Posted on May 18, 2019
Has anyone used the uniform builder on the AAFES website? If so, how was it?
5.29K
15
30
5
5
0
Newly direct commissioned Army officer and I need to purchase uniforms. The closest military base to me is 4+ hours drive away. Has anyone used the uniform builder on the AAFES website? If so how was it? Worth the extra cost or is it better to purchase the uniforms and have tapes made elsewhere and take them with you to a base and have the uniform shop sew them on for you?
Uniforms
Posted 5 y ago
Responses: 10
2
2
0
When I mobilized to active duty after more than a decade in Reserves I had name tapes made so I could wet em down then dry before getting them sewn on new uniforms
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
Go to Marlow White, they are the best at uniforms. Get your measurements, call em up and talk with em about your normal fit and everything and they'll mail em to you and you'll just need the final tailoring like hemming the pants. I got my Mess Dress uniform from em, fit perfectly right out of the box.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
It’s pretty convenient. I used it for 2 sets of OCPs. Got to me pretty quick and wasn’t terribly priced. That depends on how much flair you have to get sewn on.
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
CW2 (Join to see) - We likely agree on far more things than is apparent in this discussion but obviously I am failing at explaining my point to you. We seem to be debating apples vs oranges here.
The occasional use of slang is perfectly fine. Using slang so exclusively that you don't even know it is slang is a problem. Using slang in official documents and written guidance is inappropriate, unprofessional, and leads to problems.
Slang has so misinformed Soldiers that many do not know the proper nomenclature or correct doctrinal terms. Not knowing proper nomenclature or correct doctrinal terms means Soldiers tend to believe things that are not factually correct. Not knowing proper nomenclature or correct doctrinal terms means Soldiers cannot research doctrine. Not knowing proper nomenclature or correct doctrinal terms means Soldiers cannot understand doctrine. Not knowing proper nomenclature or correct doctrinal terms means Soldiers become frustrated with doctrine so they start improvising their own way of doing things. Not knowing proper nomenclature or correct doctrinal terms... etc, etc, etc,....
Your universal use of slang apparently led you to quite confidently pass on bad information at the start of this thread ("the ACU is gone"). Had you known the actual name of the uniform, you would never had made that error. The misinformation forwarded by you in this thread is but a small example of some of the problems with slang. Not only were you confused between the name of a color pattern and the name of the uniform, but you were unfamiliar with the uniform regulations for when certain versions of that uniform may no longer be worn. Or believing that a slang term that was accurate a decade ago is still accurate today, when in reality referring to today's helmets as "Kevlars" (80s slang) is no more accurate than calling them by "steel pots" (70s slang). Knowing current proper nomenclature and correct doctrinal terminology often enables Soldiers to be aware of the continual changes within the Army that impact every aspect of being a Soldier.
I am not at all advocating the garrison Nazi mindset you seem to be portraying as my position. In fact, I lecture against NCOs advocating ironing and starching the ACU and direct junior Soldiers not to do it. I push against stupid extremes on both sides of the debate and try to maintain a more central position.
Conflating concepts has given rise to even more fallacies in your last rant.
A misinformed Soldier on such a trivial matter is not necessarily that big of a deal. However, a Soldier that has been properly educated but insists on continued use of misinformation and implies he will continue to misinform his junior Soldiers, is a far bigger problem that, indeed, more Soldiers should be concerned with.
Compare your response to my initial comment to that of the CPT above. He simply voted up my comment as a helpful hint that I intended it to be (my assumption being that he is a newly commissioned medical officer still getting his bearings). You on the other hand , a seasoned NCO, felt my tip was important enough to comment on and incorrectly asserted my tip was wrong. Then when I demonstrated all my information as factually correct, you argue that it is trivial and inconsequential. That even though you now know you were wrong, you'll continue to do the wrong thing because its not important. So my tip on proper nomenclature is important enough for you to interject yourself in the thread when you think you're right, but my tip becomes the root of all political turmoil when you've been demonstrated as wrong. Hmm, go figure...
The occasional use of slang is perfectly fine. Using slang so exclusively that you don't even know it is slang is a problem. Using slang in official documents and written guidance is inappropriate, unprofessional, and leads to problems.
Slang has so misinformed Soldiers that many do not know the proper nomenclature or correct doctrinal terms. Not knowing proper nomenclature or correct doctrinal terms means Soldiers tend to believe things that are not factually correct. Not knowing proper nomenclature or correct doctrinal terms means Soldiers cannot research doctrine. Not knowing proper nomenclature or correct doctrinal terms means Soldiers cannot understand doctrine. Not knowing proper nomenclature or correct doctrinal terms means Soldiers become frustrated with doctrine so they start improvising their own way of doing things. Not knowing proper nomenclature or correct doctrinal terms... etc, etc, etc,....
