Posted on Aug 6, 2014
Is there such thing as interpreting regulations?
44.2K
61
60
5
5
0
Today I had a senior noncommissioned officer try to make an on the spot correction on my about my glasses. Being prepared for said situation because if past encounters with other members my unit I have the chapter of AR 670-1 with me. When I read that chapter to this NCO not even in my unit he responded with this " how I interpret 670-1 is that you can't wear those so take them off". My question/ theory is this. If it's an Army regulation and it's on paper not here say then there should be no interpreting needed, right?
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 17
When Army regulations are written and approved there is no such thing as interpretation. It was written in black and white no grey area and no way to misunderstand its intent. The problem is with a radically increasing need for attention to polictical correctness the new generation finds itself lost without a further read or overinterpretation to the original message or direction being desired of the military. Your eyewear in your photo to me looks unsat for the regulation.. Flat black frames with no logos and no reflective lenses is the basic regulation here i have seen the new reg on it but this is what is says verbatim "3–10. Eyeglasses, sunglasses, and contact lenses Note: This paragraph is punitive with regard to Soldiers. Violation by Soldiers may result in adverse administrative
action and/or charges under the provisions of the UCMJ.
a. Eyeglasses and sunglasses.
(1) Conservative civilian prescription eyeglasses are authorized for wear with all uniforms.
(2) Conservative prescription and nonprescription sunglasses are authorized for wear when in a garrison environment, except while indoors. Individuals who are required by medical authority to wear sunglasses for medical reasons, AR 670–1 • 31 March 2014 15 other than refractive mirrror, may wear them, except when health or safety considerations apply. Commanders may authorize sunglasses in formations or field environments, as appropriate.
(3) Eyeglasses or sunglasses that are trendy or have lenses or frames with conspicuous initials, designs, or other adornments are not authorized for wear. Soldiers may not wear lenses with extreme or trendy colors, which include, but are not limited to, red, yellow, blue, purple, bright green, or orange. Lens colors must be traditional gray, brown, or dark green shades. Personnel will not wear lenses or frames that are so large or so small that they detract from the appearance of the uniform. Personnel will not attach chains or ribbons to eyeglasses. Eyeglass restraints (to include bands) are authorized when required for safety purposes. Personnel will not hang eyeglasses or eyeglass cases on the uniform and may not let glasses hang from eyeglass restraints down the front of the uniform. Glasses may not be worn on top of the head at any time.
(4) Soldiers are authorized to wear ballistic spectacle eye protection issued by the Army, including lens colors or logos that do not comply with paragraph 3–10a(3), above, in garrison or field environments unless otherwise directed
by their chain of command. See the Army Combat Readiness Center for a list of currently approved protective eyewear. b. Restrictions on contact lenses. Tinted or colored contact lenses are not authorized for wear with the uniform. The
only exception is for opaque lenses that are prescribed medically for eye injuries. Clear lenses that have designs on them that change the contour of the iris are not authorized for wear with the uniform. Contact lenses may be restricted
by the commander for safety or mission requirements."
If your looking for fancy smancy authorized ballistic eyepro that is 670-1 compliant all service members can utilize the http://www.usstandardissue.com apply for an account and purchase through that website.
Again solely based on your photo your eyewear is not authroized for wear that presents a professional appearance and represents the military.
action and/or charges under the provisions of the UCMJ.
a. Eyeglasses and sunglasses.
(1) Conservative civilian prescription eyeglasses are authorized for wear with all uniforms.
(2) Conservative prescription and nonprescription sunglasses are authorized for wear when in a garrison environment, except while indoors. Individuals who are required by medical authority to wear sunglasses for medical reasons, AR 670–1 • 31 March 2014 15 other than refractive mirrror, may wear them, except when health or safety considerations apply. Commanders may authorize sunglasses in formations or field environments, as appropriate.
(3) Eyeglasses or sunglasses that are trendy or have lenses or frames with conspicuous initials, designs, or other adornments are not authorized for wear. Soldiers may not wear lenses with extreme or trendy colors, which include, but are not limited to, red, yellow, blue, purple, bright green, or orange. Lens colors must be traditional gray, brown, or dark green shades. Personnel will not wear lenses or frames that are so large or so small that they detract from the appearance of the uniform. Personnel will not attach chains or ribbons to eyeglasses. Eyeglass restraints (to include bands) are authorized when required for safety purposes. Personnel will not hang eyeglasses or eyeglass cases on the uniform and may not let glasses hang from eyeglass restraints down the front of the uniform. Glasses may not be worn on top of the head at any time.
