Posted on Sep 16, 2014
Why can the Army decide what we wear on and off post?
4.95K
55
25
2
2
0
I understand that there are many statutes from the UCMJ and from historical legal precedents that allow Military Necessity to overcome individual liberties. However, it seems the Army is going very deeply into private lives deciding what civilian attire can be worn on and off post. When should the line be drawn if at all? How does restricting certain clothing preferences bolster good order and discipline? It seems high schools enforce the same standards (wear your hat straight, pull up your pants, no sleeveless shirts, no dorags, etc.).
Edit: this post is primarily concerned with off-post wear, regardless of CONUS/OCONUS status.
Edit: this post is primarily concerned with off-post wear, regardless of CONUS/OCONUS status.
Posted in these groups: 
Rights
Rights
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 9
1SG (Join to see) is correct - professionalism.
Seeing as you're in 2ID, I am making the assumption that you are referring to the Warrior Standards as well as some of the other off-post policies. Before going any further, understand that there is a world of difference between regulating off-post behavior in CONUS and that in another country. When in another country, there are a multitude of influencing factors such as host-nation agreements, different cultural norms, etc.
You question, "How does restricting certain clothing preferences bolster good order and discipline?" alludes to how does it bolster the INDIVIDUAL'S good order and discipline, not the organization. By and large, it doesn't. What they do is to protect the negative impact to the order and discipline of the organization as a whole.
Absent of any additional policies, your conduct off-post during off-duty hours is already being controlled (mostly through UCMJ and such as there are many things that society allows that aren't allowed by the military). Usually, when off-post policies are put in effect, they are tied to some type of previous behavior that was exhibited by an organizational member which negatively impacted either the individual or the organization (yes, another case of 'one bad apple...') and the leadership reacted to minimize the behavior in the future. Usually it was because common sense wasn't applied when it should have been and the leadership feels it has to spell out the regulation of behanvior because either the situation might be ambiguous or because the soldiers aren't showing the maturity to make good decisions. Either way, the organization can suffer based on the individual's actions.
What was drummed into me 26+ years ago is that the military is not just a job, it is an all-encompassing way of life and that the military doesn't (or if it does, very reluctantly) adapt to you, you adapt to the military. What is accepted behavior for a college student isn't necessarily the accepted behavior for a junior enlisted/officer (especially considering articles 133 and 134).
Having said all this, your first line sums it up (or should) - military necessity. A command has the right to implement any policy as long as it isn't illegal and has a basis in military necessity (not in personal opinion/belief). Keep in mind, the leadership isn't required to let you know what that military necessity is (and in many cases, won't).
There used to be a time when UCMJ didn't apply 24/7. A 'service connected nexus' had to be shown to apply jurisdiction over military members off-duty and off-base. A famous SCOTUS case (Solorio vs the US) established that jurisdiction depended solely upon the status of the person (in other words, if you're T10 active duty, then it applies ... period).
The same concept can be applied to policies as well because your behavior on/off-post or on/off-duty reflects upon the organization as a whole. If you were on the way home and came upon a burning vehicle with someone trapped inside, the headlines the next day (I'm assuming ;) would read, "Army Soldier risks life to save family", not "Chris Bennett risks life to save family". Likewise, if you head downtown and put your brain in neutral for the rest of the night, the headlines might read "Army Soldier goes on drunken rage and destroys nightclub"
Seeing as you're in 2ID, I am making the assumption that you are referring to the Warrior Standards as well as some of the other off-post policies. Before going any further, understand that there is a world of difference between regulating off-post behavior in CONUS and that in another country. When in another country, there are a multitude of influencing factors such as host-nation agreements, different cultural norms, etc.
You question, "How does restricting certain clothing preferences bolster good order and discipline?" alludes to how does it bolster the INDIVIDUAL'S good order and discipline, not the organization. By and large, it doesn't. What they do is to protect the negative impact to the order and discipline of the organization as a whole.
