AR 670-1: What is your reaction to the newest changes?

SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL — Fri, 07 Mar 2014 20:47:32 -0500

<14px;">, APPROVED, AND PUBLISHED!<br><br>2. New revision of the regulation will define the following terms: eccentric, faddish,conservative, inconspicuous, unsightly, hair braids/plaits.<br><br>3. AR 670-1 will be a PUNITIVE order in the new regulation.  <br><br>4. Sideburns will not extend below the top of the ear.  <br><br>5. Soldiers will be clean shaven on AND off duty (even during leave).<br><br>6. Female and Male hair grooming standards will become more restrictive and better defined(I'll have pictures for you at MHS).<br><br>7. Females will be allowed to put their hair into a pony tail during PT.<br><br>8. 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.<br><br>9. Females fingernail length will not exceed 1/4 inch, no fake nails, add-ons, or extensions will be authorized.<br><br>10. 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).<br><br>11. Soldiers will not walk while engaged in activities that require the hand salute (eating, cell phone use, smoking, etc.).<br><br>12. ACUs will not be commercially pressed; hand ironing of the ACU only will be authorized.</span></font></p><font color="#666666"><span style="line-height: 17px; font-size: 14px;"><p><br>13. Bags worn over the shoulder will only be black or the color print of the uniform i.e. ACU, without logos.<br><br>14. the new regulation will specify civilian clothes standards both on and off duty and both on and off post.<br><br>15. No visible body piercings on or off duty and on or off post, males will never be allowed to wear earrings. Ear gauging will be unauthorized.<br><br>16. No dental ornamentation or gold teeth will be authorized.<br><br>17. Soldiers will be authorized to wear authorized ballistic eye wear in garrison.<br><br>18. Officers will be authorized to wear non-subdued rank on their headgear in garrison.<br><br>19. Males will be authorized to carry black umbrella with ASU.</p><p><br></p><p>http://www.armytimes.com/article/20140307/NEWS07/303070021/Army-secretary-approves-new-grooming-uniform-regs<br></p></span></font><div class="pta-link-card"><div class="pta-link-card-picture"><img src="http://www.armytimes.com/graphics/ody/alticon.png"></div><div class="pta-link-card-content"><div class="pta-link-card-title"><a href="http://www.armytimes.com/article/20140307/NEWS07/303070021/Army-secretary-approves-new-grooming-uniform-regs" target="_blank">Army secretary approves new grooming, uniform regs</a></div><div class="pta-link-card-description">
Army Secretary John McHugh on Thursday approved a long-awaited revision to grooming and uniform regulations, according to an Army statement.
</div></div><div style="clear: both;"></div><div class="pta-box-hide"><i class="icon-remove"></i></div></div>

Response by SGM Matthew Quick made Dec 16 at 2013 6:08 PM

SGM Matthew Quick — Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:08:30 -0500

Don't get wrapped up in "proposed changes"...let the regulation be published before making judgement.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 16 at 2013 9:29 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 16 Dec 2013 21:29:30 -0500

What are the changes?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 16 at 2013 9:30 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 16 Dec 2013 21:30:24 -0500

it is long overdue I do not think we need to know how to wear the old Army PT gear sweatsuits, BDU, and Army dress greens.

Response by SGM Matthew Quick made Dec 16 at 2013 10:19 PM

SGM Matthew Quick — Mon, 16 Dec 2013 22:19:27 -0500

<span style="color: rgb(77, 77, 77); font-size: 12px; background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248);">Don't get wrapped up in "proposed changes"...let the regulation be published before making judgement.<br><br></span><a href="https://www.rallypoint.com/questions/21931-ar-670-1-revision">https://www.rallypoint.com/questions/21931-ar-670-1-revision</a><span style="color: rgb(77, 77, 77); font-size: 12px; background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248);"><br></span><div class="pta-link-card"><div class="pta-link-card-picture"><img src="https://www.rallypoint.com/assets/fb_share_logo.png"></div><div class="pta-link-card-content"><div class="pta-link-card-title"><a target="_blank" href="https://www.rallypoint.com/questions/21931-ar-670-1-revision">AR 670-1 Revision</a></div><div class="pta-link-card-description">I've been looking at the proposed/pending revisions to AR 670-1 and want to hear everyone's opinions. Me personally, I believe the rule that that you have to be clean shaven while on leave is a bit mu...</div></div><div style="clear:both"></div><div class="pta-box-hide"><i class="icon-remove"></i></div></div>

Response by 1SG Steven Stankovich made Dec 17 at 2013 2:09 AM

1SG Steven Stankovich — Tue, 17 Dec 2013 02:09:30 -0500

They are updating AR 670-1? I had no idea...just kidding... ;)

My advice would be to continue to enforce what is current and when the update is published, read it, understand it, and then begin enforcing that one.

Response by SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 18 at 2013 5:49 PM

SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Dec 2013 17:49:15 -0500

How long did they let Maj Nidal Hassan have his beard?

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 18 at 2013 8:03 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Dec 2013 20:03:22 -0500

Idiotic. So idiotic, that when I go to grad school (if), I will grow a mountain man beard in protest.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 19 at 2013 10:30 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 19 Dec 2013 10:30:18 -0500

This is usually where all the "yes men" fear standing and voicing their opinions. Most of it will get attacked as racist or gender bias but my concern is the male shaving standards off duty.

I can only hope some of the counterintelligence guys out there will chime in on this. We as soldiers are already targets merely for our career choice and when in uniform anywhere in the world we standout like we're wearing Christmas lights. However off duty or on leave we have an opportunity to blend a little. A high and tight haircut with no sideburns and clean shaven 24/7 is like ringing a dinner bell for those looking for Americans to harm, and the ultimate prize, an American service member.

This change violates all physical security standards we preach to soldiers.

Response by SSG Randall P. made Dec 29 at 2013 4:30 AM

SSG Randall P. — Sun, 29 Dec 2013 04:30:38 -0500

The last thing I want to do is carry an umbrella with my ASU's.

I am OK with the tattoo policy, not that the current one is enforced all that much.

I suppose I will have to find a belt with my pant's from now on, and DARN IT! I'll have to shave.

And it could be punitive? Awesome.

To be honest, SGT. I personally don't care, so long as when it happens I am briefed the day prior so I can make sure I don't get PUNITIVE action for not shaving before I mow my lawn on a Saturday.

Then again, I also suppose it WILL be enforced regardless of how I feel about it. Because if you don't then it's just showing a soldier that you don't care about the standard.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 31 at 2014 2:09 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 31 Jan 2014 14:09:09 -0500

I agree with the original post, If you are on leave you should be able to relax and be comfortable in your own personal setting.
as long as you are not acting out and violating any UCMJ, Legal, or disciplinary guidelines, why restrict a soldiers leave?

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 1 at 2014 2:59 AM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 01 Feb 2014 02:59:47 -0500

I have had a change in heart recently about this. Previously I did not see anything wrong with growing your beard while on leave. However, in a world where social networking and websites are the norm; how do you tell your Soldiers they need to be doing the right thing even while they are not wearing the uniform, when they can easily access your FB or LinkedIn or RP page and see you doing the opposite of what you are telling them?

Response by CSM Chris McKeown made Feb 1 at 2014 7:46 PM

CSM Chris McKeown — Sat, 01 Feb 2014 19:46:14 -0500

They have been trying to get that stuff added for years now and it never see's the light of day. Plus how are you going to tell soldiers they have to shave when off duty when they are letting troops grow full beards for religious purposes while on duty?

Response by SSG Zachery Mitchell made Feb 4 at 2014 2:11 AM

SSG Zachery Mitchell — Tue, 04 Feb 2014 02:11:14 -0500

My two cents, for what it's worth, most of the proposed changes have been put out in the Army Times. My opinion is the Army Times is not much better than PNN(private news network.) Also, no reason to get bent out of shape over "proposed" changes. Wait until the update is finally signed and put out to the Troops and then determine what has changed and what new standards we need to enforce as NCO's.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 4 at 2014 4:45 AM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 04 Feb 2014 04:45:44 -0500

The first cut of that AR 670-1 came out almost a year and a half ago, and it still has not been approved. The reason...legality. It would be a far stretch to tell a Soldier that they have to be shaven while they are on leave if they are at their house off post. Put it in this context, the military cannot tell you, you have to register your weapons on post if you never bring them on post, that is because there is no such thing as military authority in the civilian community. Now if you are on post that is something different completely.

I would not worry about this too much. Three years ago SMA wanted to make business casual the standard for wear off duty, it was nixed (if you are going to set a uniform, you have to provide special pay to accommodate the uniform). Much of this will go the same way. Dont stress until someone tells you what the new rules are.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 7 at 2014 8:52 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 07 Mar 2014 20:52:02 -0500

Of course the umbrella!

Response by SSgt George Brown made Mar 7 at 2014 9:00 PM

SSgt George Brown — Fri, 07 Mar 2014 21:00:40 -0500

It is too bad that this has to be done, our culture is having adverse influence not only on the military, but in primary and post education as well.  

Response by SSG Zachery Mitchell made Mar 7 at 2014 9:21 PM

SSG Zachery Mitchell — Fri, 07 Mar 2014 21:21:35 -0500

<p>Remember, these are just "proposed" changes. No one knows what the actual changes will be. I remember in October they said it should be signed and pushed out within 60 days, now here we are in March. They've been talking about these proposed changes for well over a year now. None of us know what's actually in the "new and improved" AR 670-1 so Until it is published and put out I'm not going to worry about it. Once it is put out I will educate myself, as all good leaders should, and then enforce the new changes. </p><p><br></p>

Response by SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL made Mar 7 at 2014 9:29 PM

SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL — Fri, 07 Mar 2014 21:29:27 -0500

Approved??

http://www.armytimes.com/article/20140307/NEWS07/303070021/Army-secretary-approves-new-grooming-uniform-regs

Army secretary approves new grooming, uniform regs

Army Secretary John McHugh on Thursday approved a long-awaited revision to grooming and uniform regulations, according to an Army statement.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 7 at 2014 10:26 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 07 Mar 2014 22:26:37 -0500

I am excited to see how to bring the standards back to where it should be. A few stretches of the haircut on what looks good or not but pleased to see. My question is these off duty rules, how are they going to enforce the USAR and ARNG with these? Will they give guidelines to commanders on the punitive rules?

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 7 at 2014 10:46 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 07 Mar 2014 22:46:04 -0500

My favorite is the stricter regulations on civilian clothes. Im really tired of seeing soldiers wearing their pants sagging and clothing dirty looking. Of soldiers dressing excuse my language but like sluts. Others see us every day in and out of uniform how we appear in our civilian attire reflects what others precise the army to be. By dressing trashy you make the army as a whole appear trashy.

Response by SFC Lamont Womack made Mar 7 at 2014 11:23 PM

SFC Lamont Womack — Fri, 07 Mar 2014 23:23:09 -0500

I guess I can see the reasoning behind most of these changes. The only one I have an issue with is shaving when you are on leave. I don't see how not shaving on leave would have a negative effect on the Army or represent members of the Army in a negative way. However, I'm sure if shaving on leave is a proposed change there is a good reason for it. I can't personally think of one though.  <br>

Response by MSG Jason Sikes made Mar 7 at 2014 11:27 PM

MSG Jason Sikes — Fri, 07 Mar 2014 23:27:40 -0500

Big Army has been trying to push this for a couple of years now. I will believe it when I see the REG and DA PAM in writing.

Other wise, informed and awaiting.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 7 at 2014 11:35 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 07 Mar 2014 23:35:29 -0500

I don't know where the hair line is on the side of your head but mine goes all the way to the ear so the new sideburn reg is a "no sideburn" reg for me.

I welcome back bright rank on the PC with open arms!

