can be offensive to at least one person.

There is no link to my source...it was on a Word document I got as an attachment to an email. A retired SGM who works here in the Pentagon sent it to us as an FYI. I have no idea when this will actually take effect, as it was not stated.

What I posted was just a snippet of what's on the sheet. There are other changes, such as to NCOES courses, that are supposed to be taking place as well.

MisterBen
01-19-2012, 11:04 PM
Sidesburns cannot go below the top of the ear? It should be middle. Top of the ear does not make sense.

former31B
01-20-2012, 01:14 AM
Sidesburns cannot go below the top of the ear? It should be middle. Top of the ear does not make sense.

I was going to say the same thing. I'd have to have a diagonal line from the corner of my forehead to behind my ear to conform to this regulation.

former31B
01-20-2012, 01:23 AM
Overall, nothing on this list surprises me. I still don't understand the purpose of writing something into regulation that you can't possibly enforce, i.e., what people wear when on leave (really on leave, not just weekends on post). I'd like to see them specify, like: "Except for when on leave status...".

Regulating civilian attire will be interesting. I don't understand how this will be accomplished and I am not convinced of the merits behind it. I think this has the potential to be more of a hinderance and distraction then solving any problems.

CYBERFX1024
01-20-2012, 03:10 AM
Man you soldiers cry like little babies once actual rules come to implement dress and uniform standards. The Marine Corps has already had most of these for over a decade, and started a couple of the others in the last 4 years (ie sleeve tattoos). I am on KAF right now and there are so many nasty soldiers that just feel they can do whatever the hell they want and no one will say anything. It is sickening.

CYBERFX1024
01-20-2012, 03:15 AM
Actually it is easy to implement out in town. IF you have actual NCO's, SNCO's, and Officer willing to stand up to the little punk E3/E4 and tell them to fix their shit

CORNELIUSSEON
01-20-2012, 04:18 AM
What is coming down the line is a trip back to the future. That is, I see that many things we had when I first joined are on their way back. Hallelujah. Yes, I was still on Active Duty when many of these items first changed, and all of the people I knew at the time knew that things wouldn’t last: we all felt that sooner or later, our progeny would take things too far, and a Conservative SMA would bring the hammer down. Well, if this one is really serious, I would get ready to comply in short order if I were you; this SMA strikes me as being a reincarnation of Gunny R. Lee Ermey; there were lots of NCOs in the Regular Army who were just like him, and this one seems to have hunkered down and went along with the program until he got to where he is, and can now do something about the things he doesn’t like.


AR 670-1 will be a punitive order in the future. AR 670-1 was a punitive order at the time I joined, and I forget when it ceased being one in the past.
Sideburns will not extend below the top of the ear. This was the case when I first joined, and it kept several Post Barber Shops in full service.
Soldier will be clean shaven on and off duty. Ditto about the Post Barber Shop(s). This one can be easily enforced for those who remain On Post, and for those who live Off Post, but come to work in the Duty Uniform. We African Americans broke the back on this one. Many of us ended up getting Pseudofolliculitis barbae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudofolliculitis_barbae) because of the number of shaves we had to do to remain Clean Shaven, and things got worse when we switched to Magic Shave depilatory in order to remain In Compliance, and got burned. I standardized on Magic Shave because that was the only way I could shave, and come away without visible stubble, and only have to shave once a day. Those of us who really didn’t want to go through the hassle and seriously had the affliction, would go on Sick Call and got a Profile for the affliction, and when enough of us showed up for Formation with Profiles in the Upper Left Pocket, that part of AR 670-1 was changed accordingly.
Female and male hair grooming standards will become more restrictive and better defined. This one has been changed a whole lot since the days of World War One, when Women first showed up in Uniform. When I first joined, Men had to visit the Post Barber Shop(s) once a week to remain In Compliance. Why? Because the PBS always had photographic samples of the haircuts that were in compliance with AR 670-1, often with numbers below the pictures, and you would get in the Barber’s Chair, and ask for “Give me a number X”. To show you how this one has remained active in the Guard, we had two guys in my Unit who brought their Hair Clipper Kits with them to Saudi Arabia, and, on layovers at each of our Bivouac Sites, they would set up in one of the GP Mediums, and charge a Dollar for a Hair Cut and 50 Cents for a Trim. Yes, my Unit remained In Compliance with the Haircut Regulation as a result.
Females will be allowed to put their hair into a pony tail during PT. This one is totally new, since Females were never allowed to wear their hair long enough to be put up in a Pony Tail; the limit was always a Bun.
Males will be prohibited from wearing cosmetics to include nail polish, females may wear cosmetics conservatively, but can only wear nail polish in service, mess or dress uniforms. This one adheres closely to current policy with a few serious modifications, especially the last clause. Originally, Females were only permitted to wear cosmetics when in Civilian Clothes.
Females fingernail length will not exceed ¼ in, no fake nails, add-ons, or extensions will be authorized. This one is simply a clarification of existing policy. Originally, Females had the same requirement as Males
Tattoos will not be visible above the neck line when the IPFU is worn. Tattoos will not extend below the wrist line and not on the hands. Sleeve tattoos will be prohibited (this one will be grandfathered). This one is totally new. Originally, only the Navy and the Marine Corps allowed any sort of Tattoos for any reason, at any time. It was only during Vietnam that they started to show up with any regularity.
Soldiers will not walk while engaged in activities that require the hand salute. (eating, cell phone use, etc…). This one represents a clarification, since it is based on the age-old prohibition of carrying an Umbrella.
ACUs will not be commercially pressed; hand ironing of the ACU (UCP) only will be authorized. This is one that we thought had a stake in its heart when we did away with it. The original Fatigues required Starching and Ironing, and AR-670-1 had a paragraph that said as much. In those days, there was no way for Bachelor Soldiers to wash, starch and iron the fatigues themselves because the Post Laundry had a monopoly on such tasks, and Barracks had yet to gain Washing Machines. With the arrival of the BDU/DBDU, this paragraph was withdrawn, since we were told to NOT starch or Iron the BDU/DBDU under any circumstances.
Bags worn over the shoulder will only be black or ACU without logos. This is a twist on the original paragraph. When I came in, only Females were permitted to carry shoulder bags.
The new regulation will specify civilian clothes standards both on and off duty and both on and off post. This one really brings back memories. This is one of the reasons why Posts originally had the MPs on the Gate stop all POVs, and visually inspect all obvious troops. If you didn’t meet AR 670-1 Standards, you couldn’t leave post. If there was bus transportation between the Post and Downtown, the MPs would board at the gate, and remove anyone who violated AR 670-1. In areas where the Troops spent a lot of time Downtown, MPs would roam the Downtown area, and would stop obvious Troops and inspect them on the spot. Those that violated the AR 670-1 Standards would find an Article 15 waiting for them upon their return to Post, or on the next Duty Day.
No visible body piercings on or off duty and on or off post, males will never wear earrings. Ear gauging will be unauthorized; -No dental ornamentation will be authorized. AR 670-1 has always said this in various forms of language.
Soldiers will be authorized to wear authorized ballistic eyewear in garrison. This one made me laugh. Why? Because when I was on Active Duty, Sunglasses – other than those prescribed by the Post Optometrist – were totally prohibited. This liberalization should be quite welcome.
Officers will wear non-subdued rank on their headgear in garrison. This one restores the Army –almost – to the pre-Vietnam War uniform dress. Prior to the Vietnam War, there was no such thing as Subdued Rank Insignia. It was instituted to reduce the possibility of being shot in Combat. The current paragraph in AR 670-1 on the subject is the original one, except that wear on the Beret was added. This change will be a pain in the butt UNLESS people start buying two sets of headgear, one with Subdued Rank, and the other with Full Color Rank.

Cadencernr
01-20-2012, 01:33 PM
Man you soldiers cry like little babies once actual rules come to implement dress and uniform standards. The Marine Corps has already had most of these for over a decade, and started a couple of the others in the last 4 years (ie sleeve tattoos). I am on KAF right now and there are so many nasty soldiers that just feel they can do whatever the hell they want and no one will say anything. It is sickening.

Wow, really? Not all of us are crying about this. It needs to be done.

I got this same email yesterday and agree with most of the changes. I do think some of it is over the top, but hey, roll with the punches and drive on. The Army needs some big changes. Soldiers have gotten soft and need to be brought back to reality.

Creaminess
01-20-2012, 01:59 PM
As the originator of this thread, let me clarify that I agree with MOST of the changes. Here's where I disagree:

Sideburns: Top of the ear...really? Then it's not a sideburn, is it? Just say no sideburns. I will concede that there are some guys who try to get pretty stylish with their stuff, but those are the exception, not the rule. If the current policy was enforced, they wouldn't be doing it now and this change wouldn't be needed.

Civilian clothes: What I didn't state in my original post but heard yesterday from somebody at Fort Bliss who stated her unit was briefed on the changes was that males would have to wear button-down shirts and their pants (I'm assuming slacks now instead of jeans) would have to have belts. Seriously? Are we trying to dictate every facet of a Soldier's life? Let's get real. She said they even briefed that there will be courtesy patrols going around looking for violations. Apparently at the same time we're cutting troops, we're going to waste the time of the troops we don't cut by putting them on courtesy patrol at the PX and other places. What a waste of manpower, time, and resources.

Clean shaven on and off duty: Oh, I gotta shave now on weekends and when I'm on leave? Yeah, try to enforce that with me. That's stupid.

The rest of them, I can live with for the most part.

Now, to those saying "back in the day, it was like this...", I got it. But times have changed. "Back in the day," you also didn't have a lot of the things you have now. Do you really want to justify these changes by saying "that's how it used to be"? Because if you do, then recall back then you didn't have computers, cell phones, and a lot of the other things that give you the quality of life you have now. Just because some rule used to exist doesn't mean it was good, does it? I mean, slavery used to be legal "back in the day," and I don't think you hear anybody calling for a return to those times. Yeah, that example is pretty over the top, but if you're going to justify changes by saying "that's how it used to be," then I can play that game too.

There is a fine line between what makes sense and what is just ludicrous. Some of these proposed changes do NOT make sense.

By the way, while I'm not as old as some who post here, I have over 2 decades of active duty and am still serving, so I'm not some FNG just sounding off here. And don't tell me to retire if I don't like it. If you just lie down and take everything that is forced upon you without speaking up and trying to make people think rationally about what they're doing, that's your thing. I won't do that.

15TANGO
01-20-2012, 03:39 PM
Wow it's things like this that make me glad I got out. I would have to say the biggest rule change I have an issue with is the tattoo policy it's almost the same as it was pre 2005-2006 except that it was the neck line on the class A shirt. So basically they changed the rules because they needed more troops and now that theres a draw down they want to change it back I think they need to grandfather everyone who came in during the wars back to whatever the tattoo policy was when they entered the service.

ImpliedConsent
01-20-2012, 04:20 PM
Wow, really? Not all of us are crying about this. It needs to be done.

I got this same email yesterday and agree with most of the changes. I do think some of it is over the top, but hey, roll with the punches and drive on. The Army needs some big changes. Soldiers have gotten soft and need to be brought back to reality.

I'm not disareeing with the SMA (although the sideburns made me chuckle); but I'll disagree with the "soft" comment. What you actually meant to say is that Soldiers in garrison have become complacent on uniform standards because their leaders mistakenly believed that they might relax on the pressure.
Oh, what pressure? How about 10yrs of combat? How about those same Soldiers, who were recovering from their latest TIC or IED decided to take off their cover, open up their blouse to cool off for a bit? How about the guys who were scraping off parts of their buddy off their trousers, boots and ACH?
Yep, we need to get back into the garrison environment and push back to some 670-1'isms. Give it some time. We're in no rush. We just want to wipe the blood, sweat, tears and gore off our face and chill just a 'sec ... 'cuz we're hard like that ... or, dang, we cried a bit, maybe we are soft. My bad.

11Bravo
01-20-2012, 04:46 PM
A lot of these rules are already in place and have been for some time. Same thing is happening today that happened in the 90's. They are downsizing. Some of the bad will be kicked out, and a lot of the good will just ETS. What will be left are mostly mediocre soldiers who i wouldn't buy a used car from.

But whatever, I am going to drive on, stay in my lane, and take care of my soldiers by leading by example and setting them up for success not only in the Army but in their every day lives.

Leadership has lost sight of what the Army is all about. Professionalism is but an arbitrary word these days. Political correctness has infested us from top down.

The only way you'll toughen soldiers up is by breaking them down in Basic and building them back up before they reach their line unit. Something that doesn't happen anymore.

Cadencernr
01-20-2012, 05:05 PM
I'm not disareeing with the SMA (although the sideburns made me chuckle); but I'll disagree with the "soft" comment. What you actually meant to say is that Soldiers in garrison have become complacent on uniform standards because their leaders mistakenly believed that they might relax on the pressure.
Oh, what pressure? How about 10yrs of combat? How about those same Soldiers, who were recovering from their latest TIC or IED decided to take off their cover, open up their blouse to cool off for a bit? How about the guys who were scraping off parts of their buddy off their trousers, boots and ACH?
Yep, we need to get back into the garrison environment and push back to some 670-1'isms. Give it some time. We're in no rush. We just want to wipe the blood, sweat, tears and gore off our face and chill just a 'sec ... 'cuz we're hard like that ... or, dang, we cried a bit, maybe we are soft. My bad.

OK, let me clarify.....SOME soldiers have gotten soft. You specifically, maybe not. I see things that blow my mind some days. I am more referring to the soldier I see walking around off duty with spacers in his ears and a fauxhawk. AIT students who push the limits. Regs are not enforced these days. Basic and AIT are the cause of this. I am a SFC with 12 years in and see some serious changes in soldiers. Have you been to war and seen some jacked up stuff? Hell yes, BUT you are still a soldier and standards need to be maintained.

If I offended you, sorry. If the shoe fits, wear it, if not, then don't pay attention to my post.

Cadencernr
01-20-2012, 05:07 PM
A lot of these rules are already in place and have been for some time. Same thing is happening today that happened in the 90's. They are downsizing. Some of the bad will be kicked out, and a lot of the good will just ETS. What will be left are mostly mediocre soldiers who i wouldn't buy a used car from.

But whatever, I am going to drive on, stay in my lane, and take care of my soldiers by leading by example and setting them up for success not only in the Army but in their every day lives.

Leadership has lost sight of what the Army is all about. Professionalism is but an arbitrary word these days. Political correctness has infested us from top down.

The only way you'll toughen soldiers up is by breaking them down in Basic and building them back up before they reach their line unit. Something that doesn't happen anymore.


And this is exactly what is happening. It is a cycle after every war.

former31B
01-20-2012, 05:39 PM
Same thing is happening today that happened in the 90's. They are downsizing. Some of the bad will be kicked out, and a lot of the good will just ETS. What will be left are mostly mediocre soldiers who i wouldn't buy a used car from.

This is exactly what I'm afraid of. Just like in the 90s, we'll be left with a bunch of senior leaders who look pretty in Class A's, but when the next conflict happens...when it comes time to send men into harm's way...those senior leaders will be calling branch waving their perfect NCOERS and trying to hide out at the School House. Those guys who cut their teeth in the Army by kicking down doors over 4-6 Iraq/Afghanistan deployments? They'll be long gone.

ImpliedConsent
01-21-2012, 12:12 AM
This is exactly what I'm afraid of. Just like in the 90s, we'll be left with a bunch of senior leaders who look pretty in Class A's, but when the next conflict happens...when it comes time to send men into harm's way...those senior leaders will be calling branch waving their perfect NCOERS and trying to hide out at the School House. Those guys who cut their teeth in the Army by kicking down doors over 4-6 Iraq/Afghanistan deployments? They'll be long gone.

Cadencernr naa, ain't offended bro. I've seen this coming for some time now and it's kinda expected and will be supported. I'm more in the line of 31b above. Bullets start flying and they start runnin'. Those are the same exact guys who push for these changes "now" because "they" look like dirt bags.

I'm so way over how soon senior leaders forget.

CYBERFX1024
01-21-2012, 10:36 AM
A lot of these rules are already in place and have been for some time. Same thing is happening today that happened in the 90's. They are downsizing. Some of the bad will be kicked out, and a lot of the good will just ETS. What will be left are mostly mediocre soldiers who i wouldn't buy a used car from.