Absent of any additional policies, your conduct off-post during off-duty hours is already being controlled (mostly through UCMJ and such as there are many things that society allows that aren't allowed by the military). Usually, when off-post policies are put in effect, they are tied to some type of previous behavior that was exhibited by an organizational member which negatively impacted either the individual or the organization (yes, another case of 'one bad apple...') and the leadership reacted to minimize the behavior in the future. Usually it was because common sense wasn't applied when it should have been and the leadership feels it has to spell out the regulation of behanvior because either the situation might be ambiguous or because the soldiers aren't showing the maturity to make good decisions. Either way, the organization can suffer based on the individual's actions.
What was drummed into me 26+ years ago is that the military is not just a job, it is an all-encompassing way of life and that the military doesn't (or if it does, very reluctantly) adapt to you, you adapt to the military. What is accepted behavior for a college student isn't necessarily the accepted behavior for a junior enlisted/officer (especially considering articles 133 and 134).
Having said all this, your first line sums it up (or should) - military necessity. A command has the right to implement any policy as long as it isn't illegal and has a basis in military necessity (not in personal opinion/belief). Keep in mind, the leadership isn't required to let you know what that military necessity is (and in many cases, won't).
There used to be a time when UCMJ didn't apply 24/7. A 'service connected nexus' had to be shown to apply jurisdiction over military members off-duty and off-base. A famous SCOTUS case (Solorio vs the US) established that jurisdiction depended solely upon the status of the person (in other words, if you're T10 active duty, then it applies ... period).
The same concept can be applied to policies as well because your behavior on/off-post or on/off-duty reflects upon the organization as a whole. If you were on the way home and came upon a burning vehicle with someone trapped inside, the headlines the next day (I'm assuming ;) would read, "Army Soldier risks life to save family", not "Chris Bennett risks life to save family". Likewise, if you head downtown and put your brain in neutral for the rest of the night, the headlines might read "Army Soldier goes on drunken rage and destroys nightclub"
(10)
(0)
CW5 (Join to see)
Yes Sir, Force Pro is the reason why the DoD registration decals are on the way out. I would also think that blending in with the population whether CONUS or OCONUS would also be a factor in off-duty attire policies.
That said, looking professional may also set you up to immediately be recognized as an American Soldier. Any policy should take local atmosphere into account.
That said, looking professional may also set you up to immediately be recognized as an American Soldier. Any policy should take local atmosphere into account.
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Thank you for your response sir, this is exactly the answer I was hoping to find. The deeper issue becomes when the Army takes actions that appear to be in violation of our rights given to us as Soldiers, for example: commanders telling subordinates they have to pay for and go to an "optional" event. I understand that these are the actions and decisions of individuals, however one cannot say we represent the big army when we're off duty and then say one's actions don't count when we're on duty, right? When do you think the Army is going too far in non-combat environments? Should a Soldier try to enact change when the rights given to them as a service members are taken away or should they suck it up and chalk their hardships to selfless service and accept their lot? I genuinely would like to know your expert opinion and advice on this and mean absolutely no disrespect in any way Sir.
(0)
(0)
COL Randall C.
CPT (Join to see), Ah yes, mandatory fun events. I think there are numerous discussion topics on here talking about them. The one thing to keep in mind is that while you can't be 'required' to go there, is it worth the trouble you're going to get by not showing up? I've commented before about CAN vs SHOULD and such. CAN you be forced to go to these events, legally, no (usually). SHOULD you go? Depends on if you're on the way out or not and don't care about burning bridges ;)
That also applies to many other things (such as your question, "should a Soldier try to enact change when the rights given to them as a service members are taken away or should they suck it up and chalk their hardships to selfless service and accept their lot?") - is it really worth the potential problems you're going to face to take a stand on a point the most of the time isn't worth standing on?
I'm sure there is a story behind your comment, "however one cannot say we represent the big army when we're off duty and then say one's actions don't count when we're on duty, right", because I don't agree with the second part - your actions on-duty DO count (most people argue it the other way --- we represent the Army while on-duty, but my actions off-duty are my own and don't count).