Clean shaven on leave, I wasn't aware that was an issue that needed to be addressed.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 8 at 2014 1:38 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 08 Mar 2014 01:38:15 -0500

There are a couple of things that I disagree whole-heartedly with if these are the final rules.<div><br></div><div>#5 Soldiers will be clean shaven on and off duty (even on leave) - I can understand in uniform, or heck, even on post and in civilian clothing, but off duty, off post, and on leave...?  I think this is a ridiculous rule to establish.  I should be allowed to not shave when on leave or during the weekend.  What does establishing this rule accomplish?</div><div><br></div><div>#10 Sleeve tattoos will be prohibited. - I am glad that the standard changed from no tattoos below the knees or elbows, but I feel like this one is a BS rule.  If it isn't extremest, offensive, sexist, etc., and it cannot be seen in the ASU, then why does it matter if I have a sleeve or a bunch of scattered tattoos on my arm?</div><div><br></div><div>#14 The new regulation will specify civilian clothes standards both on duty and off, on and off post - I disagree with this one also.  As long as clothing is worn how it meant to be worn (no sagging pants to show underwear), andd that the clothing is not offensive, extremist, or sexist, then I don' think it is the Army's place to tell me what I should and shouldn't wear.  I have heard rumors on this one, from dress slacks to collared, button down shirts.  I think that when the Army gives us a civilian clothing allowance sufficient for purchasing "appropriate" civilian attire, then we should be able to keep on wearing what we choose.</div><div><br></div><div>Now, the rest of the rules, I actually like many of them and think they make a lot of sense!</div>

Response by SFC William Swartz Jr made Mar 8 at 2014 9:26 AM

SFC William Swartz Jr — Sat, 08 Mar 2014 09:26:03 -0500

<p>With the proposed changes that are due to be published soon, I can only say that I am glad to be retired now....funny how for the entirety of my career no one gave a good gawddamn about me being clean shaven while on leave/pass but now apparently it has become an issue, same with the sideburns (now as for me personally, I wore a flat-top for the better part of 23 of my 26 years in so it wasn't an issue). I am glad to see they did re-restrict the tattoo policy to what it was for the bulk of my time in, should never have allowed face/neck/hand tattoos at all, not only unprofessional, but simply looked like a bag of ass. Restricting/mandating what civilian attire a Soldier wears off-post on hi/her own time is to me completely laughable, I know that we, excuse me you still serving, are "Ambassadors" of the Army, but honestly I don't think many people off-post care what you look like, otherwise society wouldn't have progressed to the point that it has with certain fashion ideas. All I can say to you young/mature Soldiers, NCOs and Officers is have fun trying to keep up with all of this and enforcing it as well....I predict a lot more Courtesy Patrols off-post in your futures as we reset to a more Garrison minded Army.    "TREAT 'EM ROUGH!!"</p><p> </p>

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 8 at 2014 10:34 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 08 Mar 2014 10:34:21 -0500

On the sideburns, I think this needs to be better defined. If we are talking about the top of the ear openning, then I can see that as reasonable. The top of the actual ear structure, then I am going to have to shave deep into my hairline in order to be in compliance. Looking at CSA Chandler's current haircut, I am going to assume ear opening, otherwise he would not be setting the example for a policy-change that he is pushing.

Response by MSG Cameron Davis made Mar 8 at 2014 10:40 AM

MSG Cameron Davis — Sat, 08 Mar 2014 10:40:57 -0500

I understand that changes need to be made.  We are an Army filled with Soldiers who only know combat and have never experienced the "peace time" garrison life. That said however, I think we need to tighten up enforcement of the standards we already have first.  NCOs need to BE, KNOW and DO the regulation, standards ect. and furthermore get in the habit of exercising on the spot corrections for violations...even when it is another NCO!  NCOs corrected need to accept the correction and realize that people do notice your failure to adhere to the policy/regulation.  I personally do not like the "Sideburns will not extend below the top of the ear" and "Soldiers will be clean shaven on AND off duty (even during leave)" change but I will adhere and enforce regardless.  <br> 

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 8 at 2014 10:44 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 08 Mar 2014 10:44:23 -0500

These are the exact word for word "changes" that army times posted about in Summer 2012. Like literally straight from the article. Obviously nobody knows what the changes will be exactly. I would best a lot of the MILPERS concerning 670-1 are just being added, BDU and Class A stuff is being removed, and the tattoo policies are being adjusted. It's not like the entire AR is being rewritten...

Response by SFC James Baber made Mar 8 at 2014 11:43 AM

SFC James Baber — Sat, 08 Mar 2014 11:43:06 -0500

While they all sound good and look good on paper, we are still going to have the same problems that currently persist, enforcement. With the current problems of many NCOs that don't enforce the current standards because of not wanting to "catch a case" as one NCO stated in another thread a month or so back, even with new rules, the problem is not the rules or whether or not they are clear, ambiguous or in black and white definitions, the problem is the current status and mentality of many of the untrained, un-mentored and unknowing of how to enforce standards because it wasn't done for most of them as they were fast tracked because of the multiple deployments that have occurred during the last decade plus. And from what I have also witnessed not just in real life, but also here on RP is that we have many SFCs that have some of that mentality as well, if you aren't doing your part to mentor and guide these young E5/6s than you can't complain about the problems and issues that you say you are dealing with, if you don't become part of the solution than you are just as much part of the problem as well.

The military has been involved in dual wars for longer that most of the current E5/6s and even a good portion of the E7s that are in have even been in the military, so they have not had the advantage or ability to be properly taught, mentored or guided in how to perform in a garrison environment, it is not their fault, but it is the fault of every senior to include myself who was an NCO prior to the wars for not doing a better job of preparing these new NCOs for our future in the military. That is one of the reasons why I try my best to be as active as I can on RP to help with that guidance and mentoring of many NCOs as well as Officers and junior Soldiers who will one day become NCOs and leaders, we have to get back to basics of not worrying so much about someone complaining about us enforcing rules or that we are picking on them and do what our job as NCOs is, which is teaching and molding Soldiers to be the future of the military and to be able to replace us if need be, stop being afraid of "catching a case" and be what you are supposed to be, a professional Soldier.

Response by SSG Bruce Sorge made Mar 8 at 2014 2:26 PM

SSG Bruce Sorge — Sat, 08 Mar 2014 14:26:20 -0500

I have no issues with the proposed regs. In fact, these are pretty much the old regs just updated, and a few new ones added in. The only exceptions that I have about these are the sleeve tattoos, off post shaving and clothing parts. I know many outstanding soldiers who are tatted up, and I have known some real dirt bags that have no tats. To me, tattoos do not make you a bad soldier, just as not having them does not make you a good soldier. I agree with them not going on the neck or hands, but otherwise what's the problem? The only other issue is how to enforce the clothing and shaving regs off post, if they are put through. As I said below in another post, unless you know for sure the person is a soldier, it's hard to enforce it. 

Response by 1SG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 8 at 2014 2:43 PM

1SG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 08 Mar 2014 14:43:28 -0500

I'm relieved that our leadership appears to have nothing more important to worry about. Punitive uniform regs and complaints of soldiers who do better while deployed than in garrison remind me again of this Bill Mauldin classic. By the way, if that's your foremost complaint as a combat leader, life's pretty good. That said, I do like a bit of it.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 8 at 2014 7:27 PM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 08 Mar 2014 19:27:04 -0500

The new side burn standard.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 8 at 2014 7:29 PM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 08 Mar 2014 19:29:45 -0500

The new off duty uniform. If you're not a J-Crew model then it's time to start your ACAP.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 9 at 2014 4:33 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 09 Mar 2014 04:33:13 -0400

Like everything in the Army, this changes will have its pros and cons. But my favorite one is the regulation on Tattoos, is not just about Them being offensive or extremist, is all about looking professional and how Soldiers like to push regulations and standards to the limits. That's what makes higher leadership to make those regulations and standards more strict so they can maintain control of them

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 9 at 2014 6:54 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 09 Mar 2014 06:54:23 -0400

CSM Davenport, the USAREUR CSM who is on the board reviewing the changes to the regulation came and had a Q&A with the NCO's of my unit just 2 weeks ago. These changes are all ones he highlighted and said that come April it should be in effect, pending that there are no other changes/reviews necessary.

The only thing he didn't highlight was civilian clothing.

These changes are coming, and as much as we may disagree with them...we signed the dotted line, we raised our right hand and swore (or affirmed) that we would follow these regulations. Do as we must, and cross your fingers hoping for another conflict so we can go through all of this again in 15 years.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 9 at 2014 8:15 AM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 09 Mar 2014 08:15:57 -0400

So I will use myself as an example. This is how I wear my "sideburns". My hairline is so tight to my ear that it nearly grows onto my ear; top, side, and back. If I was to cut my sideburns so as not to “extend below the top of the ear”, I would literally have to shave a notch into my hairline just to get it in standards. How am I supposed to cut them according to the new standard? Green (top of the ear hole), Yellow (where my ear attaches to my head), or Red (top of the ear)? Maybe I will just need to get my haircut two to three times a week to keep my hair short enough that nobody notices that it grows onto my ear.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 9 at 2014 10:27 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 09 Mar 2014 10:27:30 -0400

#2. Definitions are a great idea. Too many differences when its left to opinion.

#3. Punitive regulation is a good idea as long as limits of punitive actions are also defined.

#4. Center line of the ear makes better since to me.

#5. Guard/ Reserve Shave all month? On post or on duty sure but off post and off duty there isn't a good reason for it.

#6. Again, definitions are a good idea

#7. Great

#8. Wasn't aware that males could currently wear cosmetics.

#14. Standards for civilians clothes, its about time.

#15. No male piercings and no gauging, one of the best ideas I've heard of yet.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 9 at 2014 12:25 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 09 Mar 2014 12:25:35 -0400

As a Soldier that has both arms sleeved and few below the knee I don't agree with all the tattoo policy. But I do agree that they should not show while in ASU/ACU. IE not on the neck or hands. I have always kept it so they can be covered.

As far as shaving 24/7 no matter what I understand why doing but as many have said it will be hard to enforce. Plus I agree my face needs a break sometimes. When I am on leave I want to relax a little.

As far as clothes on/off post. I do think something needs done to get rid of soldiers wearing out fits showing underwear or disrespectful clothing. This goes for males and females. I know some post already have certain dress codes in place. Like males can't wear tank tops or sag pants, females can't wear to short of skirts or show underwear etc. Is it really enforced not to much any more.

I do think some of the hair standards need to be tightened up. And actually enforced. I see a lot of female officers that brake this rule the most here in Benning. Having colored highlights(tinted purple/blonde etc, unnatural colors. Yet every one seems scared to say something to them. Even more senior officers.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 9 at 2014 12:31 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 09 Mar 2014 12:31:44 -0400

Marines have been operating under similar standards for decades and are still thriving.

Response by MSG Gene Potocki made Mar 9 at 2014 12:32 PM

MSG Gene Potocki — Sun, 09 Mar 2014 12:32:16 -0400

Soldiers will be clean shaven on AND off duty (even during leave). Who is going to follow the service member around on leave to enforce this??

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 9 at 2014 12:36 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 09 Mar 2014 12:36:08 -0400

on #2: The terms faddish, conservative, inconspicuous, unsightly already have definitions. What's wrong with opening a dictionary? Oh yeah no matter what they can still apply those definitions based on their own opinions.

on #4: Side burns that don't come below the top of the ear look really bad.

on # 5: Everywhere I have been the shortest recall was a 2 hour period. Even taking my time shaving with a razor and shaving cream it takes 10 minutes. I also keep my electric charged just in case.

on #8 WHOO HOO double standards are still enforceable! Not that it was a huge problem before with males wearing makeup.

on #10 Hey I have an idea...lets hand out a bunch of waivers to swell our ranks to meet manpower demands then later on punish those people we gave waivers to! No one with a face neck or hand tatts should have been allowed in the Army in the first place. But our leaders in their infinite wisdom allowed it, now want them out, and the real reason above any others: to save money on personnel costs.

on #11: We really need to have a regulation change for people to enforce something that should have been happening anyway? Let's make this clear: if you have been told ONCE by ANY NCO or OFFICER EVER that you are not to walk and eat/smoke/talk on cell phone at the same time (which should have been just about everyone at one time) if you continued to do so you could already be punished for disobeying a lawful order.

on #12: Pretty sure the ACU unifrom has instructions on the tags that say: DO NOT DRY CLEAN OR PRESS...following instructions on the tags of any garment will usually help them to last longer...if someone likes replacing their uniforms more often though I don't see why we shouldn't let them support local businesses.

on #13: So the bag I use to carry either my APFT uniform or ACU uniform in is going to get me punished now if I need to throw it over my shoulder in order to have continued use of both my hands? Why do I use a bright red bag for this purpose? It was on clearance and is made by a great company with things like breathability of materials in mind, being on clearance red was the only color left.

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Mar 9 at 2014 6:24 PM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Sun, 09 Mar 2014 18:24:14 -0400

5. Soldiers will be clean shaven on AND off duty (even during leave).

I will be honest; I don't shave everyday. I live off post, and I work a midnight shift as of the moment. I am not going to shave once during the morning just go somewhere or to take my wife to an appointment then shave again when I go to work that night. I think the Army control our lives enough to have some regulations that governs many aspects of our lives. I wish to be left alone to live on my without worry about an off duty version of AR 670-1

8. 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.

Well no more EMO for some guys I guess.

14. the new regulation will specify civilian clothes standards both on and off duty and both on and off post.

Will there be CPs down town or outside of shopping malls to identify people in civilian clothes who might be soldiers because they are in violation of civilian clothing rules? I guess we have to wait for this on to come into print. I only imagine how ridiculous it will probably be.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 9 at 2014 7:34 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 09 Mar 2014 19:34:34 -0400

#3. Isn't "Failure to obey a Lawful Order or General Regulation" punitive under the UCMJ already? Am I missing something here?

