DOD hair policy changed, what do you say as leaders?

SFC A.M. Drake — Tue, 12 Aug 2014 20:54:55 -0400

Hospital Corpsman 2nd Class (SW/AW) Jessica Sims (Photo courtesy HM2 Jessica Sims)

By Andrew Tilghman
Staff writer
FILED UNDER
News
Uniforms
Dreadlocks, cornrows, twisted braids and other hairstyles popular among African American women will be more accepted across the military after a forcewide review of hairstyle policies prompted several changes, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said.

The three-month review came after a spate of complaints that service-level grooming policies were racially biased against black women who choose to wear their hair naturally curly rather than use heat or chemicals to straighten it.

“Each service reviewed its hairstyle policies to ensure standards are fair and respectful while also meeting military requirements,” Hagel wrote in a letter to lawmakers on Capitol Hill notifying them of the changes Monday. “These reviews were informed by a panel of military personnel of mixed demographics reflective of our diverse force.”

Three services — the Army, Navy and Air Force — have authorized additional hair styles, Hagel said.

The Marine Corps agreed to hold a special meeting of its uniform board later this year and is conducting a forcewide survey about whether the “twist” or “dreadlocks” styles should be permitted while in uniform.

The review concluded that the terms “matted and unkempt,” which the Army and Air Force used to describe some dreadlocks and braids, are “offensive” and were removed from service grooming policies, Hagel said.

For some women, the hair regulations were derailing otherwise promising careers. For example, Navy Hospital Corpsman 2nd Class Jessica Sims, a 12-year sailor, wears her hair in long, tightly twisted locks pulled into a bun when she’s in uniform.

No commanders ever complained about her hair, Sims said, until she was assigned as a teacher at the Navy’s boot camp, Recruit Training Command Great Lakes in Illinois. There, the 32-year-old sailor with an unblemished record was told to cut her hair or wear a wig, and when she refused, her commanders processed her for separation for “serious misconduct.”

Sims’s case was put on hold recently by Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, who asked for additional review.

Hagel’s policy made service-specific changes:

Army:
■ Increased the size of authorized braids, cornrows and twists and eliminated the spacing requirement.

■ Authorized temporary two-strand braids.

■ Authorized a ponytail during physical training.

■ Eliminated the terms “matted and unkempt” from grooming policy.

Navy
■ Authorized two-strand twists.

■ Authorized multiple braids to hang freely if they remain above the collar and encompass the whole head.

Air Force
■ Authorized two-strand twists, French twists and Dutch braids.

■ Changed the term “dreadlocks” to “locs.”

■ Eliminated the terms “matted and unkempt” from grooming policy.

Marine Corps
■ Will convene a special uniform board this summer to consider expanding authorized hair styles.

Sent from my iPad

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 12 at 2014 9:11 PM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 12 Aug 2014 21:11:34 -0400

Not that I have any skin in the game, but it's about d*mn time the knuckleheads who put the unfair standards in place got some sense knocked into 'em and did the right thing.

I think the example about the navy RTC teacher is especially telling. She wouldn't have been asked to be a teacher if she was a shipwreck.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Aug 13 at 2014 8:28 AM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Wed, 13 Aug 2014 08:28:59 -0400

Wow, If DoD had 3 months to review female hair style standards, imagine what it could do if it applied itself to more universal topics like say, war or veteran care.

Response by PO3 Guillermo Ortega made Aug 13 at 2014 12:06 PM

PO3 Guillermo Ortega — Wed, 13 Aug 2014 12:06:47 -0400

I am sure glad i got out before all this

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 13 at 2014 1:54 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 13 Aug 2014 13:54:05 -0400

Personally and professionally - I don't give a rat's a$$ whether you have twists or not. My only professional concern is: if you're assigned to a ship - can you don the OBA/SCBA mask, get a solid seal and put on the rest of the firefighting gear without special dispensation from the militant whiners. If you can get into your firefighting gear, go down into the deep, dark, nasty overheated air (1500 degrees+) without (a) your shoes, socks, underwear, bra melting to your skin (b) your hair catching on fire because you have to have "grease" to pack it down in order to be in regs (c) your nails cutting up/through the gloves - then I don't care what your hair is braided into. On my watch, that's all that matters.

