New 670-1 update Regulating off duty civilian attire? Clean shaved appearance on leave? Do you believe the grooming standards are focusing on a specific ethnic group/groups? What are your thoughts on the direction the Army is heading towards

New 670-1 update | RallyPoint

11

0

Posted >1 y ago

Civilian attire, shaving, grooming standards focusing on specific ethnic groups? No.

Civilian attire, shaving, grooming standards focusing on professionalism? YES!

(11)

Comment

(0)

MAJ (Join to see)

>1 y

Well said MSG.

(0)

Reply

(0)

10

0

SSG Clayton Lam

Edited >1 y ago

Posted >1 y ago

Whatever the Army Regs are, we need to enforce them because we are NCOs and unfortunately we cannot pick and choose. I do not agree with all the regs, but this is bigger than me.

(10)

Comment

(0)

SFC (Join to see)

>1 y

Well said SSG Lam. We cannot pick and chose which policies and regs to enforce, as NCOs we set the standard. If we allow for slack; we set a new and lower standard.

(1)

Reply

(0)

SFC Kayla Sondrol

>1 y

But the bigger question would be HOW will these new rules of grooming be enforced? Especially for National Guard. Will NCOs have to stalk their lower enlisted facebook profiles? So once you see that 5 o'clock shadow you better be writing up a counseling statement or verbally tell them to shave? Even though I don't agree with the new regs I will enforce to the best of my ability, but I just find these regs to be a little hardcore and shooting to become asinine like the Marine Corps standards.

(0)

Reply

(0)

SGT (Join to see)

>1 y

National guard, we are civilians and once a month we are title 32 soldiers not title ten. We aren't considered off duty unless on orders and are off duty.

(1)

Reply

(0)

SGT (Join to see)

>1 y

The way I see it related to the National Guard I don't see the shaving standard being enforced. I can see coming from the active duty side, giving more power to the senior enlisted to keep their soldiers looking professional.

(0)

Reply

(0)

7

0

SFC William Swartz Jr

Posted >1 y ago

I think that the majority of the changes are not really new, they are just going to be enforced more than they have over the last 10-12 years or so. I do like that some things have been better defined, such as the hair styles for female Soldiers, but I do think that maybe they went a little overboard with some of the tattoo restrictions as far as possible enlisted to officer moves.

(7)

Comment

(0)

Transferred from duplicate topic

CPT (Join to see)

>1 y

I agree. I understand maintaining a Soldierly appearance, but why would we target a certain populace of Soldiers and prevent them from furthering their careers. Those that are going to be excluded by this would be those who have experience and who have demonstrated their talent for leadership. We just found an arbitrary reason to prevent them from continuing their career at a different level.

(4)

Reply

(0)

6

0

SGM (Join to see)

Posted >1 y ago

My biggest issue with the on/off post attire is somewhat silly. I understand we are soldiers 24/7, whether on or off duty. I'm a mechanic, what would happen if I was working on my truck and I get covered in grease and oil and I needed to run to the part store for something? In my opinion I'm gonna go as I am, I am not going to get showered and changed just to pick up a part and get dirty again. On the other hand, if I am going somewhere for a social event, I am going to do my best to lok presentable and professional. That being said, is this regulation saying that I can not dress in a casual professional attire now? If you look around at the social norms of today's society, most men will wear jeans, and an untucked buton shirt. Sometimes they may add a sports coat/ dress coat to look a little moe professional. The days of dressing like a jehovas witness are over. Our society today has turned to a more casual professional appearance.

We as a force are suppose to change with the times to conform to our society. It looks to me that we have too many individuals in the higher ranks who are making decisions based on their personal beliefs.

CSM Poll, you are exactly right in the fact that there is no grey line in the regualtions, howevever, I believe that those individuals writting the regulations needs to take a step back and take a look at what is going on with today's society and see what is acceptable now. They should not try to hold us back in progression just because that is how it was done back in their day.

I'm sure I could have worded this in a different direction but these are my thoughts right now. I'm sure I could go into futher discussion about the changes in the new AR 670-1, for instance, the new tattoo policy, but I won't right now.

BUT, just like most everyone has said on here. Just because I don't agree with the regulation doesn't mean I wont enforce it. It is my job as a senior NCO to enforce all standards and regulations despite my opinion. So........... that is what I will do until someone else changes it.

(6)

Comment

(0)

SSG Sarg Sarg

9 y

We are the United States Military
Our Appearance Does Count
That is what built
Cohesion in the Ranks

(0)

Reply

(0)

5

0

1SG (Join to see)

Edited >1 y ago

Posted >1 y ago

I'm Puerto Rican and I do not feel targeted at all. Do I agree with shaving on the weekends or on leave no, but I'm a NCO so if I'm going to expose myself to the public, I will shave to be in compliance with 670-1. Now if I'm confine to the walls of my house I will exercise common sense.