#4. I sure hope the "Top of the Ear" is clearly defined in the signed version.

#5. On leave? How are you going to enforce that? Shaving police travelling around to everyone's leave address to ensure they are remaining clean shaven? I know, integrity comes into play here, but really? I mean I pretty much stayed clean shaven on leave because I couldn't grow a beard to save my life and after about the 6th year in it drove me crazy to not shave at least every other day while on leave. Almost 3 years retired and I still can't stand it when my hair gets to long.

#14. I think the off duty, off post may be going a little to the extreme.

Just an Airman's two cents!

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 9 at 2014 8:06 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 09 Mar 2014 20:06:44 -0400

Also on the list I would like them to make it so wives/GF stop wearing their Husbands/BF shirts/PT's/etc. That crap drives me crazy. Specially when they are trying to get out them cause they do not fit. (Take that last one how you want)

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Mar 9 at 2014 11:56 PM

SSG Robert Burns — Sun, 09 Mar 2014 23:56:04 -0400

Could you imagine if we focused on enforcing sexual assault changes like uniform violations?  If you called out everyone every time you saw something inappropriate?<div>The fact that we have debates on here about wearing a hat or hands in pockets lets you know how far away we are from stopping inappropriate behaviors.</div><div>People on here admitting to be scared to correcting people about their hair; I can hardly have any faith that they'll make the "tougher" corrections.</div>

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 10 at 2014 3:55 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:55:32 -0400

#13. Bags worn over the shoulder will only be black or the color print of the uniform i.e. ACU, without logos.

Well, as far as the latter part, that ends getting swag from retention....it's in ACU pattern but has the Army Reserve logo on it (or the Army or the National Guard logo...depending on your component).

And now I've got to dispose of a perfectly serviceable laptop bag just because someone doesn't like that it has a blue stripe in in. *smdh*...Don't we have enough to worry about?

Response by SSG Roderick Smith made Mar 10 at 2014 7:20 PM

SSG Roderick Smith — Mon, 10 Mar 2014 19:20:31 -0400

I'm kind of glad to see the change in the tattoo policy. I personally don't care how many tattoos you have or what they say. I know Soldiers these days are on an individuality kick, so its a bigger part of the force now than it's ever been. However, I don't see anything professional about having tattoos on your hands, on your neck, or behind your ears. If you ask me, it is setting you up for success in the civilian sector, where A LOT of companies don't want to see that sort of thing.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 11 at 2014 3:16 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 11 Mar 2014 03:16:47 -0400

#3---AR 670-1 will be a PUNITIVE order in the new regulation. (Lacks more definition and how they plan to enforce it). Should have continued to state something about a pattern of violations pertaining to the same infractions, etc. Not just simply stating it is punitive, which leaves it to interpreting that any/all violations will subject violators to UCMJ or reprimand. Makes it sound very asinine with a looming threat of career ending consequences if you wake up and forget to shave....or anything else on the list.

It appears that this is an attempt to remove the ability for leaders to interpret regulation and address concerns as they arise. Thus, eliminating the leader's responsibility and presenting the leaders a large issue that will mount problems so high that the mission focus will be lost. In my opinion, this harkens back to the two most basic NCO responsibilities....Accomplishment of the Mission and Welfare of the Soldiers. Now, if those were both on the scales of justice, I believe that the new proposed regulation balance will place more value towards welfare of the Soldiers (Their perspective in how they are to tighten up the standards), however not to say that isn't important----However there is no true balance and the issues with it being punitive will out way the intended purpose of these new regulations.

Quite possibly, the real problem is that when some people gain seniority/rank they lose perspective from the lower ranks. Planning in a vacuum without soliciting subordinate feedback prior to implementation generates its own issues. My theory is that we need to get some feedback if time permits and I definitely need to know at a minimum some of the experienced NCOs take on an issue or problem. However, once I get ready to make a decision, I expect everyone to follow through if it is their own decision without question, but I always consider the facts! Point being---Did anyone even try to gain some thoughts and do some cost-benefit analysis on this?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 11 at 2014 4:57 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 11 Mar 2014 04:57:13 -0400

I actually am glad that females are going to be able to have their hair in a ponytail for pt because there have been many times that I have been out on a pt run that my hair ends up falling out into a ponytail anyways. I have seen some leaders yell at female Soldiers who's hair falls out while they were running, when i was a younger Soldier even saw a leader stop a Soldier on a PT test and made her fix her hair.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 11 at 2014 12:38 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 11 Mar 2014 12:38:05 -0400

Hyphotetical situation

PVT Dominguez goes home to Puerto Rico on leave, while walking down the beach with my few hairs on my chin and overdue haircut, someone approaches me and says, are you a Soldier? Do you know that the regulation says .....??

If PVT Dominguez decides to ignore this person and continue enjoying the sun, what then? Or if PVT Dominguez says I am not in the service, regardless of how obvious it can be that he is?

My point is that I don't see how we are going to be able to enforce that one, unless we spend our well deserved time off looking for violations to the shaving while on leave regulation

Response by CSM Guy R. Niles made Mar 11 at 2014 4:09 PM

CSM Guy R. Niles — Tue, 11 Mar 2014 16:09:39 -0400

Is this the complete list or is there more than 19? Be careful what you all still in uniform fail to push back on! Do not be or become Lemmings or Sheeple? None of this affects me as I am retired; however, I care about how it affects my Guys and Gals still in Uniform.

Some feedback:

1. 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,
APPROVED, AND PUBLISHED!

Okay, Duh!

2. New revision of the regulation will define the following
terms: eccentric, faddish,conservative, inconspicuous, unsightly, hair
braids/plaits.

It had damn well better be well defined! Ensure that it can be understood by all. Do not settle for high-level ambiguity!

3. AR 670-1 will be a PUNITIVE order in the new regulation.

I have always considered it Punitive and pursued it/enforced
it as such.

4. Sideburns will not extend below the top of the ear.

Do not agree, Nothing wrong with previous standard!

5. Soldiers will be clean shaven on AND off duty (even
during leave).

Again, do not agree, impossible to
enforce!

6. Female and Male hair grooming standards will become more
restrictive and better defined(I'll have pictures for you at MHS).

Oh, got to see this!

7. Females will be allowed to put their hair into a pony
tail during PT.

No Issues, its smart.

8. 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.

Needs to be clearly defined in as much as written, already
ambiguous with regard to male Soldiers.

9. Females fingernail length will not exceed 1/4 inch, no
fake nails, add-ons, or extensions will be authorized.

Agree! Enforce it
with a vengeance!

10. 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).

Be careful with this one as it may be cause for enhanced
scrutiny and what may follow due to the added scrutiny. Could possibly be a discriminator when you
are competing for a special assignment or billet, really!

11. Soldiers will not walk while engaged in activities that
require the hand salute (eating, cell phone use, smoking, etc.).

Agree, really no change!
Enforce with a vengeance!

12. ACUs will not be commercially pressed; hand ironing of
the ACU only will be authorized.

Okay, smart! Enforce it!

13. Bags worn over the shoulder will only be black or the
color print of the uniform i.e. ACU, without logos.

No Argument

14. the new regulation will specify civilian clothes
standards both on and off duty and both on and off post. Okay, this ain’t no (isn’t a) County
Club.

You all must push back on this if it is or
becomes Too Restrictive or Ultraconservative.
Conservative dress off-duty is okay; however, not all of grew up that way. Feeling like a mis-guided Crusade! Just sayin'.

15. No visible body piercings on or off duty and on or off
post, males will never be allowed to wear earrings. Ear gauging will be
unauthorized.

Agree!

16. No dental ornamentation or gold teeth will be
authorized.

Agree!
However, what if prior to coming into the service a Soldier to be
received (a) Gold tooth/teeth from an authorized and needed dental procedure
(repair, crown, etc…)? What then, will
they get ripped out at the repo Depot?

17. Soldiers will be authorized to wear authorized ballistic
eye wear in garrison.

Agree!

18. Officers will be authorized to wear non-subdued rank on
their headgear in garrison.

I thought they did
already! WTH!

19. Males will be authorized to carry black umbrella with
ASU.

Really?
Is this really an issue?

Guys and Gals, never trust anyone further than you can throw
them. This could escalate out of control
and will only lessen in intensity when we’re/you are engaged in another conflict. DA Leadership is bored! Be careful. Stay Safe Brothers and Sisters!

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 11 at 2014 5:25 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 11 Mar 2014 17:25:40 -0400

I definitely disagree with #5. Like many others have stated, how are they going to truly enforce it with someone on leave? I too don't shave on the weekend or on leave. If I had to go to the PX or come in to the office while on leave then I would shave in order to maintain a professional appearance. I mostly did this while at Fort Lee where there are AIT students around.

I would like to ask if this is a double standard against men. If men have to shave their facial hair, which naturally occurs, then why are long haired females allowed to "let down" their hair in the evening, on weekends, or on leave? I'm not saying anything against women but pointing out a double standard. I sure don't mind females being able to relax and letting down their hair. Just as equally, men should be able to relax on the weekends and on leave.

Response by SGT David Greth made Mar 11 at 2014 5:27 PM

SGT David Greth — Tue, 11 Mar 2014 17:27:47 -0400

Completely disagree with #5 and #14. Would like to see more detail on #14. Reference #12 I remember we were not supposed to have our BDUs commercially pressed and NO starch. Yeah right. That was the only way not to get busted out on the uniform.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 11 at 2014 5:58 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 11 Mar 2014 17:58:21 -0400

<p>I think the use of the word "Professional" or "professionalism" is being over used and we are actually trying to create a whole new meaning of the word. When people in the military say these words it is no longer an objective word but a subjective one. SF personnel for instance; parted, longer hair, tattoo's, on deployment beards. I have met quite a few and these are some of the most professional men I have ever met. While I am not throwing out some shout for beards, I am simply making a point of the careless and unabated use of these two words.</p><p><br></p><p>I know it has been said before tattoo sleeves don't make you a bad solider, nor unprofessional. Neither does having a little bit of sideburns on your face. Am I saying we should just not care about these things? No, of course not. There should be a standard of course but I think we need to step back and look from a different angle. </p><p><br></p><p>We want to downsize the Army, well we can start by being a lot more selective to who we let in. In my opinion a better trained and smaller, force with quality individuals that actually want to be there is better than a force of half wits where we have to make outrageous standards because soldiers are too foolish to make the right decision. I don't think this would eliminate all problems, because we all have made stupid decisions. It is going to happen. But it all starts in basic training. You can tell what a soldier is going to be. Unfortunately, a lot of the good ones get out because the rules get to a certain point of ridiculous while the ones that are the reason for the silly rules (or lazy, or whiners, etc.\ career SPC) are the ones that stay in. This has been the trend in my seven years in the service. </p><p><br></p><p>We need to re-evaluate how we are bringing troops in and also why a lot haven't been kicked out yet for being overweight and malingering, among other things. If we looked at more reasonable standards and a more strict evaluation and BCT method I think that we would actually see a lot less foolish and lazy soldiers for which stupid rules are made and a lot more respectable and professional fighting force.</p>

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 11 at 2014 6:15 PM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 11 Mar 2014 18:15:34 -0400

Some of these already exist...
e.g. 5, 11, 15, etc.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 11 at 2014 7:25 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 11 Mar 2014 19:25:34 -0400

But if you have a specific religious belief we will allow you to wear different headgear, have a beard, etc etc. The problem is that the regs we currently have are not even enforced. Some of the new changes I totally agree with like eating and walking etc. But the sideburns reg is dumb. Shaving one is another one, who cares !! We try to say don't look like a "soldier" when you go places but now who can miss us with our notched out sideburns and looking like models at JCrew and Gap, and clean shaven. Will we get a clothing allowance for this? Or issued civilian clothes coming?

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 11 at 2014 7:42 PM

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 11 Mar 2014 19:42:11 -0400

I may or may not agree with all or some of these changes, but I will add this. We are a Professional Army, and if you understand what professionals do, say, and look like you might begin to understand why these changes were put in place or have been brought up. remember Profession of Arms. http://cape.army.mil/repository/ProArms/ProfessionWhite%20Paper%208%20Dec%2010.pdf

Response by SSG Keith Evans made Mar 11 at 2014 7:55 PM

SSG Keith Evans — Tue, 11 Mar 2014 19:55:06 -0400

I am glad they will define terms like; eccentric, faddish, conservative, inconspicuous, etc... I hope the definitions will be specific enough so that there will be no argument when making a correction. The subjectivity of those terms has always annoyed me.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 12 at 2014 2:22 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 12 Mar 2014 02:22:28 -0400

SFC Davis,

I'm in agreement with all of the new rules, but my favorite is number 12, hand ironing of the ACUs. We'll look more professional if we're allowed to iron out wrinkles.

