31
30
1
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/
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/
Army
Fort Leonard Wood
Army Regulations
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 112
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
There goes all the PVTs' visitors on family day!! Way to mess that up FLW ;)
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
This has been long overdue. Service Members that do not live the values we have been indoctrinated with deserve to be reprimanded!
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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...
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
To answer your question I am 33 and sounds to me that you are acting me personally. In this country we are allowed to dress in what other clothes make you fell comfortable. What you may consider to be dressing like a thug may be what makes me feel comfortable. Judging someone by what they are were is is against the Army values. To me the real thugs are those who wear suits and ties everyday and steal taxpayers money. So again before you question my respect for authority or whether I serve I advise you to look internally at your own personal prejudice. This is what is wrong with the Army today people who automatically assume something about someone without getting to know the individual.
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
There was no reason to attack him personally. Maybe you didn't intend it to be inflammatory, but it sure came off that way.
Responding to your second post:
"mainly I was asking a question and much to everyone opion i did not say you could not dress that way, but I am told I cannot speak that way, so your way of dressing is more important that my freedom of speech which is protect by the government."
It just comes off as if you are trying tp put him in his place and belittle him.
Since you were mainly asking a question, how is he supposed to respond to:
Question 1: "How old are you that you think dressing like a thug in front of your kids is a good influence on them and it sounds like you have little respect for rules and authority"
Question 2: "do you serve or are you just marking time. "
NO one is going to take kindly to that.
Responding to your second post:
"mainly I was asking a question and much to everyone opion i did not say you could not dress that way, but I am told I cannot speak that way, so your way of dressing is more important that my freedom of speech which is protect by the government."
It just comes off as if you are trying tp put him in his place and belittle him.
Since you were mainly asking a question, how is he supposed to respond to:
Question 1: "How old are you that you think dressing like a thug in front of your kids is a good influence on them and it sounds like you have little respect for rules and authority"
Question 2: "do you serve or are you just marking time. "
NO one is going to take kindly to that.
(1)
(1)
SSG Gordon Hill
mainly I was asking a question and much to everyone opion i did not say you could not dress that way, but I am told I cannot speak that way, so your way of dressing is more important that my freedom of speech which is protect by the government. I served as well and you represent your country. So to prove your point why dont you post a picture of the way you were dressed when this other oerson attacked you infront of your kids ,and if it sounded like a verbal assualt did you report it to the police you hav that right you know
(1)
(0)
SSG (ret) William Martin
Dressing like a "thug" can be very opinionated and it can be obvious with saggy pants or shorts along with a t-shirt that is 10 times to large with head gear cocked to one side. Another vision to someone who just doesn't know might consider baggy clothes to me thug-life when its only one person's style.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I think it's very reasonable. A military installation should be the last place to show off your Jerry Springer clothing line.
(2)
(0)
(0)
(0)
PV2 Abbott Shaull
SGT Michael Glenn there will always be special waivers under certain circumstances, and if we the power that be, fell they are effective for a particular mission. Or they have skill that is in need, such as the case with the on Captain I know about who got the waiver, well so be it. As Captain Caleb Lin stated it viewed under the religious contexts. This is where stupid Mickey Mouse Shit has to stop, just because one soldier has a profile or waiver to do something that doesn't conform to the Rules and Regulation, everyone else believe they should be excluded too. Where do you draw the line to keep discipline within a Command? Yes, we all know, that these profiles and waivers, don't help to argument on why it needs to be enforce, but if we don't keep enforcing basic discipline on post, how are we suppose to keep basic discipline while downrange where the shit is real.
(0)
(0)
SGT Michael Glenn
PV2 Shaull, you seem to be confused with a few things. It seems to be that you constantly talk in circles here, you start out telling me so be it if the Military decides to allow beards and turbans in the military, but yet go on to say how will we keep discipline in our ranks if things like this continue??? I am confused as it makes no sense. Myself, I have stated from the get go that I am AGAINST any special waivers because in the onslaught of things this will stoke the fire so to speak with opening a door that the Military DOES NOT want. You will see an valance of other ethnic back grounds vying for their right to change not only the uniform but OTHER areas as well if allowed. Not ringing the racial bell , but Blacks have always tried to getaway with funky hair cuts and P-3 profiles to not shave, this would just explode into a free for all in that direction even further crippling the badly damaged anti racism campaign being waged in the military for the last umpteen million years. Do not give in and keep the military one color will always be my motto for there should be no race involved, just finely tuned soldiers, nothing more.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
All good stuff. For a split second I thought they were going to make me shave
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google