Post cracks down on skimpy clothes, facial hair

AirForce Times — Fri, 21 Nov 2014 17:27:26 -0500

From: Army Times

If you want to go out in public on Fort Leonard Wood you better ditch the tank top, pull up your saggy drawers and shave that scruff.

Maj. Gen. Leslie Smith, the Missouri post's commanding general, issued new appearance standards in a Nov. 10 policy update.

The rules not only crack down on sloppy dress, but skimpy outfits as well: No short skirts, exposed midriffs and revealing undergarments.

The rules fall under the post's Command Policy 18, which used to be called "Wear and Appearance of Uniforms." Now it's called "Wear and Appearance of Uniforms and Civilian Attire," which really brings into focus the expansion of the policy to include not only soldiers in civilian clothes, but also spouses, kids, guests – anyone who comes on post.

"The entire concept is good order and discipline. The Army is talking about the Army profession, how we look, how we dress," Smith told Army Times in a Nov. 21 interview.

While the policy change has garnered plenty of buzz online, Smith downplayed the changes. He has been the posts' commanding general since June 2013, and said the base simply updated the regs after waiting for recent updates to AR 670-1, the Armywide regulation on appearance standards.

But Smith's policy does go further in some cases than AR 670-1. For example, the shaving rule. AR 670-1 requires soldiers to be "clean shaven" whenever they are in uniform or on duty. Fort Leonard Wood has called for soldiers to be clean-shaven, whether they are on duty or off. This is one of the few rules in the policy that do not extend to civilians on post.

"We've followed the lead on other bases and establishments," said Smith.

In recent years, bases such as Fort Irwin, California, and Fort Stewart, Georgia, have issued similar crackdowns.

Policy highlights for everyone on post at Fort Leonard Wood:

• No bare mid-drifts, shirts with cut-out armpits or sleeveless shirts, tank tops, swimsuits, or shorts/skirts/tops that "are too revealing."

• No sagging pants, pajamas or house shoes.

• No clothing depicting obscenity, slander, drug paraphernalia, or vulgarity.

More policy highlights for soldiers only:

• No headphones while wearing any Army uniform, including official PT uniforms, except for a hands-free device while driving. Soldiers can wear headphones, however, while walking or running on sidewalks, troop trails, running tracks or inside the gym in civilian clothing.

• Though not new, a draft poster depicting the changes reinforces that PT uniforms cannot be worn outside of unit personal training, transit to PT, and a few select locations such as the daycare center.

Officers bear responsibility for passing down the changes to soldiers under their command, and soldiers for informing families and guests, base spokeswoman Shatara Seymour said. Access control officers at the post's gates will have authority to prevent entrance to those not in compliance, and management of various facilities will also wield authority to ask people to leave.

Smith said certain facilities such as the PX and commissary could ask inappropriately dressed civilians or soldiers to leave, but said the gate guards would focus more on military personnel rather than denying non-compliant civilians access.

He said they will be looking hard at the off-duty shaving requirement, leaving open the possibility that there could be an adjustment to that rule.

As for enforcement, he said, "self-policing is the goal." The policy states, as it did before the changes, that soldiers all "have the general military authority to make corrections on service members improperly wearing the uniform, regardless of the rank or duty" of the non-compliant soldier.

After a draft of a poster spelling out Smith's policy leaked online, soldiers and vets responded with mixed reviews via social media.

"As a former NCO I agree with this 100%. When I was in this was not an issue, we looked squared away 24/7. It's sad that today soldiers have to be told how to look both on and off duty," Jack Hutchinson said via Facebook.

Others reserved their blunt remarks for civilian appearance.

"It's Leonard Wood which means it is constantly full of disgusting civilian family members watching their spawn graduate Basic Training. Good luck to the post CSM on actually enforcing this," said John Atkinson.

But comments also included pushback against rules viewed by some as superfluous.

"God forbid soldiers utilize music devices while improving their physical fitness," Scott Welch said.

"I am a retired NCO, and I think the shaving point is total BS," said Steve Buero. "I NEVER shaved on weekends or on leave. That is my time and if I was on duty in civilian clothes I shaved, but you call me in for some BS on my leave you got what you got."

Some complained that family members and friends visiting the base not employed by the Army should not be subjected to Army rules. But others say coming on the post comes with tacit agreement to abide by rules designed to promote the atmosphere desired by leadership.

"Hate to be the spoiler. But soldiers are and have always been responsible for the actions of the family members. It is the soldier's responsibility to ensure family members know what they can and cannot do," John DeSmith said.

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/2014/11/21/leonard-wood-dress-code/70017120/

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 21 at 2014 4:40 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 21 Nov 2014 16:40:52 -0500

Two more years of this,,,,

Response by PO2 Corey Ferretti made Nov 21 at 2014 4:53 PM

PO2 Corey Ferretti — Fri, 21 Nov 2014 16:53:38 -0500

I think this base is over reaching a little bit when it comes to spouses and chilren. But at the same time We joined the military and we knew they like to control things. The part i dont agree with is having to be shaven all the time that is just plain stupid.

Response by LTC Paul Heinlein made Nov 21 at 2014 5:26 PM

LTC Paul Heinlein — Fri, 21 Nov 2014 17:26:32 -0500

Nothing new here.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 21 at 2014 7:24 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 21 Nov 2014 19:24:40 -0500

I was personally stationed at FLW from 2010-2014. I grew up in the Army there from basic as a PFC to PCSing as a SGT. In most the units there this has always been the standard. The CG just put it on paper and in to Policy Letter 18 now. Nothing changes. For the Active Duty personnel on post, you are on a TRADOC post... Trainees see you everyday both in uniform and in civilian attire. You may not know it but they look at you as inspiration and what the "real" Army looks like, this is a HUGE responsibility as well as a HUGE privilege and should be taken as such. Even a day one Private out of Basic land is an influence on those Soldiers! As for the family member and personnel visiting, being allowed access to a Military Installation is a PRIVILEGE and yes although you personally are not in the Military you are on U.S. Army property and should conform to the standards set out by the environment or you should NOT be allowed access. Plain and simple.

Response by SFC Vernon McNabb made Nov 21 at 2014 8:01 PM

SFC Vernon McNabb — Fri, 21 Nov 2014 20:01:52 -0500

DANG! So what is the pool attire? A habit?

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 21 at 2014 8:45 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 21 Nov 2014 20:45:11 -0500

I personally don't see the problem. I'm tired of seeing a lot more of service members and their spouses than I need to while trying to eat lunch with my family. I'm also glad we're going back to a more professional look for day to day activities. I don't like the shaving part but it is what it is.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 21 at 2014 10:03 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 21 Nov 2014 22:03:22 -0500

I forsee the waiting list for housing getting shorter.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 21 at 2014 10:43 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 21 Nov 2014 22:43:00 -0500

I like this policy and I think it should be enforced equally across all military bases

Response by SPC(P) Jay Heenan made Nov 21 at 2014 10:46 PM

SPC(P) Jay Heenan — Fri, 21 Nov 2014 22:46:32 -0500

I'm down with any rule that eliminates those dreadful pants that sags off the individuals a$$!

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Nov 21 at 2014 11:15 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Fri, 21 Nov 2014 23:15:36 -0500

Thank God I am divorced. My ex would get me in so much trouble with her actions. We sure have come full circle. When I was a grunt stationed at NTC, the FRG (Family Support Group back then) held car washes in short shorts, tank tops, and bikinis.......from the COL's wife on down. Back then I was considered "hooah" for having a tattoo of a Bradley and was told to dismount my top whenever the COL had a VIP come visit. We used to settle grudges with the tankers in the boxing ring and after we beat each other stupid we had our noses set , shook hands, and went right back into the desert for the next rotation as compadres. These days........whew. As far as saggy pants goes....it is about time. Hip gangster wanna-bees, pull up your pants!