On a side note, it's interesting that certain soldiers think the new standards are too strict, while in the past it's been stated that we young soldiers don't take enough pride in our appearance, the way they did in the "old Army."

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 12 at 2014 7:35 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 12 Mar 2014 07:35:13 -0400

I have a couple questions in regard to the new standards that I hope will be cleared up once AR 670-1 is actually published, and I hope these will not be taken the wrong way. Also I am in no way trying to pick on female Soldiers...just looking for fairness across the board.

1. One of the new changes is the "Soldiers" will be clean shaven both on and off duty. Since the term being used is Soldiers, will this include both male and female. I am not trying to be funny, but I have seen some female Soldiers with mustaches or hair growing on their chin, etc. The previous version never addressed females needing to shave.

2. Since males are being told to always keep their hair a certain way, i.e. no sideburns at all times, will females be required to keep their hair up at all times. It states that hair standards will be more restrictive for both males and females but no details are provided. I guess time we will all know the answer in a couple weeks.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 12 at 2014 10:37 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 12 Mar 2014 10:37:24 -0400

This sounds EXACTLY like the Army I joined in 1998 and served in until 2003 when the wars started. We need to realize that the "changes" being made to AR 670-1 are simply "re-tightening" of the loosened standards from the wars. These standards ARE the standard, WERE the standard prior to 2003 and honestly never should have stopped being the standard. DA in it's need for personnel during the wars relaxed the regulations and allowed certin waivers that were prohibited before 2003. This accomplished the goal of reaching recruiting and retention goals that actually met the demand for personnel that the wars forced upon us with the authorization for additional troops in the early stages of the wars. DA is now downsizing due to the wars ending and not needing those extra troop numbers any longer. With that downsizing comes the tightening of those standards that were loosened (tatoos, body fat etc) and the denial of some of those waivers that were allowed during the wars. So again, not really a change so much as taking a step back in time.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 12 at 2014 11:01 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 12 Mar 2014 11:01:44 -0400

2. New revision of the regulation will define the following terms: eccentric, faddish,conservative, inconspicuous, unsightly, hair braids/plaits....
- Good, because faddish is speculative to where you are from, where you live and how old you are.

3. AR 670-1 will be a PUNITIVE order in the new regulation.
- Ok

4. Sideburns will not extend below the top of the ear.
-Not everyone looks good bald or with a tiny strip of hair. I am told my many civilians that it looks like many male soldiers put a feminine pad on their head and shaved around it.

5. Soldiers will be clean shaven on AND off duty (even during leave).
-REALLY??? If I do not let my face go unshaven once in a while it will break out and my skin will start cracking. Are we supposed to look like warriors or daycare teachers? Who is going to punish me for not shaving on my family vacation to Disney world? Who is going to punish me for not shaving on Saturday when I am at Wal-Mart. This is ludicrous.

6. Female and Male hair grooming standards will become more restrictive and better defined(I'll have pictures for you at MHS).
- Sounds fun

7. Females will be allowed to put their hair into a pony tail during PT.
-Good

8. 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.
-Ok

9. Females fingernail length will not exceed 1/4 inch, no fake nails, add-ons, or extensions will be authorized.
- Sure
10. 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).
-Good luck with this. Tattoos are a military tradition since before the Spartan days. once again warrior or daycare teacher.

11. Soldiers will not walk while engaged in activities that require the hand salute (eating, cell phone use, smoking, etc.).
-Isn't that already a standard?

12. ACUs will not be commercially pressed; hand ironing of the ACU only will be authorized.
-ok

13. Bags worn over the shoulder will only be black or the color print of the uniform i.e. ACU, without logos.
- wow....ok I guess. I have a grey laptop bag. Guess I have to fork out more money for Uncle Sam?

14. the new regulation will specify civilian clothes standards both on and off duty and both on and off post.
- Wow... Are you going to buy my clothes for me too? How about you just move some guy INTO my house to tell me how to breathe at this point.

15. No visible body piercings on or off duty and on or off post, males will never be allowed to wear earrings. Ear gauging will be unauthorized.
- Ok. Sucks for the guys with earrings but it is livable.

16. No dental ornamentation or gold teeth will be authorized.
-Tell that to the 54 year old MSG I had in my last unit.

17. Soldiers will be authorized to wear authorized ballistic eye wear in garrison.
- I agree

18. Officers will be authorized to wear non-subdued rank on their headgear in garrison.
-Good

19. Males will be authorized to carry black umbrella with ASU.
- ok...I never knew this was an issue.

If you can tell I am a satirical/sarcastic type writer and mean no disrespect ot those above me. Down the road my generation and those after me will be in charge and the silly dog and pony shows will HOPEFULLY go away. We are WARRIORS not daycare teachers. Look at the pictures (or paintings) of Soldiers from the beginning of the US to now. Each generation basically looks like what the leader’s generation of professionalism is. The standards will change every 20 years but some of these are just silly. What is SO unprofessional about not shaving on Saturday? What is SO bad about sideburns?
Yes if a Soldier looks SLOPPY they automatically lose report. But if they have a sleeve tattoo and sideburns I do not blink twice. I weigh their worth as a Soldier on how they live the army values and apply the NCO Creed (if they are an NCO) to their daily duties and life.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 12 at 2014 11:01 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 12 Mar 2014 11:01:56 -0400

double posted....

Response by CPL Jay Strickland made Mar 12 at 2014 2:19 PM

CPL Jay Strickland — Wed, 12 Mar 2014 14:19:48 -0400

I think the must be clean shaven rule during leave is a bit much. Xmas and growing a beard was something I looked forward to every year. I could understand on base and off duty.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 12 at 2014 3:37 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 12 Mar 2014 15:37:32 -0400

Great read so far can't wait to read the all changes.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 12 at 2014 3:38 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 12 Mar 2014 15:38:13 -0400

Frankly I'm just sick of all the talk about it and leaders trying to enforce phantom regs based on a DRAFT pub. Still waiting to see the final product.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 12 at 2014 10:09 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 12 Mar 2014 22:09:58 -0400

What does a professional look like? Well, according to these proposed changes Audie Murphy did not, Our forefathers did not. I am sick and tired of hearing a hair cut, facial hair, etc define professionalism. The standards will continually change based on whomever is in-charge of the idea fairy generator. 

Response by SPC Salvador Ricardo Jimenez made Mar 13 at 2014 1:52 PM

SPC Salvador Ricardo Jimenez — Thu, 13 Mar 2014 13:52:11 -0400

No commercially pressed ACUs? First of all, many units require their troops to starch their ACUs which are not supposed to be starched. The starch clogs their pores which the pores allow the troops to perspire and/or ventilate easier. New off duty & especially off post appearance standards? What necessary improvements are these going to bring or are they simply powertrips? Some of these new standards make me that much more grateful that I no longer serve in our over polished dog & pony show military. I'm nobody's pet! BUT, I still support our troops! CHRIST BLESS OUR MILITARY ALWAYS!

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 13 at 2014 2:29 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 13 Mar 2014 14:29:38 -0400

So this is what the garrison army is like. Well, its a good thing im bald so i dont have to worry about making sure my side burns arent too long....

Response by Cpl Ray Fernandez made Mar 13 at 2014 5:40 PM

Cpl Ray Fernandez — Thu, 13 Mar 2014 17:40:04 -0400

Reminds me of the Marine regs when I was in.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 13 at 2014 7:06 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 13 Mar 2014 19:06:22 -0400

Sideburns above the ear! It's ridiculous! Get the bullet on my NCOER ready that says o will not conform or inforce a ridiculous standard.

Response by SSG Lisa Rendina made Mar 14 at 2014 3:47 PM

SSG Lisa Rendina — Fri, 14 Mar 2014 15:47:56 -0400

These women have styled hair and, although the picture is in black and white, you can tell they are wearing makeup.  Do they look unprofessional?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 14 at 2014 6:44 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 14 Mar 2014 18:44:10 -0400

So can somebody explain to me the difference between random tattoos below the elbow and a sleeve?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 14 at 2014 10:48 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 14 Mar 2014 22:48:17 -0400

I'm not seeing much changed. You are already supposed shave, have no earrings, ect. At least at this post. It just seems like it's being redefined so new generation pays attention to the fact they really have act like soldiers whether they are in uniform or not. 24/7 once a soldier always a soldier.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 14 at 2014 10:58 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 14 Mar 2014 22:58:52 -0400

And to all those out there who don't get the punitive. This is a punishable offense, as is any regulation in the army. Council your soldiers, close the assessment out every month. Once is a mistake, twice is A pattern, 3 times a habit. On the third recommend U C M J. It is insubordination, and willfully disobeying orders. Do your jobs properly as an nco and things go the way they are supposed to.

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 15 at 2014 2:28 PM

GySgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 15 Mar 2014 14:28:54 -0400

The sideburn one is little overkill, our's above the orfice of the ear. Top of the ear will make your hair look like you are wearing a helmet of hair.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 16 at 2014 3:56 PM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 16 Mar 2014 15:56:55 -0400

I like the fact that they are getting more in the females for the nails. Some are getting out of control, especially around the TRADOC environment. You see them with all kinds of colors, long nails and designs. Now, we as leaders, have to have intestinal fortitude to stop and correct what we see and police up our own. Favoritism ain't going to takes us no where. Civilian clothing appearance should be regulated too, but also and big on males. If you want to wear sagging pants and show your three pairs of shorts underneath you oversize jeans and over your boxers, get out of the Army and do it. We have standards, they must be followed. I'm all about blending in with the rest of the civilian population, but look ridiculous and look like a fool walking holding your pants up it's just not the way. Males need to be police up, but to a point.

Shaving while on leave or off? A little too much. I don't agree with this one. Shaving to just go to the store? I used to do it when I lived on post in Ft Riley, just because I didn't wanted to get someone to stop and start asking what's your unit, 1SG etc. I just stayed in my house and go off post if I needed to leave. Also, the skin needs a break from razors once a while. I know a lot of people wouldn't agree with me on this, but hey that's what opinions are for.

Other one I'm hesitant to agree is tattoos. If you allowed them to get in with them, why now want to get rid of them? The PVT's and the SGT's of 09/11/2001 are the SFC's and CSM's of now. They had the tattoos then, why are getting judged now.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 17 at 2014 6:52 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 17 Mar 2014 06:52:19 -0400

Long time coming. I like about 95% of the changes. The other 5% like shaving while on leave or the weekends might be a little to much.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Mar 17 at 2014 7:04 AM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Mon, 17 Mar 2014 07:04:30 -0400

So long as they get rid of the subjectivity and "grey areas" I'll be happy... Regulations should be just that, regulatory, not ambiguous guidelines...

Response by SGT Kristopher Lather made Mar 17 at 2014 1:38 PM

SGT Kristopher Lather — Mon, 17 Mar 2014 13:38:38 -0400

Honestly, I fully support #14, it's freaking embarrassing to see other Services comment when Soldiers walk into the Shoppette looking worse off than homeless people, (and I know I'm going to catch Flak on this one) Especially the Service member's spouse, I understand that there are days where someone you feel like wearing clothes that you would only wear just around the house, but please for the sake of others around you, don't wear that in public. put on something that is preferably clean and is proper fitting (if you think it's too tight, chances are it is)

#4 "not extend below the top of the ear" to me this sounds like "High & Tights" for EVERYONE ! I understand that different Commands have different opinions on when your hair is too long, but unless the DoD is going to kick up my COLA because now I have to get a $14 AAFES Barber Shop (Butcher Shop) haircut per week.. I'm sticking to my normal once a pay period "small guard sides and back, medium fade and trim up top" hairstyle I've had for the last TEN YEARS and have never been told that it was too long.

#5 While Shaving on duty is a standard of 670-1 and always will be..... unless someone can grow a Duck Dynasty type of beard while on leave, how are the terrorists going to win if I walk in public with some stubble.. obviously I'm not from the local area because of my Sports teams apparel, but if I'm wearing a hat (so you won't be able to see my new 670-1 approved high and tight haircut) how are you going to know I'm in the Army... And what if I go on leave and go home where there isn't any active duty members around (except Recruiters), Are we going to have to Skype once a day with our Chain of Command to ensure we're shaving....

#8 "Males will be prohibited from wearing cosmetics to include nail polish", this seriously shouldn't even have to be mentioned. Serving Openly, good for you, Looking up like RuPaul in uniform... Common Sense People !

#16 Common Sense, I have a Gold tooth, only because it's an Replacement, and not a Wanna be Flavor Flav Ornament...

While some of these are just my opinions and the beliefs I hold. I know that we are in for a Long and Bumpy Road and are going to follow orders by people who are better politicians than Soldiers, Some of those in charge only know what a "Garrison War Fighter" is compared to those serving and have Served in actual Combat Zones.