If I'm in the engineroom - my world gone to $hit, fuel fires roaring and I'm hiding in the bilge, soaked in fuel/AFFF, breathing through an eebd or air system - goddammit all I want to hear is that Halon system going off, the AFFF pump growling and howling, the remotely controlled valves shutting everything in my space to OFF and the 1MC telling the firefighting teams to enter the space to get me the hell out. I don't care if you're braided or bald - can you do the job to save me, my shipmates and my ship?

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 13 at 2014 3:11 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 13 Aug 2014 15:11:13 -0400

I am disappointed in the fact that we have now created an acknowledged separation of standards based on race. A precedence has been set. If you don't like a standard and want it changed, your race may be taken into consideration. This is a very slippery slope.

I don't understand why and how the argument was gravitating towards chemical hair care products as the basis for change. NOWHERE does it say in 670-1 that chemical usage to comply is mandatory, or even recommended. I fail to see how "matted and unkempt" is "offensive". I fail to see how the size of authorized braids is an issue, or the spacing between.

The reg allows for short hairstyles for female hair to be as short as 1/4". If the hair being natural is a real concern, why is it so wrong to have the hair cut short enough to comply with length and bulk standards and avoid hair products at the same time?

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 13 at 2014 4:52 PM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 13 Aug 2014 16:52:25 -0400

I think that the review was somewhat unnecessary. While I agree that it is good to have options for soldiers and Sailors to wear their hair without having to resort to harsh chemicals, some of the hairstyles mentioned make it nearly impossible for women to conform to the "bulk" specifications listed in the regs, as there is too much added hair to make their bun small enough. And in some cases the bulk of the hair precludes satisfactory wear of the prescribed cover. My opinion is that if one is going to wear the newly approved styles, effort should be made so that they can wear their cover properly and conform to the regs for pinning it up properly.

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Aug 13 at 2014 5:04 PM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Wed, 13 Aug 2014 17:04:17 -0400

I want to know why dreadlocks, cornrows, twisted braids and other hairstyles popular among African American are deemed as unprofessional? I am not looking for a scientific answer or because it violates most of the publics personal set of values and norms. There needs to be a reason why those hair cuts are deemed unprofessional. Anyway who wants to seriously wants to defend the ruling should write a report along with documented studies that enter connect racial and culture boundaries that deems these hair styles as unprofessional and inappropriate. I don't think those hair styles are unprofessional. Can the Soldier still put on her ACH and her gas mask? I am not trying to "race bait" like Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson or Oprah but the majority of the SMs who have these hair styles are African-American women.

Response by SSG Adrian Ducker made Aug 13 at 2014 5:52 PM

SSG Adrian Ducker — Wed, 13 Aug 2014 17:52:26 -0400

I welcome the decision to allow women to have more choices for their hair. Whoever made the decision to ban those hairstyles in the first place must not have been familiar with how difficult it would make it for some women of color to meet the standards without cutting their hair or using chemicals.

Also, what some people who kept preaching "deal with it or get out" seemed to let go over their head is with the public perception is reality. The perception civilians were getting with the new standards was that Army leaders were racist against black women.

Forget having personal issues with those hairstyles, imagine how damaging it would be to the Army image for the public to think the top Army leaders are racist and think about how much that would damage our efforts to recruit the brightest young men and women.

Response by MAJ Jim Woods made Aug 13 at 2014 6:06 PM

MAJ Jim Woods — Wed, 13 Aug 2014 18:06:18 -0400

Who you callin' a Hippie? LOL

It is a Volunteer Military. We, the Military, should set the Standard. If you don't like the rules, don't join. That includes, Hair, Rolled Sleeves (I can't figure that one out when in Garrison), Tattoos (they allowed it to start and should have the guts to stand by their decision), Footwear, Uniforms, etc. Oh Yeah, tattoos-many Law Enforcement Agencies tell their new hires that if they have tattoos on the forearm, just wear a Long Sleeve Uniform Shirt while on duty (wow, that was simple).