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 22 at 2014 6:55 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 22 Nov 2014 18:55:16 -0500

There is a similar policy here on Fort Gordon with a "Courtesy Patrol" that patrols the PX, Commissary and other establishments on base. I've seen them escort some "people of walmart" out of the PX before.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 22 at 2014 7:07 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 22 Nov 2014 19:07:09 -0500

Sounds reasonable and the ones who would complain the most are probably the ones who don't know how to dress properly.

Response by SFC Melker Johansson made Nov 22 at 2014 8:22 PM

SFC Melker Johansson — Sat, 22 Nov 2014 20:22:27 -0500

Bring forth the squads from the Vice and Virtue Ministry!

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Nov 23 at 2014 5:02 PM

CSM Michael J. Uhlig — Sun, 23 Nov 2014 17:02:51 -0500

As is often the case, there was a reason for this.

I bet 1SG Michael Blount displayed some of the reasons in his pictures within this post!

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 23 at 2014 10:54 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 23 Nov 2014 22:54:10 -0500

I say it's about time that all SM realized you need to look professional 24/7 I was stationed with a kid from Milwaukee who was always sagging in and out of uniform. My only confusion is about this regulation affecting not only service members but civilians military spouses. Does any SM even a post general have not only the right put the responsibility to enforce military regs on civilians or does that over reach his zone of control. As someone new to military and post life I was aware that civilians on post could be forced to comply with post specific regs

Response by SPC Richard White made Nov 24 at 2014 4:43 AM

SPC Richard White — Mon, 24 Nov 2014 04:43:22 -0500

I fully agree with crackdown.This is not the only post to do this and as stated Ft. Irwin which isn't that far from me has already done so.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 24 at 2014 8:31 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 24 Nov 2014 08:31:51 -0500

along with that retired NCO, I don't shave on the weekends or on leave most times, but if I have to go on base I'm going to look right, always have, because before this was an enforced rule there were still E-9s everywhere in the common areas, and the second I start walking around with facial hair on base one of them will say "I feel a disturbance in the force..." and find me. That's the last thing anyone needs on a weekend.

That doesn't really paint me in the best light, but it's the truth. Bottom line, however, because this rule is now in writing, doesn't change the fact that it was always an unwritten rule before now. A lot of units put something to this effect in their SOPs anyway.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 24 at 2014 10:02 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 24 Nov 2014 10:02:05 -0500

I hope that the Army is culturally contextual here. Imagine telling Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines in Hawaii that they can't be in tank tops or flip flops.

No iPod while in APFT? Stupid. I get not wearing them while running outside in non-designated tracks, but while on a treadmill? I run 10 miles at a time. I could do it without music, but I see no reason why not. And the excuse of uniformity is tired. If we cared so much for uniformity, we wouldn't give badges and tabs away.

Response by PFC Andrew Armstrong-Smith made Nov 25 at 2014 12:56 PM

PFC Andrew Armstrong-Smith — Tue, 25 Nov 2014 12:56:16 -0500

I can definitely see both sides of the spectrum here, as long as no soldiers are getting into serious trouble because of family members then not much to worry about. I only say that because you can inform them of any policies but everyone has free will and will do as they please you cannot be expected to police spouse and children 24/7 along with working and being on call 24/7.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 25 at 2014 2:10 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 25 Nov 2014 14:10:08 -0500

Is there really anything better to do at FLW besides sport your favorite skimpy and tasteless clothing?
I can't imagine that requirements for civilian family members/ guests will not continuously draw negative attention. Bottom line is there are some people who will know the rules exist, plan to follow them and still dress "inappropriately" for the standards that Military Members are expected to follow. These are expectations that far outreach rules that any person other than a service member should be expected to follow. Who is to say what is inappropriate attire for civilians? Service members who have been expected to follow a uniform code? Most of which having many years in service. This seems outlandish and very far overreaching. Cannot wait to hear how the enforcement is coming along.
Requiring soldiers to be clean shaven on and off duty does not seem as far reaching considering most soldiers are only off duty for 24-48 hours at a time unless on leave. However it seems to be another regulation that is aimed at giving NCOs another chore and providing junior service members with more minuscule daily tasks, even when off duty at home. However being a TRADOC post with numerous brand new soldiers I suppose I understand the need for such a regulation.

Response by SSG Jason Cherry made Nov 25 at 2014 3:04 PM

SSG Jason Cherry — Tue, 25 Nov 2014 15:04:35 -0500

I think all of these things are fair. The only thing I have to say against shaving on or off duty would be that if you are doing any sort of unit functions or activities on post, then that would be enforceable. Getting turned away at the gate for facial hair would be downright stupid, unless it is a service member in uniform. Out of uniform, it would be up to any personnel present at facilities or activities to make that correction.

People crying about headphones, it says right in it, you are allowed to wear headphones in designated areas, where you would be wearing them anyway. What is new and outrageous about this?

To the NCO that said he shows up unshaven when getting called in from leave, that's a no-go. If you are doing anything official, you should show up in your uniform, and be clean shaven.

Be Know Do

Response by SPC Chris Grimes made Nov 25 at 2014 6:38 PM

SPC Chris Grimes — Tue, 25 Nov 2014 18:38:02 -0500

All good stuff. For a split second I thought they were going to make me shave

Response by TSgt Kristin Parsons made Nov 26 at 2014 2:43 PM

TSgt Kristin Parsons — Wed, 26 Nov 2014 14:43:34 -0500

I agree with this 100%. Military personnel are held to a higher standard than civilians. Also, if you are a guest on base/post, you should abide by their rules. I don't think it would be hard to enforce the rule for guests of basic training graduates. Regulations can be explained on the invitations so everyone is informed ahead of time. Kudos to this General for setting an example. I wouldn't be surprised if other installations followed suit.

Response by SSG Brian Fernandez made Nov 26 at 2014 3:07 PM

SSG Brian Fernandez — Wed, 26 Nov 2014 15:07:21 -0500

Maybe people need to see how the senior staff at the post hospital like to troll around. When the CG decides to enforce this at ALL levels I'll support it. Otherwise it's just a bunch of whitewash.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 26 at 2014 4:18 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 26 Nov 2014 16:18:34 -0500

I don't have heartburn with seeing two days of stubble on a guys face. What chokes me up is;
1) seeing spouses in a pt shirt, fleece jacket, pajama pants and flip flops strutting around the PX like they own the place. Come on, you represent your spouse. If nothing else, have a little bit of self respect. Remember, you're not the only one that shops at the PX. I'd be so embarrassed for anyone in my unit regardless of rank to see my spouse dressed like that in public.

2) guys wearing their pants sagging down to their knees. Again, it goes back to self respect.

These are a couple things that irk me.

Response by SPC A.J. Simm made Nov 26 at 2014 10:28 PM

SPC A.J. Simm — Wed, 26 Nov 2014 22:28:23 -0500

keep treating soldiers like slaves and they will revolt.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 27 at 2014 11:06 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 27 Nov 2014 11:06:01 -0500

Great move for Fort Leonard Wood, but this needs to be addressed at the DA level.