(4) Soldiers are authorized to wear ballistic spectacle eye protection issued by the Army, including lens colors or logos that do not comply with paragraph 3–10a(3), above, in garrison or field environments unless otherwise directed
by their chain of command. See the Army Combat Readiness Center for a list of currently approved protective eyewear. b. Restrictions on contact lenses. Tinted or colored contact lenses are not authorized for wear with the uniform. The
only exception is for opaque lenses that are prescribed medically for eye injuries. Clear lenses that have designs on them that change the contour of the iris are not authorized for wear with the uniform. Contact lenses may be restricted
by the commander for safety or mission requirements."
If your looking for fancy smancy authorized ballistic eyepro that is 670-1 compliant all service members can utilize the http://www.usstandardissue.com apply for an account and purchase through that website.
Again solely based on your photo your eyewear is not authroized for wear that presents a professional appearance and represents the military.

Oakley Military & Government Sales
Infinite Hero’s pledge to those who have risked their lives is to reward their sacrifice and bravery with support that articulates our gratitude.
(0)
(0)
LtCol Robert Quinter
Have to disagree on your initial statement SSgt Christopher G. Most regulations, especially uniform or clothing regs must have room for interpretation. Even the reg you cited has wording that opens it to interpretation. "Conservative", "traditional", "trendy", "so large or small that they detract from the appearance of the uniform", are all subject to interpretation. Regs can not be all encompassing and must leave room for interpretation. as soon as you write a reg that you feel is all encompassing, some you lad is going to come up with an off the wall accessory that is not specifically forbidden.
I agree with your interpretation that the glasses in the photo do not comply with the regulation.
I agree with your interpretation that the glasses in the photo do not comply with the regulation.
(2)
(0)
MSG Thomas Currie
SSG (Join to see): "When Army regulations are written and approved there is no such thing as interpretation. It was written in black and white no grey area and no way to misunderstand its intent."
If you actually believe that nonsense, you have never read most Army Regulations.
Let's take an easy one -- the same one this thread is about -- AR 670-1 Paragraph 3-10 specifically requires glasses to be "Conservative" and NOT be "trendy or have lenses or frames with conspicuous initials, designs, or other adornments" -- words like conservative, trendy, and conspicuous all require interpretation.
If you actually believe that nonsense, you have never read most Army Regulations.
Let's take an easy one -- the same one this thread is about -- AR 670-1 Paragraph 3-10 specifically requires glasses to be "Conservative" and NOT be "trendy or have lenses or frames with conspicuous initials, designs, or other adornments" -- words like conservative, trendy, and conspicuous all require interpretation.
(0)
(0)
CSM (Join to see) , I think this sends the wrong message. To me it's saying if I outrank you I can enforce certain things. In our brigade we have a problem with some leaders. I know part of it is lack of knowledge, respect, and simply put pride. So when the two SFCs made that correction .....one I know, the other one I don't ...was it based on their knowledge or just a pet peeve? With the one I know, it wasn't based on knowledge. Either way if they had explained their reason....it would been better than just "take them off because I said so." I understand at times we may not have time, but in this instance to improve a Soldier's understanding of a regulation or task I think time should have been made. I believe if you improve yourself, you improve your ability to lead. If you improve your Soldiers you improve the unit. When you improve your LEADERS you will improve the ARMY. In my mind both SFCs missed an opportunity to improve a SGT a LEADER, by not explaining their reason for the correction 1SG.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
I agree with you taking the Soldier aside later to explain but if we explained our intent all the time we would never get anything done I spent less than 10min on google and found it on the apd site for pubs the reg is clear and his eyepro is not authorized. No leader is an SME on everything but if time didnt allow itself for explanation later the time should have been taken to clearly outline the Soldier has no right to question a leader nor his ability to uphold standards. Furthermore if the NCO in question was wrong he/she accepts responsibility for everything they say, do, and enforce regardless of pat on the back or disciplinary action for being to harsh.
(0)
(0)
SSG Joaquin Goicoechea I got it about the changes to AR 670-1 about hair, but I don't think this is the same since they aren't changing the regulation on eyewear. I did see the PEO page. SGT Perkins is my NCO, I told him to carry the regulation on him because the day before a 2LT and a SFC were giving him a hard time about it. If I have a question about something I research then act....I don't enforce pet peeves. If the leaders who were making these on the spot corrections educated SGT Perkins .....like you just did with me....this discussion on Rally Point would have never happened. I enforce no profanity ...it's any Army policy...but when I do that I tell the Soldier where it comes from and why it is important to be professional no matter WHERE you are or what your rank is. Thanks for the Rally Point lesson....I honestly never knew how to use the discussion "stuff".
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
SSG Joaquin Goicoechea We'll Brother Goicoechea I think The Army needs more NCOs like you. My mindset is about teaching......the same as was done to me. Sometimes it was with push-ups, other times it was with making me look up regulations. Either way I learned what to do, but more importantly HOW TO DO AND HOW TO THINK. Stay professional and continue to grow!