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 13 at 2014 6:25 PM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 13 Aug 2014 18:25:18 -0400

It was a bad policy, but an even worse response. Nobody gets booted from the service because they have an unsat haircut. This shipwreck chose to put her hairstyle before her career.

Think about that. She's protesting about a haircut... and was willing to disobey an order over it.

She deserves to get NJP and booted out - and not just with an admin sep.

Response by COL Randall C. made Aug 13 at 2014 9:53 PM

COL Randall C. — Wed, 13 Aug 2014 21:53:18 -0400

LTC Private RallyPoint Member, completely disagree with your twisting of COL Private RallyPoint Member's intent. As you can tell from the entire post, there was nothing about civilian oversight of the military mentioned; it was entirely about an external agency applying their view of what is 'supposed to be' to an organization they likely have no real understanding of except as an outsider looking in. BTW, it wasn't Congressional intervention that was instrumental in overcoming racial discrimination - it was WWII that started it and the Korean War that finished it. Presidents Truman and Roosevelt did pass EOs affecting segregation/integration in the military, but Congress didn't really do anything during that timeframe that affected the military.

I'm very much in line with PO1 Private RallyPoint Member's comments - I could care less what your style of hair and such are as long as you can meet mission requirements and (my add, not his) present a professional appearance. Personally, I don't have an issue regarding the twists, braiding or cornrows, but I draw the line at the "Lady Godiva" look. If you can't fit your hairstyle (WHATEVER it happens to be) under headgear when PROPERLY worn, then you have to change your standards, not the other way around (no 'mushroom' berets, patrol caps that are 3" above your skull, etc).

CPT Private RallyPoint Member is correct. Like it or not, the military is a larger collective that the individual must adapt to. Yes, individual freedoms are encouraged and protected, BUT they must fit within the norms of that larger collective. If your desire for individuality overrides your ability to fit within the organizational norms, there's the door.

The most important freedoms for this country are the freedom of religion and speech, yet the way you practice both of those freedoms are restricted to some degree within the military. We are all very aware of the limitations of what/when/where we can say things and religious accommodations (especially for appearance and religious apparel) are granted unless they have an adverse impact on readiness, unit cohesion, or good order and discipline, but limitations do exist. Even for religious practices, grooming and appearance has been upheld as being an essential part of unit cohesion. If this is true of one of our most important freedoms, how can a hairstyle that isn't tied to a person's fundamental belief, but rather a stylistic choice, treated differently?

Were the prohibitions in AR 670-1 against some of the 'natural look' hairstyles racist (specifically the dreadlocks, cornrows, and braids)? I have no idea. I freely acknowledge that the majority of individuals with those hairstyles are African-American, but I defer if it is 'racist' or if it was 'not in line with the organizational norms' to the opinion of the experts ... and those opinions (at least in the Army) came from a panel/focus group of over 200 female soldiers that was led by a female African-American sergeant major.

I'm just glad the 'lady Godiva' look is still out (although, somehow you seem to pull it off SSG V. Michelle Woods)

Response by CW3 Clayton C. made Aug 14 at 2014 6:34 AM

CW3 Clayton C. — Thu, 14 Aug 2014 06:34:16 -0400

Does your additionally authorized hair style detract from your military appearance or interfere with you getting your job done? No? Then I don't care. Female EOD Team Leaders with or without long hair are still successfully putting on the bomb suit and completing the mission. I agree with MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca, we have bigger fish to fry than hair styles. But now that we have this out of the way, for the Army at least, let's move on to some more pressing issues.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 14 at 2014 7:40 AM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 14 Aug 2014 07:40:12 -0400

I say that the policy wasn't reviewed enough. It is a fact that black hair is different, and the original new policy left black females with only options that took an inordinate amount of time to do, or options that left harsh chemicals in their hair and would be expensive.