Response by SPC Tom Maddox made Nov 27 at 2014 4:23 PM

SPC Tom Maddox — Thu, 27 Nov 2014 16:23:02 -0500

I realize I will probably get some crap over this but I think that is taking things to far. Even in the military a spouse or kids should have the chance to be an individual. I don't enjoy looking at someone's ass crack as their pants sag but with that being said, what is to short for a skirt. What's wrong with a tank top, what's next the color of socks

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Nov 27 at 2014 8:47 PM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Thu, 27 Nov 2014 20:47:39 -0500

Can I still wear my "ranger" panties when I run outside or at the gym? Its a good thing I don't live on post. There will probably be morals police everywhere.

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Nov 28 at 2014 3:36 AM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Fri, 28 Nov 2014 03:36:55 -0500

• Though not new, a draft poster depicting the changes reinforces that PT uniforms cannot be worn outside of unit personal training, transit to PT, and a few select locations such as the daycare center.

Did I read this right? When you leave your home at 5 or so in the morning to go to PT, you can't wear your APFU? That sounds ridiculous. I also don't shave my facial hair when I am off, and if I am in my home or around my home doing work or relaxing inside and outside, I am not going to shave but Fort Bliss does not have a rule like that far as a I know. If my duty stations adopts the rules above I will enforce them but it will just mean I will spend less time on post in my free time to avoid the hassle.

Response by SGT Suraj Dave made Nov 28 at 2014 5:40 AM

SGT Suraj Dave — Fri, 28 Nov 2014 05:40:29 -0500

Wow.

I remember vividly during the summer time, we get off work, and then we hung out right outside our barracks buildings in wife beater's and basketball shorts, drinking beer, chewing and chain smoking cigarettes.

When I became an NCO, we get off work, and then we hung out right outside the NCO barracks building in wife beater's and basketball shorts, drinking beer, chewing and chain smoking cigarettes.

Looks like the soldiers cant do that no more.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 28 at 2014 7:12 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 28 Nov 2014 07:12:54 -0500

If I am reading this correctly, they are saying this also applies to non-enlisted civilians? Obviously it doesn't affect me but it does have me curious as to what leadership can and cannot authorize. I agree with all points made, sans personally not wanting to shave off duty but understand the reasoning. Rules are rules but I am curious if this does indeed apply to civilians.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 28 at 2014 8:32 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 28 Nov 2014 08:32:01 -0500

I am all for freedom of choice and personal responsibility. I think we should have the choice to wear what we want but we should have the self respect and good taste not to offend others with our choices. We all know or have seen someone who could not do that. When my children were young I had to engage in conversation with a young Soldier in the post Burger King about his shirt that included both the F word and the N word. Why would people wear something like that? That is why we have to make these rules, because there is someone out there that just can't make sound decisions.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 28 at 2014 10:45 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 28 Nov 2014 10:45:20 -0500

I think it's very reasonable. A military installation should be the last place to show off your Jerry Springer clothing line.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 28 at 2014 2:17 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 28 Nov 2014 14:17:36 -0500

It's a shame that our service members cannot police themselves over what is acceptable to wear and what not to wear. The clothes that were worn prior to joining the military need to be taken out of the closet and re-evaluated for propriety and I'm not talking about the 1970s denim carpenter pants. I know that since I have joined the ranks and become a "professional" I have gotten rid of a lot of clothing that border the line of indecency. The easiest way is to just pack it up in-between summer and winter transitions and donate it (if they're still considered wearable).

But at the end of the day it falls back on leaders. Officers and NCOs need to do their barracks and formation inspections to see what their Soldiers are wearing before they head out to the PX or movie theaters. If they're wearing the wrong thing, give them some mentorship. Some honestly may just not know any better.

Response by SSG Brian Fernandez made Nov 28 at 2014 4:04 PM

SSG Brian Fernandez — Fri, 28 Nov 2014 16:04:37 -0500

I hope this applies to all the military formals as well. Some of those waist high slits and plunging necklines are a bit much!!

Maybe this new policy will cut down on the senior commander's on "Rear D" from sleeping around the wives.

Response by CW4 Robert Goldsmith made Nov 28 at 2014 4:05 PM

CW4 Robert Goldsmith — Fri, 28 Nov 2014 16:05:47 -0500

New is old and old is new. What the Army evolved into is a direct result of the lenient standards in the ranks and for enlistees at the height of OIF. Even NCO's adorned earrings while wearing civilian attire. What the Army simply needs to do is empower NCOs to clean up the enlisted ranks and let officers worry about officer, not NCO business. I wore a well-groomed mustache throughout my career, enlisted and officer. All you need is for the CSMs to dust off the junior NCO's who can't or won't lead their soldiers. Stop the political correctness and let the Backbone be the Backbone. Non-compliant soldiers can be sent back to the city streets to dress any way they want to.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 28 at 2014 4:09 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 28 Nov 2014 16:09:05 -0500

I agree with some of it. I don't like saggy pants, teenaged girls in skimpy outfits, sideway hats, face piercings, etc... But that is MY personal opinion. So where do you draw the line? Who draws the line? Who says the line drawer is correct? It becomes one persons opinion of what is right. SMA Chandler had a chapter written in this for the army. No untucked shirts, belts with all pants, shaving while off duty, etc. some senior leaders are guilty of violating these policies. Again, while I agree with the line, I disagree with the notion of not creating the line with personnel from different groups.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 28 at 2014 4:41 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 28 Nov 2014 16:41:30 -0500

I completely agree no female soldier should be walking around in skimpy outfits and no one should be dressed sloppy when on a military installation. I thought this is common sense and standard for all military installations

Response by 1SG Eric Rice made Nov 28 at 2014 7:34 PM

1SG Eric Rice — Fri, 28 Nov 2014 19:34:43 -0500

Trying to blend the civilian culture and warrior culture has always been a challenge. Establishing a dress code for off duty will definitely cause some heartache with our younger troops. This is a cultural thing more than anything else in my opinion. Over the past 16 years of my career I have seen the standards and discipline decline and soldiers and family members taking less pride in themselves. This includes how they dress, speak, and carry themselves. The only time I have seen both family members and soldiers carry themselves appropriately overall is while being stationed overseas.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 28 at 2014 7:40 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 28 Nov 2014 19:40:08 -0500

Who decides? Who plays God? While I agree with most of you, I hate saggy pants, damn near naked gals, and sideway hats, you are trying to conform people to your standard. So who plays God here? I hate shaving on the weekend. I wanna give my face a break. But some wanted us to shave always, wear belts, and tuck in our shirts. So who gets to decide what's appropriate.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 28 at 2014 9:21 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 28 Nov 2014 21:21:15 -0500

"Good morning sir, welcome to FT. Leonard Wood. Please pull your vehicle over in the left lane, exit your vehicle, and assemble with others. At that time one of my civilian rent-a-cop buddies will conduct an in-ranks inspection before granting you access to the base"

Response by SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL made Nov 28 at 2014 9:45 PM

SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL — Fri, 28 Nov 2014 21:45:54 -0500

ACCORDING TO THE NEW AR 670-1 (15 SEPTEMBER 2014) ITS THE REGULATION.