I'm gonna step down from my soapbox now..

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 17 at 2014 4:35 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 17 Mar 2014 16:35:11 -0400

What I don't understand is how we say this is faddish and that is faddish when most individuals don't even know what faddish is? Example of the definition of faddish:

intensely fashionable for a short time. faddy · fashionable, stylish
- being or in accordance with current social fashions; "fashionable clothing

So sideburns that are pointed at the end are faddish, but a high in tight is not faddish. Cowboy boots with mudd everywhere on them are ok to wear to a BN function is ok, but wearing some J's arent'. Wearing a baseball cap with a fish hook is presentable on post but a fitted cap is looked down upon. I agree with changes and it's impossible to have a set standard for everything. But if they want to have a set standard, everyone should look the same. There is no individuality in the military as they say, so no one should be themselves. A Soldier no matter their rank should be able to look professional and have a professional attitude at all times. But really, why is it that we are making changes to the regulations, when we can't even enforce the one's that we have now? i.e. hands in the pocket, hair not cut, wearing glasses that are no where near in the regs. And I feel as an NCO, if I correct an Officer who is breaking the reg with tact and that individual decides to basically disrespect me back, how can I as an NCO feel that I can punish a Soldier who does the same exact thing by just breaking the same exact reg. Even though most Soldiers mimic NCO's and Officers. What is the logic in that? If you want to make things better punish everyone and make sure that we stick to the standards. Just look on the news, I don't think I need to say more about that. We have SHARP, but what good is SHARP if we can't even get the correct punishment for everyone.

Response by SSG V. Michelle Woods made Mar 17 at 2014 5:11 PM

SSG V. Michelle Woods — Mon, 17 Mar 2014 17:11:14 -0400

Do we know for sure what the changes are?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 17 at 2014 9:09 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 17 Mar 2014 21:09:51 -0400

The original recommendations indicated that belts would be required in civilian clothing to help stop the droopy drawers look. I hate to break it to people... But many times these individuals are wearing belts and that does nothing to keep the pants at his/her waistline.
As an AIT PSG it was painful to try to educate new soldiers why their t-shirts were inappropriate to wear. Even explaining that I really did not want my young daughters seeing soldiers wearing shirts with vulgarity or suggestive phrases was not appropriate. I finally just had to tell them I was ordering them to go change despite their opinion to the contrary.
And for the record, I will support any new regulations. But I tried to trim my hair up to the top of the ear and couldn't go past the top of the inner ear opening. Any higher and I might as well be shaving lines into my scalp.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2014 12:15 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 18 Mar 2014 12:15:58 -0400

So are we going to hold formation on weekends and have soldiers on leave stay local so we can check that they are following new grooming regulations and clean shaven all while on leave. I shave my head because it hard to find a good barber that can give me a low fade and not a high tight. Let focus on a bigger issue of the ongoing sexual assault plaguing the military then male soldier walking around like kids who couldn't hold still for there barber with no side burns. I am recommending to all my soldiers to start shaving there head razor bald.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2014 3:26 PM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 18 Mar 2014 15:26:03 -0400

OK this was talked about in our office a great length. I
have people that work with us who are Military technicians (National Guard
Soldiers who are federal employees during the week). The feel that while not in
a drill status they should not have to adhere to the grooming standards (Sideburns will not extend below the top of the ear. Soldiers will be clean shaven on AND off duty
(even during leave)). Also it was
brought up what do you do with a Traditional Soldier (National Guard M-Day
troop). How would or could you keep them
in check with the new AR. I feel it was
due but this may be a little hard to enforce at first.

Response by 1SG Ernest Davis made Mar 18 at 2014 3:58 PM

1SG Ernest Davis — Tue, 18 Mar 2014 15:58:36 -0400

SO glad I am out ;)

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2014 4:36 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 18 Mar 2014 16:36:04 -0400

Whether my bag is OD Green, ACU, ACU Green, or Black, does not subtract from my professionalism.

The not being able to walk with the phone in use is just nuts. Maybe even add in if it is business related and you are conducting yourself accordingly. I can save a lot of time if I can call enroute to a destination in order to coordinate training. Now your are telling me I have to stop to have a 30 sec conversation and waste time and not to mention the time of everyone around me or anyone waiting on me at the destination.

What is the point of making an un-enforceable regulation ie clean shaven 24/7 on or off duty. There will be no more leave because in order to go, you will have to take at least an E-6 with you to make sure you are shaving. Don't worry Army retirees, the Army will pay you to be a Wal-Mart Greeter so you can look for people who look remotely military on Sunday morning and ask if they shaved.

I wholeheartedly agree that whether in or out of uniform, you are still a soldier. Ecessively odd modes of dress do make the Army as a whole look unprofessional, but don't tell me I have to wear business casual at all times on post. If a soldier needs to put down the razor for a day or two when not on duty, that is much better than wasting our medical services time and government's money by getting a shaving profile.

I am ranting, but it stands to reason that there is a better use of our tax dollars than thinking up ways to make our haircuts tighter, our off duty clothes match, and that we are shaven at all times. We have standards now, make sure people live up to them.

Response by PV2 Christopher Graham made Mar 19 at 2014 7:11 AM

PV2 Christopher Graham — Wed, 19 Mar 2014 07:11:35 -0400

Once again, the higher-ups have failed to grasp the concept of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Clean shaven? I'm old-school Army and moustaches had their own regs. Males authorized a black umbrella? My Drill SGT taught me, "If it ain't rainin', we ain't trainin'. If it ain't snowin', we ain't goin!" Has MY Army become so sissified that a little rain is gonna melt the average soldier? What if it starts raining while the bullets are flying? Are you going to drop you M-4, don your umbrella, and wait for fair weather? If Mr. I. Hate Americans doesn't die laughing, he'll turn you into swiss cheese. And even if I were still in, I'd love to see somebody come tell me, while off-post, what I can & cannot wear. I had no trouble telling officers off when I was in, and I laugh at, and will laugh in the face of whomever thought this up. Sounds like a shave-tail lieuiy to me. There's a reason why butter bars aren't really put in charge of anything; they don't know their job yet.

P.S. even telling offices off, I STILL have an Honorable Discharge.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2014 4:18 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 19 Mar 2014 16:18:41 -0400

I for one think some of these should have been covered a
long time ago. I remember not being allowed to wear certain types of clothes (i.e.
tank tops and flip flops just to name a few) on post during the first five or
so years of my 21 years. I can’t tell you how many times I wanted to tell
someone (soldier and civilian) to go change while I was in the PX or anywhere
on post for that matter. I have never understood what happened to the dress
codes from my early years.

Response by CPL Justin Fout made Mar 19 at 2014 9:42 PM

CPL Justin Fout — Wed, 19 Mar 2014 21:42:49 -0400

My biggest problem is the transfer of everybody wearing blues, I had to get to recruiting as a corporal to earn that uniform. What was wrong with the greens for lower enlisted? It separated leaders and had that prestige, made me feel like I had made it

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 20 at 2014 8:17 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 20 Mar 2014 08:17:41 -0400

I see a lot of soldiers and NCO’s saying “who is going to
know that I am military in order to correct me when I’m off post?”. The answer
to that question should be YOU. The problem with standards and why they don’t
work is because we live in a time of “it’s not wrong if I don’t get caught”. We
are the ones that set the standards and should be enforcing them regardless of
who’s around to see us. We should not be saying there is no one to correct me
so I’m not wrong, when we ourselves know that we are wrong.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 20 at 2014 8:43 AM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 20 Mar 2014 08:43:42 -0400

So is this legit?

https://www.facebook.com/usawtfm/photos/a [login to see] [login to see] [login to see] 81938605/ [login to see] 178606/?type=1&theater

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 20 at 2014 8:54 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 20 Mar 2014 08:54:20 -0400

Most of the points are not new. Not all of them may have been in AR670-1 but they were in either some other AR or enforced by a division policy. These are not new but they may be reworded on clarified to better help the Soldier.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 20 at 2014 10:23 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 20 Mar 2014 10:23:02 -0400

In regard to number 6 the pony tail... hope those extra long hairs dont cause me to choke on a run and then get a permenant profile for breathing becuase i was trying to stay the distance and in step during formation. Does no. 8 interfere with alternative lifestyle personnel that may wan tto wear it off duty...i am referring to the rescindment of "dont ask dont tell" policy by our civlian leadership in Washington. Wont rule 8 offend those who may live this way? Really the biggest problem the Army professionally has is sideburns(no.4) and tattoos(no. 10) when Generals are being court martialed for SHARP, EO, and Actions/Integrity Violations unbecoming of a U.S. Army Officer. Throw me a bone send me into combat with General Dempsey best 1AD commander ever and lets blow the roof off of terrroists and warlords that beat down people to weak to support themselves. Lets go to Cold War training and make people do "their" jobs. These new rules may seem petty but those who have been around a minute have had four fatigue uniform changes two sets of pt's and two sets of dress blues. This is not a idea fairy it is a test of ones willingness to conform and engage professionally to lead the way on the next battleground. But it is an opinion; not a fact that for decades of no change as a Army has been made to its appearance; so it makes sense for someone or some company to make so many in less than a decade during war. The civilian side of me believes that we make up an All-Volunteer force...and not playing Devils Advocate,,,Nor a yes Man I would say I will follow the orders of those above me not questioning its intent nor its outcome rather that it is a morale, safe, and appropriate decision that would not cause unecessary harm to either myself nor my subordinates nor those I am attempting to save.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 20 at 2014 11:53 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 20 Mar 2014 11:53:35 -0400

This was sent out to some of us today via email from HQDA. I found a link to the same pdf. http://thisainthell.us/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Uniform-Policy-Leaders-Training.pdf

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 20 at 2014 11:53 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 20 Mar 2014 11:53:58 -0400

Update: This was sent out to some of us today via email from HQDA. I found a link to the same pdf. http://thisainthell.us/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Uniform-Policy-Leaders-Training.pdf

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 20 at 2014 1:38 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 20 Mar 2014 13:38:05 -0400

So soldiers who got sleeve tattoos after their enlistment will be grandfathered in. Like soldiers who got tattoos after enlistment and do not have documentation of their tattoos, but now they will? I am correct CSMs SMs?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 20 at 2014 4:13 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 20 Mar 2014 16:13:46 -0400

I dislike many of the new hair grooming standards for females!

I totally understand hair not touching the collar etc. but now females can't have "twist" "twisties" which is a huge deal for many females like myself who have Natural hair which can get rough to maintain many times, so having a style like twist extentions help us maintain a neat appearance. as long as its not unkempt and the hair stays in a bun and off our collar, I dont understand the deal. But such is life and I'll just Embrace the Suck and find something to do with my hair!! -_- probably end up cutting it all off!!!

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 20 at 2014 4:19 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 20 Mar 2014 16:19:38 -0400

The tattoo policy is probably the best change. Soldiers, regardless of rank, were getting too out of control with the tattoos. I always refer back to the movie "Cadence". if Soldiers do not want to comply with the regulations, then send them to the stockade and kick them out. I guarantee you the RIF will go a lot smoother.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 20 at 2014 4:30 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 20 Mar 2014 16:30:32 -0400

I do like it is more specific and detailed. Take in mind
that many females abuse of the hair style and as well the nail polish color. I
have seen females that her soft cap does not fit due the hair style. With the males and the earrings, I have seen
many Seniors NCO’s while I was pulling duty in the gates with earring and then
they are the same in formation giving the speech of do and don’ts according to
the AR 670-1. We must present a professional appearance. For the NCOS’s we have to keep in mind “No
one is more professional than I” Not only our nation have the eyes in us
also the world. We represent our country and we have to go by
the regulation. Also take in mind the
Army is downsizing and they are
looking for targets and what better that
change the AR and see who does not comply with.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 20 at 2014 5:14 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 20 Mar 2014 17:14:25 -0400

I think that a lot of soldiers forgot that they joined the Army the Army didn't join them. Regulations come out, we don't have to like the, we follow them or we are offered the opportunity to find a new work place. I like the standards set forth I never thought males should be allowed to wear earrings, the pony tails for females during PT was a good decision. The wear of civilian attire and shaving shows your professionalism which as a PROFESSION OF ARMS that we are striving to be become emulates.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 20 at 2014 5:16 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 20 Mar 2014 17:16:02 -0400

If you have seen the G1 slide show the sideburns didn't really change

Response by SGT Donald Croswhite made Mar 20 at 2014 6:18 PM

SGT Donald Croswhite — Thu, 20 Mar 2014 18:18:51 -0400

We recently used numerous small violations to chapter a soldier out for pattern of misconduct (Chapter 14 -12b.) The changes in 670-1 can be used by Commanders to target soldiers who place themselves on radar. Is this ethical? According to regulations it is. Is it moral and done without malace? That's where toxic leadership can take advantage of the system to boost their chapter numbers instead of grooming soldiers (no punn intended.)