(5)

Comment

(0)

2

0

SPC Christopher Smith

Posted >1 y ago

I will not speculate on why African American women are feeling singled out, I have heard several arguments but will not speak for them. I only hope that in writing this comment I can pull in several to defend and share their feelings. The members speaking about them at this time, may not be well informed on why they are feeling singled out. Please police yourself, and refrain from targeting a group that has not yet made a statement.

(2)

Comment

(0)

SSG Jamil Spruill

>1 y

I think the main reason people are speaking out more on the issues with the new hair regulations is because in like 2006 or 2007 they stated that twist and dreadlocke type styles were prohibited, they didn't define them well in that regulation so a lot of leaders failed to properly enforce the regulation change. Now after so long of people letting it slide it's became somewhat of a norm but in the end it was on refined so it could be enforced by leadership. But sister I understand the hardships of the black woman's hair and daily maintenance it takes so I feel your gripe, but we as NCOs and future NCOs have to understand that we may not agree with all standards in place but as leaders we must enforce them to our subordinates as well as our selves.

(0)

Reply

(0)

2

0

SFC (Join to see)

Posted >1 y ago

I don't see any "targeting" of particular racial/ethnic/gender groups in the updated reg. Face it, it is not a NEW reg, but an update to an existing one. My one concern is that whenever any standard is implemented, it must be policed. I don't care if it's a Federal law or a local ordinance. The policing will be the difficult part. My first thought was something along the lines of the possibility of Courtesy Patrols being sent to various beaches, resorts, and other common leave destinations. Is such a thing possible? Sure. Is it very practical? Probably not. Either way, we are all professionals. As has been pointed out, this thing is not a salad bar. We don't get to pick and choose what we like and do not like. It is incumbent upon us to police ourselves, our peers, and our subordinates. We even need to police our superiors. The bottom line is that the military is a voluntary-service organization. We all choose to be here. Thus, we agree to abide by the regulations, whether we like them or not.

(2)

Comment

(0)

SSG Jamil Spruill

>1 y

Very well stated, if we as leaders fail to police ourselves, leaders as well as subordinates then we failed. We see stuff everyday in the cities around our duty stations. Personnel not wearing headgear at gas stations, personnel walking and talking on phones, personnel wearing headphones while running conducting PT, personnel walking with hands in pockets, we as leaders have to control this behavior, when we let it slide these people become leaders and fail to enforce it also which starts a growing trend

(0)

Reply

(0)

1

0

SFC (Join to see)

Edited >1 y ago

Posted >1 y ago

I see absolutely no reference to any ethnic groups at all. I have heard the complaints but women of ALL races have worn cornrows, twists, and all of the other mentioned styles.

I may not necessarily agree in being clean shaven off duty from an anti-terrorism perspective but if that's the rules, I will abide.

Now as far as the complaints, and people demanding a revision, it is my opinion that if the leadership rescinds this new policy due to the whining it will only show weakness and give the upper hand to the soldiers. They need to stick to their guns and display that intestinal fortitude and courage that we demand of all soldiers.

They may have to reconsider the traveling in uniform part for safety reasons but the other parts I see no issue with at all.

(1)

Comment

(0)

SSG Jamil Spruill

>1 y

Great Response!

(0)

Reply

(0)

1

0

SGT (Join to see)

Posted >1 y ago

Ultimately my view on the regulation that it is the regulation even if I dont agree with the change it is the word of the law so it is what I will enforce.

(1)

Comment

(0)

Transferred from duplicate topic

SFC (Join to see)

>1 y

Other than the addition of the "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." The policy has just clarified what was understood in the past as unacceptable, or unprofessional.

The real concern for me is that there is an assumption that Army Regulations(ARs)are not punishable by UCMJ as they are all Published Orders signed by a General Offcier.

The changes in AR 670-1 and DA Pam 670-1 only hinder those who have found loop holes to get by, not unlike the Profile Rangers who use the Army Medical system to get out of Ruck Marches, APFT, Body Armor, Driving Vehicles, and the list goes on. The fact that we as leaders agree or disagree is a moot point, the greater point is why have we allowed Regulations to not be followed or only be partially followed is the real issue. It has been and always will be the Leaders responsibility to ensure strict adhereance to Army Regulations and Policies and to enforce those policies when necessary with corrective action or UCMJ.

(0)

Reply

(0)

1

0

PV2 Christopher Graham

Posted >1 y ago

Next thing you know, they'll be sending MP's to make sure VETS are clean shaven and in the proper off-duty attire.

(1)

Comment

(0)

New 670-1 update

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.