3–9. Civilian clothing

a. Civilian clothing is authorized for wear when off duty, unless the wear is prohibited by the senior commander.
Commanders down to unit level may restrict the wear of civilian clothes by those Soldiers who have had their pass privileges revoked. Within the confines of a military base or a DoD installation, civilian clothing will be worn subject to local regulations.
b. When on duty in civilian clothes or off duty and outside of their personal dwelling, Army personnel will present a professional image that does not detract from the profession, unless specifically exempted by the commander for specific mission requirements.
c. Soldiers are associated and identified with the Army in and out of uniform, and when on or off duty. Therefore, when civilian clothing is worn, Soldiers will ensure that their dress and personal appearance are commensurate with the high standards traditionally associated with Army service. Commanders are charged with determining and publishing the local civilian clothing policy. When on a military installation, civilian headgear will be removed indoors in accordance with established norms.
d. When civilian clothing has been authorized by competent authority for wear in a duty status in lieu of a uniform, the civilian clothing will be of the same comparable degree of formality as the uniform prescribed for such duty. Standards of dress and appearance will be conservative and meet the same high standards established for personnel in uniform.
e. The wear of clothing articles not specifically designed to be normally worn as headgear (for example, bandannas, do rags) are prohibited while on duty.
f. No part of a prescribed uniform, except those items not exclusively military in character, may be worn with civilian clothing.
g. Uniform items authorized for wear with civilian clothing by males are restricted to the gold cuff links, studs, tie bar, mourning band, footwear, socks, gloves, undergarments, black bow-tie, wool scarf, all-weather coat, fleece caps, and physical training uniforms.
h. Uniform items authorized for wear with civilian clothing by females are restricted to the white shirt without insignia of grade, undergarments, footwear, gloves, handbag, clutch purse, wool scarf, all-weather coat, fleece caps, and physical training uniforms.
i. Uniform items that have been declared obsolete may be worn with civilian clothing, provided such items contain no distinctive insignia or buttons.

Response by SPC(P) Jay Heenan made Nov 28 at 2014 9:53 PM

SPC(P) Jay Heenan — Fri, 28 Nov 2014 21:53:07 -0500

I just had another thought about this topic. With the increase threat of violence against service members, you would think that 'big Army' would want us to blend in more with the general public when we are not in uniform on duty...just a thought.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 28 at 2014 11:52 PM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 28 Nov 2014 23:52:11 -0500

Truth be known, there's a few of us CSMs that don't like to shave in the weekends... However, once I step off my property, and especially if I'm on post, I'll be properly shaven. The rest of the rules are simple dress policies that brings people to a standard that is acceptable. Can't hurt to look a bit respectable and be safe at the same time (earphones). Just remember, summers always coming, so get in the gym, exercise during PT, and have a great time at the lake or off post somewhere where you can show off the work you've done to your body (but use suntan lotion (higher than 30)).

Response by PO1 Autumn Sandeen made Nov 29 at 2014 12:14 AM

PO1 Autumn Sandeen — Sat, 29 Nov 2014 00:14:45 -0500

Commanding Officer Dad! I guess we can now consider one's pay to be one's allowance...well, at least the Basic Housing Allowance part of it.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 29 at 2014 9:31 AM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 29 Nov 2014 09:31:44 -0500

Everything is spot on except for the requirement to be clean-shaven everyday even out of uniform. In essence, you are mandating Soldiers shave everyday as most men can't go a day without shaving before the shadow comes. So, now it's an arbitrary standard vs medical readiness. Shaving everyday for 20 years will rip your face apart. It can lead to serious skin disorders in some men. Your face needs time to rest from a blade hacking at it for five days straight. Just like doing nothing but strength conditioning for PRT everyday for 20 years--it's not safe! All this new rule is going to do is cause servicemembers to start getting no-shaving profiles. Then, not only will they be authorized to not shave off duty, they'll be scruffy on duty as well which is really the only place it should matter!

Response by SSG V. Michelle Woods made Nov 29 at 2014 10:50 AM

SSG V. Michelle Woods — Sat, 29 Nov 2014 10:50:35 -0500

"No...sleeveless shirts, tank tops"

Ok grandpa Army! What is unprofessional about a tank top on a summer day?
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

*12 months to my ETS :)

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 29 at 2014 11:47 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 29 Nov 2014 11:47:07 -0500

Coming up! Acronyms will be codified. Any deviations will not be tolerated, on and off-duty and dreams as well. Good luck!!!

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 29 at 2014 1:19 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 29 Nov 2014 13:19:30 -0500

I am all for stopping the skimpy clothing and the saggy pants, but we should never make rules that we can't enforce. This is going to end up as another detail/duty that junior officers and NCO will have to pull instead of spending time with family and friends. The shaving is way overboard again too hard to enforce. If a Soldier has "shadow " will they be refused service at the PX?? Who is deciding the standard civilians that work at the PX? We need to look at this. Also leaders need to read the regulations on shaving profiles. Many allow their soldiers to walk around out of regs!

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 29 at 2014 4:55 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 29 Nov 2014 16:55:42 -0500

Has the Army not had these rules??? This is standard stuff. Soldiers need to be squared away 24/7...civilians need to have appropriate attire on base(especially on a post that has basic training). I don't think this rule should apply all the way(as in shaving) with civilians but appropriate attire should just be good enough for them.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 29 at 2014 8:49 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 29 Nov 2014 20:49:07 -0500

Almost UNBELIEVABLE! Almost, because very little surprises me these days. Shaving while off-duty (incl leave) …. is that what we've come to?

There are a number of things in ARs which need enforcement. Plus, headphones topic should be revisited. Nevertheless, after much diligence ... when ARs violations are presented to the CoC, we (leaders) are often told, "That's too harsh. Let's work with Soldiers," which undermines NCO Presence [as if all of the efforts were worthless for some undeclared reason]

I said that to say, put the teeth, and bite where it needs to be. Focus on what's important.

Response by SGT Bret Kelly made Nov 29 at 2014 10:00 PM

SGT Bret Kelly — Sat, 29 Nov 2014 22:00:15 -0500

A regulation of this type needs to be specific, identifying the offending clothing in detail. When I was at Walter Reed awaiting on experimental treatment and going through the separation/retirement procedure for Leukemia, I was berated and verbally abused by a fellow Sgt. for my appearance which he determined to be "disgusting" and "unbecoming of an NCO". I was unshaven because I had asked the MD, a Captain if I could stop shaving, his response was "your on the leukemia ward, no one shaves up here." I was wearing an authorized Army PT uniform the same one I had done PT in countless times on Longstreet etc... at Ft. Bragg. The day prior they had told me I was to be medically retired because I would probably be dead in three years. I explained all this in detail to the other Sgt. while gripping his lapels, his back against the wall and his feet six to eight inches from the floor. I then posed a question, " What would they do to me if I were to kill you right now? Give me life in prison? I would be dead before it came to trial."
My point in this story is that if a reg is created that is open to interpretation it will be misused or abused or simply interpreted to suit the individuals views.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 30 at 2014 1:35 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 30 Nov 2014 01:35:14 -0500

In my humble opinion, if we focus on professionalism many of these things will happen as a byproduct. The rest of it should be handled on a case-by-case basis.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 30 at 2014 6:01 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 30 Nov 2014 06:01:10 -0500

I agree in principle with most of this policy and the intent behind it (to have people demonstrate some respect for themselves and others). As a Soldier and a senior NCO, I am obligated to enforce all of it, not just the parts I like. But since RP is a place where we can also express our personal opinions, I don't really agree with forcing male Soldiers to shave when on leave or off duty in civilians clothes. Will the post CG also force female Soldiers to not wear dangling earrings or different color nail polish when on leave or off duty in civilians clothes? The answer is no, so why the double standard? I feel if you are going to establish a rule, policy or standard for Soldiers to follow to encourage a professional appearance, make sure that it applies to ALL Soldiers fairly and equally. Just saying.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 30 at 2014 9:34 AM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 30 Nov 2014 09:34:43 -0500

So...Here at Fort Polk, the OPFOR unit has "relaxed" grooming standards, and often, the mixed military/civilian attire is an "appropriate" uniform for them. I find myself cringing when I see this in the DFAC, PX, etc. It happens so often that I may not always conduct the on the spot corrections, because I'm not gonna carry around an alpha roster for that unit.

