Posted on Jun 15, 2015
Army Commander requires troops to wear ACUs with no badges/combat patches?
236K
397
188
18
18
0
What is RP"s thoughts on this "extreme makeover" Army edition?
http://m.gazette.com/fort-carson-colonel-makes-uniform-adjustment-during-training/article/1553718?custom_click=rss
http://m.gazette.com/fort-carson-colonel-makes-uniform-adjustment-during-training/article/1553718?custom_click=rss
Edited 10 y ago
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 81
Well by definition it is a uniform - consistent or unchanging.
I don't wear my SSI-FWTS or any other lickies and chewies on my ACUs.
1) I like to see the assumption looks I get as folks say "how the eff is he a 1SG without being deployed"
2) In signal land there seems to be a one-up-manship to combat patches. "Oh I was in this (insert REMF signal unit) but we had a phone running to he CJSOTF so I wear the JSOC patch"
I maintain I wear a combat patch while many in the signal corp wear a deployment patch.
So I go around with nothing but name tape, U.S. army, and Rank and let my actions speak to my experiences and qualifications. And if you are really that curious, like the PFC at CIF Monday, just ask me.
I like the idea. The man is trying to create a culture. Will he get there in two years, most likely not. But I think he had a good idea.
I don't wear my SSI-FWTS or any other lickies and chewies on my ACUs.
1) I like to see the assumption looks I get as folks say "how the eff is he a 1SG without being deployed"
2) In signal land there seems to be a one-up-manship to combat patches. "Oh I was in this (insert REMF signal unit) but we had a phone running to he CJSOTF so I wear the JSOC patch"
I maintain I wear a combat patch while many in the signal corp wear a deployment patch.
So I go around with nothing but name tape, U.S. army, and Rank and let my actions speak to my experiences and qualifications. And if you are really that curious, like the PFC at CIF Monday, just ask me.
I like the idea. The man is trying to create a culture. Will he get there in two years, most likely not. But I think he had a good idea.
(3)
(0)
Funny. I thought the Army had a standard. But apparently the standard is not the standard. I understand minor adjustments to a uniform requirement in some areas based on special unit circumstances or mission. But to ban everything that is specifically authorized by regulation? As a good Soldier, of course I would comply. But nothing says I have to agree. Where the heck is the CSM? And is this the stance of 4th ID? Apparently every Brigade can have their own standard.
(3)
(0)
CSM David Heidke
There is a standard, and the standard is that much of the decoration is optional. I think it's a pretty good idea.
(2)
(0)
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
That wasn't the standard a few years ago when I was a part of 4th ID, you could wear what you earned.
(1)
(0)
Truthfully, do we always need to be on parade with a resume, even in the field? Reminding everyone that we are all equal at some level of unity may be humbling to some--and if so, it's needed to avoid Egos -n- Attitudes.
(3)
(0)
I'm not really sure how to take this. I wore my skill badges, which made the new blood, in a way, admire us and want to someday be as good as his peers that have accomplished these tasks. Character counts, as the COL stated, and to me, it's all about presentation with your resume', not just character. The Infantry and Medics have badges that show people, peers, and supervisors, that they know their job and can perform tasks to standard. I am referring to the Expert Infantryman Badge and the Expert Field Medic Badge. If I were new to a unit, I have a feeling I would look up to those Soldiers that earned those awards. I don't see it lasting too long.
(3)
(0)
TSgt Joshua Copeland
SFC Michael Whipple, So I see where the Commander is coming from. EIB/EFMB are hard no doubt about it. But is a SFC that earned it as a SPC really still an Expert (based on the badge alone?) Taking it off makes everyone work for it.
(0)
(0)
SFC Michael Whipple
I see your point, and honestly, from my experience in the Infantry, about 75% of us are still quite proficient at our tasks.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
SFC Michael Whipple
I don't think they would. Of course my percentage could be a gross oversight. I threw my infantry pride in the mix, and I'm telling you, yes there are some that could not do it. I challenge you to try it. You can't wear it, but it would look good on your military records. I know several career NCOs that retired without earning it.
(0)
(0)
What bothers me about this discussion is that the CSM's that have weighed in on this on either side are not fulfilling their duties as senior NCO's. Why do I say this - In reading the published story, it appears to me that certain facts are left out (I will cover this in just a moment); next, for those supporting the Commander's stated intent your supporting arguments lack weight and is not supported by regulations or normal SOP's; for those not supporting the Commander's intent, you are not stating the proper reasoning's behind your statements of opinion; and therefore also incorrect. For those individuals that are talking about field and garrison uniforms, most if not all of you do not know the difference between the two types of uniforms (there is a difference), by your own statements.
First: The missing element in the story and in the reasoning - Is the basic Class C uniform that this policy directed toward a Personal Clothing Bag item or is it an Organizational Clothing and Individual Equipment item?
Secondly: BE, KNOW, DO - Know is the key element; a number of individuals are either stating opinion or a portion of the factual regulatory criteria. Just because you cite a particular regulation, does not make your answer or statement correct, you need to step back and look at the whole picture. In this case I would recommend reviewing and studying the following three publications and any training safety publications that may apply: AR 670-1, DA Pam 670-1, and CTA 50-900 (and local/unit supplemental issue publications).