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Mar 20 at 2014 6:57 PM

CSM Michael J. Uhlig — Thu, 20 Mar 2014 18:57:50 -0400

I understand those that remain are in the right uniform for a week straight get candy from the Chaplain......

Leaders, bottom line is there are changes, some new things in the regulation. Now, its up to you to train your formation on the changes, we have grown people in our ranks, those that do not want to change are simply challenging you adjust their behavior, are you up for the task? You can send them to the candy Chaplain for a treat when they do good.....

Response by SSG V. Michelle Woods made Mar 20 at 2014 6:58 PM

SSG V. Michelle Woods — Thu, 20 Mar 2014 18:58:53 -0400

I will be the HAPPIEST ponytail-wearing NCO between 0600-0730 :)

Response by SSG William Patton made Mar 20 at 2014 10:51 PM

SSG William Patton — Thu, 20 Mar 2014 22:51:58 -0400

I can understand on duty regulations for soldiers, but dress and shaving on the weekend, when the soldier is off duty is excessive. This also seems to be a double standard in effect as well. Soldiers who are Sikh or other minority religions are allowed to appear differently, even on duty. I think if rules are to be applied for the sake of uniformity, they all soldiers, regardless of religion, ethnic, or quasi-political reasons should be required to wear and sport the same grooming elements, on duty uniforms, and off duty dress, no exceptions. Fairness is crucial to morale and already, many soldiers who do not believe as some minority elements, are being treated differently. This can only result in animosity toward those who appear to be receiving preferential treatment. That hurts morale and team cohesion.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 20 at 2014 11:18 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 20 Mar 2014 23:18:01 -0400

Either embrace the Army life or get out! The Army is a profession, it is not a job. Professionals eat, sleep, and breathe the Army Way of Life. Professionals do not complain about regulations, they follow and enforce the standard. As professionals, we embrace the suck. We don't complain about it, we adapt to it and make it an advantage. We embrace it because it is the life we WANT to live. A lot of soldiers won't understand where I am coming from with this post, and those are the soldiers that shouldn't be in. For those that want to complain instead of saying HOOAH! well the Army is drawing down, take this opportunity to get out. Stop complaining, educate yourself and your soldiers, and make it happen. Too Easy!

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2014 9:33 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 21 Mar 2014 09:33:20 -0400

I think one issue would be, are we making our soldiers stand out even more while they're not on duty? Is that a safety issue we need to be worried about?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2014 1:19 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 21 Mar 2014 13:19:58 -0400

Just received a slide presentation of the changes. The sideburns will remain the same being allowed to extend to the bottom ear opening. There is no mention of Soldiers being required to shave at all times. There is extensive coverage on female hairstyles and tattoos. If you would like a copy, email [login to see]

Response by SPC Christopher Smith made Mar 21 at 2014 1:47 PM

SPC Christopher Smith — Fri, 21 Mar 2014 13:47:46 -0400

I don't like the idea of 670-1 being punitive, and allowing people to get in trouble under UCMJ. I'm absolutely against the idea that because a SM has tattoos on their arms and/or legs they cannot Commission. I don't think enough thought was put into walking and using a phone. Nothing is unprofessional about walking and receiving information about what needs to be done for the day. I agree with no walking and eating. I see this as a tool to scare enough people out, and I think it will work great.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2014 3:24 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 21 Mar 2014 15:24:26 -0400

Favorite portion definetely the changes in hair for the female soldiers, I like jessica rabbit but thats a movie star (cartoon) not exactly a professional look let alone one to be taken seriously in combat..

The sour taste comes from the tat restrictions, I understand the idea, at least I think I do. The face ones though, I agree. May be I like art and thats why it bothers me. Some tats are a last remembrance of a fallen comrade or even a family member of course there is more I just picked the reasoning behind 3 of mine.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2014 3:26 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 21 Mar 2014 15:26:59 -0400

Personally I think it's all ridiculous. We're focusing way too much on being pretty and not enough on performance. I see the caliber of soldier coming into the infantry and I'm not impressed. Most of them lack the resiliency and mental fortitude to make it 6 months in the army. They're all just here for college money that none of them actually ever see because they're all getting kicked out for DUI's, underage drinking, or drugs. The infantry isn't the only place where this is a problem either. Worrying about my tattoos, my sideburns, or whether or not I shaved over the weekend is taking away from our focus on meeting the standard. Now more than ever people fail to make weight. It's pathetic. You're telling me that I'll get let go because of a sleeve tattoo, but someone with 30% body fat and 50lbs overweight doesn't get reprimanded? I get more and more disappointed with the direction we take every day.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2014 3:30 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 21 Mar 2014 15:30:45 -0400

Black or Camo Pattern Only backpack/shoulder bags. This is overly restrictive. Nothing wrong with a Tan, or OD Green bag, as long at it presents a neat military appearance. Soldiers have been bying a go to bag for the past 10 years under a variety of camo patterns and colors, and the Army just made them a uniform violation.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2014 6:48 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 21 Mar 2014 18:48:37 -0400

I heard a rumor that the SMA started a DA-6 Army wide for SFC and Above to conduct facial inspections. For more details check the Pentagon's staff duty book.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2014 7:40 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 21 Mar 2014 19:40:47 -0400

SPC Smith, you bring up a good question. Why is there a different standard when it comes to tattoos for Commissioned Officers? (I'll post in a new question)

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2014 8:22 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 21 Mar 2014 20:22:00 -0400

I saw a short power point slide show on army reenlistment.com that provided photographic examples of hairstyles, sideburns and so on. <div>I am sure I am not the only one, but prior to the photographs I found that the guidance on certain things to be rather ambiguous.</div><div><p style="font-size: 10px; font-family: Times;"> "Females will ensure their hair is neatly groomed, that the length and bulk of the hair are not excessive, and that</p>
<p style="font-size: 10px; font-family: Times;">the hair does not present a ragged, unkempt, or extreme appearance. Likewise, trendy styles that result in shaved</p>
<p style="font-size: 10px; font-family: Times;">portions of the scalp (other than the neckline) or designs cut into the hair are prohibited. Females may wear braids and</p>
<p style="font-size: 10px; font-family: Times;">cornrows as long as the braided style is conservative, the braids and cornrows lie snugly on the head, and any hairholding</p>
<p style="font-size: 10px; font-family: Times;">devices comply with the standards in 1–8a(3)(d)" </p><p>The words "trendy" and "conservative" are subjective to each individual, and I have seen many Soldiers use this wording as a way to try and beat the system. I am optimistic that the photographic examples will eliminate the "grey area" that was unintentionally created as a result of the terms previously used. <br></p></div>

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2014 8:41 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 21 Mar 2014 20:41:50 -0400

I agree with most of the new Reg's that need to go into effect.

-Tattoos: I think that tattoo's on the neck, face, and hands are unprofessional. If a Soldier wants to stay in they will get in removed. But with Soldiers with sleeve tattoo's and leg tattoo's,they just need to leave that alone for the time being, and focus on the Soldiers that bring alot of attention to themselves.

-Shaving: Now i enjoy not having to shave during leave and weekends. But my concern is if there going to hold these strict grooming standards for males will they do the same for females. Cant can have double standards.

-Now when these new regs come out they need to be enforce to the fullest T, and not to a certain group of people.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2014 8:50 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 21 Mar 2014 20:50:48 -0400

Yet every one wants to know the regs, I dont even think they have it figured out i have received 2 briefings. One saying the if you have sleeves you will be grandfathered, and with the second brief I was told that you could only have 4 tattoo's visible below the elbow and that they must be smaller then the SM's hand... So it would be nice to recieve the new AR 670-1, so that myself and fellow Leaders can start enforcing the standards, and removing the cancer out of the ranks.

Response by SGM Matthew Quick made Mar 21 at 2014 9:26 PM

SGM Matthew Quick — Fri, 21 Mar 2014 21:26:14 -0400

FAVORITE:  I love the graphic/detailed clarification...eliminates interpretation (although some will still try).<br><br>LEAST FAVORITE:  I hate that some are making these changes 'racial' or 'sexist'.<br><br>These changes are about PROFESSIONALISM.  We choose to serve as professionals in the second most professional organization ever (sorry, I served in the Marine Corps and nothing tops the Corps' professionalism)...either we adapt to change, suggest a more effective/efficient way or find a new job/career.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 22 at 2014 4:56 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 22 Mar 2014 16:56:44 -0400

I haven't seen anything about the shaving portion in the "training slides" that got leaked. I wonder if this was in the final decision?

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 23 at 2014 12:14 AM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 23 Mar 2014 00:14:56 -0400

I would like to voice that sunglasses placed on top of your head as a punishable offense is beyond absurd. Numerous NCO's in my platoon and unit concur. If I want to place my Oakley's on top of my head to do something, look at something, or what have you I should not have to worry about an article 15. Not being able to conduct a foot march with or carry my eberlystock rucksack is again absurd. I got that ruck in order to fit more shit that I have to carry that our MOLLE ruck cannot fit, IE CS-13 equipment, pointless company issue equipment etc, etc. I am, however, looking forward to inspire my men to iron their garrison uniforms to reflect an crisp clean military appearance, officers wearing nonsubdued rank on their headgear to help little blind joe snuffys out, and tattoos above the neck, on hands, and face. I also would like to mention, I am disappointed about not being able to rock my deployment Mohawk, and not being able grow a leave beard.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 23 at 2014 1:03 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 23 Mar 2014 13:03:55 -0400

The Good: The clarification of female hairstyles, however I do feel like the terms faddish and trendy are very subjective. Depending on who is complaining about the hairstyle.

The Bad: Tattoos. I think this is a big gripe for most people because not too long ago the regulation was relaxed to accept various tattoos. Barring a SM from commissioning because of a tattoo is a perfect example of the top brass being too far removed from the BOG SM. I think it was stated on RP before that most changes are really pet peeves from somebody with a star on their chest.

Response by SGT Brian Madej made Mar 23 at 2014 7:31 PM

SGT Brian Madej — Sun, 23 Mar 2014 19:31:58 -0400

I'm so glad I'm not in anymore, those new regs are gonna suck. It's bad enough that the army tries to control most parts of your life, but to determine what you can and can't wear on leave? Rediculous. Next we'll have senior leaders facebook stalking to enforce standards.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 24 at 2014 2:19 PM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 24 Mar 2014 14:19:19 -0400

Well, thankfully (and I'm certain you all have recieved the email), of the changes to AR 670-1 which now includes pictures and goes a bit more in depth about what is and isn't authorized.

Response by SGT James Elphick made Mar 24 at 2014 7:59 PM

SGT James Elphick — Mon, 24 Mar 2014 19:59:44 -0400

It's all about shrinking the Army the easy way, i.e. chaptering soldiers for behavior, failure to adapt, etc. Top Brass and Leadership seems to have decided that the best way to downsize is through increased regulations and basically keeping those soldiers willing to put up with it instead of making sure that the best soldiers are kept by examining proficiency in their MOS, looking at their service record, etc. I think this is a poor way to go about things. We are getting away from the war footing, which I understand means returning some of the standards that slipped during that time, but they seem to be trying to go beyond that now. When I first came in the Army in 2002 and the deployments were first starting I had many leaders that found the transition to combat very difficult. They wanted to continue to "Garritroop" as we called it. When I was in A-stan we actually did EIB training because no one could think of anything else to do. These regs and others are going to bring that mentality back and it is going to be detrimental to the military overall.

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 25 at 2014 12:31 AM

SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 25 Mar 2014 00:31:51 -0400

All I can think is that will be the most expensive haircut you never got. I pretty much see it, as others have expressed, as a downsizing tool. However, there are several punitive things that come with military life that won't be an issue in the civilian world. Sleep around on your spouse on the outside and you may get a frying pan upside the head. Do it in the military and you can face UCMJ. I do agree that standards must be upheld, but I can see this being abused. It would be terrible to lose a career over such small details (thoroughly realizing that small errors in some jobs can result in death). However, we are about to be the skinniest (If you have too much muscle, you are FAT), prettiest, most polite military on this earth.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 25 at 2014 12:54 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 25 Mar 2014 00:54:24 -0400

As with any decision, you should ask yourself what value is there in the proposed changes. What benefit will there be? Will the value be in measurable terms or is it subjective? How is the length of a Soldiers sideburns indicative of their professionalism? Or discipline? How is the number of tattoos indicative of someone's professionalism (or lack thereof)? If this is your perception, Change the perception, not the individual. Military culture has been synonymous with tattoos for many many years. We still are seen as the epitome of respect and civil service, tattoos and all. Ever seen someone with tattoos speak to a civilian and shock them to death when they address them as "ma'am"? I promise the tattoos are not an issue. If the tattoo is sexist, racist, or otherwise offensive, then it's the tattoos content that needs to be addressed, not the tattoo itself.
These changes are not all bad, but there should not be a limitless application to all. For example, if you want soldiers clean shaven at all time, it's not unreasonable, but only if they are on post. Off-post, appearance should be at the Soldiers discretion provided it is in line with social norms. Dress code? That's fine, but within limits. "Worn properly" is not culturally universal. By culture, I refer to the infinite number of sub-cultures within the US alone. These changes are meant to increase professionalism, but appear to be a list of personal preferences proposed by a group that is likely from an older generation (making is a generational issue, not a professional one), and likely a group heavily "influenced" by the CSMA rather than effective means to "appear" professional.