Some of the pictured hair styles that used to be against the regs were NOT unprofessional, and could easily be worn with the PC or with the promask. It's just some people getting butthurt because anytime anyone asks for any kind of accommodation, whether reasonable or not, the cultural response is "NO, suck it up."

Response by SFC William Swartz Jr made Aug 14 at 2014 8:11 AM

SFC William Swartz Jr — Thu, 14 Aug 2014 08:11:38 -0400

To me it was another case of the DoD/Army being lambasted and used as a social experiment and instead of being able to set our own damned standards being kowtowed into changing standards for the sake of a few lazy asses that felt that they were singled out, even after a multi-ethnic, multi-sex panel set those standards. Glad to be retired at this point!

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Aug 14 at 2014 9:01 AM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Thu, 14 Aug 2014 09:01:11 -0400

This is probably not going to be a popular opinion, but hair goes. Regardless of the perceived racial overtones, at what point does one's hair style preference override one's job as a SM - AC, NG or reserve? Women like to wear a variety of hairstyles, some involving lengthy and volumous hair. There comes a point where maintaining that hair is going to have an effect on one's service obligations - correctly wearing head gear or a pro-mask, or other tasks where hair may get in one's eyes if it becomes loose. Men's hair standards (ignoring SPECOPS) address these issues and there's really not a lot of leeway. IMHO DoD Has spent WAY too much time on this. If a female SMs hair style does not interfere with their duties & obligations then leave it alone. If it does then it needs to be addressed. If a female SMs hair does not allow proper wear of headgear or pro-mask or has to routinely keep getting pulled back or adjusted because it is coming loose and interfering with their field of vision, then the situation needs to be corrected and the hair needs to be cut.

Response by PFC Zachary West made Aug 14 at 2014 9:07 AM

PFC Zachary West — Thu, 14 Aug 2014 09:07:35 -0400

I want to know if the hairstyles are popular with the black women are the white females going to get frowned upon for getting the same hairstyle as a black woman will there be more racial tensions umong them

Response by PFC Zachary West made Aug 14 at 2014 9:21 AM

PFC Zachary West — Thu, 14 Aug 2014 09:21:00 -0400

I dont think it should be changed at all the currrent styles are fine for both white and black women my personal opinion is if you have a job and there is a dress code you follow it until you get home then wear whatever you want to. As far as it being unfair no no its not unfair the military has rules and we shouldnt change them because the fashion is different now if we did thar we might as well walk around in uniform sagging our pants wearing our pc backwords screaming yolo. Because in media that is what it show everyone should be doing its redicullious we need to focus on bigger issues not how you should be able to wear your hair.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 14 at 2014 9:34 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 14 Aug 2014 09:34:21 -0400

When I first came into the Military, I did my due diligence. I studied the regulations to ensure that I was within standards. I can recall walking from the barracks to my company building wearing sunglasses. My BDUs (yes, BDUs) were pressed, crisp et al and my boots were mirrors. A SSG stopped young PFC Houde and told me that the sunglasses I was wearing at the time were out of regulations. Very tactfully, I asked why so. His response was that the lenses were mirrored. Well, me, being the knowledgeable young PFC I was told that NCO that there was nothing in AR 670-1 that said anything to that effect. Of course, chaos ensued and I was made to show him. This was pre-smartphone days so he followed me to my unit, I asked my PSG if we could look up AR 670-1 and I proved it to him.

The moral of that story was I used to be the kind of Soldier that knew the regulation so well that I could point out deficiencies wherever I went. The "changes" that have come about since 2005 when the aforementioned incident occurred are either replacing a since obsolete uniform with a more recent one or a simple clarification made from higher because they are trying to eliminate the grey area. Senior leadership are NOT enforcing the standard as they ought to be, which makes things difficult for young Sergeants and Staff Sergeants to. How are we going to tell PV2 Joe Snuffy "you cannot wear those Nike boots because they are unauthorized" when the CSM is walking around in them? How can we tell SPC Jane Doe that she is not allowed to wear that much makeup when SFC Crystal Scott is walking around with pink nail polish on?