Your universal use of slang apparently led you to quite confidently pass on bad information at the start of this thread ("the ACU is gone"). Had you known the actual name of the uniform, you would never had made that error. The misinformation forwarded by you in this thread is but a small example of some of the problems with slang. Not only were you confused between the name of a color pattern and the name of the uniform, but you were unfamiliar with the uniform regulations for when certain versions of that uniform may no longer be worn. Or believing that a slang term that was accurate a decade ago is still accurate today, when in reality referring to today's helmets as "Kevlars" (80s slang) is no more accurate than calling them by "steel pots" (70s slang). Knowing current proper nomenclature and correct doctrinal terminology often enables Soldiers to be aware of the continual changes within the Army that impact every aspect of being a Soldier.
I am not at all advocating the garrison Nazi mindset you seem to be portraying as my position. In fact, I lecture against NCOs advocating ironing and starching the ACU and direct junior Soldiers not to do it. I push against stupid extremes on both sides of the debate and try to maintain a more central position.
Conflating concepts has given rise to even more fallacies in your last rant.
A misinformed Soldier on such a trivial matter is not necessarily that big of a deal. However, a Soldier that has been properly educated but insists on continued use of misinformation and implies he will continue to misinform his junior Soldiers, is a far bigger problem that, indeed, more Soldiers should be concerned with.
Compare your response to my initial comment to that of the CPT above. He simply voted up my comment as a helpful hint that I intended it to be (my assumption being that he is a newly commissioned medical officer still getting his bearings). You on the other hand , a seasoned NCO, felt my tip was important enough to comment on and incorrectly asserted my tip was wrong. Then when I demonstrated all my information as factually correct, you argue that it is trivial and inconsequential. That even though you now know you were wrong, you'll continue to do the wrong thing because its not important. So my tip on proper nomenclature is important enough for you to interject yourself in the thread when you think you're right, but my tip becomes the root of all political turmoil when you've been demonstrated as wrong. Hmm, go figure...
(0)
(0)
CW2 (Join to see)
SFC (Join to see) I understand that you believe slang can be detrimental. In this case you felt you needed to correct a single person when an entire society uses a term in reference to a pattern. While i admitted the error after looking at my uniform, it doesnt change the fact that calling the Scorpion pattern uniform an ACU is confusing and misleading. Hence why ACU has been only used to describe the UCP. I explained my reasoning behind saying it was "gone", not that I didn't understand a simple regulation. I send people t selection every month who wear their ACUs because of the same reason you yourself described- let them get destroyed.
The discussion was brought about because you corrected a term that has become so prevalent it might as well be official - being that most senior NCOs and Officers use it as well. So right or wrong that the newer uniforms are still "ACU" is moot. This is not an issue of misinformation, as it doesn't matter. Calling an M240 an M249 is an issue.
Not to mention, sticking to doctrine 100% is a terrible thing. Doctrine precludes innovation. The Russians are right, we are successful because we don't follow our own doctrine. Doctrine is outdated, almost always. If we stuck to doctrine all the time we'd still have soft skin HMMWVs or lining up to "make ready!".
The discussion was brought about because you corrected a term that has become so prevalent it might as well be official - being that most senior NCOs and Officers use it as well. So right or wrong that the newer uniforms are still "ACU" is moot. This is not an issue of misinformation, as it doesn't matter. Calling an M240 an M249 is an issue.
Not to mention, sticking to doctrine 100% is a terrible thing. Doctrine precludes innovation. The Russians are right, we are successful because we don't follow our own doctrine. Doctrine is outdated, almost always. If we stuck to doctrine all the time we'd still have soft skin HMMWVs or lining up to "make ready!".
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
CW2 (Join to see) - Go back and read it again. I provided what I assumed to be a newly commissioned medical officer with the correct name of the Army's uniform and added that the Army is full of unofficial slang to misinform and confuse Soldiers. His response was to vote up my post. Your response on the other hand...
Our discussion was brought about because you incorrectly asserted I was wrong. The ACU is the correct name. "OCP" is not the actual name of any Army uniform. The ACU is not gone. The UCP ACU is not gone. Army helmets are not made with Kevlar any more.
As mentioned earlier, there needs to be a balance in all this. You can't be an extremist on either end of the spectrum (too strict, too lax). Teaching Soldiers the official name of their uniform is not overly strict. However, allowing slang to dominate to the point that Soldiers to believe slang words are official terminology and they are entirely ignorant of proper nomenclature is far too lax.
By the way, in regards this specific comment: "you felt you needed to correct a single person when an entire society uses a term in reference to a pattern." My tip was pretty much the exact opposite of that. I said: "Operational Camouflage Pattern (OCP) is just a color. ACU is a uniform." Of course people use OCP to reference a "pattern". That's what OCP stands for. Operational Camouflage Pattern (OCP) .