I agree with FLW efforts, however, there should be one standard in the military. So, bring this to all installations.

And please add that spouses don't need to wear APFU shirts & Jackets, Fleece, and the tan shirt. I just don't get that...

What I see all the time that is inappropriate (and against reg) is wearing the uniform off post - conducting the weekly shopping trip in ACUs. Almost every trip to Walmart will include this, and there is nothing like making an on the spot correction to a Soldier in front of his/her family and telling him/her to pack it up. It never leads to a good thing. Please leaders, inform your Soldiers of this. If they don't know, perhaps it's because you don't know. (I recently reminded a SFC of this standard.)

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 30 at 2014 11:17 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 30 Nov 2014 11:17:14 -0500

It is an insult to those in uniform to see anyone walking around with their pants hanging off of them and it also reinforces the fact that sometimes people need someone to tell them right from wrong. Any grown man knows that they should keep that thing put away, it just makes you look lazy. Sometimes females have to be reminded that they need to be classy as well. They don't need to have all their "giblets" showing to have someone think they are attractive. Policies like these just make people put a little more effort into their appearance, and I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

Response by PO1 Autumn Sandeen made Nov 30 at 2014 12:41 PM

PO1 Autumn Sandeen — Sun, 30 Nov 2014 12:41:26 -0500

Enforcing an Army base's civilian clothes instructions on non-military civilians at the direction of a CO strikes me as a CO not supporting or defending the constitution.

The CO here represents the government, and whether we approve or disapprove of the sentiments behind the civilian clothes standard at this base being applied to civilians, this is an real world action by a CO to curtail constitutionally protected free expression because he doesn't like how some civilians express themselves with their clothing.

Because a government official doesn't like the free expression (a form of free speech) by some insnt a good reason to suppress that free expression. Suppressing free expression is actually 180° out of what a government official should be doing.

Supporting and defending constitutional freedoms, especially for and by those who haven't been appointed to, or enlisted in, the military services...Well, supporting and defending constitutional freedoms is what the military's job function really is.

If I were this CO's boss, I'd be telling this CO to withdraw a portion of these rules immediately -- the potion of these rules where he's applying military member's civilian clothes standards on non-military, true civilians.

Response by SPC(P) Thomas Beliveau made Nov 30 at 2014 1:43 PM

SPC(P) Thomas Beliveau — Sun, 30 Nov 2014 13:43:45 -0500

The fact people need to be told how to dress is more disturbing to me then anything. I mean, we have all had to run a quick errand after the gym or something, but I think people sometimes forget that even on a post they are in public.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 30 at 2014 4:00 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 30 Nov 2014 16:00:02 -0500

How do they plan on enforcing this policy? Its going to lead to more drama than its worth. I remember when I was a young private in the Marines and some dummie belittled me in front of my with and kids because in his words I was "dressed like a thug". I have never been so disrespected in my life. My style has not changed much since then, other than i dress according to the situation. The point being the policy just like the hair and tatoo policy will have a very short shelf life.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Nov 30 at 2014 4:01 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Sun, 30 Nov 2014 16:01:22 -0500

Response by PO1 Rick Serviss made Nov 30 at 2014 7:48 PM

PO1 Rick Serviss — Sun, 30 Nov 2014 19:48:16 -0500

I can't stand going someplace and seeing a dudes pants sliding down to their skanky butt cracks. Drives me nuts.

Response by SPC(P) Samantha Moore made Nov 30 at 2014 8:33 PM

SPC(P) Samantha Moore — Sun, 30 Nov 2014 20:33:46 -0500

The way you dress not only represents you but your organization, so I agree to some extent, at least on post/base.
However, I don't like the idea of someone telling me how to shave, dress, or dictate my style.

Response by 1SG Craig Moody made Nov 30 at 2014 9:46 PM

1SG Craig Moody — Sun, 30 Nov 2014 21:46:01 -0500

""Hate to be the spoiler. But soldiers are and have always been responsible for the actions of the family members. It is the soldier's responsibility to ensure family members know what they can and cannot do," John DeSmith said."

Ok maybe. Is a graduating private really expected to tell his hairy-faced, beer gut belly hanging out father "dress up or leave." Not likely. I was at FLW for 8 years -- all of that time there was a significant local population for whom the main north/south roads were the only reasonable route to communities north of the fort. Those Ozark hillbillies (said with respect and some admiration for my many friends there) wont shave for the general or anyone else. The command tried to limit access at one point. Couldn't do it. After an off-his-rocker MP murdered three teens and left 16 yr old girl for dead (shot in the chest and dumped in snowdrift) they had to remove the gate and guard shack from the south entrance. Yep, the command has changed, all the soldiers then assigned are gone and some will call this ancient history BUT her family and the families of the three murdered are still there. I believe this general has just bitten off more than he knows and will likely be told to limit enforcement.

Response by SSG Tim Everett made Dec 1 at 2014 9:08 AM

SSG Tim Everett — Mon, 01 Dec 2014 09:08:13 -0500

I personally feel that the shaving bit is a little too far. Everything else I would have no issue with. Fortunately I have no intention of ever stepping foot on Ft. Leonard Wood again.

Response by Capt Chris McVeigh made Dec 1 at 2014 11:14 PM

Capt Chris McVeigh — Mon, 01 Dec 2014 23:14:38 -0500

And this is why Marines are always confused when we go to other bases, this is pretty much all standard practice as far as I've seen.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 6 at 2014 11:44 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 06 Dec 2014 11:44:41 -0500

Obviously I'll follow regs that are pushed down but I will say that I see nothing wrong with a little weekend scruff. There aren't too many Soldiers that can grow enough in two days to look tacky.

As far as civilians, it's about damn time. I've gotten sick of the PX looking like people of Walmart. I love the look of a firm, exposed stomach but bulging exposed beer bellies are disgusting along with sagging pants.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 6 at 2014 3:58 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 06 Dec 2014 15:58:54 -0500

I say that if there is rules and regulations- then they are there to be followed. Lets not bend anymore standards. Its the military- not a fashion club. Civillians- now that is a different story.. Wear whatever you want- but if you are going to wear it then you are not allowed on the post until you are wearing tasteful civillian attire.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made May 5 at 2015 2:41 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 05 May 2015 14:41:43 -0400

This should have happened years ago.

Response by LTC Scott O'Neil made May 5 at 2015 3:38 PM

LTC Scott O'Neil — Tue, 05 May 2015 15:38:43 -0400

I agree with the Dress Policy and the headphones is a safety issue. As a Soldier, Airman, Marine, Seaman or Coast Guardsman, Officer, or enlisted you represent the U.S. as a nation and people you have to se the example when on and off post.

If you are on leave and off a military installation then you should be able to dress and shave or unshaven as you deem necessary, but step foot on or near an installation you should set the example and fall in line with the policy.

When out of the U.S. being a Soldier, Airman, Marine, Seaman or Coast Guardsman is like being an ambassador of the U.S. on foreign soil. Set the example, stop being the bad Americans.