On that note...

Why is the focus on "appearing" professional, rather than devoting these countless man hours to more critical issues, such as the Ncoes system? Is The senior-most Nco focused more on sideburns and shaving and pony-tails than he is on the education system that produces effective and professional NCOs?? (Side note- aren't we recognizable enough as it is?? These sideburn standards and dress standards are going to going to make it even easier for us to be spotted in public... "Don't be a target"... Anyone remember that line from your AT lvl 1 courses?)
Id rather have an appearance that is in line with the rest of society, and be an outstanding professional, than to look the part but be lacking in job-related education.

On a last personal note, I for one think that high side burns look awkward, which translates to out of touch, which translates to professionally and socially limited, which translates to "appearing" less professional. This isn't a rant, but a true perception amongst the very public we are trying to "improve" our image with. Any modification to the regulation that governs appearance should not detract from the Soldiers appearance in the public's eye.

Response by MAJ(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 25 at 2014 2:28 AM

MAJ(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 25 Mar 2014 02:28:11 -0400

This is some great input. I believe that force shaping isn't the primary reason behind AR 670-1 being punitive. In the past the NCOs were promoted a bit slower and held the Soldiers to a different standard. The Soldier would get an Article 15 for the same violations. However they would be due to failure to obey an order or regulation. It shouldn't take this much to make a Soldier follow the rules. Hopefully the fear of punishment will help coax the younger Soldiers to follow the rules or find a new profession.

Response by SSG Oliver Mathews made Mar 25 at 2014 6:05 AM

SSG Oliver Mathews — Tue, 25 Mar 2014 06:05:21 -0400

Sir,
I understand that this is happening but when this came out i had
to go back and check to make sure that failure to follow regulation was
still punishable or punishable at all.

Article 92- Failure to Obey Order or Regulation.

I really don't see
how this will drastically change the way we enforce the standards... I think it will just make the reasons for the actions more clear or direct.

The couseling will say I am recomending you for and Non-Judicial Punishment under Article 15 of the UCMJ for Failure to maintain a Clean and Shaved Appearance
vs
The counseling will say I am recommending you for and Non-Judicial Punishment under Article 15 of the UCMJ for Article 92- Failure to Obey Order or Regulation.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 25 at 2014 10:58 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 25 Mar 2014 22:58:19 -0400

Just to add my two cents...Are some of these regulations a little crazy and are they going to be hard to enforce? YES! However, speaking as an NCO; I know that my job, most of the time, is not to make the rules. My job is to enforce the rules, and in order to do that I must know them and follow them; period!! Regardless of whether I like them or not. Now, as many people above have mentioned most of these "rules" that are in the slides are not much different, if at all, than what is already in place. The biggest changes are female hair lengths defined and classified, female hair during PT, shaving on the weekend and on leave (which was always a rule anyway...soldiers just never followed it), being able to use an umbrella in ASU's (male and female), tattoo policy, and from what I saw of the slides, being able to wear sunglasses as long as they are within regulation. Everything else was already in the current regulation, however maybe a little bit better defined in this new PROPOSED regulation. Yes, PROPOSED, this regulation hasn't even come out yet...the slides that were so widely sent out are just the proposed regulations and are part of a heads up to leaders. And while I may not like some of the changes (tattoo policy) it is still my responsibility to know them and enforce them. And to learn more about them, such as, knowing that some things can be grandfathered...all it takes is a little bit of paperwork and your commanders signature. Pictures will be uploaded into a database with the proper paperwork for those cases. As for not being commissioned because of tattoos well that sucks but it is what it is. Either have them removed, stay enlisted, or get out of the ARMY. That is the bottom line. So rather than complain about it, research it more and know exactly what the regulation is. And always remember, HTGS!! (Hunt the good stuff, for those that aren't familiar with MRT.)

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Mar 26 at 2014 8:19 AM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Wed, 26 Mar 2014 08:19:00 -0400

I wonder if the Army will have any rules for "unibrows". Those things are hidious.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 26 at 2014 9:49 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 26 Mar 2014 09:49:28 -0400

#15 and #16 are my favorites!

I have had extensive dental procedures done to have my teeth look good and at no time was gold,silver, platinum overlays a way for me to get them looking good. My personal opinion is that they distract from ones appearance and are just down right unprofessional looking. I am glad to see that there is no grandfathering of them as well.

As far as the Jewelery goes, I have been hoping for that change as well. Every since the whole "gauging" thing became popular I have seen an increasing ammount of Soldiers having them. Again in my opinion that distracts from ones appearance and looks very unprofessional.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 26 at 2014 10:44 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 26 Mar 2014 10:44:51 -0400

I've never once heard of sideburns losing a battle or demoralizing a unit, but I'm not a history buff. Maybe someone can weigh in on that one and help me out.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 26 at 2014 10:55 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 26 Mar 2014 10:55:48 -0400

See 19MAR14 Uniform Policy Leaders Training. All the changes are addressed in there for now till another ALARACT message comes out.

Response by SGT Ben Keen made Mar 27 at 2014 1:08 PM

SGT Ben Keen — Thu, 27 Mar 2014 13:08:36 -0400

Hey look at that, something with pictures that will hopefully put a lot of the questions to rest.

Response by SFC William Swartz Jr made Mar 27 at 2014 1:14 PM

SFC William Swartz Jr — Thu, 27 Mar 2014 13:14:41 -0400

Should allow for some clarity on hairstyles and other concerns, one thing I have already seen/heard is that "...they should have labeled it African-American Female hairstyles..." due to the overabundant number of slides portraying said hairstyles....but that is for you NCOs/Officers to deal with....Good Luck!!

Response by SSG Mike Angelo made Mar 27 at 2014 1:19 PM

SSG Mike Angelo — Thu, 27 Mar 2014 13:19:23 -0400

None of this pertains to me directly because I am retired Army and not in a capacity to lead a military organization with military leadership, under USC Title 10, yet I have a son in the Marines, and we do have those chats.

Lessons learned from the 70s, 80s and 90s, I see a trend of new rules coming down the pike with moderate dissent. A further risk analysis demonstrates that rank is the biggest constraint for both officer channels and NCO chain.

I like this thread because a conversation was started and it continues. Silence is another constraint and it builds dissent and destroys trust in ourselves and others in leadership positions.

This is where professional development is needed.

Good leaders in times of change such as these are today's change agents, both in personal and professional leadership styles. Which ever style a leader develops is his or her legacy to a military with a fine tradition.

I do not want to observe our fine military reverting back to a post-Vietnam era of organizational behavior.

Keep the conversation going. Please.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 29 at 2014 9:20 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 29 Mar 2014 21:20:13 -0400

NONE!

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 31 at 2014 4:28 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 31 Mar 2014 16:28:30 -0400

I understand the intent and although I might not agree with some changes, I am a soldier and of course will adhere to the orders/regulations put before me.

Response by WO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 31 at 2014 5:55 PM

WO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 31 Mar 2014 17:55:11 -0400

So I have looked throughout it, and do not see clean shaven while off duty. If I am wrong please correct me.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 31 at 2014 5:55 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 31 Mar 2014 17:55:15 -0400

Glad to see the "clean shaven while off-duty" didn't make it in there. At least I couldn't find it.

Response by LTC David S. Chang, ChFC®, CLU® made Mar 31 at 2014 6:48 PM

LTC David S. Chang, ChFC®, CLU® — Mon, 31 Mar 2014 18:48:30 -0400

that is how I see it.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 31 at 2014 9:21 PM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 31 Mar 2014 21:21:45 -0400

Does any one actually have the 31 Mar 2014 version? If you go to APD and click on the PDF you still get the old RAR.

If it is not available on the official publishing directory, then it isn't officially published.

My 2 cents.

Response by SSG Christopher Freeman made Mar 31 at 2014 9:29 PM

SSG Christopher Freeman — Mon, 31 Mar 2014 21:29:16 -0400

At least those who have tattoos that are not in compliance will be given a chance to get rid of it instead of just getting the boot. Pretty sure that I will have to have my wife's initials on my ring finger removed.

Response by 1SG Frank Rocha made Mar 31 at 2014 9:39 PM

1SG Frank Rocha — Mon, 31 Mar 2014 21:39:25 -0400

theres a training video also on the Armys G1 site. heres the link if anyones interested.

http://www.armyg1.army.mil/hr/uniform/

Uniform Policy - Army G-1 Human Resources

Mission and updated information for the Uniform Policy group of the United States Army G-1.

Response by MSG Jason Sikes made Apr 1 at 2014 12:25 AM

MSG Jason Sikes — Tue, 01 Apr 2014 00:25:29 -0400

No. Just read what it said, chief. Hope all is well with you!

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 1 at 2014 12:41 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 01 Apr 2014 00:41:51 -0400

Why did they have to separate it out from one AR to a new AR and a DA Pam? Makes no sense to me. Just another extra pub to keep on hand.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 1 at 2014 2:49 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 01 Apr 2014 02:49:21 -0400

I think that the Electronic cigarette is dumb. I use a Ecig because i dont want to smoke a real one. Now that i quit i have to go to a smoking area to "vape" on my ecig. I shouldnt have quit then.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 1 at 2014 3:37 AM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 01 Apr 2014 03:37:42 -0400

No portion of the bulk of the hair, as measured from the scalp, will exceed 2 inches (except a bun, which may extend a maximum of 3 inches from the scalp) and be no wider than the width of the head.

WIDTH OF THE HEAD?!?! OMG we are about to see some ginourmous buns.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 1 at 2014 3:56 AM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 01 Apr 2014 03:56:47 -0400

It also almost reads word for word with MCO P1020.34g w/ch 1-5 (USMC version of 670-1)

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 1 at 2014 8:20 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 01 Apr 2014 08:20:56 -0400

670-1 Published take a look

Uniform Policy - Army G-1 Human Resources

Mission and updated information for the Uniform Policy group of the United States Army G-1.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 1 at 2014 8:23 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 01 Apr 2014 08:23:00 -0400

New Published AR 670-1. just sharing.

Uniform Policy - Army G-1 Human Resources

Mission and updated information for the Uniform Policy group of the United States Army G-1.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 1 at 2014 10:53 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 01 Apr 2014 10:53:54 -0400

I have no issues with it.

Response by 1SG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 1 at 2014 2:08 PM

1SG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 01 Apr 2014 14:08:24 -0400

I have a serious problem with this. There appears to be such a concern for the Army that it wasted no time in posting the new reg onto APD. But it still has the outdated FM 3-21.220 SL Parachuting Techniques & Training which is 11 1/2 years old and was superseded last October. As I've come to expect, the Army is more concerned with appearances than the safety and efficacy of it's soldiers. For those of you whose lives depend on this, the new TC can be found on the FT Benning website. Glad the Army has its priorities straight.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 1 at 2014 3:42 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 01 Apr 2014 15:42:49 -0400

Favorite: Female Soldiers can now wear a ponytail during PT. Expecting long hair to stay in place during PT is silly.

Least: Tattoo policy. I really just don't care. I've never seen ink to skin ever cause an ASVAB score to drop.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 1 at 2014 8:00 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 01 Apr 2014 20:00:26 -0400

If "leaders" give a soldier an article 15 for one uniform violation then they should be holding the door and following them right out of the Army.

Continuous violations sure, but one slip up on an otherwise unblemished record = BAD LEADERSHIP!

We all know its going to happen eventually!

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 1 at 2014 9:50 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 01 Apr 2014 21:50:44 -0400

Sadly I have already heard soldiers stating they will be making official EO complaints because they feel this is racially motivated and aimed at African American soldiers specifically females. <div>The transition will be rough but good soldiers will comply. </div>

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 3 at 2014 10:47 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 03 Apr 2014 10:47:24 -0400

CPT Taylor,

That's assuming that the new regulations will be enforced.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 3 at 2014 6:39 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 03 Apr 2014 18:39:28 -0400

I noticed they don't discuss the proper wear of the ECWCS.