Our hands are being tied because senior leadership is unwilling to uphold the standard, thus Big Army is refining these regulations to remove the "but." If you are one of those senior leaders that refuse to allow the SFCs, 1LTs and such to walk around out of uniform, I want to thank you.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 14 at 2014 9:43 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 14 Aug 2014 09:43:42 -0400

As a female in the Army, I feel as though it is a lot harder for those with ethnic hair to keep it under control. But, it does tend to interfere with the uniform if the hair is bulky, un kept etc. I go back and forth with myself over this.

I am coming to the conclusion that if it does not interfere with the wear of the patrol cap, mask, kevlar, what have you. Then I dont care. But, it should be neat. I see too many females where they cant wear their cover properly because their hair is so top heavy with dreads, braids what have you - It just sits on the top of their head. We've all seen it.

Now, I do not have ethnic hair so I do not know how expensive it is, or the time it takes to manage all those beautiful locks. I do not feel as though women with ethnic hair should have special treatment and dont need to offer special treatment. It still needs to be neat. If your hair cannot be kept neat, and professional looking then you may want to reconsider your hair choices.

This is the Army, we have standards. If you feel as though the standards are infringing on your beauty rights, then I dont know what to tell you. Too bad? Make a decision on how to wear your hair differently? Im sorry it may cost more?

I have no idea...

Response by TSgt Robert Dean made Aug 14 at 2014 5:55 PM

TSgt Robert Dean — Thu, 14 Aug 2014 17:55:14 -0400

The military is not about I, it is about we!!! Keeping standards of uniform, haircut, shaving and the like are what makes us brothers in the long run. Each no different than the other and following the same rules. Once you start bending rules to fit political correctness you will eventually destroy part of the bond that kept us all as part of a brotherhood. When are the leaders of the pack (JCS) going to grow a pair and start making a military the group of "brothers" it was always before we got to this BS. Sorry, but I love the brotherhood and knew I could always count on the man/woman next to me.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 14 at 2014 11:43 PM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 14 Aug 2014 23:43:44 -0400

The ar 670-1 before the changes was not enforced. If I recall correctly faddish hair styles where not authorized with it. We are the Army not club med. Standards need to be enforced whether a hair style or a uniform standard.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 15 at 2014 5:41 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 15 Aug 2014 17:41:12 -0400

Stop the damn crying about rules. It is a Volunteer Military. The Military should set the Standard and so should you. If you don't like the rules, don't join. Just because you was brought with a soft hand and no type standards don't cry when standards are put out you it hurts your feelings. Get over and drive on or get the hell out.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 15 at 2014 7:15 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 15 Aug 2014 19:15:43 -0400

Why is this even being debated? What's wrong with keeping thing basic? How about professional and not fadish.

Response by SSgt John Carter made Aug 15 at 2014 8:54 PM

SSgt John Carter — Fri, 15 Aug 2014 20:54:26 -0400

But it's OK for a balding 40's guy in a branch of the service whose regs say no hair longer than 2 1/4 inch to have a comb-over where the hair covering the bald spot is 7-8 inches long. Ever seen an uncombed comb-over during pt? Looks disgusting. Yup, I see all of the ultra military posts here, but what looks like a regulation based on race and gender surely is. In a career in the military, I never seen anyone written up for their 7-8 inch combover that is out of regs in EVERY single branch. It looks like what it is PRIVILEGE.

Response by CPT Mike M. made Aug 16 at 2014 10:24 AM

CPT Mike M. — Sat, 16 Aug 2014 10:24:38 -0400

It's complete BS and falls under the category of faddish haircuts to which males and females of any ethnicity should be prevented from having.

Response by CMDCM Gene Treants made Aug 16 at 2014 4:07 PM

CMDCM Gene Treants — Sat, 16 Aug 2014 16:07:36 -0400

Once again we are at the point of arguing haircuts and if the hair of individuals is worth the trouble of obeying or disobeying orders. I have to believe that as we all volunteered to join the Armed Forces and KNEW what we were getting into that HAIR was not an issue for any of us at the time we joined. IF we had all, men and women been told HIGH and TIGHT was the Standard, would any of us NOT have joined? Truthfully ladies would that have kept you out of the branch you chose? Is your hair length the thing that keeps you in the service today?