But whatever, I am going to drive on, stay in my lane, and take care of my soldiers by leading by example and setting them up for success not only in the Army but in their every day lives.

Leadership has lost sight of what the Army is all about. Professionalism is but an arbitrary word these days. Political correctness has infested us from top down.

The only way you'll toughen soldiers up is by breaking them down in Basic and building them back up before they reach their line unit. Something that doesn't happen anymore.

Yes, alot of these rules have been in place. But now a days there are ALOT of NCO's who are scared to make correections to a soldier. Due to being to PC orientated. I was a Marine, but now I work with all Army retired soldiers, on a Army base. It is crazy what you see Soldiers try and get away with. It's not even the hardchargers that are going out on patrols, it is the Fobbits that are here on the FOB the whole time.

This happened with the Marine Corps too, when they "Generals" wanted all the "Undesireables" out of the Marines. It didn't matter that they were the best at what they did, or how many deployments they went on. It only mattered how you looked in uniform. You would see stand up, hard charging awesome Marines that can't do a B billet due to tattoos. So basically that Marine got condemned and forced out bc he can't be promoted.

It's straight up bs

FatCat40
01-21-2012, 10:47 AM
These are some notes from the Sergeant Major of the Army's Board of Directors meeting that took place 9-11 January 2012. They are not yet in effect but will be published and clarified in an upcoming update to AR 670-1.

Some of these are going to cause quite an uproar. I'm dying to hear comments on these!

-females may wear cosmetics conservatively, but can only wear nail polish in service, mess or dress uniforms.
-Females fingernail length will not exceed ¼ in, no fake nails, add-ons, or extensions will be authorized.
-The new regulation will specify civilian clothes standards both on and off duty and both on and off post.


I am soooooooooooo glad I'm done with the Army. And OMG you have GOT to be kidding me about the civilian attire OFF POST specifiations! I think this should help w/the downsizing as anyone w/a modicum of individuality should be beating the doors down trying to get the hell out if all this is strictly enforced! Hmmmmm.....maybe that's the plan......

MisterBen
01-21-2012, 02:46 PM
.
Sideburns will not extend below the top of the ear. This was the case when I first joined, and it kept several Post Barber Shops in full service.


So what year was this? When did AR670-1 change for all those black power Afros (and wearing doorags to pack their hair before drill) that I saw from the seventies to early 80s? Even the white soldiers with long hair.

http://www.12sided.com/blog/tag/us-army/

CON50582
02-06-2012, 09:23 PM
The sideburns are going the way of the mustache. The only people I have seen master the impossible mustache is old Armor guys they had it down.

As far as shaving off duty I got used to that when I was at Benning it gets a little weird down there. They still had courtesy patrols too. That was fun.

Civilian clothes off duty. If they want us in a "uniform" off duty they better pony up the money to issue it or a clothing allowance. Good luck making Joe buy those cool guy short sleeve golf shirts with unit logos that lots of senior leaders like to wear off duty.

CORNELIUSSEON
02-07-2012, 12:07 AM
So what year was this? When did AR670-1 change for all those black power Afros (and wearing doorags to pack their hair before drill) that I saw from the seventies to early 80s? Even the white soldiers with long hair.

http://www.12sided.com/blog/tag/us-army/

I joined in 1967, and it changed before 1974, when I moved to the New York Army National Guard. Just to let you know, I didn't approve of the change. I accommodated the shaving issue by using Magic Shave Depilatory, which kept my face in compliance.

CORNELIUSSEON
02-07-2012, 12:12 AM
The sideburns are going the way of the mustache. The only people I have seen master the impossible mustache is old Armor guys they had it down.

As far as shaving off duty I got used to that when I was at Benning it gets a little weird down there. They still had courtesy patrols too. That was fun.

Civilian clothes off duty. If they want us in a "uniform" off duty they better pony up the money to issue it or a clothing allowance. Good luck making Joe buy those cool guy short sleeve golf shirts with unit logos that lots of senior leaders like to wear off duty.

We Retirees are the inspiration for those shirts. You can spot us on Post at a glance. More than half of the people you see with those shirts are Retirees, although we tend to wear our Retiree Hat with the shirt.

SENDBILLMONEY
02-07-2012, 01:13 PM
We Retirees are the inspiration for those shirts. You can spot us on Post at a glance. More than half of the people you see with those shirts are Retirees, although we tend to wear our Retiree Hat with the shirt.

I'd be careful about painting with too broad a brush here. Neither preference makes an individual better or worse than anyone else, but some of us don't even own, much less wear such items.

imported_Yggdrasil
02-07-2012, 03:20 PM
Wow, really? Not all of us are crying about this. It needs to be done.

I got this same email yesterday and agree with most of the changes. I do think some of it is over the top, but hey, roll with the punches and drive on. The Army needs some big changes. Soldiers have gotten soft and need to be brought back to reality.

The mentality that "we put these rules on you, because you're in the military and your life is SUPPOSED to suck" belongs in the Marine Corps.

CORNELIUSSEON
02-07-2012, 04:21 PM
I'd be careful about painting with too broad a brush here. Neither preference makes an individual better or worse than anyone else, but some of us don't even own, much less wear such items.

My brush is fine pointed, actually, since I live 8 Miles from JB-MDL, where I do most of my food shopping, and attend the annual Retiree Seminar. I also have a lot of time in various parts of New Jersey and New York, where the Veterans and Retirees are easy to point out by what they wear. Incidentally, I was last on base on January 28th, and the persons I saw in both the PX and Commissary who were there in Camouflage were from accross the military spectrum, from Army and Air Force to Navy and Marines, and they were conspicuous by their numbers.

Creaminess
02-07-2012, 07:28 PM
Wow, really? Not all of us are crying about this. It needs to be done.

I got this same email yesterday and agree with most of the changes. I do think some of it is over the top, but hey, roll with the punches and drive on. The Army needs some big changes. Soldiers have gotten soft and need to be brought back to reality.

Yes, some DO make sense. But there's a difference between telling you what you CAN'T wear off duty (such as clothing with profanity or disrespectful of the government/POTUS/military) and what you can ONLY wear. That is ridiculous, and there isn't anything you can tell me that would make me change my mind on that. We already give up many freedoms that most Americans get because we serve in the military. Telling me I have to wear a polo shirt and can't wear a t-shirt supporting my favorite sports team when I'm off duty is nothing short of stupid. If you have to dictate to that level of detail, then that means you do not trust your troops to make their own intelligent decisions, and I don't want to work for a military that micromanages every aspect of my life.

CORNELIUSSEON
02-08-2012, 12:33 AM
Yes, some DO make sense. But there's a difference between telling you what you CAN'T wear off duty (such as clothing with profanity or disrespectful of the government/POTUS/military) and what you can ONLY wear. That is ridiculous, and there isn't anything you can tell me that would make me change my mind on that. We already give up many freedoms that most Americans get because we serve in the military. Telling me I have to wear a polo shirt and can't wear a t-shirt supporting my favorite sports team when I'm off duty is nothing short of stupid. If you have to dictate to that level of detail, then that means you do not trust your troops to make their own intelligent decisions, and I don't want to work for a military that micromanages every aspect of my life.



This brings to mind my sainted Basic Training Drill Sergeant, SSG William L. Carr, who was known to reply to someone like you: “When we want you to make a decision, we’ll issue you one and teach you how to use it! Until then, stand at attention, and button your lip!”

It seems that you are mistaking the Peacetime Military for the Wartime Military. The US Military almost always loosens the reins when it goes off to war because it knows that Garrison rules never work very well out in Combat Zones. What you experienced during these war years was the Wartime Military, and what is pinching your butt now is the Peacetime Military. If you cannot live within the rules that govern Peacetime Garrison life, you certainly should head out the door before they push you out. However, I do recommend that you transfer to the National Guard and sample that and see if that is to your liking, because Garrison Life in the Guard is much lighter than it is in the Regular Military.

Pullinteeth
02-08-2012, 07:39 AM
I am soooooooooooo glad I'm done with the Army. And OMG you have GOT to be kidding me about the civilian attire OFF POST specifiations! I think this should help w/the downsizing as anyone w/a modicum of individuality should be beating the doors down trying to get the hell out if all this is strictly enforced! Hmmmmm.....maybe that's the plan......

The USMC already dictates what Marines can and cannot wear as civilian clothes... To us normal people it seems odd but it is already being done.


What you experienced during these war years was the Wartime Military, and what is pinching your butt now is the Peacetime Military.

AB(r) Seon, you have heard of a little place called Afghanistan haven't you? Or are you too busy enforcing uniform standards that you are unfamiliar with?

CON50582
02-08-2012, 01:18 PM
I spent half my time in the "peacetime" Army (you know the one that served in the Middle East, Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, and Haiti) and they didn't feel the need to dress me like a Frat Boy with khaki pants and a polo somehow we got along.

Retirees don't have the monopoly on Unit polos. I have a few I have to wear for certain functions but I don't expect Joe to go buy them because the Senior NCO's in VA think it would be "professional".

If what we want is to control that aspect of our life then go back to having to be in uniform off post. I don't know why that went away I believe it was in the 60's probably something to do with morale but those who pine for the "old days" would enjoy it. While we are bringing back the "old day" we might as well bring back the drug problems of the 70's and the poor readiness of the 50's along with the hollow Army of the pre Reagan days. Lets just have a vintage Army party. Wait we are.

Everybodys generation in the Army was the hard good old days.

11Bravo
02-08-2012, 01:59 PM
I understand the command desire to force soldiers to stop wearing Affliction, Tap Out, and extra long white T-shirts. However, if Joe wants to look like a dbag, that is his prerogative. IMO, tucking your polo shirt into your jeans makes you look like a tool. The problem here is that these kind of policies are left up to a few people's opinions. Something that shouldn't be done.

I think the magic word here is "morale". Soldier's don't join the Army wanting/needing/expecting every aspect of their lives to be dictated to them. It is certainly one thing to enforce policies on post. Something quite different when you are off post and off duty. That is what this is really about.

And to comment on the abundance of marine posts, I have seen many Marines wearing Affliction and Tap Out.

SENDBILLMONEY
02-08-2012, 06:19 PM
My brush is fine pointed, actually, since I live 8 Miles from JB-MDL, where I do most of my food shopping, and attend the annual Retiree Seminar. I also have a lot of time in various parts of New Jersey and New York, where the Veterans and Retirees are easy to point out by what they wear. Incidentally, I was last on base on January 28th, and the persons I saw in both the PX and Commissary who were there in Camouflage were from accross the military spectrum, from Army and Air Force to Navy and Marines, and they were conspicuous by their numbers.

Funny, I know retirees and veterans who wear the entire spectrum of civilian clothing. Business suits, biker gear, gangsta attire, you name it. Sure, it's easy to spot the vet (or at least the purported vet) who's wearing military-oriented gear. They may as well just paint it on their forehead. Some folks leave active duty and (gasp) assimilate, however, and you wouldn't know unless they told you or a particular term or mannerism caught your attention.

I saw a story in the Navy Times a long time ago about a male non-veteran military spouse who was on base and stopped by a Navy E-8* who informed him that he needed a haircut. The spouse laughed him off and the E-8 demanded that he produce his ID card before going on with his day. Once he saw the tan ID, he went away. Sorry, there's no foolproof GI version of "gaydar."

* A Navy E-8 is properly referred to as Senior Chief Petty Officer or Senior Chief. In this case, "ate-up tool" would be an appropriate term of address.

ArmyJedi
02-12-2012, 11:31 AM
All I have to say is Good Luck with some of this. Cut the hair shorter: good, time to tighten things back up a little. Let famales wear pony tails: good, keeps them from always fixing their buns that come undone while they exercise. Tattoos: Get real, warriors of every society have distinctive tattoos, ours is no different, although I never agreed with hands and necks, sleeves are a personal choice and shall continue to be so regardless of what the regs say (you tough-guy Marines have showed that regs don't stop sleeves). Regulating what people wear off-post or on leave: thats funny, again, good luck. What exactly can an MP do to a person dressed in civilian clothes off-post who simply says "I'm not in the military"? They have no jurisdiction to look in their wallett for an ID card. Sideburns and shaving daily: Not going to make me do it when I am at home or on leave but I agree that it needs to be a better enforced standard while in uniform. Everyone with "Special" in their MOS or Job description will be pretty upset about that one. Dental Ornamentation: I think my last 5 supply sergeants are gonna be pretty irritated, but it's about damn time. Sunglasses: Really, we are still worried about sunglasses?

As for the "good old days" I think even those of you who were there are living a dream. We evolve, that is how we stay relevant, we can't do things the same way forever and expect to be a military that can deploy, engage, and destroy our enemies in close combat. How bout we go back to the really really old days when we could have beards, carry swords, and stood in line to make our mark and receive our pay? I'm not trying to buck the system here, but if we really want the year of the professional, some of these new things need to be implemented, but a MUCH greater focus needs to be on teaching leaders how to lead, not by friendship or by popularity, but by respect that is both given and earned.

RONALD45
04-08-2012, 11:58 AM
Amazing the same Army that debated for years rather or not Gays should be allowed to serve because "what they do in their off duty time, as long as it is not illegal, should have no basis on their ability to be a Soldier" now wants to tell me that how I dress and whether or not I shave in my off duty time should somehow be punishable under UCMJ. This guy reminds me of the SGM's who when mortars were landing in the middle of the night in Iraq were the ones out there yelling at troops for running to their bunkers or fighting positions without having first grabbed and put on their reflective belts.

Creaminess
04-10-2012, 02:33 PM
Bottom line is this: There are already standards that are not enforced as they should be. If you can't enforce current standards, how are you going to enforce these?

You can make all the regulatory changes you want to try to make somebody look professional, but that does not make the person actually professional. It won't change every one of them to what you want them to be.

I haven't seen some of the stuff in my original post listed in the updated info, like in the latest Army Times, but all I can think of when I read that they want to force you to wear polo/button down shirts or that you must wear a belt if your pants have belt loops is the line from "Office Space": "The Nazis had pieces of flair they made the Jews wear." Are we heading in the direction of mandating every second of every Soldiers' lives because we don't trust our Soldiers to be professional? There ARE some who need that extra attention, but after well over 20 years of active duty (still serving), I think I've proven that I can make mature decisions on my own and don't need to be babysat off duty. You can come piss-test me anytime you want, day, night, weekends, holidays, whatever. I don't do that kind of thing because I agreed to not do illegal substances as terms of my employment. Don't make wholesale changes when they are not warranted. If you have problem Soldiers, deal with them individually. Don't screw the whole force because there are some out there who can't follow already-established rules.

CORNELIUSSEON
04-10-2012, 09:36 PM
I spent half my time in the "peacetime" Army (you know the one that served in the Middle East, Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, and Haiti) and they didn't feel the need to dress me like a Frat Boy with khaki pants and a polo somehow we got along.

Retirees don't have the monopoly on Unit polos. I have a few I have to wear for certain functions but I don't expect Joe to go buy them because the Senior NCO's in VA think it would be "professional".

If what we want is to control that aspect of our life then go back to having to be in uniform off post. I don't know why that went away I believe it was in the 60's probably something to do with morale but those who pine for the "old days" would enjoy it. While we are bringing back the "old day" we might as well bring back the drug problems of the 70's and the poor readiness of the 50's along with the hollow Army of the pre Reagan days. Lets just have a vintage Army party. Wait we are.

Everybodys generation in the Army was the hard good old days.

Actually, the change in the dress rules date from the early 70s when there were terrorist attacks in Germany and some of the other European countries. For example: the Baader-Meinhof Gang. That is when we were forbidden to wear our uniforms downtown when we were off duty. It was downhill from there. We expected to see the rules change back once the gangs were put down, but never expected the reversion to take so long.

ericrahman
04-10-2012, 09:55 PM
Bottom line is this: There are already standards that are not enforced as they should be. If you can't enforce current standards, how are you going to enforce these?

You can make all the regulatory changes you want to try to make somebody look professional, but that does not make the person actually professional. It won't change every one of them to what you want them to be.

