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

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.