There is a Navy LT on this thread who seems to be of the opinion that we should kick out a Sailor because she wants to keep her hair in corn rows. A veteran PO who believes that this same Sailor should be allowed to disobey orders because the orders to be within standards seem racist. Both sides cannot meet and see common ground.

I believe that The SecDef stepped in where no need existed. He could have simply asked the services to do what the Marines are doing and review their policies. Either we are a Volunteer Force and can bend our standards to comply to society or we are so rigid that we must cease to exist as military. Do the standards exist to allow our people to survive in a combat environment OR are they hangovers from the British Forces of the 19th Century?

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 17 at 2014 5:10 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 17 Aug 2014 05:10:37 -0400

This is a step in the right direction, now if Chuck Hagel will address the sexist hair policies of all the services that play favorites based on sex we could really have something here. I have male soldiers that wish to have long hair yet they are prohibited because of their gender while females have no such limitations. So much for equality for all service members.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 17 at 2014 8:06 AM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 17 Aug 2014 08:06:54 -0400

I say and do what I what I was told since I joined. Show up to work on time with a clean haircut/shave and in the right uniform. Do this and you will go far in my military.
That is all.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 17 at 2014 8:19 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 17 Aug 2014 08:19:19 -0400

One can only assume that the panel of senior leaders (to include African American female senior NCO's) that assisted with making this new policy are feeling like they wasted their time and that their professional opinion does not matter.

Response by SSG Jeffery Haynes made Aug 17 at 2014 9:46 AM

SSG Jeffery Haynes — Sun, 17 Aug 2014 09:46:15 -0400

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the Soldier that conforms to the standard, not the standard conforming to the Soldier? This is ridiculous, IMO.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 17 at 2014 12:31 PM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 17 Aug 2014 12:31:36 -0400

Flat tops for everyone and than no question one standard for all.

Response by Cpl Matthew Brasel made Aug 17 at 2014 4:02 PM

Cpl Matthew Brasel — Sun, 17 Aug 2014 16:02:28 -0400

Only once have I seen someone complain that they were being racially targeted about their hair. When I was in Afghanistan I was part of a small group of Marines sent to assist the Army with their intelligence efforts in the area. One of the Soldiers complained that she was being racially targeted because of her hair as she was black. When I asked her what was going on she went on to say that her leadership told her to cut her hair shorter as her growing fro-like haircut kept her from wearing her helmet properly. She said that her helmet was too uncomfortable to wear and it was too uncomfortable to style her hair in a way that would allow her to get a proper fit for her helmet.
Military hairstyles are here for better reasons than making everyone look white. They are here to give a professional and clean look to service members. Requiring service members to look professional isn't racist.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 18 at 2014 9:37 AM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 18 Aug 2014 09:37:30 -0400

Just more distracting minutia detracting from larger and more critical issues. Plus, what ever happened to K.I.S.S.? Just another long set of policy which could be completely culled rather than made more complex.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 19 at 2014 4:33 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 19 Aug 2014 16:33:11 -0400

I'm a Soldier of color with natural hair and have NO problem with being in compliance with the Reg. Yes I love to wear my braids and twist but they are professional at all times. If you hair is matted I will let you know, being natural is no excuse. A lot of females complain about the regulation but yet you didn't comply before the changes. Most of us come to work looking like we're going to the club not work. The eyelashes and fingernail are out of control even now and the regulation has changed. It's the senior NCO's that are still violating the regulation and expect the Soldiers to follow the rules. We are no longer setting the standard. You join the Army and it comes with rules and regulation if you don't like it go OCS(On city streets) that's right get out!!! We always go with culture and religion when it comes to the military you are told the rules when you sign if you had a problem then that was the time to back out. Some will say they were not told, ok but when you were you still had the same choice. Why stay this long if it's against your culture or religion? If we didn't push the envelope so much this wouldn't have been an issue, think about that. Now with the tattoos we should have never changed the rules and wouldn't have had the problems we have now. BLUF when in this uniform you should look professional at all times.