I haven't seen some of the stuff in my original post listed in the updated info, like in the latest Army Times, but all I can think of when I read that they want to force you to wear polo/button down shirts or that you must wear a belt if your pants have belt loops is the line from "Office Space": "The Nazis had pieces of flair they made the Jews wear." Are we heading in the direction of mandating every second of every Soldiers' lives because we don't trust our Soldiers to be professional? There ARE some who need that extra attention, but after well over 20 years of active duty (still serving), I think I've proven that I can make mature decisions on my own and don't need to be babysat off duty. You can come piss-test me anytime you want, day, night, weekends, holidays, whatever. I don't do that kind of thing because I agreed to not do illegal substances as terms of my employment. Don't make wholesale changes when they are not warranted. If you have problem Soldiers, deal with them individually. Don't screw the whole force because there are some out there who can't follow already-established rules.

I agree. If they don't enforce what's already on the books, how can they enforce what yet isn't?

As an Army Reserve Officer, I expect there to be no legal way to require me to shave off duty. Short of sending the CSMs to people's house or civilian job, LOL. As for the sideburns at the top of the ear, I hereby name that the "gump policy" and hope that it goes away faster than pin on badges and velcro names. I'm sure the legal folks will temper some of these down, as dictating what people can do in their personal time starts treading towards a gray area. They may be able to enforce it for active duty, but will have a much harder time with some of those items for Reservists (the off duty dress and grooming).

RONALD45
04-11-2012, 09:22 AM
It must really be hard to be the most Senior Enlisted person in your Service and not be proud of the accomplishments of those in that Service. All we have heard since his appointment as the SMA is how out of shape the troops are, how undisciplined the troops are, how "faddish and unprofessional looking the troops are" what troublemakers the troops are and somehow that it is all the NCO's fault (you know those same NCO's that are so bogged down with the MANDATORY PAPERWORK REQUIREMENTS that they may actually SEE AND SPEND TIME WITH THEIR TROOPS 2-4 hours out of an 8-10 hour workday.) Not once have I heard this person show any type of pride, graditude or thankfulness for the hard work and dedication these troops have shown over the last 10 years. They have been fighting a war that close to 90% of most Americans believe we shouldn't have been fighting in the first place with nary a peep of disention in the ranks, massive protests, drug abuse, race riots etc that occured in the last war that was fought with the same amount of Americans disapproving. With all the changes that have occured from the repeal of DADT, to eroding benefits, to the "drawdown" we are having now there has been little protest from the troops once the reasons were explained.

Yet all we continuously here is what an UNPROFESSIONAL ARMY we have, simply because we have thrown off the "Garrison mentality" after a decade of Combat operations.

Creaminess
04-11-2012, 02:04 PM
It must really be hard to be the most Senior Enlisted person in your Service and not be proud of the accomplishments of those in that Service. All we have heard since his appointment as the SMA is how out of shape the troops are, how undisciplined the troops are, how "faddish and unprofessional looking the troops are" what troublemakers the troops are and somehow that it is all the NCO's fault (you know those same NCO's that are so bogged down with the MANDATORY PAPERWORK REQUIREMENTS that they may actually SEE AND SPEND TIME WITH THEIR TROOPS 2-4 hours out of an 8-10 hour workday.) Not once have I heard this person show any type of pride, graditude or thankfulness for the hard work and dedication these troops have shown over the last 10 years. They have been fighting a war that close to 90% of most Americans believe we shouldn't have been fighting in the first place with nary a peep of disention in the ranks, massive protests, drug abuse, race riots etc that occured in the last war that was fought with the same amount of Americans disapproving. With all the changes that have occured from the repeal of DADT, to eroding benefits, to the "drawdown" we are having now there has been little protest from the troops once the reasons were explained.

Yet all we continuously here is what an UNPROFESSIONAL ARMY we have, simply because we have thrown off the "Garrison mentality" after a decade of Combat operations.

Well said, my man. I couldn't agree more. There's been almost nothing positive that's come out of his mouth to my knowledge. Everything he's saying that's making it into the press has been what's wrong with the Army, not what's right.

CORNELIUSSEON
04-11-2012, 03:59 PM
It must really be hard to be the most Senior Enlisted person in your Service and not be proud of the accomplishments of those in that Service. All we have heard since his appointment as the SMA is how out of shape the troops are, how undisciplined the troops are, how "faddish and unprofessional looking the troops are" what troublemakers the troops are and somehow that it is all the NCO's fault (you know those same NCO's that are so bogged down with the MANDATORY PAPERWORK REQUIREMENTS that they may actually SEE AND SPEND TIME WITH THEIR TROOPS 2-4 hours out of an 8-10 hour workday.) Not once have I heard this person show any type of pride, graditude or thankfulness for the hard work and dedication these troops have shown over the last 10 years. They have been fighting a war that close to 90% of most Americans believe we shouldn't have been fighting in the first place with nary a peep of disention in the ranks, massive protests, drug abuse, race riots etc that occured in the last war that was fought with the same amount of Americans disapproving. With all the changes that have occured from the repeal of DADT, to eroding benefits, to the "drawdown" we are having now there has been little protest from the troops once the reasons were explained.

Yet all we continuously here is what an UNPROFESSIONAL ARMY we have, simply because we have thrown off the "Garrison mentality" after a decade of Combat operations.

What you fail to understand is that it has always been deliberate that the US Military maintain its culture - especially its Garrison culture - seperate and distinct from the civilian culture. Training new personnel in the Military Culture is the primary purpose of Basic/Boot Training. There is NO traction for "throwing off the Garrison mentality" from the American population. The response to that complaint is simple: Acclimate or leave. If you really refuse to return to the Garrison culture, then we won't hold you. There is the door, and you may slam it as you leave if that makes you leave any faster.

imported_SSG Angry Guy
04-12-2012, 07:07 PM
After 10+ years of faithful service, I have come to one conclusion. There is a profound lack of common sense in this organization. There are several problems that I have with this BS, but the one that pisses me off the most, is "more clearly defined standards for civilian attire". If the Army thinks for one second that I'm going to dress up looking like a Mormon on patrol when I'm off duty, or enforce that on my soldiers, then they're more brain dead than I already thought. The SMA says that this isn't a tactic to get people to leave the Army, well it certainly looks that way. I'm not a "yes-man". If that's what kind of soldier you're looking for, I'll take my knowledge and experience and seek employment elsewhere. You can have a hollow shell of an Army full of yes-men.

Creaminess
04-12-2012, 07:18 PM
What you fail to understand is that it has always been deliberate that the US Military maintain its culture - especially its Garrison culture - seperate and distinct from the civilian culture. Training new personnel in the Military Culture is the primary purpose of Basic/Boot Training. There is NO traction for "throwing off the Garrison mentality" from the American population. The response to that complaint is simple: Acclimate or leave. If you really refuse to return to the Garrison culture, then we won't hold you. There is the door, and you may slam it as you leave if that makes you leave any faster.

...says the guy who's not affected by any of this.

You know, it's really easy for you to sit there and say "suck it up" when you are retired and will not be subject to any of this. It's quite another to be serving honorably and still be told that despite the fact you've given over 2 decades to our Army and continue to serve when you could be drawing retirement pay, we still don't trust you enough to do the right thing so we're going to create a bunch of stupid rules. I don't care what the rules are for the Marines or any other service. I don't care if it "used to be this way." It's time somebody tells the SMA how stupid this shit is. I guarantee you that the majority of the senior NCOs who are agreeing to these policies don't have any desire to actually enforce them; they just don't want to tell Chandler what they really think because they're a bunch of pussies.

imported_SSG Angry Guy
04-12-2012, 07:42 PM
This is exactly what I'm afraid of. Just like in the 90s, we'll be left with a bunch of senior leaders who look pretty in Class A's, but when the next conflict happens...when it comes time to send men into harm's way...those senior leaders will be calling branch waving their perfect NCOERS and trying to hide out at the School House. Those guys who cut their teeth in the Army by kicking down doors over 4-6 Iraq/Afghanistan deployments? They'll be long gone.

Hit the nail on the head there, and that is exactly what is going to happen. The SMA would like everyone to think that those of us who disagree with this total bonehead of a decision are a bunch of dirtbag soldiers. The fact of the matter is, the "best and brightest" that he keeps saying he wants to keep are definitely not yes men, and we know what makes sense and what doesn't, and this BS definitely does not make sense. I don't want our soldiers looking like turds, on or off duty, anymore than the next guy, but dictating every facet of thier personal lives is unacceptable. If I wanted to act like a Marine, I would've joined the freaking Marine Corps. George Washington said it best, "When we assumed the soldier, we did not lay aside the citizen." I am a citizen of this country, and even though I am a soldier, I am still entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You would think that with almost 11 years of constant warfare, we would get at least some measure of respect and not be treated like children.

CORNELIUSSEON
04-12-2012, 08:55 PM
...says the guy who's not affected by any of this.

You know, it's really easy for you to sit there and say "suck it up" when you are retired and will not be subject to any of this. It's quite another to be serving honorably and still be told that despite the fact you've given over 2 decades to our Army and continue to serve when you could be drawing retirement pay, we still don't trust you enough to do the right thing so we're going to create a bunch of stupid rules. I don't care what the rules are for the Marines or any other service. I don't care if it "used to be this way." It's time somebody tells the SMA how stupid this shit is. I guarantee you that the majority of the senior NCOs who are agreeing to these policies don't have any desire to actually enforce them; they just don't want to tell Chandler what they really think because they're a bunch of pussies.

In the first place, I've been where you are, and I can tell you that attempts at changing the Garrison Culture won't work beyond the things that really don't matter in the long run. Why? because Congress - which is the ultimate rule-changer for the US Military - is happy with the way the US Military functions at present.

In terms of the RIF, you are a prime example of a Square Peg. At the end of the Vietnam War, ALL of the Square Pegs were shown the door in all its permutations. Those who were smart left of their own accord. Those who went to the Guard - as I did - quickly learned that we got the best of both worlds, since the Guard follows the Regular Garrison Culture when it is required - such as at Annual Training or Deployment - and retreats to its own Guard Culture when it is back home in The Armory. The vast majority of the stuff you rail against is almost never seen back in The Armory. I'd tell you more about how we get around the Regular Army's Garrison Culture, but I doubt you'd be interested.

justin0495
04-13-2012, 02:22 AM
I understand the point that the SMA is trying to get across but not necessarily his methods. I hate to pile on the guy since this is the man who got rid of the berets (for the most part) and let me sew on my name that will never change. But these other changes don’t really get at the root of the garrison discipline problems.

Chandler and Odierno have the unenviable task of cleaning up years of slack the Casey/Preston team caused. Their army was marked by Soldiers never knowing what a Class A or Class B uniform was, not even being exposed to them in their recruiter’s office. Drill Sergeants were eliminated from AIT. If recruits were breathing, could write their names correctly, and be able to pull off a GED, they were in, regardless of their background records (mostly). We also have a culture where if the slightest punctuation is incorrect on a counseling statement, Soldiers are let off the hook from JAG and there’s nothing commanders can do about it. We’re in an army where PowerPoint training on sensitivity rules the day. Instead of training to “engage and destroy the enemies of the Unites States of America in close combat” we train to win hearts and minds in a fruitless effort to adhere to the Petraeus doctrine, all while letting foreign contractors take up spaces on our US helicopters. This is not exactly what the Army Recruiting videos are selling. Making our sideburns non-existent and trying to get us to wear khakis while not in uniform is not going to solve a culture of double-speak, mixed messages, and check the box mandatory training sessions on EO.

ImpliedConsent
04-13-2012, 03:49 AM
I understand the point that the SMA is trying to get across but not necessarily his methods. ... blah, blah, blah
Friggin beautiful response, explaining the culture of the new PC-Army culture. It mind altering when we're still wiping the blood and shit from out boots to the one the SMA is suggesting in a timeframe he's suggesting it.

CORNELIUSSEON
04-13-2012, 04:29 AM
I understand the point that the SMA is trying to get across but not necessarily his methods. I hate to pile on the guy since this is the man who got rid of the berets (for the most part) and let me sew on my name that will never change. But these other changes don’t really get at the root of the garrison discipline problems.

Chandler and Odierno have the unenviable task of cleaning up years of slack the Casey/Preston team caused. Their army was marked by Soldiers never knowing what a Class A or Class B uniform was, not even being exposed to them in their recruiter’s office. Drill Sergeants were eliminated from AIT. If recruits were breathing, could write their names correctly, and be able to pull off a GED, they were in, regardless of their background records (mostly). We also have a culture where if the slightest punctuation is incorrect on a counseling statement, Soldiers are let off the hook from JAG and there’s nothing commanders can do about it. We’re in an army where PowerPoint training on sensitivity rules the day. Instead of training to “engage and destroy the enemies of the Unites States of America in close combat” we train to win hearts and minds in a fruitless effort to adhere to the Petraeus doctrine, all while letting foreign contractors take up spaces on our US helicopters. This is not exactly what the Army Recruiting videos are selling. Making our sideburns non-existent and trying to get us to wear khakis while not in uniform is not going to solve a culture of double-speak, mixed messages, and check the box mandatory training sessions on EO.



In the first place, Drill Sergeants were only in charge of the Infantry AIT. For all of the other Career Management Fields, they would have been like fish out of water since NCOs with the MOS's being trained were what were needed.

Next of all, the lowering of the standards – while lamentable for some reasons – actually returned the Army to the status it held for much of the 230+ Years of its existence. It has only been in recent years that the Army has felt that it was too good for “Snuffy Smith”, and you have experienced just why the Army has to lower its standards whenever we go to war: It is impossible to otherwise get enough people who have the high class standards that match those desired by the Army to Volunteer to fill the ranks. Trust me, this argument burned across the length and breadth of the Army prior to the lowering of standards at the start of the WOT, and lots of people lamented “the end of the Army as they knew it”. Don’t forget: “Up Or Out” only came in at the end of the Vietnam War, and that required a long drawn out verbal storm just for that one change.

Finally, it is only in the Combat Arms that MOS Training is a constant program in Garrison, taking up most of the space on the Training Schedule. For the other CMFs, the norm has been the kind of training that is best done by Power Point or Lecture. I should know, since I had to prepare a whole slew of Lesson Plans for NBC Training, and the classes that involve the Protective mask, the MOPP Suit, the Atropene Surrette, and NBC Decontamination, were the only ones where I needed to take the troops out to the NBC Range, and that was once a year in Peacetime. Otherwise, the training was in Classrooms or Bleachers, and for the Regular Army, that required Training Schedule space only one day per Month, with the Troops scattered the rest of the time with the Garrison chores. And incidentally, don’t feel that you are part of the first generation to suffer the boredom of Garrison Life. Those of us who came before you went through it too, and always jumped at the chance to deploy somewhere to do anything necessary.

MisterBen
04-13-2012, 07:24 AM
First of all, all your responses are outdated and relate to a US Army of yesterday. I came in the early 80s; got out after the First Gulf; rejoined the Guard in the near to late 90s and transferred to the Regular Army back in early 2000s with over 22 years of service and counting. I will have 30 years when I retire. Your exposure had only been to a few years after Vietnam; a Germany that is nowhere the same of what you talking about (I was in Germany for the last four years), the NY Guard (which I was a member of), the super short Gulf War, back to the "garrison" Guard (which is the biggest joke and sham I ever experienced) and visting the gates of Fort Dix which closed as an active duty post years ago and no way emulates what is happening out there.


In the first place, I've been where you are, and I can tell you that attempts at changing the Garrison Culture won't work beyond the things that really don't matter in the long run. Why? because Congress - which is the ultimate rule-changer for the US Military - is happy with the way the US Military functions at present.

I'd tell you more about how we get around the Regular Army's Garrison Culture, but I doubt you'd be interested.

Have you done three combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan almost totaling 3 years deployed? If you have not; then you have not been in my shoes. If you have not led a squad in combat; then you have not been in my shoes. If you are not an US Army Officer leading a section throughout Afghanistan; then you have not been in my shoes. Also, stop with the US Military as a blanket comparison because what the other services does compared to the US Army is night and day. The Marines operately different compared to the Army and I know because I was in the Corps on active duty.