As for retirees, family members and guests the same should apply.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made May 5 at 2015 9:47 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 05 May 2015 21:47:14 -0400

I agree with the change. I've gone to the PX and commissary and seen some VERY questionable "outfits" or articles of clothing rather. By both males and females. They need to enforce these standards.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 5 at 2015 9:51 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 05 May 2015 21:51:37 -0400

My opinion is people need that disconnect from the military, and if you skip shaving for the weekend to give yourself that mental break i support you not shaving. The longterm rewards are far more beneficial to the military when soldiers have the outlet to truly relax and recover from the everyday stressors of our job.
However sagging pants have no place on Post. Tank tops are not something i would wear but it covers up enough of the body.
When it comes to overly revealing clothing, my opinion is if people might mistaken you for moonlighting at a strip club then you are Wrong.
Edit

Response by SGT Anthony Bussing made May 5 at 2015 10:48 PM

SGT Anthony Bussing — Tue, 05 May 2015 22:48:31 -0400

this is why...when I was in the Corps...come friday afternoon....we hit the road and got as far away from any military base we could...and for the record...I seem to recall having these guidelines on place as far back as the late 1980s...."if it has belt loops...you had better have a belt on"...nothing new here....just enforcing the old standard...no big deal

Response by SGT Anthony Bussing made May 5 at 2015 10:54 PM

SGT Anthony Bussing — Tue, 05 May 2015 22:54:57 -0400

my response to this, if I were busted there would be..."its COIN, sir"...we are tol daily to "not be obvious" we are military (in a military post town??? yeah, right" so, here you have all the townies dressed as normal americans...then you have a group of people, on a saturday, fresh shaved, polo shirts, khaki trousers...and high and tights....yeah, ISIS would NEVER guess us for military...

Response by SPC Kerstin Janney made May 5 at 2015 11:00 PM

SPC Kerstin Janney — Tue, 05 May 2015 23:00:08 -0400

The Bamberg Community commander years ago cracked down on spandex being worn outside of PT. Too many people looking like those WalMart photos were in the commissary and PX!

Response by 1LT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made May 5 at 2015 11:14 PM

1LT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 05 May 2015 23:14:53 -0400

This has been long overdue. Service Members that do not live the values we have been indoctrinated with deserve to be reprimanded!

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 6 at 2015 3:04 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 06 May 2015 03:04:25 -0400

So... First off... I am rather miffed by RP putting this as a headline update since this story is oviously 6-7months old. That would align with a few months after the announcement of the new AR 670-1.

Having said that, without intentionally mirroring many of the previous comments (because to be honest, I didn't read them all), what's the big deal? There were these standards in the previous AR 670-1; they are in the new version; and to have to have a command policy that reiterates them says a few things.

One: These standards have never been enforced, or haven't been enforced for a long time. Two: NCOs don't know the standards, or aren't allowed to enforce the standards.
Three: Leaders are affraid to enforce the standards.

Now, I can cite personally witnessed incidences of the first two hypotheses, and can testify personally to the third. I did spend some significant time at FLW in 2012. I was briefed that "under no circumstances, will you address a private. No matter how they are in violatioin of a standard or AR; YOU DO NOT TALK TO AN IET Private."

Not only that; but abiding by that guidance, I have witnessed NCOs address the drill sergeants or instructors; to bring up a violation of standards by a private in IET, and they were berated, yelled at, or even threatend with UCMJ action for trying to do their NCO duty, but yet not having the ability or authority to make an on the spot correction. I have seen a non-combat deployed (slick sleeve) Sergeant (E-5) DS, try to lock up a SSG and SFC who, under the direction of post command policy, did not correct the offending private, but adressed it with their leader (the DS).

There is a general break down in military discipline; in that the recruit or private has more rights than the veteran NCO... the NCO who is supposed to enforce STANDARDS. The role of the NCO has been undermined by lawyers, elected officials, and the Mothers of America; and those policies have been accepted by higher level commanders... in the fear that they might be profiled in the next military scandal on the cable news.

But like I said, this is an old story, so I may be just repeating every comment that's already been made.

Response by CW3 Craig Linghor made May 6 at 2015 3:53 AM

CW3 Craig Linghor — Wed, 06 May 2015 03:53:15 -0400

I thought America stood for freedom...just saying General.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 6 at 2015 4:36 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 06 May 2015 04:36:54 -0400

I am all for it. While there may be some people who say "what about Freedom? I thought I was in America?" First and foremost, you decided to be amongst a group that gave up a lot of that freedom to defend it for the majority. To those family members/friends visiting, you are a direct representation of the Service Member, so endure not wearing tube tops or sagging your pants for the time so your Service Member doesn't look like a bag of ... fill in the blanks with whatever you like.

I really hope people are not complaining about this. These are not hard rules to follow or even endorse.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made May 6 at 2015 7:46 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 06 May 2015 07:46:15 -0400

It's unfortunate that individual responsibility, values, discipline and accountability have fallen to a level in which commanders have had to go this route on any installation to ensure Soldiers, family members and civilians visiting or conducting business both on and off duty maintain a common decent appearence in public.

If you want wear your sagging pants with your ass hanging out...don't do it on post. If your wife, girlfriend, daughter wants to wear a shirt that's cut to show her waist, stomach and ass....don't do it on post. If you wish to not shave over the weekend...thats fine too....just don't plan on visiting the post for personal needs, PX, commissary, etc. You can use Kroger, Walmart, the Mall....and then fit in and look like those whom we often point out to our wife/husband and saying...."I can't believe someone would wear that out in public.

I don't necessarily agree with all included in some of these installationos policies, but definitely see the need for the stricter standards. The next step is for those in a position to make the "on the spot" corrections to do so. This will be the test that will determine the effectiveness of the policy. I've seen many NCO and Officers turn their head in order to NOT make appropriate corrective actions to Soldiers in uniform.....so unfortunately I do not expect to see them do so when they see someone in inappropriate civilian attire, etc when not on duty.

How many of us have een Soldiers, NCOs, and Officers take off running at the first sound of Retreat to get indoors so they do not have to pay the proper respect for the 1 minute it takes to bring down the Flag or just sit in their car pretending to not hear the music or see that others are doing the right thing. I've called out Soldiers and NCOs more on this then I have seen those in uniform also seeing them have done. I recall the days of when someone was caught doing this...you would see them standing at the Flag Pole every morning and evening for 30 days doing the right thing at the right time and paying the proper respect they should have done all along, as second nature and instinct.

Bring back the discipline; remove the stigma of .....when a male makes such a correction on a female and then she claims, sexual harrassment, then he becomes the object the chain of command is focusing on.....and not the culprit who was wrong to start with.

Fort Stewart ( and every Army installation I've been on) has the policy when Reveille and Retreat/End of the day music is played, if you're driving, you stop and get out of your vehicle and render proper respect. But it's not enforced. If it was, then eventually those of us who do what's right, would not see cars pulling around us while observing the installation policy. If MPs were stopping these clowns and then commanders restrict their post driving privileges for 30 days....it would come to an end. But enforcement is inconveinent....humm ....inconveinent for the MPs, inconveinent for commanders...so why keep the policy.

There is a bigger picture in which these off-duty rules encompass only a small piece of. It all goes back to discipline, leadership, tying personal and professional values together, and accountablility. Until the Army Leadership tackles these "institutional" issues and brings them back to where they once were....we're continue to see commanders trying to cure symptoms instead of the disease.

Sure some of the policies, rules that have been institutionalized in the military may seem absurd and not make sense to many. However, we are the military, in the military and traditions and values are a big part of this heritage (strange words to many young Soldiers, NCO, Officers) today...because they are inconveinent to their personal values.