I've been in organizations of all types throughout my career. The one thing that you'll learn is the mantra of, "this too shall pass". One of the best/worst things about being serving on active duty is that if you don't like what you're doing, give it a bit of time and the environment will change - you or your boss will PCS, someone might get a new job, coworkers will change, etc.
Pick your battles and make sure they are worth the fight.
That also applies to many other things (such as your question, "should a Soldier try to enact change when the rights given to them as a service members are taken away or should they suck it up and chalk their hardships to selfless service and accept their lot?") - is it really worth the potential problems you're going to face to take a stand on a point the most of the time isn't worth standing on?
I'm sure there is a story behind your comment, "however one cannot say we represent the big army when we're off duty and then say one's actions don't count when we're on duty, right", because I don't agree with the second part - your actions on-duty DO count (most people argue it the other way --- we represent the Army while on-duty, but my actions off-duty are my own and don't count).
I've been in organizations of all types throughout my career. The one thing that you'll learn is the mantra of, "this too shall pass". One of the best/worst things about being serving on active duty is that if you don't like what you're doing, give it a bit of time and the environment will change - you or your boss will PCS, someone might get a new job, coworkers will change, etc.
Pick your battles and make sure they are worth the fight.
(2)
(0)
(1)
(0)
7
7
0
Boils down to discipline and looking like a Soldier at all times Sir. We protect and defend our nation and the public supports us strongly. When we start walking around looking like a bunch of "rag bags" (for lack of a better term) the public will loose faith in the professionalism of the military. That's just my $.02
(7)
(0)
SSG (ret) William Martin
Here's my input: if one looks like a "bag of rag" I assume that SM is wearing civilian attire and how is anyone who is a stranger SM and civilian alike going to know that person is an SM?
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
It may not bolster good order and discipline but, you have to admit. A soldier walking around with his pants around his ankles, hat cocked all kitty-wompus and a lady showing all her lady parts (minor cleavage is acceptable- but showing most of your ass in a pair of shorts is one of those- why wear shorts if you want the whole world to see your lady parts)
I see it as professionalism. We want to be seen as professional people. If we are dressing like a bunch of high school kids, looking like we just dropped out of high school- what part of that screams -Hey, thats a good looking soldier right there? Sure, please wear something you want. But, when your attire starts making the rest of the Army look bad then its time to set some rules.
Too many times than not, soldiers go out and wear something ridiculous and then flaunt 'Well Im in the Army...' It portrays us poorly. I agree that some of the rules seem to be a little much. But, if we don't set rules and guidelines we all know there will be some Joe walking around with his rear hanging out acting all bad ass. Or a young lady wearing something that, well is more suitable for a club than an every day walk on post.
Do we really need more people causing crazy stereotypes amongst the Army?
Rant... Over
I see it as professionalism. We want to be seen as professional people. If we are dressing like a bunch of high school kids, looking like we just dropped out of high school- what part of that screams -Hey, thats a good looking soldier right there? Sure, please wear something you want. But, when your attire starts making the rest of the Army look bad then its time to set some rules.
Too many times than not, soldiers go out and wear something ridiculous and then flaunt 'Well Im in the Army...' It portrays us poorly. I agree that some of the rules seem to be a little much. But, if we don't set rules and guidelines we all know there will be some Joe walking around with his rear hanging out acting all bad ass. Or a young lady wearing something that, well is more suitable for a club than an every day walk on post.
Do we really need more people causing crazy stereotypes amongst the Army?
Rant... Over
(5)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
When I was in Korea, I was actually embarrassed by the way some of our Soldiers dressed when they went out on the town.
(7)
(0)
CW4 Mark Brubeck
As a Soldier you are on duty 24/7 and your appearance represents the Army. Sort of like you would never see Hillary Clinton rocking some daisy dukes at the club. It is just unprofessional.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google