(0)
(0)
That's a tricky one. Any regulation in any branch is there with a clear cut answer to anyone's questions "Is this authorized?" Well let's look it up in the MCO or MARADMIN or Army Order or what have you. When I deployed I wore an orange-faced Doxa dive watch and one of my corporals told me it was not authorized. Now this guy didn't like me and we didn't get along and he had a reputation as being a hypocrite and a jerk so I looked up the regulation myself and found that while he may be a disagreeable git, he was right; my watch, as per Marine Corps Order, was not authorized for wear with the uniform (it was silver and flashy).
The regulations are clear, so there should be no such thing as 'interpretation'. If there was, anyone could put their own caveat on an order and say 'Well I interpreted it as this so it doesn't matter what you say'. Anyone who enforces orders on their own interpretation is on a power trip and just likes being in charge and telling people what to do. If I were you, I would just report it up the chain of command, or even ask your immediate superior about it, and how he/she would have handled it. If this guy continues to be a problem then have someone in your chain of command deal with him. I have had to deal with that a few times before with haircuts while on deployment; I'm a lance corporal with a medium fade haircut that I got about a week prior and the first sergeant and captain from the infantry unit on our FOB told us that we were f***ed up and needed haircuts (high and tights, to be exact). The Marine Corps Order on hygiene and personal appearance states that you will have a haircut at least (AT LEAST) once every pay period, which is once every 15 days. Also, the order states that your hair has to be at the minimum a medium fade (low fades are not authorized in the Corps) starting at a zero and then going up to no more than 3 inches of hair on top of your head. This captain proceeded to go after my sergeant, saying "Are you in charge of that lance corporal with the crazy hair?" (Mind you, I worked on a flight line, and my hair was sticking up from rotor wash from helicopters) and when he said yes sir I am the captain said "Your marines need haircuts they're being unprofessional and nasty his hair is too long" and the sergeant quoted the Marine Corps order and said "Sir, I measured his hair, its two and a quarter inch on top so it's within regulation" and he was livid.
Basically those guys were interpreting the order as they saw fit, and that is not how you're supposed to do it. They only got away with it in the infantry because nobody called them out on it.
If anyone tries things like that with you, my advice is to just ask your chain about it. That's the best you can do. Just remove the glasses and when the guy leaves put them back on and carry on with your day.
The regulations are clear, so there should be no such thing as 'interpretation'. If there was, anyone could put their own caveat on an order and say 'Well I interpreted it as this so it doesn't matter what you say'. Anyone who enforces orders on their own interpretation is on a power trip and just likes being in charge and telling people what to do. If I were you, I would just report it up the chain of command, or even ask your immediate superior about it, and how he/she would have handled it. If this guy continues to be a problem then have someone in your chain of command deal with him. I have had to deal with that a few times before with haircuts while on deployment; I'm a lance corporal with a medium fade haircut that I got about a week prior and the first sergeant and captain from the infantry unit on our FOB told us that we were f***ed up and needed haircuts (high and tights, to be exact). The Marine Corps Order on hygiene and personal appearance states that you will have a haircut at least (AT LEAST) once every pay period, which is once every 15 days. Also, the order states that your hair has to be at the minimum a medium fade (low fades are not authorized in the Corps) starting at a zero and then going up to no more than 3 inches of hair on top of your head. This captain proceeded to go after my sergeant, saying "Are you in charge of that lance corporal with the crazy hair?" (Mind you, I worked on a flight line, and my hair was sticking up from rotor wash from helicopters) and when he said yes sir I am the captain said "Your marines need haircuts they're being unprofessional and nasty his hair is too long" and the sergeant quoted the Marine Corps order and said "Sir, I measured his hair, its two and a quarter inch on top so it's within regulation" and he was livid.
Basically those guys were interpreting the order as they saw fit, and that is not how you're supposed to do it. They only got away with it in the infantry because nobody called them out on it.
If anyone tries things like that with you, my advice is to just ask your chain about it. That's the best you can do. Just remove the glasses and when the guy leaves put them back on and carry on with your day.
(0)
(0)
They do seem to stand out. Can you state the make and model of the eye protection. Also, were they issued to you? SSG (Join to see)
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
It seems they are not approved eye wear. They are not on the list. The only ESS eyepro authorized are the Crossbows. Were they issued. Also, just because your leadership have not corrected you on them doesn't mean they are approved eyewear.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Sometimes even RFI issues are not authorized been on too many deployments already to argue this point just because it was issued doesnt make it authorized. Otherwise everyone would be running around with the IBA shirts on and seatbelt knives hanging from their belt loops.
(0)
(0)
TSgt (Join to see)
Was he in your branch of the military? I know some of our regs are different, but for the airforce our glasses frames must be black silver or gold, cannot have reflective lenses.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next