Response by SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 19 at 2014 5:24 PM

SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 19 Aug 2014 17:24:37 -0400

I'll add my two cents as someone actually affected by the changes...

While I admit that I was shocked at the way the regs initially were published (without consideration outside of a small group of individuals it seemed), I joined the military because I believed in having that core group of individuals who are held to a higher standard. The hairstyles were getting quite a bit out of hand (bulk-, color-, design- and product-wise) and as such, a radical change was made. Yes, it did cut out some of the things that can be done with the hair but there are endless possibilities that were within the established limits (Google is your best friend). The adjustments that have been made give a little bit of leniency to what was pushed out by the services but the problem is that we have people in the military who seem to have forgotten the oath that they took upon joining. You stated that you would obey orders without the caveat of "when I feel like it." There are a number of forums for airing grievances with orders/policy if you feel that it is not in keeping with good order and discipline or that it is just someone's interpretation of a reg versus it's actual intent but it seems the members would rather argue or throw a tantrum instead of dealing with the situation like a professional. Very simply... Know you regs, abide by them, and if you feel something is not appropriate, request that it be reviewed AND FOLLOW UP!

Response by Sgt Todd Hinkle made Aug 20 at 2014 1:21 PM

Sgt Todd Hinkle — Wed, 20 Aug 2014 13:21:23 -0400

What a sad thing to read about. You know it's all going down hill when active duty service members can cry racism over military regulations that have been in place for years. This world of political correctness is why we as a nation are starting to be viewed as weak. Not very long ago we were the biggest bad as*** on the planet. Now we are seen as a bunch of undisciplined, whiney, self entitled bitc***. I would have told each and everyone of those clowns that complained, "If you don't like the regulations you should not have signed up." I guarantee that these regs (the hair style sections at least) were all written before any of these people enlisted or were commissioned. What a disgrace they are.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 20 at 2014 1:30 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 20 Aug 2014 13:30:55 -0400

I'm still trying to put my finger on when the term "unkempt" became a racial term.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 21 at 2014 2:34 PM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 21 Aug 2014 14:34:11 -0400

You may have lost the battle, HM2, but you won the war for a whole lot of african american females going forward. If it wasn't for you taking a stand, the changes granted a few weeks ago may not have ever happened. Bravo Zulu, Shipmate..... even if the dumb-tards at RTC and in high places don't think so.

Military politics. *shakes head*

Response by Sgt Todd Hinkle made Aug 22 at 2014 12:53 PM

Sgt Todd Hinkle — Fri, 22 Aug 2014 12:53:32 -0400

If dreads, cornrows, twisted braids will be acceptable for African American women then they should be acceptable for women of all races. Allowing one race to get away with something and not another race in the military is just asking for problems. I'm fine with them changing the standards for female hairstyles, so long as it does not impede them in wearing any type of ppe or safety equipment required for mission accomplishment. However I have to wonder what will happen if a white female decides to show up in uniform with corn rows.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 1 at 2014 8:43 PM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 01 Sep 2014 20:43:12 -0400

If she didn't like the standard, then she should have cut her hair, started trying to get the change made, then if she won her fight, grow it back out. For most of us (sorry old men and women) hair grows back fairly quickly if it gets messed up. With her being in a position to give the initial impression of how the navy runs to young sailors, she should have known that she would be subjected to more scrutiny when to comes to following things such as uniform and grooming regulations and standards. There many paths that Sailors/Soldiers/Marines/Airmen/ can take to begin the process of getting something changed. I am sure that she was of a high enough intelligence level to know how to use the paths, even if she did not have the support of her CoC. While I think this issue could have been solved at a much lower level, she decided she wanted to fight to the death (per se) and lost her fight. Hopefully she will learn that sometimes in life you have to do something that you don't agree with for the time being to help yourself get to the desired out come.