The garrison culture is not the same when you were in. There are no more boots to shine; BOSS has changed the barracks climate; no more E-clubs; gays can openly serve, NCOs are undermined, no more correctional custody; PNCOC/PLDC is now WLC and many classes do not even go through land navigation, etc. etc.


In the first place, Drill Sergeants were only in charge of the Infantry AIT. For all of the other Career Management Fields, they would have been like fish out of water since NCOs with the MOS's being trained were what were needed.



OSUT still has the same Drills under the CMF that they train. What they do have today in which you did not have is AIT sergeants all over the TRADOC posts. NCOs that do not wear the drill sergeant hat but are assigned as PSGs and Squad Leaders to the AIT classes. This is mostly outside the OSUT places like Fort Gordon and Lee.

As I been told (which is probably the same as yours); that old style mentality is no longer applicable today. And once you understand that and stop responding with dialogue that does not make sense to today's Army; then I will keep those opinions to myself. Also, I go to my local VFW and I see them in biker dress and long beards.


Finally, it is only in the Combat Arms that MOS Training is a constant program in Garrison, taking up most of the space on the Training Schedule. For the other CMFs, the norm has been the kind of training that is best done by Power Point or Lecture. I should know, since I had to prepare a whole slew of Lesson Plans for NBC Training, and the classes that involve the Protective mask, the MOPP Suit, the Atropene Surrette, and NBC Decontamination, were the only ones where I needed to take the troops out to the NBC Range, and that was once a year in Peacetime. Otherwise, the training was in Classrooms or Bleachers, and for the Regular Army, that required Training Schedule space only one day per Month, with the Troops scattered the rest of the time with the Garrison chores. And incidentally, don’t feel that you are part of the first generation to suffer the boredom of Garrison Life. Those of us who came before you went through it too, and always jumped at the chance to deploy somewhere to do anything necessary.

That first sentence shows that you are clueless on what happens in today's Army. Please take a knee sir. I am in Afghanistan (again) and reading your posts stresses me out :)

CORNELIUSSEON
04-13-2012, 01:45 PM
First of all, all your responses are outdated and relate to a US Army of yesterday. I came in the early 80s; got out after the First Gulf; rejoined the Guard in the near to late 90s and transferred to the Regular Army back in early 2000s with over 22 years of service and counting. I will have 30 years when I retire. Your exposure had only been to a few years after Vietnam; a Germany that is nowhere the same of what you talking about (I was in Germany for the last four years), the NY Guard (which I was a member of), the super short Gulf War, back to the "garrison" Guard (which is the biggest joke and sham I ever experienced) and visting the gates of Fort Dix which closed as an active duty post years ago and no way emulates what is happening out there.



Have you done three combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan almost totaling 3 years deployed? If you have not; then you have not been in my shoes. If you have not led a squad in combat; then you have not been in my shoes. If you are not an US Army Officer leading a section throughout Afghanistan; then you have not been in my shoes. Also, stop with the US Military as a blanket comparison because what the other services does compared to the US Army is night and day. The Marines operately different compared to the Army and I know because I was in the Corps on active duty.

The garrison culture is not the same when you were in. There are no more boots to shine; BOSS has changed the barracks climate; no more E-clubs; gays can openly serve, NCOs are undermined, no more correctional custody; PNCOC/PLDC is now WLC and many classes do not even go through land navigation, etc. etc.



OSUT still has the same Drills under the CMF that they train. What they do have today in which you did not have is AIT sergeants all over the TRADOC posts. NCOs that do not wear the drill sergeant hat but are assigned as PSGs and Squad Leaders to the AIT classes. This is mostly outside the OSUT places like Fort Gordon and Lee.

As I been told (which is probably the same as yours); that old style mentality is no longer applicable today. And once you understand that and stop responding with dialogue that does not make sense to today's Army; then I will keep those opinions to myself. Also, I go to my local VFW and I see them in biker dress and long beards.



That first sentence shows that you are clueless on what happens in today's Army. Please take a knee sir. I am in Afghanistan (again) and reading your posts stresses me out :)




In the first place, the Regular Army of the 1960s didn’t become a total Field Army in the sense that today’s Army did. If you went to Korea or Vietnam, you were in a Field Army. The minute you stepped back into CONUS, Garrison Rules applied, and they made sure you were informed of that twice during your return: at the Retrograde Air Base in Vietnam and Korea, and upon arrival at Fort Lewis. Further, to make sure that the point was driven home, your Garrison uniforms were taken from you upon arrival In Theater, Bagged and Tagged, and were returned to you when you were processing out for your trip back to CONUS.


2. As to the wear of Field Uniforms, this link from Wikipedia is dead on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_uniforms_in_World_War_II

The Black Boot came in in the 1960s, and started to disappear during Desert Storm. I wore the same Brown Boots you wear as my Uniform Boots until I retired, and the BDUs and Desert BDUs were the last field uniforms I wore. I can tell you that the only difference between the Brown and Black boots is the use of Polish on the Black Boots. Cleaning the Brown boots was just as hard because their rough exterior trapped lots of mud you picked up in the field, and you had to use soap, hot water, and a stiff brush to get it off.



As to how many tours you served or I served in a Combat Zone, I will admit that you got whip-sawed. They tried that with us Regulars during Vietnam, but we made them stick to the rules of at least one year between Tours. I was home from Nam 30 days, and they came to me with a set of orders for my immediate return, and I reminded them of the rule, and declined to volunteer. By the time the rule ran out, I was already on orders for a Long Tour in Germany, and they had already changed the rule about Repeat Tours so that it was Volunteers Only. What they did with you was to drop the rules that were in place from Vietnam, and moved towards what my older Brother experienced in World War Two. He was Drafted in 1942 for Duration Plus 6 Months, shipped out to North Africa and Italy, and died in battle on February 8, 1945, three months from the end of the War in Europe. When he left home in 1942, our Parents never saw him again, so you can say that he served three years of continuous Deployment [two in Combat] without Dwell time back in CONUS. Those were the rules he lived under, and I lived under a different set of rules, and so did you. Nevertheless, you, me and him were in the same set of shoes.




As to whether or not the old mentality is gone, trust me – it is still there, as proven by the SMA’s reintroduction of the Garrison Rules that I recognize as the return to the pre-911 days. They may change terminology, and they may keep some of the liberalization as a sop to your pride, but the Army will remain the Army, and that will be that.




As to the Army being different from the Marine Corps, the Corps has ALWAYS insisted on having a firewall between itself and the Army from the days when the 4th Marine Brigade, consisting of the 5th and 6th Marine Regiments and the 6th Machine Gun Battalion, were part of the Army’s original 2nd Infantry Division during World War One. I would have been VERY surprised if the Marine Corps tried to do things “The Army Way”.




As to how training is done in Garrison and in the Field, I stand by what I said. The Combat Arms trains differently from the Combat Service and Service & Support units. The Combat Arms maintains a full field training Training Schedule that goes almost year round, while CS and CSS units spend one period a year for Field training, with the rest spent on Classroom Training, and taking care of Garrison Missions. I will go out on the limb even farther by saying that – as the budgets get leaner, and trust me they will, eventually - even the Combat Arms will desist from Field Training for longer periods of time.


To sum up, don’t run away from the way things are done in Garrison. If you follow that good advice, you will never be surprised when the Army brings back the old Garrison rules.

MisterBen
04-14-2012, 06:39 AM
In the first place, the Regular Army of the 1960s didn’t become a total Field Army in the sense that today’s Army did. If you went to Korea or Vietnam, you were in a Field Army. The minute you stepped back into CONUS, Garrison Rules applied, and they made sure you were informed of that twice during your return: at the Retrograde Air Base in Vietnam and Korea, and upon arrival at Fort Lewis. Further, to make sure that the point was driven home, your Garrison uniforms were taken from you upon arrival In Theater, Bagged and Tagged, and were returned to you when you were processing out for your trip back to CONUS.


I know a great amount of US Army history but who were those that work Khaki uniforms in Vietnam?

Ender
04-16-2012, 03:02 AM
Enforcing civilian clothing regulations off base is actually quite a bit easier than you all seem to think. I can't tell you how many times I've been witness to a one-sided conversation such as this in the middle of a busy {insert your favorite restaurant, store, gas station, etc}:

"Devil dog! What the fuck do you think you're doing in here looking like a bag of smashed assholes? You better go the fuck home right now and put on some clothes that are presentable to the public. Hold the fuck on! Who's your Sergeant Major? You might as well go straight to his office first thing Monday morning. He'll be waiting for you. Now git your grungy ass out of here."

*15 minutes later*

"I THOUGHT I TOLD YOU TO GET THE FUUUUUUCCCKKK OUT OF HERE WITH THOSE NASTY, WORN OUT JEANS AND HOBO SCRUFF ON YOUR CHIN?!?!? GOD DAMN IT, DEVIL DOG!!! YOU MAKE ME SO ANGRY, I WANNA HEEL STOMP BABIES!!!"

Troops who have had a little discipline instilled in them, will recognize when they're in the wrong (regardless of how much they agree or disagree with the regulation) and go fix themselves with nothing more than an "Aye, aye sir." Or, you could do what I do, and just avoid any establishment that might have the slightest chance of there being other Marines present.

Pullinteeth
04-16-2012, 08:10 AM
If you want to know what all of this is REALLY about, I would believe exactly the opposite of this paragraph;

The new rules are neither a part of drawdown nor a tool of attrition, the sergeant major said. Instead, this is a concerted effort to project professionalism in the Army uniform and brand, and give soldiers the tools they need to educate troops and enforce the standards.

Igloowhite
04-16-2012, 12:25 PM
I know a great amount of US Army history but who were those that work Khaki uniforms in Vietnam? Personnel assigned to MACV in some cases wore khaki for various administrative duties.

imported_SSG Angry Guy
04-18-2012, 12:03 AM
Enforcing civilian clothing regulations off base is actually quite a bit easier than you all seem to think. I can't tell you how many times I've been witness to a one-sided conversation such as this in the middle of a busy {insert your favorite restaurant, store, gas station, etc}:

"Devil dog! What the fuck do you think you're doing in here looking like a bag of smashed assholes? You better go the fuck home right now and put on some clothes that are presentable to the public. Hold the fuck on! Who's your Sergeant Major? You might as well go straight to his office first thing Monday morning. He'll be waiting for you. Now git your grungy ass out of here."

*15 minutes later*

"I THOUGHT I TOLD YOU TO GET THE FUUUUUUCCCKKK OUT OF HERE WITH THOSE NASTY, WORN OUT JEANS AND HOBO SCRUFF ON YOUR CHIN?!?!? GOD DAMN IT, DEVIL DOG!!! YOU MAKE ME SO ANGRY, I WANNA HEEL STOMP BABIES!!!"

Troops who have had a little discipline instilled in them, will recognize when they're in the wrong (regardless of how much they agree or disagree with the regulation) and go fix themselves with nothing more than an "Aye, aye sir." Or, you could do what I do, and just avoid any establishment that might have the slightest chance of there being other Marines present.

I've already said it once, but I don't care to repeat myself in this situation. I'm not in the freaking Marine Corps. I don't give two shits what the Marines do. If I wanted to act like a Marine, and I don't, I would've joined the damn Marines. Nothing against the Marines, but we have our own heritage, our own history, our own standards, and our own personality. I like the Army because it isn't the Marines. We are allowed to make our own decisions, we are allowed to have our own personality, and we don't have to look and act like freaking robots. I'm tired of hearing that we are nothing but a bunch of undisciplined, out of shape, unprofessional Soldiers by the highest enlisted member in our organization. Every organization has it's problem children, even the Marine Corps, but that's no excuse to try and make our lives miserable by trying to dictate our lives outside of the uniform. I will not adhere to such spartan regulations, and I will not force my Soldiers to adhere to them. My personal life is just that, personal. As long as I'm not doing anything illegal or trying to bring discredit on the organization, there is no reason to pry into what I do outside of the uniform.

Ender
04-18-2012, 09:19 AM
That's cool, bro. My opinion aside, these new changes make it obvious that someone in the Army's upper level management disagrees with you.

CYBERFX1024
04-18-2012, 12:23 PM
That's cool, bro. My opinion aside, these new changes make it obvious that someone in the Army's upper level management disagrees with you.


Espiecally with all the damn soldiers looking like straight up ass. No wonder why they are enacting these regulations.

imported_SSG Angry Guy
04-19-2012, 03:03 PM
Espiecally with all the damn soldiers looking like straight up ass. No wonder why they are enacting these regulations.

The truth is, most of those regs are already there. I only disagree with those brain dead A-holes trying to regulate my personal life. I agree that Soldiers shouldn't go out looking like a straight up turd, but I can already see the route that the "more clearly defined regulations" concerning civilian attire is going to take. Wearing button down shirts and slacks might work for the Marines, but it doesn't work for the Army. We already have enough bullshit regulations, we don't need anymore. It basically comes down to this. If you treat a Soldier like a child, then they are going to act like one, and that's what the Army is doing right now. Our Soldiers are grown men, and while there are a few exceptions to the rule, if you treat them like grown men and show them the same respect that you want in return, they will follow you into the gates of Hell. A few problem children are no reason to punish the vast majority that's doing the right thing. I have nothing against the Marine Corps, but I would take my less than half strenght platoon of scouts over a whole company of Marines any day. That's how strongly I feel about my Soldiers. As far as some soldiers looking like ass, I only have this to say: Stop interfering with NCO business and let us handle our Soldiers. So long as I'm not breaking the law, or doing something generally wrong, I should have the authority to choose how to deal with disciplinary issues such as this. The Army put me in this position to lead and train soldiers, and to enforce the standards and instill discipline, and because of outside interference, I'm able to do none of those things. The Army's so afraid of another jackass killing themselves that they have all but removed our authority as an NCO. The only tool we have left to fix disciplinary issues is counseling statements, and most of the time when we do seek punishment for a problem child, we are overuled by the officer in charge because he/she feels we are being too harsh on the Soldier in question and that he/she just needs another chance, and this is with a counseling packet over an inch thick. If you aren't going to let me those four things I mentioned above that my job consists of, then what the hell am I here for?

ImpliedConsent
04-21-2012, 04:22 AM
Hey, with the whole tattoo thing ... does this mean that I gotta take the stickers off my prosthetic arm now? That bites.

SSG
04-26-2012, 02:21 PM
This revision is mostly garbage - for a few fundamental reasons. First - let's ease up with the haircuts. On one hand, we want to talk about OPSEC, and how we don't need to be running around making ourselves targets, and then we go ahead and fore Soldiers Army-wide to go out and get haircuts that make them look like total assclowns. Then, the SMA talks about tattoos being a way for individuals to draw attention to themselves instead of being part of a team. SMA - I'll follow your guidance to the letter, but respectfully, your comments on tattoos suggest that we should all be automatons. The expression of individuality within a team is not a detractor from the goal - instead it highlights just how well we as and Army can work together in spite of our diffferences. Furthermore, instead of trying to cover A-Z in one fell swoop, why can't we as an organization, take a look at what the actual problem is instead of skirting around it: let's get rid of the "gangsta" soldiers with grilles and gang related tattoos, let's get rid of the blatantly racist soldiers with gang affiliations in their skin, rid ourselves of the 2-year profile riders, the terminal sick call people, and all of the other non-starters. The rest of us tattooed heathens will work just fine alongside the other fine, motivated Soldiers that joined as individuals to defend all that we hold dear.

desert beast
04-27-2012, 10:17 AM
Tats are a way of life in the military, I do agree not to allow tats on neck, hands, face, head, that just looks like #@@$. Bout damn time with the gold teeth. Talk about looking nasty. On that subject, no grandfathering should be allowed. Send their butts to the dentist and have a natural looking tooth or teeth made if need for injury or what have you.

Creaminess
04-27-2012, 04:38 PM
In the first place, I've been where you are, and I can tell you that attempts at changing the Garrison Culture won't work beyond the things that really don't matter in the long run. Why? because Congress - which is the ultimate rule-changer for the US Military - is happy with the way the US Military functions at present.