Third: Is this unit issued supplemental Class C uniforms as part of the TA-50 issue? Some units are, some are not. Ranger Battalions and SF Units do have Class C uniforms issued in this manner. At one point the 82nd had Class C uniforms issued in this manner and later they were not.
Bottom line - If the uniform proscribed for wear in the field is a Personal Clothing Bag item, the Commander is probably wrong; If the uniform proscribed for wear in the field is OCIE, then he is correct in having them not wear the items described in the article, however the Commander's reasoning is improper and definitely can lead to discontent in the lower enlisted ranks as exemplified here and in other social media.
First: The missing element in the story and in the reasoning - Is the basic Class C uniform that this policy directed toward a Personal Clothing Bag item or is it an Organizational Clothing and Individual Equipment item?
Secondly: BE, KNOW, DO - Know is the key element; a number of individuals are either stating opinion or a portion of the factual regulatory criteria. Just because you cite a particular regulation, does not make your answer or statement correct, you need to step back and look at the whole picture. In this case I would recommend reviewing and studying the following three publications and any training safety publications that may apply: AR 670-1, DA Pam 670-1, and CTA 50-900 (and local/unit supplemental issue publications).
Third: Is this unit issued supplemental Class C uniforms as part of the TA-50 issue? Some units are, some are not. Ranger Battalions and SF Units do have Class C uniforms issued in this manner. At one point the 82nd had Class C uniforms issued in this manner and later they were not.
Bottom line - If the uniform proscribed for wear in the field is a Personal Clothing Bag item, the Commander is probably wrong; If the uniform proscribed for wear in the field is OCIE, then he is correct in having them not wear the items described in the article, however the Commander's reasoning is improper and definitely can lead to discontent in the lower enlisted ranks as exemplified here and in other social media.
(2)
(0)
I think the reasoning behind it may be a little wonky but understandable to a certain degree. Although, I'm a believer that we shouldn't have anything on our uniform except name rank and US Army on our combat uniorm because its our COMBAT UNIFORM. We have a fantastic fancy dress uniform to put all of our bling on. If anyone wants to know what a Soldier's qualifications are look at is/her ERB or maybe, oh I don't know, talk to them? Maybe I should have joined the marines? I don't think hey have any strife over their uniforms....
(2)
(0)
It has pros and cons, personally I'd put more effort into kicking your ass if I knew you came from a special unit or had more in depth training than I did.
(2)
(0)
This came up the other day.
I can see "some" value in a sanitized uniform. By putting everyone on an equal footing, it removed the (perception) of a "been there, done that" attitude. Training is valuable for everyone, regardless of what schools you've been to, what deployments you've been on, and how many times you've completed the training.
In a sanitized uniform, all the "new guy" sees is other soldiers doing the training, either good or bad. He doesn't see the SF or Ranger tabbed guy blowing through it like it's cake, or the slick-sleeved SSG running into issues. He just sees Soldiers.
There's a time for having your resume on your chest and a time where it doesn't matter. Does it really matter during this particular phase of training?
I'm not knocking the wearing of badges, patches etc. But I can see the value of a sanitized uniform during a training evolution in the field.
I can see "some" value in a sanitized uniform. By putting everyone on an equal footing, it removed the (perception) of a "been there, done that" attitude. Training is valuable for everyone, regardless of what schools you've been to, what deployments you've been on, and how many times you've completed the training.
In a sanitized uniform, all the "new guy" sees is other soldiers doing the training, either good or bad. He doesn't see the SF or Ranger tabbed guy blowing through it like it's cake, or the slick-sleeved SSG running into issues. He just sees Soldiers.
There's a time for having your resume on your chest and a time where it doesn't matter. Does it really matter during this particular phase of training?
I'm not knocking the wearing of badges, patches etc. But I can see the value of a sanitized uniform during a training evolution in the field.
(2)
(0)
CPT Pedro Meza
SGT Aaron Kennedy, Jr Service members during training learn better by looking at the guy with experience next to him/her because it provides for small teaching moments. Think of your past.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
CPT Pedro Meza They absolutely do, but that doesn't mean that person needs a chest full of flair to designate it. Marines have "sanitized" uniforms, free of patches, badges (very few), and we don't have any issues. Leading by example doesn't require uniform items.
As you said, jr. service members learn better by looking at the guy next to them. I learned by watching my seniors. I couldn't tell you what schools or combat experience they had based on their cammies. They set the example by their ACTIONS, not their uniform, especially in a training environment.
As you said, jr. service members learn better by looking at the guy next to them. I learned by watching my seniors. I couldn't tell you what schools or combat experience they had based on their cammies. They set the example by their ACTIONS, not their uniform, especially in a training environment.
(0)
(0)
it doesn't seem any different that what we did in theater. No one wore special skill badges, CIB, CAB, when I was in Afghanistan. Name, rank, Unit patch. Period.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next