Posted on Mar 7, 2014
AR 670-1: What is your reaction to the newest changes?
71.5K
1.62K
612
37
37
0
<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>
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>
Posted in these groups: 
Professionalism
Regulation
Professionalism Regulation
Edited >1 y ago
Posted 12 y ago
Responses: 184
3
3
0
Marines have been operating under similar standards for decades and are still thriving.
(3)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
I think thriving might be a bit of an overstatement. Last I checked, they were a little worried about the Army taking over their PACOM mission and effectively putting them out of work... =)
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL
Roger that SSG Sorge, I agree there is no distinction on the off duty especially if you are retired or a civilian . However, I think the image of the Army will be cleaned up on the off duty aspect to all Soldiers with untactful appearance, its a matter of pride. You got to have that 6th sense to identify, assess and make a on the spot correction.
(6)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
I agree completely with your idea about tattoos. I had a 1SG with sleeve tattoos that was a good leader, in my book. It's mostly an outlet which people choose to express themselves.
(1)
(0)
SGT(P) (Join to see)
When I was in AIT (Marine Corps 1986), the MP's would step onto all buses leaving Camp Pendleton and check Marines for holes in jeans, had to have a collared shirt, and a belt...if you failed at any of these you were told to get off the bus and go change (not sure if you were written up or not)
(2)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
MSG Cameron Davis
Sir, I am sure that once published it will be better defined but I agree. The top of the ear is VERY open to interpretation. If it turns out to be the top of the actual ear, I think it is an attempt to force male soldiers back into the high-and-tight.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
100% chance an NCO will chew out a Joe mowing his lawn in the housing area on Saturday morning before shaving.<div><br></div><div>I also expect the photo of Joe in his PJs without shaving on Xmas morning uploaded to Facebook being used as evidence for an Art 15.<br><div><br></div><div>This can only help morale</div></div>
(13)
(0)
SSG Jeffery Nebel
This all comes back to enforcing current regulations. Soldiers running around with super-phones, taking pictures of other soldiers out of regs? It's going to happen. And then it's a whole different can of worms to deal with. Let's not make more rules, let's properly enforce the ones we have now.
(3)
(0)
CW4 (Join to see)
Yeah, the world is full of good intentions. So much of it depends on Senior Leaders providing "reasonable" enforcement standards while striving to maintain a legitimate regulation. I know, it's a pipe dream!
(2)
(0)
3
3
0
SSG Zachery Mitchell
I had a Soldier try strutting up to a class A inspection one day using an umbrella. It was comical.
(3)
(0)
SSG Zachery Mitchell
I asked him what the hell he was doing and he tried to say I told him that he could use it. He was a special Soldier. Ended up getting chaptered awhile later. It all stemmed from this:
We had a civilian clothes day a couple weeks prior. It rains an awful lot here in Okinawa. We were working on a layout in our shop and had to go outside to get some stuff out of the ISU-90. He asked if he could use his umbrella. I said I didn't care because we were in civilians. He can do what he wants. Later in the day he asked if it was authorized in uniform. I said no, only FEMALE Soldiers can use it with their Class A's. End of conversation.
Sooooo that turned out to me apparently telling him it was "OK" for him to use his umbrella for our class A inspection. I was pretty mad at him to say the least LOL
(4)
(0)
CW2 (Join to see)
I remember reading this back in basic. So females could carry a purse or an umbrella in the ASU but males could not.....
it's about time they fixed this.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.)
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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).
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).
(2)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
I don't agree with the boots or the tattoo's. We're soldiers and professionals. Just cause some guys have tattoo's on their arms and legs doesn't mean anything. It doesn't affect a persons ability to do their job at all. And in my opinion, as long as the tattoo's aren't offensive, it doesn't affect professionalism either.
And with the boots, i agree with what you said. If your in our position, it's good to have other options. No two people's feet are the same, and if they accepted boots don't work for a guy, he should have the option to wear boots that do.
And with the boots, i agree with what you said. If your in our position, it's good to have other options. No two people's feet are the same, and if they accepted boots don't work for a guy, he should have the option to wear boots that do.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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!
(2)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Basic policies like a male showing up with a ear ring(s) in Monday morning?
I still say on the spot correction or counseling. No need for an article 15. Even though earrings are not allowed at all for males and he is clearly disregarding policy I would not initiate an article 15 on first offense. Id verbally relay the regulation to him and if necessary show him the black and white typed regulation. Id find out why he disregards this regulation explain how disregard for one can effect all. Inform him that if it happens again he will receive an article 15.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google