In terms of the RIF, you are a prime example of a Square Peg(1). At the end of the Vietnam War, ALL of the Square Pegs were shown the door in all its permutations. Those who were smart left of their own accord. Those who went to the Guard - as I did - quickly learned that we got the best of both worlds, since the Guard follows the Regular Garrison Culture when it is required - such as at Annual Training or Deployment - and retreats to its own Guard Culture when it is back home in The Armory. The vast majority of the stuff you rail against is almost never seen back in The Armory. I'd tell you more about how we get around the Regular Army's Garrison Culture(2), but I doubt you'd be interested.

Let me address these as I've numbered them:

1. You don't know me to say ANYTHING about me like that. I'm a "square peg"? Yeah, nearly 23 years active duty and still in uniform, so I guess I can't adapt, right? You, my man, are a true dumbass.

2. Every last thing you've ever said to make yourself look like the consummate professional that you claim to be went out the window when you stated that you "get around" the Army's garrison culture. That means to me that you look for shortcuts and you do not adhere to the regulations and policies of the Army. So don't try to hold yourself up as a beacon of honor and integrity after making the statement how you and your Guard buddies "get around" things that you should be doing.

CORNELIUSSEON
04-28-2012, 05:19 AM
Let me address these as I've numbered them:

1. You don't know me to say ANYTHING about me like that. I'm a "square peg"? Yeah, nearly 23 years active duty and still in uniform, so I guess I can't adapt, right? You, my man, are a true dumbass.

2. Every last thing you've ever said to make yourself look like the consummate professional that you claim to be went out the window when you stated that you "get around" the Army's garrison culture. That means to me that you look for shortcuts and you do not adhere to the regulations and policies of the Army. So don't try to hold yourself up as a beacon of honor and integrity after making the statement how you and your Guard buddies "get around" things that you should be doing.

You have proved again that you are a Square Peg. All the Round Pegs recognize that the wind is changing direction, and they are preparing to change with it in order to survive the directional change. I was a Square Peg as well, but I realized and accepted that and made the changes necessary to survive. You will insist on standing pat and challenging the changes, and will get blown away as a result. Beware the first step, it might be your last.

MisterBen
04-28-2012, 05:51 AM
You have proved again that you are a Square Peg. All the Round Pegs recognize that the wind is changing direction, and they are preparing to change with it in order to survive the directional change. I was a Square Peg as well, but I realized and accepted that and made the changes necessary to survive. You will insist on standing pat and challenging the changes, and will get blown away as a result. Beware the first step, it might be your last.

Mr. Corn,

What difference does your statement make? Creaminess has 23 years of active service. He has punched his clock and then some. I think he has more than earned his right to provide true and harsh opinions about the US Army.

He has served more days than you my friend regardless if you are beyond the grey area and finally collecting a pension.

IMO, once you earned 20 years of full AD, you have the right to tell it as it is.

CORNELIUSSEON
04-28-2012, 01:32 PM
Mr. Corn,

What difference does your statement make? Creaminess has 23 years of active service. He has punched his clock and then some. I think he has more than earned his right to provide true and harsh opinions about the US Army.

He has served more days than you my friend regardless if you are beyond the grey area and finally collecting a pension.

IMO, once you earned 20 years of full AD, you have the right to tell it as it is.

If he has 23 Years, and still has active, Reserve or Guard status, then he doe NOT have the right to tell it as it is in an official capacity. He can remain in the closet and shout out as needed, but he must be careful to not let slip his cloak of invisibility. Actually, even I must be careful because I still have a connection with the Army, even if it is just to attend the Annual Retiree Seminars on JB MDL. When I am there for that purpose, or when I am there for any other purpose actually, I still cannot say exactly what I am thinking, because I must directly interact with Active Duty people, and I must interact with fellow Retirees whose viewpoint is a mixture of their experience while in Uniform, and their current experience as Retirees. I find myself knowingly changing my demeanor and my awareness whenever I am On Post, falling back into the personality I learned to exhibit when I was last officially on Active Duty. I probably will continue to do this for the foreseeable future.

SENDBILLMONEY
04-28-2012, 10:41 PM
If he has 23 Years, and still has active, Reserve or Guard status, then he doe NOT have the right to tell it as it is in an official capacity. He can remain in the closet and shout out as needed, but he must be careful to not let slip his cloak of invisibility. Actually, even I must be careful because I still have a connection with the Army, even if it is just to attend the Annual Retiree Seminars on JB MDL. When I am there for that purpose, or when I am there for any other purpose actually, I still cannot say exactly what I am thinking, because I must directly interact with Active Duty people, and I must interact with fellow Retirees whose viewpoint is a mixture of their experience while in Uniform, and their current experience as Retirees. I find myself knowingly changing my demeanor and my awareness whenever I am On Post, falling back into the personality I learned to exhibit when I was last officially on Active Duty. I probably will continue to do this for the foreseeable future.

Why can't you say exactly what you're thinking? Despite your repeated and false claims to be otherwise, you're a retired member of a reserve component and thus only subject to the UCMJ while you're receiving hospitalization from an armed force. See 10 U.S.C. § 802 (a)(5).

Now, if you were a retired member of a regular component, you'd be subject to the UCMJ as long as you were entitled to pay. See 10 U.S.C. § 802 (a)(4).

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/802

So again, why must you be so careful? Are you really laboring under the delusion that your opinions would be important enough to someone that they'd take retribution against you? What form would that retribution take for a retired reserve E-6? Do you honestly think someone would care enough to recall you to active duty and make your life hell?

CORNELIUSSEON
04-29-2012, 03:13 AM
Why can't you say exactly what you're thinking? Despite your repeated and false claims to be otherwise, you're a retired member of a reserve component and thus only subject to the UCMJ while you're receiving hospitalization from an armed force. See 10 U.S.C. § 802 (a)(5).

Now, if you were a retired member of a regular component, you'd be subject to the UCMJ as long as you were entitled to pay. See 10 U.S.C. § 802 (a)(4).

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/802

So again, why must you be so careful? Are you really laboring under the delusion that your opinions would be important enough to someone that they'd take retribution against you? What form would that retribution take for a retired reserve E-6? Do you honestly think someone would care enough to recall you to active duty and make your life hell?

Because ALL Retirees are subject to Title Ten because the three pools of personnel are unified for retirement purposes. They haven't had three Retirement systems for quite a while now - there is only one - and I deal with the same people that Regular Army and Reserve personnel do. The only reason I would need to contact the NYARNG these days would be to get replacement New York State Medals. I already have a full copy of my two Military Records: The one from the Regular Army and the other from the NYARNG, and only deal with DFAS for my finance issues. Other than that, I only interact with my former Guard unit when I go to our Annual Reunions, or work in our Museum.

SENDBILLMONEY
04-29-2012, 04:48 AM
Because ALL Retirees are subject to Title Ten because the three pools of personnel are unified for retirement purposes. They haven't had three Retirement systems for quite a while now - there is only one - and I deal with the same people that Regular Army and Reserve personnel do. The only reason I would need to contact the NYARNG these days would be to get replacement New York State Medals. I already have a full copy of my two Military Records: The one from the Regular Army and the other from the NYARNG, and only deal with DFAS for my finance issues. Other than that, I only interact with my former Guard unit when I go to our Annual Reunions, or work in our Museum.

Do you have any written authority for this, existing anywhere but inside your head? Several of us have cited law and regulation in the past and all you can come up with us some guy who told you something at a retirement briefing. Even the UCMJ makes the distinction between retired regular and retired reserve, as previously cited. Are you not able to grasp this, or simply unwilling?

Shrike
04-29-2012, 12:26 PM
Why can't you say exactly what you're thinking? Despite your repeated and false claims to be otherwise, you're a retired member of a reserve component and thus only subject to the UCMJ while you're receiving hospitalization from an armed force. See 10 U.S.C. § 802 (a)(5).

Now, if you were a retired member of a regular component, you'd be subject to the UCMJ as long as you were entitled to pay. See 10 U.S.C. § 802 (a)(4).

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/802

So again, why must you be so careful? Are you really laboring under the delusion that your opinions would be important enough to someone that they'd take retribution against you? What form would that retribution take for a retired reserve E-6? Do you honestly think someone would care enough to recall you to active duty and make your life hell?

I can just see Cornhole in the Ft Dix Food Court. He's talking with some other retirees and the conversation turns to the current state of the armed forces. One of the retirees says something nasty about the Army Chief of Staff and Corndog says "Shhhhh...one of these privates will overhear you and have us taken into custody!!! They'll send us to the Military Retiree Tribunal!"

It's an odd world that man lives in...

MisterBen
04-29-2012, 05:16 PM
Corny, you do write intelligibly but you over think things and react the opposite to what the poster (talker) is trying to stay. It seems like you might possess bad listening skills as well.

I was not implying that he go public and has the right to talk against the establishment but as someone that has given his all to this great Nation; a well-deserved and earned opinion against policy changes than your average individual/citizen that has never served. More so than you.

CORNELIUSSEON
04-29-2012, 06:28 PM
Corny, you do write intelligibly but you over think things and react the opposite to what the poster (talker) is trying to stay. It seems like you might possess bad listening skills as well.

I was not implying that he go public and has the right to talk against the establishment but as someone that has given his all to this great Nation; a well-deserved and earned opinion against policy changes than your average individual/citizen that has never served. More so than you.

In the first place, I come from a generation where we don't just agree with the person we are conversing with just to go along; we make sure what we say reflects our own point of view. If our listener doesn't agree, that's alright, and they are free to express their point of view as well, and there is nothing written that says we must finally arrive at mutual agreement. As to listening skills, I could never reply if I didn't listen to what the other person is saying, but - once again - if I don't agree, then I will reply with what I believe to be true.

Creaminess
05-05-2012, 02:54 AM
You have proved again that you are a Square Peg. All the Round Pegs recognize that the wind is changing direction, and they are preparing to change with it in order to survive the directional change. I was a Square Peg as well, but I realized and accepted that and made the changes necessary to survive. You will insist on standing pat and challenging the changes, and will get blown away as a result. Beware the first step, it might be your last.

So now you're changing your tune? Before you said that you would show me how you "got around" the Army's garrison culture. Now you're saying you adapted and complied? You must be getting senile at your old age and not remembering what you said.

The moment you said you joined the Guard to "get around" the rules that the Regular Army has to comply with, you lost all crediblity with your responses that any Soldier today should shut up and blindly obey stupid rules. You failed to do so yourself, so this is a classic case of "do as I say, not as I do."

CORNELIUSSEON
05-05-2012, 05:00 AM
So now you're changing your tune? Before you said that you would show me how you "got around" the Army's garrison culture. Now you're saying you adapted and complied? You must be getting senile at your old age and not remembering what you said.

The moment you said you joined the Guard to "get around" the rules that the Regular Army has to comply with, you lost all crediblity with your responses that any Soldier today should shut up and blindly obey stupid rules. You failed to do so yourself, so this is a classic case of "do as I say, not as I do."

I got around the Army Garrison Culture by going to the National Guard. The Guard's Garrison Culture isn't anything like the Garrison Culture of the Regular Army. That is because the Guard's Garrison Culture is based on the unit being a Family, whereas the Regular Army's Garrison Culture is like a Beehive.

MisterBen
05-05-2012, 05:34 AM
I got around the Army Garrison Culture by going to the National Guard. The Guard's Garrison Culture isn't anything like the Garrison Culture of the Regular Army. That is because the Guard's Garrison Culture is based on the unit being a Family, whereas the Regular Army's Garrison Culture is like a Beehive.

Well just because it is based that way; does not mean it is that way. My active duty service is longer than my NG experience and I have to say that I have been more of a family with my active counterparts than when I was in the Guard because I saw only during drill and AT. Yes, you can form some bonds that you hang out with but I disagree with your notion.

Now, with my three deployments, the soldiers I serve with and the climate we have; we feel like we are family than other units.

CORNELIUSSEON
05-05-2012, 02:20 PM
Well just because it is based that way; does not mean it is that way. My active duty service is longer than my NG experience and I have to say that I have been more of a family with my active counterparts than when I was in the Guard because I saw only during drill and AT. Yes, you can form some bonds that you hang out with but I disagree with your notion.

Now, with my three deployments, the soldiers I serve with and the climate we have; we feel like we are family than other units.

Let me ask you a question. Did you have any family and working history in your Guard unit? One of my Cousins was a Member - both a Warrant Officer and a Commissioned Officer - following his return from the Regular Army at the end of World War Two through the end of Vietnam. Lots of members worked for the same civilian employer I did, and we knew each other on the job. Indeed, one of the guys I worked with in the Guard was my Best Man, and my Wife worked with the Family Assistance Group while I was away in Saudi Arabia. One of the two reasons why I maintain a Facebook Page is to keep up with the people I know who were in my unit. When I was in the Regular Army, the longest I ever spent in any specific unit was 3 years, and I ended up working with only one of the guys I went through Basic with. In those days, people in the Regular Army remained in CONUS Garrison only long enough to be deployed OCONUS. I remember when the culture you experience in the Regular Army was first discussed Army-wide. The main thrust was the very fact that no one spent enough time in any one unit at any specific location so that the kind of family relationships you have experienced could form, and it was decided by the Leadership that the reason for those issues was the fact that the Army hadn't had the opportunity to return to its traditional Garrison routine because of the long series of Cold and Hot wars between World War Two and the end of the Cold War. At the same time, the Guard was able to return to its Garrison culture at the end of World War Two, except for some units that went out the door for Korea, and the handful that deployed to Vietnam. The long period where the Guard could remain home and concentrate on its State Missions was very good for Unit Cohesion, and became the model for the Army's post-Cold War Garrison shift. Incidentally, speaking of Three Deployments, the Regular Army had to be carried kicking and screaming against deploying the Guard, first to Desert Storm and again for Iraq/Afghanistan, because they felt that we couldn't function the way they did on deployment. We made the switch from Garrison to Field and back again with no real issues, and their collective jaws could be heard hitting the floor. As a result, the current "wisdom" is to reconfigure the complete Army so that the Guard remains in the Deployment mix, with the possibility of folding the Army Reserve into the Guard as a means of fiscal sanity.

Now. Does that mean that the Guard and the Regular Army will continue to reflect each other. I doubt it because when the Regular Army decides that it needs to reduce the number of one type of unit and increase the numbers of another totally different type of unit, the Army always does a version of Musical Chairs on steroids, and moves people to keep them in their MOS as much as possible. In the Regular Army, you are identified almost totally with what you do. In the Guard, you are identified more with the Unit you belong to than anything else. My unit started life as an Infantry Regiment, and fought World War One as the most decorated American unit in that war because we fought as a part of the French Army for the duration. For World War Two, the Regimental Headquarters lost its Federal Recognition, while the Battalions changed their Mission from Infantry to Air Defense Artillery (called Anti Aircraft Artillery in those days), with one Battalion defending Hawaii for the duration, another crossing the Pacific to Japan, and the third going to Europe and ending up in Germany. The Regiment was reassembled at the end of World War Two, and became one of the early Guard ADA Missile Regiments (the Nike series). With that Mission going to the Air Guard upon its creation in 1947, my unit became a Field Artillery Regiment for a while, and then found its new home in the Transportation and Quartermaster Corps with the Regiment disassembled for the long term, and the Battalions taking on their new missions. With 9-11, the Battalions reassembled to form a Sustainment Brigade, which is the current situation, which MAY disassemble into the Battalions once again with the Army's Drawdown. When I talked about this in short form earlier, someone here raised the issue of Reflagging, which is the Regular Army's device for achieving this sort of Unit Cohesion. The Guard doesn't Reflag. My unit still uses the original Regimental Flag with changed designation. Likewise, the Guidons use the same basic design, and the Shoulder Sleeve Insignia of the 369th Sustainment Brigade is the same device that is on the Infantry Regimental Flag, while the Distinctive Unit Insignia is unchanged.