Response by MSgt Keith Hebert made Apr 3 at 2014 9:19 PM

MSgt Keith Hebert — Thu, 03 Apr 2014 21:19:39 -0400

I agree with the earrings and ear gouging makeup on men the sideburns thing is dumb should have left it like it was When you are on leave you are on leave end of story. But I have to agree that professionalism is not made by grooming standards but by willing to putting the needs of your men above yours.

Response by SSG Jacob Wiley made Apr 7 at 2014 4:43 PM

SSG Jacob Wiley — Mon, 07 Apr 2014 16:43:33 -0400

I find it ridiculous that so much time and effort can be placed on my tattoos and sideburns, but that same leadership is doing NOTHING to take care of Soldiers. Generals told congress we are ok with a pay cut...are you? I sure as hell am not. When and where was that survey?

The Army does not have an image problem, it has a priority problem.

Response by CW2 Jonathan Kantor made Apr 9 at 2014 2:58 PM

CW2 Jonathan Kantor — Wed, 09 Apr 2014 14:58:12 -0400

Punitive action for having your bootlaces sticking out is a terribly ridiculous idea (This would be an extreme example but it could happen). These changes seem more about forcing attrition given the current draw-down than anything else. Especially regarding the new tattoo policy.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 10 at 2014 4:35 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 10 Apr 2014 16:35:42 -0400

An eggshell walking military will be an ineffective military in a combat environment.

Response by SPC Ramon Hart made Apr 26 at 2014 10:55 PM

SPC Ramon Hart — Sat, 26 Apr 2014 22:55:00 -0400

I'am out of the US Army but I heard about the "old" Army and that is that Army that I would to get back into! I believe in STANDARDS and UNIFORMITY across the board. I still believe that I can earn the distinguishing honor of being an Army Sergeant.

Response by WO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 29 at 2014 5:57 PM

WO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Apr 2014 17:57:22 -0400

Wait....Top of the ear? Some CSM must have made a typo because that looks laughably unprofessional. I understand no chops, but middle of the ear gets the point across just fine.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 30 at 2014 12:37 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Apr 2014 12:37:52 -0400

#3 For sure. Finally.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 30 at 2014 12:44 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Apr 2014 12:44:05 -0400

#7. Females will be allowed to put their hair into a ponytail during PT. Finally!!!

Response by CPT Jacob Swartout made May 1 at 2014 5:57 PM

CPT Jacob Swartout — Thu, 01 May 2014 17:57:05 -0400

As for #12, I have never seen anyone take their ACUs to be commercially pressed, let alone had them hand ironed that I can honestly recall. Who would really do this and why? This to me maybe shouldn't even have been brought up as a proposed changed. No one to begin with irons their ACUs where you could see lines like the BDUs. Everyone else at my work couldn't think of ever seeing ironed ACUs either. There maybe that one guy out there in the Army, but he hasn't crossed our path yet. Either way, this proposed change shouldn't effect any of us. Now I did see ironed PTs from the mid 90s, but it was a joke by a Soldier to see who would notice. He never wore them to PT but had to show them off for laughs.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 2 at 2014 11:29 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 02 May 2014 11:29:28 -0400

It is hilarious to see all the hoopla that was surrounding the supposed changes. It seems as if most of the comments pertain to sideburns, shaving off duty, and civilian clothes. The reality is neither the whole "top of the ear" sideburns deal nor the shaving off duty insanity made it into the final version of the AR. Civilian clothing was left up to the discretion of the Commander. I would be curious to see how many lazy NCO's and Officers out there started trying to enforce the rumors rather than the regulation. Does anybody have any good stories?

Response by Cpl Glynis Sakowicz made May 6 at 2014 11:37 AM

Cpl Glynis Sakowicz — Tue, 06 May 2014 11:37:45 -0400

OK, I'll wade in on this one. As a woman, in the Marines, we always had tough standards. If you have longer hair, you must have it up in a fashion that doesn't show HOW you put it up, and it must be neat... without the use of a hair net the same color as your hair to keep those fly-away ends tucked away. At one time, we HAD to wear a girdle, and there were always some higher ups who went down the line, using a pencil or a ruler against the outside of your leg while you were in a skirt, CHECKING for the damned things.
During PT, it was never mentioned, if you showed up for a run with a pony tail if you had long hair, though I don't recall anyone stating it was 'unsat' to have your hair like that.
I always abhored the USMC deep red nail polish ruling... the nail and lip color had to match the cap cord you see, and trust me, most women really don't look good with RED lips, so most never wore lipstick, and I don't recall any WM's who had a problem with longer nails, because most of us had jobs that made those impossible anyway.
What I DO want to know, is how these regulations will be checked when someone is on leave, or a 72... We usually head off the base as far as possible when allowed, so I'm having these mental images of devious NCIS people, slithering around Virgina Beach, hunting down Marines out for a long weekend...

Response by SFC Matthew Parker made May 12 at 2014 2:36 PM

SFC Matthew Parker — Mon, 12 May 2014 14:36:42 -0400

What are my favorite changes?
Well having seen this regulation change like this in 1985 and again in 1990 and now again, I guess I can say my favorite change is when the CSM and Army COS change and take this version of 670-1 with them.

1985. The "new BDU's were supposed to be worn right out of the duffel bag. Its a combat uniform, remember that one. Well how long did that last?

2014, ACUs will not be commercially pressed; hand ironing of the ACU only will be authorized.
Until the CSM wants you looking sharp for parade and then were back to the cleaners aren't we. I like this and hope it doesn't change again.

2014. Soldiers will be clean shaven on AND off duty (even during leave).
Oh please someone find out what's in the water in the Pentagon. Its not enforceable, don't waste the ink putting this in print. Saw this before, 2000 Ft Stewart Ga policy letter.

2014. Males will be prohibited from wearing cosmetics..
I'm sorry was this an issue? what male had make up on? Best thing for make up is a ruck march with pack. Sweat gets that stuff right off your face. We called it camouflage face paint not make up but whatever works I guess.

2014. Tattoos...
Seen this one before, hmmm I think that was pre war, now post war we don't like them. Should have never changed the reg to begin with. Now you want everyone to be clean shaven and no ink.

2014? Soldiers will not walk while engaged in activities that require the hand salute...
This is old news and policy on dozens of posts already. Move on please

2014? Bags worn over the shoulder will only be black... Again old news, your boring me here.

2014? civilian clothes standards both on and off duty and both on and off post.
Ft Stewart GA, 3rd ID 2000, Civilian dress policy. Nice thought, not enforceable off post. Nice to see an oldie but goodie making a come back.

2014. No visible body piercings on or off duty and on or off post, males will never be allowed to wear earrings. Ear gauging will be unauthorized.
Seriously? enforced off post how? Moving on..

2014. No dental ornamentation or gold teeth will be authorized.
Ok throwing the BS flag on this one. At what point do we see stories on racism with this reg like we do with the hair reg? Do soldiers get the gold removed and replaced? who pays for that?

2014. Soldiers will be authorized to wear authorized ballistic eye wear in garrison.
Ah we do now, have been this they were issued in Iraq, so what's with the new reg for something we do already?

2014. Officers will be authorized to wear non-subdued rank on their headgear in garrison.
I guess were not saluting officers because we can't see the rank. Officers want some bling who are we to say no. Go with stay bright rank Sir. Oh wait a second, officers worn non subdued rank before, silly me I thought this was new.

2014. Males will be authorized to carry black umbrella with ASU.
And the heavens opened and I heard angels sing, I have your answer SFC Davis, its this aw inspiring demonstration of leadership. We can now stay dry in the rain.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 19 at 2014 8:23 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 19 Jun 2014 20:23:39 -0400

Personally I don't think the way I wear my hair should affect the way I work. If its neatly pulled back or out of my face it shouldn't be an issue...

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 20 at 2014 1:28 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 20 Jun 2014 13:28:43 -0400

On Tuesday, the local AUSA chapter hosted a symposium. One of the speakers was a LTG, who stated that 5 years ago, only 3 out of 10 17-24 year olds met Army recruiting standards. Today, that number was dipped below that, closing on 2.5.

I thought to myself, "How much of the reduction is due to the tattoo standards in the new 670-1?"

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 23 at 2014 4:48 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 23 Jun 2014 16:48:07 -0400

I don't agree with the new changes but the one that I disagree with most is the new boot reg. As an infantryman, there is some walking to be done and a majority of the time we're in the field, it's done with quite a bit of weight. I feel that all Soldiers should be able to wear whatever boot is comfortable to them so long as it's clean, serviceable, and the correct color. Parting with my Nike's, AKA the most comfortable, lightweight boot I've ever worn was painful for me to accomplish. They were clean, tan (desert) in color, and very comfortable. I have a pair for both garrison and for the field and swear by them. Then this new reg came out and it has me asking two questions.
1- Was this reg put into place to support the business between Belleville and its contract with the Army?
2- Was this reg written by a person whose walk from the parking lot to their office is the longest trek they'll ever have to make in their boots? Did they get a committee of multiple MOS's and have a round table discussion or was this just decided upon without feedback from those that walk all day, every day?
Sideburn reg- looks stupid
Tattoo reg- we're soldiers, not saints
Off post dress- fine with it
Off duty shaving- laughable
I see the new AR 670-1 as an attempt by the Army to act as if it's making big changes for the improvement of the Army but that couldn't be further from the truth. There are major issues (obesity, APFT failures, stagnant leadership, disrespect, etc) that need the kind of attention required to put together this reg together. This is the kind of stuff that is done after everything else is taken care of (supervise and refine type stuff).

Response by SA Harold Hansmann made Jul 3 at 2014 12:31 PM

SA Harold Hansmann — Thu, 03 Jul 2014 12:31:12 -0400

Some of those I can understand. The rest look like they were written by some asshat who needs to get laid. I mean really, 5, 11, 14. And 12 your really gonna take and tell someone they have to stop paying someone to press their uniforms. What's that gonna do for the economy and military standing in those areas?

Response by SA Harold Hansmann made Jul 3 at 2014 5:20 PM

SA Harold Hansmann — Thu, 03 Jul 2014 17:20:04 -0400

Some how I can see the brand new officer fresh from boot, getting a big head, pulling rank, and writing people up over some of this stupid b.s. Then catching a bullet in the back while in a combat situation. (It doesn't have to be a booter officer either.)

Response by 1LT Robert Bordeaux made Jul 15 at 2014 11:40 PM

1LT Robert Bordeaux — Tue, 15 Jul 2014 23:40:04 -0400

Although I'm no longer on active duty, I support the proposed changes to AR 670-1.

While enforcing civilian clothing standards will be next to impossible, I believe the objective here is to get soldiers to use better judgment when it comes to their appearance. Rather than viewing the changes to AR 670-1 as more restrictive, I see them as a attempt to improve the overall appearance of soldiers in garrison and off base. However, the standard can only be enforced if leaders model the changes for their subordinates. Good leaders will adhere to the new standards, and their subordinates will follow suit. For those soldiers who are unwilling to comply, the changes to AR 670-1 may be the means to help downsize the Army.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 12 at 2014 9:44 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 12 Sep 2014 21:44:26 -0400

SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL - It is no one's business what one does home on leave or even a day off in the dorm. Who makes these rules anyways?

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 30 at 2015 12:36 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 30 Oct 2015 12:36:23 -0400

If we are that worried about PT attire then everything else must be really awesome, right? Though I do agree with no gold teeth or grills ;)

Response by MSgt Jason McClish made Jul 11 at 2017 4:44 PM

MSgt Jason McClish — Tue, 11 Jul 2017 16:44:27 -0400

All I can say SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL is WOW!!!

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made Jul 11 at 2017 5:48 PM

SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth — Tue, 11 Jul 2017 17:48:13 -0400

Going to be a lot of ticked off people, hopefully they a grandfather in on a number of the new rules.

Response by 1stSgt Nelson Kerr made Jul 11 at 2017 9:58 PM

1stSgt Nelson Kerr — Tue, 11 Jul 2017 21:58:47 -0400

Does there seem to be a reason for this outside the two obvious ones of making it harder to recruit and pissing off those already in uniform?

Response by SFC William Stephens A. Jr., 3 MSM, JSCM made Jul 12 at 2017 11:54 AM

SFC William Stephens A. Jr., 3 MSM, JSCM — Wed, 12 Jul 2017 11:54:27 -0400

McHugh hasn't been Secretary of the Army since Nov 2015. IS THIS REALLY REAL OR IS FAKE NEWS COME ON PEOPLE.

Response by PFC Jessi West made Jul 14 at 2017 8:45 PM

PFC Jessi West — Fri, 14 Jul 2017 20:45:04 -0400

I think the stricter part of the new regulation is just what we need, especially for the younger generations mine included.

Response by SSG David Kaelin made Feb 16 at 2020 3:03 PM

SSG David Kaelin — Sun, 16 Feb 2020 15:03:35 -0500

Facial hair should be mandatory.