So for those who do not wish to comply, feel they are stupid rules, and perfer to be an individual and fully be a part of the military tradition, values, heritage, (including policies they don't fully agree with)....then it's time to get the hell out and go back home so you can do whatever you wish, when you wish to do it and how you want to do it. Otherwise...get on board, be part of the solution and help get rid of some of these senseless problems.

Response by SGT Anthony Rossi made May 6 at 2015 6:48 PM

SGT Anthony Rossi — Wed, 06 May 2015 18:48:57 -0400

A soldier should always carry himself with respect and honor. I'm sorry but, your a soldier all the time. The Army isn't "job" it's a privlidge and a sacrifice. if you want to live like a civilian then get our of the military. No matter whether a soldier is off post, or on post, in uniform or off uniform he had to ALWAYS maintain his military bearing! The main point here! You don't belong to yourself you are (government Issue). The general has every right to impose standards that maintain discipline and bring credit and respect to out Army.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made May 6 at 2015 6:53 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 06 May 2015 18:53:44 -0400

There goes all the PVTs' visitors on family day!! Way to mess that up FLW ;)

Response by PO1 John Miller made May 6 at 2015 11:32 PM

PO1 John Miller — Wed, 06 May 2015 23:32:09 -0400

So glad I'm not in the Army and retired!

While I agree with the sagging pants issue, not so much with everything else.

Soldiers can't wear headphones while wearing their PT uniform even in a gym? Soldiers can't even wear their PT uniform outside of unit PT, can't wear it while in transit to PT, etc. (unless I'm misreading something)? Excuse my language, but that's just fracking STUPID!

Response by MAJ Matthew Arnold made May 7 at 2015 4:45 AM

MAJ Matthew Arnold — Thu, 07 May 2015 04:45:51 -0400

I'm a boomer (1955). We dressed like "Happy Days" characters. I knew what a gig line was when I was in grade school. In general, every generation since has grown more sloppy, informal, and tasteless. (Since when was it ok to wear your shirt tail hanging out, or worse, hanging out under a jacket.) I am glad the command is cracking down and enforcing a dress code.

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made May 7 at 2015 8:00 PM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Thu, 07 May 2015 20:00:21 -0400

I like showing off my legs. My legs are tone and healthy looking. I worked hard to get my legs where they are now. I need to wear proper attire in order to properly flaunt what my momma gave me.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Sep 29 at 2015 11:44 AM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Tue, 29 Sep 2015 11:44:55 -0400

So I have been working out for nothing??????????

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 29 at 2015 12:12 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Sep 2015 12:12:21 -0400

Hooah! Everything in this post's new policies make good sense to me, except when on leave having to worry about shaving every day. I do not think that's realistically enforceable. However, I shave every day anyway (have to because of my receding hairline (shave both head and face at the same time.) So, it would not affect me personally). I can see how this may draw the ire of young Soldiers, though. We, as leaders, need to know when to loosen our grip on controlling our service members every action and allow them to relax.

Response by SGT John Rauch made Sep 29 at 2015 12:18 PM

SGT John Rauch — Tue, 29 Sep 2015 12:18:49 -0400

just wondering, what is so unprofessional about facial hair as long as it is well kept?

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 29 at 2015 12:29 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Sep 2015 12:29:15 -0400

I am glad that someone is paying attention! "The army profession" is all about how we look and dress! Finally getting back to what matters. Oh that 11b doesn't fully grasp all the weapon systems he'll encounter? Naw don't worry. His uniform and boots are clean. That medic over there struggles with the basic ability to initiate an IV line? Naw, he good! He's got a really nice shave.

In all seriousness I'm not bitching here about this posts policy, I agree mostly with it(my opinion of agreement doesn't matter anyway about it. As I'm required to comply) what I find more concerning is his idea that the important aspect about the talk of "the army profession" is look and appearance. Opposed to what it needs to be. Professional competence.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 29 at 2015 12:35 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Sep 2015 12:35:49 -0400

I only came to this post to see pictures of "bad" examples. You guys are disappointing.

Response by SSgt Chris Enslow made Sep 29 at 2015 1:39 PM

SSgt Chris Enslow — Tue, 29 Sep 2015 13:39:54 -0400

Let's see what the Greatest Generation had to say when asked "why didn't you make the military a career after the war?" Check THIS out: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/chickenshit

Quotes About Chickenshit (3 quotes)

3 quotes have been tagged as chickenshit: Stephen E. Ambrose: ‘Chickenshit is so called - instead of horse- or bull- or elephant shit - because it is sma...

Response by MAJ Jim Woods made Sep 29 at 2015 2:30 PM

MAJ Jim Woods — Tue, 29 Sep 2015 14:30:23 -0400

I have never had a problem with policies that make sense.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 29 at 2015 4:57 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Sep 2015 16:57:39 -0400

I understand the desire to want to make soldiers look professional off duty, but I think that most of these requirements are a sign of the leadership not understanding millennial culture. I think back to the tattoo policies that were just repealed when I see things like this. By trying to control every aspect of one's life- personal and professional- you are effectively alienating a good portion of your fighting force. I do believe that there should be some standards on post. After all, we are on a military reservation, and those in command reserve the right to set such standards. I don't think, however, those standards should be that strict.

In every military standard, there should be a measure of cause behind it, be it readiness or professionalism. The latter is completely subjective and should be treated as such.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 29 at 2015 7:06 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Sep 2015 19:06:22 -0400

When I was stationed at Camp Red Cloud in 2004-2006 there were similar rules. The major complaint was that if you took a trip to Youngsan garrison, they did not apply there, only in 2ID land. There are portions of this I can agree to, those being the same ones I could agree to back then. However, the bit on shaving? Nope. Headphones during PT? Well, the work around for that is play Pandora on your phone, without headphones, and carry it. That's what I do and it is not against the reg AND allows you to maintain awareness of your surroundings. House shoes? Where is the definition here? Fuzzy bunny slippers for sure, but what about Crocs or moccasins? The definitions need to be fleshed out a bit. Frankly, it could be worse. At CRC, we couldn't wear plain white t-shirts, which is ridiculous.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 29 at 2015 7:58 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Sep 2015 19:58:16 -0400

Just about any job worth having is going to expect you to conduct yourself professionally both on and off duty. Like it or not, the way we look does reflect on the organizations we are a part of- our jobs, our clubs, our teams. People are judgmental. As soldiers, there are a lot more people watching us and holding us to an even higher standard. I definitely get where this policy is coming from, though I disagree with it. Everyone has a different idea of what is appropriate and not so if "self-policing is the goal", why bother?! I also fail to see what's wrong with a little weekend scruff. Is micro-managing soldiers' appearances really going to make this a better fighting force? This has the most impact on our young soldiers who don't always have the option of staying away from post on weekends to avoid shaving and silly gym attire restrictions.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 29 at 2015 8:10 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Sep 2015 20:10:36 -0400

I don't think there is anything wrong with it. When I was on active duty you had to wear close toed shoes shirts with sleeves. Tattoos could not be visible while in your uniform. We are part of the worlds greatest Military not your neighbor hood gang. You should look professional weather you are in or out of uniform. People look up to you as members of the Military look and act accordingly.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 30 at 2015 4:59 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Sep 2015 04:59:07 -0400

I think this is total nonsense. I get the no wearing skimpy clothes and sagging, but that's ridiculous to wanting to dictate someone appearance out uniform. With some much going on with Isis and terrorist acts, you are putting a gigantic target on the backs of SM's back making them that much more identifiable to any and everyone. It's always hard enough to break certain habits when among civilians. For example, when I attempted college, besides the people who knew me personally. I was easily picked out because I had the appearance of a soldier.