MisterBen
05-06-2012, 06:17 AM
Let me ask you a question. Did you have any family and working history in your Guard unit? One of my Cousins was a Member - both a Warrant Officer and a Commissioned Officer - following his return from the Regular Army at the end of World War Two through the end of Vietnam. Lots of members worked for the same civilian employer I did, and we knew each other on the job. Indeed, one of the guys I worked with in the Guard was my Best Man, and my Wife worked with the Family Assistance Group while I was away in Saudi Arabia. One of the two reasons why I maintain a Facebook Page is to keep up with the people I know who were in my unit. When I was in the Regular Army, the longest I ever spent in any specific unit was 3 years, and I ended up working with only one of the guys I went through Basic with. In those days, people in the Regular Army remained in CONUS Garrison only long enough to be deployed OCONUS. I remember when the culture you experience in the Regular Army was first discussed Army-wide. The main thrust was the very fact that no one spent enough time in any one unit at any specific location so that the kind of family relationships you have experienced could form, and it was decided by the Leadership that the reason for those issues was the fact that the Army hadn't had the opportunity to return to its traditional Garrison routine because of the long series of Cold and Hot wars between World War Two and the end of the Cold War. At the same time, the Guard was able to return to its Garrison culture at the end of World War Two, except for some units that went out the door for Korea, and the handful that deployed to Vietnam. The long period where the Guard could remain home and concentrate on its State Missions was very good for Unit Cohesion, and became the model for the Army's post-Cold War Garrison shift. Incidentally, speaking of Three Deployments, the Regular Army had to be carried kicking and screaming against deploying the Guard, first to Desert Storm and again for Iraq/Afghanistan, because they felt that we couldn't function the way they did on deployment. We made the switch from Garrison to Field and back again with no real issues, and their collective jaws could be heard hitting the floor. As a result, the current "wisdom" is to reconfigure the complete Army so that the Guard remains in the Deployment mix, with the possibility of folding the Army Reserve into the Guard as a means of fiscal sanity.

Now. Does that mean that the Guard and the Regular Army will continue to reflect each other. I doubt it because when the Regular Army decides that it needs to reduce the number of one type of unit and increase the numbers of another totally different type of unit, the Army always does a version of Musical Chairs on steroids, and moves people to keep them in their MOS as much as possible. In the Regular Army, you are identified almost totally with what you do. In the Guard, you are identified more with the Unit you belong to than anything else. My unit started life as an Infantry Regiment, and fought World War One as the most decorated American unit in that war because we fought as a part of the French Army for the duration. For World War Two, the Regimental Headquarters lost its Federal Recognition, while the Battalions changed their Mission from Infantry to Air Defense Artillery (called Anti Aircraft Artillery in those days), with one Battalion defending Hawaii for the duration, another crossing the Pacific to Japan, and the third going to Europe and ending up in Germany. The Regiment was reassembled at the end of World War Two, and became one of the early Guard ADA Missile Regiments (the Nike series). With that Mission going to the Air Guard upon its creation in 1947, my unit became a Field Artillery Regiment for a while, and then found its new home in the Transportation and Quartermaster Corps with the Regiment disassembled for the long term, and the Battalions taking on their new missions. With 9-11, the Battalions reassembled to form a Sustainment Brigade, which is the current situation, which MAY disassemble into the Battalions once again with the Army's Drawdown. When I talked about this in short form earlier, someone here raised the issue of Reflagging, which is the Regular Army's device for achieving this sort of Unit Cohesion. The Guard doesn't Reflag. My unit still uses the original Regimental Flag with changed designation. Likewise, the Guidons use the same basic design, and the Shoulder Sleeve Insignia of the 369th Sustainment Brigade is the same device that is on the Infantry Regimental Flag, while the Distinctive Unit Insignia is unchanged.

You just gave a long winded response that does not address my responses whatsoever. Also, the problem is that you still trying to compare Vietnam, WWII, the Guard before 9/11, Our nation then to our nation now; to what is applicable today.

First of all, I did not have any family members in my guard unit. Also, the last 6 years I spent in the Guard before coming on active duty again; still does not equate to the 3 years I spent with my unit. I spent about 900 days with those guys (deployed plus in the field for 30 days (JRTC, FTXs - way more than just NG AT) than my Guard/Reserve counterparts. Plus for the majority who do not make a Guard a career; many get out after their first enlistment or do an IST to a different state or unit within their state. The state of the economy and our wars have made alot of reserve component members request to go the IRR/ING to finish out their time so they can seek civilian jobs elsewhere.

If you can say that every member in your unit did 20 years at the same unit and worked at the same civilian job as you did; then your point makes sense but that is the exception not the rule.

You lost me here In those days, people in the Regular Army remained in CONUS Garrison only long enough to be deployed OCONUS. I remember when the culture you experience in the Regular Army was first discussed Army-wide

Because I have known many military members stay overseas and do IPCOTs and rarely get based in a stateside assignment.

Do me a favor; since you been out of the loop for a long time when it comes to active federal service and NG; dont post if you do not know first-hand the current experiences and facts. I dont care on how many people you talk to on facebook and on here that can give you a picture of current military life; if you do not live it; then you do not know.

I met many civilian military retirees here in Afghanistan and even though their are still many traditionals of our Army; there are many things that are happening today that they are clueless about.

Good day.

RONALD45
05-06-2012, 08:10 PM
The truth be told, it isn't about "professionalism" or the "drawdown" at all. What it seems to be about more than anything is what it has been about the last 20 years. The "cold war" ended and the Army was all a flutter "what will we do, what will we do? the largest REASON for us having this big Army is now gone (USSR) and we didn't have to fire a shot this does not bode well for my Career" sayeth the 4 star political hacks.

I know we'll "change" not just one thing at a time, let's "change" everything at once from the way we fight, to the way we are organized to whom we let serve, to how we provide for our Soldiers, to what we provide" Yep let's throw the Army into utter chaos for no reason at all. Why they will have to have someone to "lead" them through all the chaos we have created, who better than us the 4 star politician.

So the "dice were cast" as the saying goes since the Cold war enemy was gone we had to create another one, enter every war torn, dictatorship brutal regime 3rd world hell hole on the face of the planet we USED to stay out of, but no we had to rebuild them in our image (never mind the reason they hate us is BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO BE LIKE US TO BEGIN WITH). Starving Africans let's feed 'em (hence Somalia), Bigger neighbor threatening little one let's tell them to stop or we invade (Kuwait, Iraq the first time), Countries that were tied together by the Soviet Union now breaking up let's take sides (Yugoslavia), while golly gee we have something for the Army to do afterall, it might not be to PROTECT THE US, but if we get involved everywhere else we can keep the war maching running and all of us in jobs.

Then came 9-11 mission accomplished ages ago (Osama DEAD, Sadaam (although not involved DEAD), but we can't declare the wars over we'll be back with nothing to do.

So here we are again with nothing to do, what will we do, OH I KNOW LET'S CREATE MORE CHANGE!!! Let's create more chaos now with our grooming standards, those whom we once accepted blindly we'll confuse the hell out of em. Tattooes you once came in with no more, sexual preferences who cares???,,, gangs who cares, etc. Yep the Army keep's rolling along all right.

Shrike
05-07-2012, 02:45 AM
You just gave a long winded response that does not address my responses whatsoever.
We call that "Getting Cornied", "The Corndog Special", or "Being Cornholed".

It's pretty much his sole method of "debate".

MisterBen
05-07-2012, 11:57 AM
We call that "Getting Cornied", "The Corndog Special", or "Being Cornholed".

It's pretty much his sole method of "debate".

tooooooooooo dayummmmmmmmmmmmmm funnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnyyy but true.

SENDBILLMONEY
05-07-2012, 12:43 PM
Hmm. How come when I Google "Army National Guard" and "reflag" I get references indicating the practice has occurred? Are those units all lying, or is someone wrong?

Creaminess
05-07-2012, 02:49 PM
I got around the Army Garrison Culture by going to the National Guard. The Guard's Garrison Culture isn't anything like the Garrison Culture of the Regular Army. That is because the Guard's Garrison Culture is based on the unit being a Family, whereas the Regular Army's Garrison Culture is like a Beehive.


Do you even think about what you write before you write it? You are doing nothing but talking in circles.

I am the original poster on this thread and also replied several times. The point of this thread was to discuss the proposed upcoming changes to AR 670-1 and how ridiculous SOME of them are. At some point, you said everybody should just suck it up and drive on with the orders they're given.

Two major points:

1. As a retiree, you are not subject to these proposed changes, so while you are entitled to your opinion, you do not have a vested interest in how these changes will affect those CURRENTLY serving.

2. You lost ALL credibility when you said--AFTER telling everybody to stop whining and deal with what they're told to do--that you ran from the Regular Army to the National Guard to "get around" the culture of the Regular Army. Once you admitted to that, anything you had to say on this topic became irrelevant because you didn't adapt to the way YOU were told to live and act as a Soldier. You ran away to another component so your life wouldn't be regulated 24/7, yet you want to tell everybody else to do what you refused to do.

I don't know why you continue to reply to this thread. I don't care about how things "used to be" or what the other services mandate their troops do. This is about how SOME of these proposed changes make no sense at all (telling me what to wear off duty?), and you are not subject to whatever is approved in the end. If you're so endeared to the way things were back when you served on active duty, I'm pretty certain there was no internet for you at that time. Kindly disconnect your computer and walk away from it so you can remember the good old days. The rest of us would like to be treated like the professionals that 99.9% of us are.

Banned
05-07-2012, 03:01 PM
Quick question -

So from reading the AR 670-1, and what my new unit told me, as a former Marine who deployed in OEF, I can wear the Marine combat patch... correct?

Some people on my internez I've read make the argument that you had to deploy with Marines as a SOLDIER, but that isn't clear to me from the language of the AR.

Creaminess
05-07-2012, 04:50 PM
I just wrote this and will be emailing it to SMA Chandler tonight.


SMA Chandler,

I know I am late to write, but I thought I would share my feelings on the proposed changes to AR 670-1 that were discussed a few weeks ago in an Army Times article.

For background information, I am writing this anonymously for a few reasons. However, I will tell you that I am a field grade officer with well over 20 years of service, to include over a decade of enlisted/NCO time. I am still serving and intend to continue to serve for probably at least another 4-5 years, if not longer.

Before I give some specific feedback on proposed changes that I disagree with, I will start by listing those ideas that I think are good and should be implemented as they were discussed in Army Times:

• Women will be allowed to put hair into ponytails during physical training.

• Men will be prohibited from wearing cosmetics, to include nail polish.

• Women may wear cosmetics “conservatively.” That means no unnatural or exaggerated appearance, and no more fake eyelashes. Nail polish will only be worn in service, mess or dress uniforms.

• Women’s fingernail length will not exceed a quarter of an inch. No fake nails, add-ons or extensions will be authorized.

• Tattoos will not be visible above the neck line when the physical fitness uniform is worn. Tattoos will not extend below the wrist line and not be visible on the hands. Sleeve tattoos will be prohibited. (This rule may be grandfathered.) (How can this NOT be grandfathered? Are you going to direct anybody who already has a sleeve tattoo to have it removed? By the way, I do not have a sleeve tattoo, have never planned on getting one, and do not plan on getting one now. The "may be grandfathered" statement is the most confusing here.)

• Soldiers will not eat, drink, smoke, or talk on cellphones while walking. (NOTE: Good luck getting many senior leaders to abide by this; I can't tell you how many times just recently I have saluted senior officers who were talking on their phones and couldn't be bothered to pull them away from their ear to properly return the salute.)

• Army Combat Uniforms will not be commercially pressed; only hand ironing will be authorized.

• Bags worn over the shoulder must be black or the color print of the uniform, without logos.

• Hair grooming standards will become more restrictive and better defined. (I agree with this ONLY if it's not radical. There are standards already in place that are not uniformly enforced, and such enforcement would probably make it unnecessary to address this again.)

• No visible body piercings will be allowed on or off duty. Males will not be allowed to wear earrings at any time. Ear gauging will be unauthorized.

• No dental ornamentation or gold teeth will be authorized.

• Soldiers will be authorized to wear authorized ballistic eyewear in garrison.

• Officers will be authorized to wear nonsubdued rank on their headgear in garrison.

• Men will be authorized to carry a black umbrella with the Army Service Uniform.

Now, onto the proposed changes that I find most bothersome:

• Soldiers must be clean shaven on and off duty, even during leave. (Why? Am I less professional or less of a Soldier if I have a couple days' worth of stubble over the weekend or while I'm on leave visiting family or friends? Do I bring discredit upon the Army because I'd like to give my face a little breather from shaving when I have the opportunity? And will this apply to women also, such as their legs and armpits? Will they be required to shave those areas every single day? If not, seems like some discrimination to me. I know some people will find what I said about women shaving to be preposterous, but to me it's no different than requiring males to shave daily when they're not at work.)

• Civilian clothes standards, both on and off post, will be better defined. (Again, this depends upon what the changes are, but I have heard some pretty radical stuff proposed. For instance, a bootleg copy of the SMA BOD notes I got indicated that you stated, "If your pants have belt loops, they'd better have a belt through them." Further, the notes I got indicated that only polo or button-down shirts would be authorized in civilian clothes; no more T-shirts would be authorized. How ridiculous is THAT? Because I want to wear a T-shirt to support my favorite sports team or just be comfortable, I must be unprofessional, right? That makes zero sense whatsoever, and I hope you are not seriously considering anything like that.)

• Shorter sideburns. (If the proposal to limit the length of sideburns to extend no further down than the top of the ears is accurate, then this is another example of overreacting because a handful of Soldiers violate the current regulatory restructions on sideburns by having them too long, pointy, or otherwise faddish. How about instead of changing the regulation, we enforce what is already the standard per AR 670-1?)

The article stated that you were going to do a final tweak with your BOD in April; when will we find out about the results of that? And will any of these proposed changes be socialized with the field before they are implemented? I think that would be wise to let the force give honest feedback about the proposals.

I think you'll find that, just like with me, the overwhelming majority of the force will agree with most of the proposals. It's the restrictions on shaving and civilian clothing that I find most alarming. For over 2 decades, I have served as a professional in this Army, and never once has my professionalism been questioned because I missed shaving on a Saturday or because I didn't tuck in a shirt. There ARE some Soldiers who wear their pants down so far that you can see their underclothes, and some also wear offensive or otherwise inappropriate graphics or language on their clothes, but is that a reason to make sweeping changes? I thought we were past the "mass punishment" phase of the Army of years gone by. I certainly hope that I'm right about that.

My letter certainly has a combative tone to it in some places, and I recognize that. You may read it and take less stock in what I'm writing because of the tone, thinking that I'm exactly the type of person you want to target because I have an attitude problem. The fact is, I don't have an attitude problem unless I'm being told that the actions of a tiny minority of Soldiers (I use minority in the context of quantity, not race) reflects upon me personally. I take great offense to any thoughts of that nature, and I know I'm not alone in feeling that way.

I don't know if you've read any of the comments in the Army Times Forums, but the proposed changes have been discussed there. One individual from another service said something very telling when he made a comment about you that since you've taken the reins as the SMA, all you've told the force is how we're fat and out of shape and we're apparently not professional enough to make the right decisions in our lives, so we have to make changes such as those you've proposed in order to instill better discipline. And you know what? When I read that, I realized that just about everything I read from you DID state overwhelmingly negative things about Soldiers today. Yes, there ARE Soldiers who are overweight and/or cannot pass an APFT, but that doesn't make the entire Army fat or out of shape. You don't fix the problem by punishing those who meet or exceed the standards; you target those who cannot meet the standard and first try to correct the problems, then remove the Soldiers from the ranks if the problems cannot be corrected.

That same mindset I just discussed appears to be in place with these changes that you're looking at implementing. Instead of enforcing the standards already on the books, let's make more standards that apparently our leaders aren't capable of enforcing. The problem is not that there is a lack of standards, it's that there is selective enforcement in some cases and no enforcement at all in other cases. There ARE a lot of good leaders who are holding their Soldiers to the standards the Army has published, yet even those Soldiers who are doing the right things are going to have more restrictions placed upon them as punishment for those who can't follow orders. How does that make those Soldiers feel who are doing everything they are supposed to do?

You came to your current position from being the commandant at the Sergeants Major Academy, where today's senior enlisted leaders are trained. If there is a lack of discipline in the ranks, particularly in the enlisted ranks, could it be that there is a problem with the type of leadership training being provided at USASMA? Are you not in effect pointing the finger back at yourself and your fellow senior enlisted leaders for not being able to properly teach, and subsequently enforce, Army standards when you want to tell Soldiers they have to shave everyday and they have to always wear a polo shirt? I am not the only person who has noticed this dichotomy.