How is calling an ACU an ACU become confusing and misleading? If I say wear your ACU or bring your ACU does that confuse or mislead you? If I say wear your beret with your ASU is that confusing or misleading? Do I really need to specifically say wear a tan beret or wear a green beret or wear a maroon beret or wear a black beret? Or may I just tell Soldiers to wear their beret? Is simply listing "beret" on the packing list without naming the various colors really going to cause confusion and mislead Soldiers? Really?
In the rare instances you actually need to specify a particular color in the remaining 4 months until Oct, that can be done IAW DA PAM, para 4-1: UCP ACU, OEF-CP ACU, OCP ACU. But come Oct, we can all simply say ACU. That seems much less confusing and misleading than employing the name of a camouflage pattern used in the manufacture of all types of gear and uniform items. "Hey SGT, be sure a second green is on your packing list." "Contact Supply and tell them I need to order more green for the troops." Seems much less confusing and misleading to say ACU.
I agree that blindly following doctrine/regulations is a bad thing, especially when taken to extremes. I have found Army regulations that violated federal law and pushed things up the chain to get it corrected. I have pushed back against policies and higher headquarters interpretation or those wonderful "one size fits all" solutions that screw over the troops. There are numerous Army publications that are 20 years old or older. It is not that difficult to find things in Army doctrine that contradict one another either. Additionally, the Army also has a lot of "monkey see, monkey do" that is not found anywhere in doctrine/regulation. Soldiers just do it because other Soldiers did it. Things like wearing PT belts, for example. Even after AD 2018-07-18, some Soldiers insist on requiring PT belts everywhere. I push against stupid things like that too; especially when they're trying to be stupid while deployed.
However, none of that applies to the actual name of the Army Combat Uniform (ACU) versus a commonly used slang term. So in that regard I'll chalk that comment up as another red herring.
Our discussion was brought about because you incorrectly asserted I was wrong. The ACU is the correct name. "OCP" is not the actual name of any Army uniform. The ACU is not gone. The UCP ACU is not gone. Army helmets are not made with Kevlar any more.
As mentioned earlier, there needs to be a balance in all this. You can't be an extremist on either end of the spectrum (too strict, too lax). Teaching Soldiers the official name of their uniform is not overly strict. However, allowing slang to dominate to the point that Soldiers to believe slang words are official terminology and they are entirely ignorant of proper nomenclature is far too lax.
By the way, in regards this specific comment: "you felt you needed to correct a single person when an entire society uses a term in reference to a pattern." My tip was pretty much the exact opposite of that. I said: "Operational Camouflage Pattern (OCP) is just a color. ACU is a uniform." Of course people use OCP to reference a "pattern". That's what OCP stands for. Operational Camouflage Pattern (OCP) .
How is calling an ACU an ACU become confusing and misleading? If I say wear your ACU or bring your ACU does that confuse or mislead you? If I say wear your beret with your ASU is that confusing or misleading? Do I really need to specifically say wear a tan beret or wear a green beret or wear a maroon beret or wear a black beret? Or may I just tell Soldiers to wear their beret? Is simply listing "beret" on the packing list without naming the various colors really going to cause confusion and mislead Soldiers? Really?
In the rare instances you actually need to specify a particular color in the remaining 4 months until Oct, that can be done IAW DA PAM, para 4-1: UCP ACU, OEF-CP ACU, OCP ACU. But come Oct, we can all simply say ACU. That seems much less confusing and misleading than employing the name of a camouflage pattern used in the manufacture of all types of gear and uniform items. "Hey SGT, be sure a second green is on your packing list." "Contact Supply and tell them I need to order more green for the troops." Seems much less confusing and misleading to say ACU.
I agree that blindly following doctrine/regulations is a bad thing, especially when taken to extremes. I have found Army regulations that violated federal law and pushed things up the chain to get it corrected. I have pushed back against policies and higher headquarters interpretation or those wonderful "one size fits all" solutions that screw over the troops. There are numerous Army publications that are 20 years old or older. It is not that difficult to find things in Army doctrine that contradict one another either. Additionally, the Army also has a lot of "monkey see, monkey do" that is not found anywhere in doctrine/regulation. Soldiers just do it because other Soldiers did it. Things like wearing PT belts, for example. Even after AD 2018-07-18, some Soldiers insist on requiring PT belts everywhere. I push against stupid things like that too; especially when they're trying to be stupid while deployed.
However, none of that applies to the actual name of the Army Combat Uniform (ACU) versus a commonly used slang term. So in that regard I'll chalk that comment up as another red herring.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google