Response by WO1 Jose R. made Sep 30 at 2015 5:39 AM

WO1 Jose R. — Wed, 30 Sep 2015 05:39:10 -0400

I agree with having a standard of appearance when on post, we are military and raised our right hand knowing what we are joining to do and follow. However, enforcing those standards on leave time outside of post takes away the individualist and creativity that we have left, not to mention for men shaving everyday 7 days a weeks is not healthy.

Response by MSgt Erik Copp made Sep 30 at 2015 5:59 AM

MSgt Erik Copp — Wed, 30 Sep 2015 05:59:57 -0400

It like it all. Good on them. Be responsible, respectful, and have good appearance all the time. Your a soldier 24/7. Is it that hard to dress properly and shave? Nope. If you don't like the rules, it's simple, get out. But then being a Marine we have always had those rules, some don't follow them but they have been there for years.

Response by Cpl Clinton Britt made Sep 30 at 2015 7:47 AM

Cpl Clinton Britt — Wed, 30 Sep 2015 07:47:21 -0400

Outstanding. See a lot of crap coming off of Bragg. Never thought they should have allowed beards in the first place

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 30 at 2015 1:30 PM

Maj Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Sep 2015 13:30:20 -0400

Definitely overboard with the shaving and skimpy clothes rule! My wife pays good money for her skimpy clothes and I like to see her wear them!

Response by SFC John Elam made Sep 30 at 2015 7:32 PM

SFC John Elam — Wed, 30 Sep 2015 19:32:54 -0400

Those who serve in the Military volunteered to join its ranks and follow lawful orders by leaders appointed over them. The Military is a dictatorship that defends democracy and those who volunteered to serve in the military are upheld to certain expected standards. Appearance is one of those standards that is dictated to us and expected to be upheld on or off duty. A Service Member is someone who serves 24/7, 365 days a year and can be called in to perform their duties. Depending on when they get called in they should at least look like they have shaven within the last 24 hours.
As for the Military Installation wide Policy for appearance, it is obvious the Military Commander saw a need to write it. The Military is suppose to represent a well disciplined force that presents a professional appearance at all times to include the Installation and individuals granted access to it. Civilians and Family Members either abide by the Appearance Policies set forth by the Military Commander for that Military Installation or risk their access privilege being revoked for that Military Installation.
As for a Service Member whose family resides on the Military Installation, that was their choice to live there. You can always move them off the Military Installation if they don't want to abide by what is written in the Commander's Installation Appearance Policy. No Service Member's family is forced to live with them on their duty station.

Response by CW2 Louis Melendez made Sep 30 at 2015 10:02 PM

CW2 Louis Melendez — Wed, 30 Sep 2015 22:02:53 -0400

I understand the reason for those policies and agree with most of them since they relate to the image, safety, and other reasons. However, is hard to buy or believe in a "legitimate" reason for not allowing soldiers to stop shaving while they are not on duty. Officers that love to add to the regulations by implementing policies like this one needs to look at the big picture instead of focusing on little things like the shaving clause. The face needs recovery time!

Response by SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 30 at 2015 10:30 PM

SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Sep 2015 22:30:26 -0400

I agree with the change that highlights civilian attire. Some soldiers fail to realize that they are in a professional community and still dress as if they were "back on the block." You are a solider 24/7. I believe this policy should be enforced here at JBLM.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 1 at 2015 2:04 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 01 Oct 2015 14:04:18 -0400

On base is the last place you'd catch me on the weekend/leave. So no issue for me.

Response by CPT Mark Gonzalez made Oct 1 at 2015 3:34 PM

CPT Mark Gonzalez — Thu, 01 Oct 2015 15:34:03 -0400

The current regulation allows you not shave on the weekends for a reason. Just ask the chief dermatologist at FLW their opinion.

Response by SPC Anna Larson made Oct 1 at 2015 7:33 PM

SPC Anna Larson — Thu, 01 Oct 2015 19:33:50 -0400

When I and my boyfriend were stationed at Ft Huachucha, he was in the B-Troop unit. He was then sent to Korea, but he came back from Korea on leave to visit at his 6 month point there. While he was visiting me at Ft Huchucha, the B-Troop found out he was back on leave just in time for Gen. Leffler's retirement ceremony. Keith hadn't shaved in 3 weeks or so by that time and had a full beard going on. Since B-Troop was all volunteer and since they allowed retirees, civilian spouses, and other civilian base employees, beards were allowed. Keith as active duty, but on leave rode in the ceremony with his beard. Banning Sleeveless anything don't make any sense for women as there are so many summer clothes (ie sun dresses) that are perfectly suitable clothing except for the lack of a sleeve. That is one portion of the policy where I could see it being trouble. Especially since it applies to ALL (meaning kids as well). Apparently you can't put a cute sleeveless sun dress on your daughter? Or a wife who works in an office can't wear something like this shirt in the photo? It's perfectly acceptable in the work place in many offices, yet according to the "dress code" you can't leave your house with it on or come home from work with it on. I'm ok with a few points on there, (Ie saggy pants, Pajamas, etc) but I think the sleeveless part is a bit too aggressive and lacks thought.

Response by SGT Felicia King made Oct 1 at 2015 11:31 PM

SGT Felicia King — Thu, 01 Oct 2015 23:31:27 -0400

Good. I'm tired of seeing improper dress. Whatever happened to dressing for your body type? And leaving something for the curiosity? People show too much, and a lot of them really don't need to be showing all that, for real.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 2 at 2015 3:42 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 02 Oct 2015 15:42:45 -0400

Is there a rule to stop men wearing skinny jeans?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 18 at 2017 3:16 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Jan 2017 15:16:33 -0500

When I was on active duty back in the stone ages 60s/70s you could not go off Post in fatigues unless you were going off Post to your home, or coming on post to 'work' . Other than that you were either in class A or B ( in Summer/spring) , or civics .

Response by SSG Samuel Kermon made Nov 6 at 2020 6:59 AM

SSG Samuel Kermon — Fri, 06 Nov 2020 06:59:50 -0500

Good. There will be some trouble enforcing the shaving point so that will probably be amended. The wearing of headphones while in uniform is on point but will be amended to allow wear while in physical fitness uniform. As for appropriate clothing m, I think it needs to be enforced.

Response by SSG George Holtje made Dec 27 at 2020 11:21 PM

SSG George Holtje — Sun, 27 Dec 2020 23:21:28 -0500

Is it being enforced again. It comes and goes in cycles. Are we cracking down on males wearing muscle shirts? Or females dressing like strippers? Or both?
Shaved appearance is supposed to be daily for males. The four day weekend goatee is just as ridiculous as the green field mustache the day after the field exercise ended.

Response by SSG Greg Miech made Dec 28 at 2020 11:17 PM

SSG Greg Miech — Mon, 28 Dec 2020 23:17:40 -0500

While all personnel are subject to regulations and policy of the post, civilians visiting I agree with regarding to the beards. But yes standards need to be enforced with the military, contractors, employees and dependents. When one sees a group not following the regulations and another does what does that identifies to the general public?

Response by SGT Tom Moore made Jan 23 at 2022 9:04 PM

SGT Tom Moore — Sun, 23 Jan 2022 21:04:47 -0500

When soldiers are off duty, let them be off duty. When you need them they will meet the standard. Let them live. Moral means something. It’s important to the cohesion of a unit and the Army in General.