I was talking to a fellow field grade officer a few weeks ago at work about these changes and how the Army as a whole has changed over the past 2-plus decades. He, like me, has a substantial amount of time in the Army and also has enlisted/NCO time. He brought up a great point about the old days when you had motor sergeants who looked raggedy in uniform, with unpressed BDUs and unpolished boots, yet they could fix any maintenance problem that they faced. I would rather take a Soldier who knows his or her job but may not look like the Army's poster boy/girl than one who looks fantastic in a photo but cannot perform his/her MOS. And I've known a LOT of people like that throughout my career, basically "professional board NCOs" who go to every NCO of the Month board, every Sergeant Audie Murphy Board, every Sergeant Morales board, who can impress the hell out of the board members but do not know their jobs because they spend all their time studying for boards. You may not admit it, but I guarantee you know people like that too.

I realize that you're trying to make a positive change in the Army's culture, and that's what we expect of our senior leaders. But what happens when that "positive" change ends up alienating people and not having the intended impact? Think back to when General Shinseki was the Chief of Staff of the Army. If you ask the average Joe what he remembers about Shinseki, most will probably say that he's the one who had the horrible idea to make everybody wear the black beret. Very few will remember any positive impacts he made because he made a decision about the black beret that was so unpopular, nobody can really remember anything he did to better the force. Sure, you'll find GOs who can give you some good things about what he did while the CSA, but the vast majority of Soldiers who served during his time will only remember that one bad idea. And what happened years later? Another CSA reversed that decision to much fanfare. Do you want your legacy to be that of the guy who implemented changes so radical and so unpopular that nobody remembers anything good you did? And even if you pass all these changes, a future SMA may feel the backlash is still bad enough that he/she reverses some of your decisions.

I'm sure you've heard or read the quote, "You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity." The same holds true about your ideas to legislate those who don't have pride in their Army service into having pride by making them "look more like a Soldier." You may change how somebody looks on the outside, but that isn't going to make every one of them change what kind of person they are. I hope you're not foolish enough to believe that by legislating what a Soldier wears off duty or whether they shave daily, you're going to turn them into a better Soldier. If you find that there are problem Soldiers out there, you deal with them individually, and you empower your leaders to do the same. You don't bring the hammer down on those who don't need to be corrected and think you're going to solve all your problems that way. That's what it feels like you're trying to do.

My guess is you won't read much of this email, if any of it. And if by chance you do read it all, you'll probably dismiss it as somebody who's disgruntled. I'm not disgruntled yet, but I sure will be if I'm told that I'm a dirtbag because I want to wear my team's shirt and some shorts without a belt while I'm visiting with my neighbors out in their yard. Multiply me by tens of thousands of Soldiers and you'll get an idea of the negative impact your shaving and civilian clothing proposals will have across the service. You may not believe me now, but time will show that what I'm saying is true.

Treat your Soldiers the right way and they'll respond accordingly. Tell them that they're fat, out of shape, and look like crap and they're going to lose all respect for you.

SSG
05-08-2012, 12:34 AM
I couldn't have possibly said it better. More of us need to take the same step, and write to the SMA.

CORNELIUSSEON
05-08-2012, 06:27 PM
Hmm. How come when I Google "Army National Guard" and "reflag" I get references indicating the practice has occurred? Are those units all lying, or is someone wrong?

No, it was either was done to get the point across to Regulars who only know Reflag, or else it was done by someone who doesn't understand that no matter what the designation the unit may receive from the Regular Army, as far as their State is concerned, they remain the designation they were given when the unit was first raised.

Banned
05-08-2012, 11:23 PM
I can just see Cornhole in the Ft Dix Food Court. He's talking with some other retirees and the conversation turns to the current state of the armed forces. One of the retirees says something nasty about the Army Chief of Staff and Corndog says "Shhhhh...one of these privates will overhear you and have us taken into custody!!! They'll send us to the Military Retiree Tribunal!"

It's an odd world that man lives in...

You'd be surprised what some retirees believe. A Vietnam Marine vet was telling me about how "The blacks and the gays are taking over the Corps"... and I replied "Yes, I've laid awake at night worrying about this too."

CDLaine
05-09-2012, 01:43 AM
Creaminess,

Enjoyed the take... well stated.

I suspect the SMA is employing a time honored technique of posting an
initial laundry list of changes and then will appear magnanimous when
he "hears the troops" and relents on many of his unenforceble policies.

Time will tell.


Charles

ImpliedConsent
05-09-2012, 03:22 AM
I just wrote this and will be emailing it to SMA Chandler tonight.

Very nice and well said. Of course that's a field grades take. We senior NCO's would save their breath and say: SMA, toss 'xxx' and keep 'yyy'. Quit challenging our leadership and get rid of that nasty cologne (those who met him will understand).

Hey CORNELIUSSEON, can you stay ON TOPIC and quit trying to justify your existence?

MisterBen
05-09-2012, 08:15 AM
Quick question -

So from reading the AR 670-1, and what my new unit told me, as a former Marine who deployed in OEF, I can wear the Marine combat patch... correct?

Some people on my internez I've read make the argument that you had to deploy with Marines as a SOLDIER, but that isn't clear to me from the language of the AR.

Ensure you get your OEF orders that were with the Marines uploaded to your iPerms and have a hardcopy in your I LOVE ME book just in case anyone questions it. So if you were part of the 1st MARDIV during OEF then you can wear that patch on your ACUs.

Here is an Army Times article related to your question.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/06/army_marine_patches_061910w/

Creaminess
05-09-2012, 12:27 PM
Very nice and well said. Of course that's a field grades take. We senior NCO's would save their breath and say: SMA, toss 'xxx' and keep 'yyy'. Quit challenging our leadership and get rid of that nasty cologne (those who met him will understand).


That's the problem: He doesn't trust his leaders to make the right decisions so he wants to make sweeping changes. Guess what happens when he tells his leaders he doesn't think they're mature and responsible enough to deal with issues themselves? They stop wanting to take care of those issues because they no longer feel empowered to do so. Like somebody said in this week's Army Times, he's trying to fix the symptoms but not the problems causing the symptoms. That's not how you do it.

CORNELIUSSEON
05-09-2012, 01:44 PM
Very nice and well said. Of course that's a field grades take. We senior NCO's would save their breath and say: SMA, toss 'xxx' and keep 'yyy'. Quit challenging our leadership and get rid of that nasty cologne (those who met him will understand).

Hey CORNELIUSSEON, can you stay ON TOPIC and quit trying to justify your existence?

I was responding to a person's question. If you have a problem with that, then take it up with him/her. Other than that, I am always on topic, but I just don't agree with you. We - often - see things from different points of view, and I am writing from MY point of view.

Banned
05-09-2012, 03:56 PM
Ensure you get your OEF orders that were with the Marines uploaded to your iPerms and have a hardcopy in your I LOVE ME book just in case anyone questions it. So if you were part of the 1st MARDIV during OEF then you can wear that patch on your ACUs.

Here is an Army Times article related to your question.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/06/army_marine_patches_061910w/

Ok I feel kind of dumb for asking this... but what form in particular should I be looking for? My web orders? My DD214 and my Basic Individual Record both have the deployments listed, are these what I need to present?

Creaminess
05-09-2012, 05:08 PM
Wow, SMA Chandler actually replied to my email. He basically said he'd be happy to discuss my letter if I identified myself. I told him I would not do so but asked that he take what I wrote into consideration before going off the deep end with bad ideas. I also asked him to let the field weigh in on his decisions before deciding what actually gets approved and implemented. I won't hold my breath on that happening, but at least I tried.

SENDBILLMONEY
05-09-2012, 08:43 PM
I got around the Army Garrison Culture by going to the National Guard. The Guard's Garrison Culture isn't anything like the Garrison Culture of the Regular Army. That is because the Guard's Garrison Culture is based on the unit being a Family, whereas the Regular Army's Garrison Culture is like a Beehive.

Can you fairly call that "getting around" the Army garrison culture? If so, did I get around Virginia's culture by moving to Portugal?

RONALD45
05-13-2012, 12:26 PM
Anyone who has served at any time is worthy of dignity and respect and they are worthy of the things that they get for their ser*vice,” Chandler told Army Times in early April. “But I do not believe in my heart that we owe somebody something just because of their service other than ‘thank you’ and the benefits of service. We do not owe you more just because you served and you happen to have a tattoo and you are unwilling – if the policy is written that way – if you have a tattoo that detracts from the Army and it is on you to get that tattoo removed now.

Words from the Sergeant Major of the Army reguarding new grooming standards in this weeks Army Times I expecially took exception to these words " “But I do not believe in my heart that we owe somebody something just because of their service other than ‘thank you’ and the benefits of service"

Well glad to hear it SMA, I guess you will be giving back that designated parking space at the Pentagon and PX then, afterall all you truely deserve is a thank you and your benefits. I guess all those accolades, special priveledges, etc you will be giving up such as body guards, a personal driver, speaking engagements, free membership to organizations and other "benefits" bestowed upon you due to your position and not that of just a Soldier.

Seems to me Soldiers joined the Army for the same reasons you did, to protect their country not serve as your personal "serfs" to do with them "as you will" by creating a bunch of regulations that OH BY THE WAY YOUR PEERS LOWERED TO GET THEM TO JOIN IN THE FIRST PLACE. Seems if anyone should be tossed out of the Army for not adhering to regulations it would be those such as yourself who change the regulations whenever it suits their whim, to get the bodies to fight the wars they support and without which they might find their own jobs in jeopardy

MisterBen
05-13-2012, 01:00 PM
+1 Ronald. I am reading the new Army Times online and found out that they will most likely go with the 100,000 RIF numbers combined with the active and reserve components. I think these AR changes will help with those who disagree with these changes to hang it up when their contract expires.

Creaminess
05-14-2012, 03:40 PM
Anyone who has served at any time is worthy of dignity and respect and they are worthy of the things that they get for their ser*vice,” Chandler told Army Times in early April. “But I do not believe in my heart that we owe somebody something just because of their service other than ‘thank you’ and the benefits of service. We do not owe you more just because you served and you happen to have a tattoo and you are unwilling – if the policy is written that way – if you have a tattoo that detracts from the Army and it is on you to get that tattoo removed now.

Words from the Sergeant Major of the Army reguarding new grooming standards in this weeks Army Times I expecially took exception to these words " “But I do not believe in my heart that we owe somebody something just because of their service other than ‘thank you’ and the benefits of service"

Well glad to hear it SMA, I guess you will be giving back that designated parking space at the Pentagon and PX then, afterall all you truely deserve is a thank you and your benefits. I guess all those accolades, special priveledges, etc you will be giving up such as body guards, a personal driver, speaking engagements, free membership to organizations and other "benefits" bestowed upon you due to your position and not that of just a Soldier.

Seems to me Soldiers joined the Army for the same reasons you did, to protect their country not serve as your personal "serfs" to do with them "as you will" by creating a bunch of regulations that OH BY THE WAY YOUR PEERS LOWERED TO GET THEM TO JOIN IN THE FIRST PLACE. Seems if anyone should be tossed out of the Army for not adhering to regulations it would be those such as yourself who change the regulations whenever it suits their whim, to get the bodies to fight the wars they support and without which they might find their own jobs in jeopardy

They need to have a "Like" button on here for posts like on Facebook. I would "Like" this 1000 times.

moparrocks
05-30-2012, 11:04 PM
I must say that I do not completly agree with some of these "new rules". For instance; no fake nails. I can understand that a female having long two toned nails because it really doesn't look professional when a female soldier pushes the regulation to the fullest by having french manucured nails that never look real even though it does look classy in civilian attire. My nails are not even a quarter of an inch and do conform to the male standards of just above the finger. I have super thin finger nails (naturally) and am a mechanic. My "fake"nails help me do my job and still look professional when in either my ACU's or my ASU's. I know this is not a popular subject, but I'm not the only one who feels this way. 2. the Tattoo standard. I know where the SMA is comming from as far as a tattoo is an expression of ones self and not a reflection of the Army, but come on now. We are still human and will not always be in the Army and I had my tatttoos way before I joined. If we're good enough to serve and die with tattoo's when they were desperate for troops why can't we serve and live with them even when we don't need so many? 3. Civilian attire. Control what someone wears on base not off including the shaving standard. Many writers are correct in saying that we do not want to stand out and risk not only our security, but that of those who we are bound to protect by not standing out in a crowd. 4. No one really cares if females can wear pony tails during PT really.

Banned
05-31-2012, 01:29 AM
I understand the rule against fake nails. And the army would not be the first organization to ban them. For example, I know Kaiser bans their employees from wearing them, because of the health risks (bacteria growing under them, and getting patients sick)

Rizzo77
05-31-2012, 01:35 AM
If we're good enough to serve and die with tattoo's when they were desperate for troops why can't we serve and live with them even when we don't need so many?

Did you die?

Creaminess
06-01-2012, 12:41 PM
3. Civilian attire. Control what someone wears on base not off including the shaving standard. Many writers are correct in saying that we do not want to stand out and risk not only our security, but that of those who we are bound to protect by not standing out in a crowd.

What about those who live on post? Because they live on post, they should be told what they can wear off duty? I don't think so. Make some standards that actually make sense and can reasonably be enforced, such as many already on the books. But don't tell me I want wear shorts with an untucked T-shirt showing support for my favorite team or whatever else I want--something not offensive and with no vulgarity--and no belt on the shorts.

CORNELIUSSEON
06-01-2012, 02:26 PM
What about those who live on post? Because they live on post, they should be told what they can wear off duty? I don't think so. Make some standards that actually make sense and can reasonably be enforced, such as many already on the books. But don't tell me I want wear shorts with an untucked T-shirt showing support for my favorite team or whatever else I want--something not offensive and with no vulgarity--and no belt on the shorts.

Unfortunately, history and precedent is against you. The Post Commander has always had the authority to dictate off-duty dress standards on his post, although your Unit Commander can request a Waiver of those standards. BUT, the Unit Commander has as much chance at gaining such a waiver when those standards are much looser than those of the Post Commander, and the waiver still must be IAW AR 670-1. Further, the Post Commander could grant the waiver, but limit it to locations other than such facilities as the Post Theater(s), the Open Mess Club(s), etc.

MilPhD
06-26-2012, 12:58 PM
I thought this was an Onion (http://www.theonion.com/) story when I initially read the changes regarding requiring a professional dress off duty and shaving during days off and leave.

I thought wrong.

CORNELIUSSEON
06-26-2012, 01:00 PM
Corny, would you PLEASE stay off the boards and let adults have conversations here?

Son, when you get to be older than me, and pay my bills, including my subscription here, THEN you can talk about being an adult. In the meantime, start responding in a timely fashion. That posting has a very stale date. Where have you been? on Mars?

Creaminess
06-26-2012, 04:41 PM
Son, when you get to be older than me, and pay my bills, including my subscription here, THEN you can talk about being an adult. In the meantime, start responding in a timely fashion. That posting has a very stale date. Where have you been? on Mars?

Corny, not all of us are retired from the National Guard and have time to sit here on Army Times forums all day like you do. Some of us have responsibilities and other interests that preclude us from basically living here. And until you become an O-grade, I doubt you can "order" me to start responding in a timely fashion. In fact, you may want to consider being at attention anytime you write anything that is directed at me.

CORNELIUSSEON
06-26-2012, 07:24 PM
Corny, not all of us are retired from the National Guard and have time to sit here on Army Times forums all day like you do. Some of us have responsibilities and other interests that preclude us from basically living here. And until you become an O-grade, I doubt you can "order" me to start responding in a timely fashion. In fact, you may want to consider being at attention anytime you write anything that is directed at me.

Maybe not, but my Retired Status trumps your O-grade status no matter how high you are, so stop trying to best me because you can't. When you finally retire you will - almost instantly - know what I am talking about. You have no idea just how liberating it can be to deal with Officers as equals. As to "living here", I don't live here, I only drop by on an occasional basis to see what the news is, and to either post or respond as I see fit. See you later.

MisterBen
06-27-2012, 07:23 AM
Corny, would you PLEASE stay off the boards and let adults have conversations here?

hehe; Corny with his WWII analogies. He is getting senile and trying to hold onto his early AD roots.

Corn, I will have a drink with you any day at the VFW sir. Keep enjoying your retirement.

TheSoldierwhosaysNi
06-27-2012, 01:04 PM
Didn't they just remove the UCMJ prohibition on sodomy under the guise that they aren't allowed to restrict what people do in their free time? So a soldier having a perverted sex orgy on the weekend is good, but not shaving for a day is bad? Have I got that right?

CORNELIUSSEON
06-28-2012, 01:54 AM
hehe; Corny with his WWII analogies. He is getting senile and trying to hold onto his early AD roots.

Corn, I will have a drink with you any day at the VFW sir. Keep enjoying your retirement.

Nope, not getting senile at all. I just protest against people who were born yesterday re-writing history by saying that something that was invented a long time ago is new just because the stupid idiot who changed the name said that that made things different.

As to the VFW, I live too far away from one to be active if I were to join. You would be surprised how few VFW Posts exist in New Jersey, especially here in the Southern part of New Jersey. Same thing for the American Legion. I belong to the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority Veterans Association, which was started by my former Civilian employer for the benefit of Employees who are veterans and their families. They have two public events each year, one each for Memorial Day and Veterans Day, they have an annual Tuition Competition for Children of Employee Veterans who want to attend college, they monitor the Federal and State Guard & Reserve Employment Rights of Employees who are away on Deployment, and they perform a FRG function for Families of Deployed Employees. As to meetings, they hold meetings on an occasional basis during the Noon Hour at each of the seven Agencies that make up the MTA, and the MTA maintains their own Memorials for Employees who have died or were wounded on Deployment. The oldest memorial they maintain will be 100 years old in 2019.

If you are interested in them, here is their link:http://www.mta.info/news/stories/?story=446

ImpliedConsent
06-28-2012, 04:00 AM
Meanwhile, back at the puzzle palace. Any word on if/when these suggested changes might take place? I heard rumor that our good SMA did not intend for his proposal to get out to the field. Now that it has, some high-O's are raising eyebrows on many of the same complaints brought up here. Just wondering if some of our Sr. folks have heard of any movement on this monstrosity at the palace. My Soldiers here in theater are starting to lose it. Most on their 3/4/5th deployments, daily tics, horrible patrols and conditions ... then having to read the proposals from our good SMA on regulating their off time back home. Totally dis-heartening that my "dead-on-careerist" jr. leaders are pushing to get out. It's as if the puzzle palace is so disconnected from the awesomeness of what our Soldiers are doing over here, their overly-garrisoned mentality (looking at you single-deployed SMA) has completely forgot the austere conditions. If they would focus their energies in insuring we have the best gear (WTF IOTV...? Plate carriers anyone?), best repair systems, best supply systems while we avoid HME and 7.62s, our Soldiers would feel DA has our back. In the meantime, WE believe they are focusing way too much energy on trivial things such as my tried and tested sideburns and stubble on my face. Amazingly disconnected and unfocused SMA.

MisterBen
06-28-2012, 09:11 AM
Didn't they just remove the UCMJ prohibition on sodomy under the guise that they aren't allowed to restrict what people do in their free time? So a soldier having a perverted sex orgy on the weekend is good, but not shaving for a day is bad? Have I got that right?

The stubble is visible. The limping from slam banging could be disguised under many reasons except by the slight feminine twang in his vocal cords.

TheSoldierwhosaysNi
06-28-2012, 12:39 PM
I had really high hopes for this SMA after he got rid of the beret.

Creaminess
10-15-2012, 06:37 PM
Still waiting to hear a final decision on these. I'm interested to hear what gets approved.

ImpliedConsent
10-16-2012, 12:49 AM
From the SE side of the house, the grumble is that there's a bit of dissatisfaction with the current proposals (not all, but some of them). There's also a bit of disgruntlement with our current SMA. He hasn't wholesale dismissed the NCO Corp as unprofessional, but pretty danged close. This from a career school house fast tracker, with one deployment (make that a staff position deployment no less). His proposals (yep, he gets the rose) have many nodding in agreement and shaking their heads at the same time. I suspect a tweaking of the upcoming changes.

ChaplainC
10-18-2012, 07:15 AM
You know, I just wish they would update the terminology.

I mean to say I do not think we need a section on DCU's or on BDU's. Plus the info does not match the needed requirements of the ACU. Just silly that they do not do that.

Do you know that there is NO actual reg for WHERE the chaplain is to place his cross on his ACU?!? What the heck! The Air Force has it spelled out, the Navy has it spelled out, and their chaplain corps combined are not as big as the Army, yet we have no regulation on something that would seem very obvious. (For that matter there actually is nothing at all that even says a chaplain can wear a cross on the ACU. Tells you where to wear it on the fleece, but not the ACU.

Hey if someone else knows where the reg is, and I am mistaken, please let me know because I know several dozen other chaplains who could not find it either.

Creaminess
10-18-2012, 06:31 PM
According to the regulation I saw (MILPER message), chaplains are supposed to wear their crosses upside down.

Crazyhorse21
10-18-2012, 08:29 PM
Ask and you shall receive sir.

3. THE 2 INCH x 2 INCH BLACK EMBROIDERY ON THE DIGITIZED FABRIC WITH HOOK AND LOOP (VELCRO) CHAPLAIN BRANCH INSIGNIA WILL BE WORN CENTERED 1/8 INCH ABOVE THE NAMETAPE ON THE ACU COAT.

From ALARACT:
http://www.armyg1.army.mil/hr/uniform/docs/ALARACT%20message%20283-2009.pdf



You know, I just wish they would update the terminology.

I mean to say I do not think we need a section on DCU's or on BDU's. Plus the info does not match the needed requirements of the ACU. Just silly that they do not do that.

Do you know that there is NO actual reg for WHERE the chaplain is to place his cross on his ACU?!? What the heck! The Air Force has it spelled out, the Navy has it spelled out, and their chaplain corps combined are not as big as the Army, yet we have no regulation on something that would seem very obvious. (For that matter there actually is nothing at all that even says a chaplain can wear a cross on the ACU. Tells you where to wear it on the fleece, but not the ACU.

Hey if someone else knows where the reg is, and I am mistaken, please let me know because I know several dozen other chaplains who could not find it either.

ChaplainC
10-24-2012, 05:04 PM
Thank you Crazyhorse21,

Creaminess
03-03-2013, 01:12 PM
Still waiting, Chandler...

Jh762
03-05-2013, 02:24 PM
This is exactly what I'm afraid of. Just like in the 90s, we'll be left with a bunch of senior leaders who look pretty in Class A's, but when the next conflict happens...when it comes time to send men into harm's way...those senior leaders will be calling branch waving their perfect NCOERS and trying to hide out at the School House. Those guys who cut their teeth in the Army by kicking down doors over 4-6 Iraq/Afghanistan deployments? They'll be long gone.

Amen brother! I just had a conversation the other day specifically about how the best officers get out at Captain because they can't handle the bullshit anymore. The petty admin non-prior enlisted shitbags are the ones that stay in and eventually become the field grade and general officers which screws everyone. I can't recall how many times I've been in the room, surrounded by Majors, light Colonels, and above and have just been in awe at the stupidity. It's good for them they decided to stay in because they couldn't do well with anything else.

Jh762
03-05-2013, 02:31 PM
In the first place, Drill Sergeants were only in charge of the Infantry AIT. For all of the other Career Management Fields, they would have been like fish out of water since NCOs with the MOS's being trained were what were needed.

Next of all, the lowering of the standards – while lamentable for some reasons – actually returned the Army to the status it held for much of the 230+ Years of its existence. It has only been in recent years that the Army has felt that it was too good for “Snuffy Smith”, and you have experienced just why the Army has to lower its standards whenever we go to war: It is impossible to otherwise get enough people who have the high class standards that match those desired by the Army to Volunteer to fill the ranks. Trust me, this argument burned across the length and breadth of the Army prior to the lowering of standards at the start of the WOT, and lots of people lamented “the end of the Army as they knew it”. Don’t forget: “Up Or Out” only came in at the end of the Vietnam War, and that required a long drawn out verbal storm just for that one change.

Finally, it is only in the Combat Arms that MOS Training is a constant program in Garrison, taking up most of the space on the Training Schedule. For the other CMFs, the norm has been the kind of training that is best done by Power Point or Lecture. I should know, since I had to prepare a whole slew of Lesson Plans for NBC Training, and the classes that involve the Protective mask, the MOPP Suit, the Atropene Surrette, and NBC Decontamination, were the only ones where I needed to take the troops out to the NBC Range, and that was once a year in Peacetime. Otherwise, the training was in Classrooms or Bleachers, and for the Regular Army, that required Training Schedule space only one day per Month, with the Troops scattered the rest of the time with the Garrison chores. And incidentally, don’t feel that you are part of the first generation to suffer the boredom of Garrison Life. Those of us who came before you went through it too, and always jumped at the chance to deploy somewhere to do anything necessary.


Brother, Drill Sergeants were definitely in charge of my 68W Combat Medic School in '06 @ Fort Sam Houston, TX.

MisterBen
04-27-2013, 08:00 PM
Brother, Drill Sergeants were definitely in charge of my 68W Combat Medic School in '06 @ Fort Sam Houston, TX.

+1. In addition to many combat arms MOS OSUT locations; Drill Sergeants stay with you throughout BCT and AIT.

MAquino
06-17-2013, 12:17 AM
Apologies for not reading through all the previous pages of this thread. Anyway it's always fun, if not necessarily productive, to vent on the subject of Army uniforms, so here's my 2¢-worth:

(1) By the mid-1970s the Army had finally gotten fatigues just right: nice OD color, fabric, weight, permanent press, comfortable, attractive, tough, and easily maintainable. Sew-on subdued insignia. Baseball cap/bright insignia. Shirt inside trousers.

Then someone with Vietnam nostalgia came along with the BDU: hot, tailored for orangutans, shapeless, ugly, shirt hanging out, with an array of useless ties, pockets, reinforcements. An equally shapeless and ugly cap. Over subsequent years this mess has gone further downhill, if that's possible, to the computer-pixel horror of today. Go back to the 1970s fatigues, please.

(2) OK, I know that I'm an offender by proposing grey berets for PSYOP and purple ones for CA in my MindWar book, but that's just because the beret business has gone over the top already: black, tan, maroon, have I missed any? Let's take a deep breath and get rid of all the berets except the Green, which has earned its existence and immortality.

(3) I still can't figure out why the Army decided to discontinue the green dress uniform in favor of the blue. The greens were perfect for daily "business" wear: the right amount of military design without being awkward or pretentious. Also you could add things like bloused jump boots and Green Beret to it without clashing. The dress blue is fine for fancy-dress/formal occasions, but for daily/business wear looks like you're a Civil War reenactor who just stepped off the Gettysburg set. The officers' shoulderboards don't work under overcoats, and the Army's tradition of full-color unit patches, DUI, and shoulder tabs has now crashed in favor of absurd tin pocket-patches and pin-on minitabs with pointless curvature. Worse yet, at Bragg soldiers are blousing boots and wearing all sorts of colored berets with the blues, which I can't even begin to visualize. Go back to the greens, and leave the blues for the Old Guard and formal occasions.

(4) Have a compulsion to mess with the green uniform? O.K., get rid of the coat and bring back the Ike jacket.

(5) Let Army male officers carry black umbrellas when it's raining. [I think this is already permitted the ladies.] The USAF and USN can, and don't seem to suffer chromosome loss from doing so. The Marines like getting wet, so not an issue in their case.

(6) Boots: Back to classy black Corcorans or similar issue, unless you're really, actually in a jungle or desert.

(7) Headgear: In addition to bringing back the greens, bring back the overseas cap except for SF.

(8) While I don't really mind the green Class-B shirt/trousers combination, I think we lost something nice with the Army Tan shirt/trousers combination. [I wouldn't bring back the coat/trousers version; at that point just stay with the green.]

CORNELIUSSEON
06-17-2013, 02:20 AM
+1. In addition to many combat arms MOS OSUT locations; Drill Sergeants stay with you throughout BCT and AIT.

Thinking back to my Transportation AIT, which was in 1967 at Fort Eustis, VA, there were NO Drill Sergeants on the post, not even for the Transportation OCS. The Class Commander, who was the senior SP5 who was transitioning into the MOS, was in charge of us, and the Platoon Sergeant was a member of the AIT Company I was assigned to. The instructors were civilian Teachers for the most part, with the single exception of when we were sent over to Fort Story, VA for our Survival, Escape, Evasion & Resistance training before we were graduated and deployed to Vietnam (In our day the "R"for Resistance was located at the end of the acronym, not in the middle). Yes, we got Water-boarded by Drill Sergeants who all were Staff Sergeants who had survived an Infantry tour in Nam.

Creaminess
06-21-2013, 01:07 PM
Apologies for not reading through all the previous pages of this thread. Anyway it's always fun, if not necessarily productive, to vent on the subject of Army uniforms, so here's my 2¢-worth:

(1) By the mid-1970s the Army had finally gotten fatigues just right: nice OD color, fabric, weight, permanent press, comfortable, attractive, tough, and easily maintainable. Sew-on subdued insignia. Baseball cap/bright insignia. Shirt inside trousers.

Then someone with Vietnam nostalgia came along with the BDU: hot, tailored for orangutans, shapeless, ugly, shirt hanging out, with an array of useless ties, pockets, reinforcements. An equally shapeless and ugly cap. Over subsequent years this mess has gone further downhill, if that's possible, to the computer-pixel horror of today. Go back to the 1970s fatigues, please.

(2) OK, I know that I'm an offender by proposing grey berets for PSYOP and purple ones for CA in my MindWar book, but that's just because the beret business has gone over the top already: black, tan, maroon, have I missed any? Let's take a deep breath and get rid of all the berets except the Green, which has earned its existence and immortality.

(3) I still can't figure out why the Army decided to discontinue the green dress uniform in favor of the blue. The greens were perfect for daily "business" wear: the right amount of military design without being awkward or pretentious. Also you could add things like bloused jump boots and Green Beret to it without clashing. The dress blue is fine for fancy-dress/formal occasions, but for daily/business wear looks like you're a Civil War reenactor who just stepped off the Gettysburg set. The officers' shoulderboards don't work under overcoats, and the Army's tradition of full-color unit patches, DUI, and shoulder tabs has now crashed in favor of absurd tin pocket-patches and pin-on minitabs with pointless curvature. Worse yet, at Bragg soldiers are blousing boots and wearing all sorts of colored berets with the blues, which I can't even begin to visualize. Go back to the greens, and leave the blues for the Old Guard and formal occasions.

(4) Have a compulsion to mess with the green uniform? O.K., get rid of the coat and bring back the Ike jacket.

(5) Let Army male officers carry black umbrellas when it's raining. [I think this is already permitted the ladies.] The USAF and USN can, and don't seem to suffer chromosome loss from doing so. The Marines like getting wet, so not an issue in their case.

(6) Boots: Back to classy black Corcorans or similar issue, unless you're really, actually in a jungle or desert.

(7) Headgear: In addition to bringing back the greens, bring back the overseas cap except for SF.

(8) While I don't really mind the green Class-B shirt/trousers combination, I think we lost something nice with the Army Tan shirt/trousers combination. [I wouldn't bring back the coat/trousers version; at that point just stay with the green.]

It's nice to be able to read an intelligent, coherent reply on this thread. Thank you for your input, and thank you especially for not sounding like Corny in your response, what with his vague recollections of his time serving during the Revolutionary War and all.

ryankenaz
07-10-2013, 07:56 PM
Source: http://www.armytimes.com/article/20120414/NEWS/204140308/Army-tightens-rules-hair-tattoos-makeup

Creaminess
07-11-2013, 08:45 PM
Source: http://www.armytimes.com/article/20120414/NEWS/204140308/Army-tightens-rules-hair-tattoos-makeup

Old news; what I'm asking is when anything that actually was approved will be published and implemented.