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
7
7
0
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.
(7)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
When I went through Basic Training, I remember looking up to an E-6 with a combat patch and being in absolute awe of him. As a 1LT, I talked to two friends who had just gone through Basic, and to them I was this high and mighty figure. The point is, you never know who is watching and discipline means doing the right thing even no one is looking.
(5)
(0)
6
6
0
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
(6)
(0)
SFC Harry (Billy) Tison
And if the one's who let their pants sag, if they only knew the meaning of it, they'd proabably yank their pants up to their armpits
(1)
(0)
PO1 Autumn Sandeen
Seriously, it's a government agency taking on the told of fashion police of civilians. I find that a bridge too far.
(3)
(0)
6
6
0
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.
(6)
(0)
SGT Alicia Brenneis
I saw it happen only once at the Ft Gordon Commissary and boy was she mad. She was in a sports bra and small spandex shorts like she just came from a CIV gym. Her little girl didn't have shoes on. That woman yelled all the way to the parking lot. I don't know if she or someone else called the MPs but they were talking to her when I walked out. I though it was hilarious how mad she was. That commissary has posters of what can and can not be worn by all shoppers.
(2)
(0)
PO1 Autumn Sandeen
Geez. Why not call the patrol the "fashion police"? Seems a more accurate descriptor.
(2)
(0)
5
5
0
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.
(5)
(0)
5
5
0
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.
(5)
(0)
CW4 Laird Culver
Agreed! I do recall in the 60's and 70's while following my father around the world as a dependent that even then there was a sense of decorum. Yes, you had the barracks rats who looked disheveled, but not when they left the barracks. Hell, you couldn't even have a car which looked beat up and near junk! Soldiers got tickets for vehicles which were dilapidated and some of the cars I have seen on my installation would have gotten you in hot water back then.
(2)
(0)
5
5
0
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.
(5)
(0)
CSM (Join to see)
Brother, its like I say all the time--everyone has a pet-peeve, but, certain leaders get to turn theirs in to policy--which is flat-out wrong. I personally don't like cigarettes. As a CSM, I could make a policy to make life hell for my smokers. But, how arrogant and selfish would that be?! Sometimes policies can be a form of toxic leadership!
(4)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
Absolutely agree CSM. I've seen personal preferences get placed into policy. And as much as I grit my teeth and disagree with most of it, I'm forced to uphold the policy. Makes me feel like a Hipocrit. I get bumps when I shave. I tend to give my face a break during the weekend. I suppose I could go get a shaving profile, but I don't like the Fred Flintstone look.
(0)
(0)
PV2 Abbott Shaull
I hear you Danny Ibarra, I never we all have our personal preferences. Yeah lot of times, with the uniform, enforcing the rules and regulation, you can cause one to feel like hipocrit at time, if not all the time. Yet, the time we are serving we are paid to stand up for the Constitution and all the laws of the land, so others can enjoy their Rights and Freedoms. The irony is we while we serve, are granted the same privilege to enjoying all of those Rights and Freedoms, regardless if we are on duty or off duty, Active, Nation Guard, or Reserve, we all wear a uniform, and follow fall under the same Military Law 24/7. Even those of us who still have owe time in the the Ready Reserve components, yes you don't have to go to training, and more less civilian, but all it takes is one simple set of orders to reactive you. Then again, any of us, who are in the Civilian World, if we pissed off the right person, well as they said Shit does roll down hill, and don't make it where at the bottom of that hill. Don't say they can't do it, they can do what every they damn well please after you signed that contract. Like I said, it doesn't happen very often, when it does, it for mainly special hush-hush jobs, but it has been abused in the past too.
(2)
(0)
5
5
0
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.
Maybe this new policy will cut down on the senior commander's on "Rear D" from sleeping around the wives.
(5)
(0)
5
5
0
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.
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.
(5)
(0)
SSG David Kaelin
The new Army is all about perception and very low on actual ability with exceptions. Stay away from the flagpole...always wise counsel.
The old Army...pretty much the same.
What always cracked me up about NCOs and AR 670-1 were that the most hardcore "warriors" were REMFs...especially Finance types.
REMFs were always calling themselves "professionals" and "warriors." Most of these cats could barely fire a rifle.
Sure they looked good in uniform and were in shape for the APFT...not that it's difficult to train for the APFT. However, they knew nothing except for common core basics. Get these REMFs out in the field and they hovered around the MKT slurping down coffee pretending that "being in the field" was the same as training for combat.
This strikes me as typical of the REMF mentality. The cats who are slobbering all over this AR 670-1 glorification are the guys who are proud of their "Combat Tour" in Green Village, the Green Zone, Camp Eggers, NKC, HQ ISAF, Mighty Bagram Air Field and NKIA. Professional FOBBITs.
It's like you're in the Army...but not. It's like you're in Afghanistan...but not.
It's like being stationed in Germany and never leaving Landstuhl...the base.
REMFs ruin the Army.
The Wars are coming to a close. The Bureaucrats are reasserting control. The true warriors will be put out to pasture by the guys who stayed "inside the wire." This and the tats rulings in the USMC and other regulatory guidance are designed for one thing and one thing only: BUREAUCRATIC DOMINANCE of the Military.
The guys who fought the actual wars and who carry the emotional & psychological trauma will be discarded for they are no longer needed in such numbers.
This happens after every war.
The Pattons and SGT Yorks are chased off. The Gordon Sullivan and Henry H. Halleck types will move forward in planning for the last war allowing us to be caught off guard again for the next attack.
It's a lovely world.
HOOAH!
Oh...I was a straight REMF for most of my career in the Military. However, I can recognize real warriors when I see them. I work with some now. Awesome guys who actually fought and didn't sit on the FOB chugging M&Ms.
The old Army...pretty much the same.
What always cracked me up about NCOs and AR 670-1 were that the most hardcore "warriors" were REMFs...especially Finance types.
REMFs were always calling themselves "professionals" and "warriors." Most of these cats could barely fire a rifle.
Sure they looked good in uniform and were in shape for the APFT...not that it's difficult to train for the APFT. However, they knew nothing except for common core basics. Get these REMFs out in the field and they hovered around the MKT slurping down coffee pretending that "being in the field" was the same as training for combat.
This strikes me as typical of the REMF mentality. The cats who are slobbering all over this AR 670-1 glorification are the guys who are proud of their "Combat Tour" in Green Village, the Green Zone, Camp Eggers, NKC, HQ ISAF, Mighty Bagram Air Field and NKIA. Professional FOBBITs.
It's like you're in the Army...but not. It's like you're in Afghanistan...but not.
It's like being stationed in Germany and never leaving Landstuhl...the base.
REMFs ruin the Army.
The Wars are coming to a close. The Bureaucrats are reasserting control. The true warriors will be put out to pasture by the guys who stayed "inside the wire." This and the tats rulings in the USMC and other regulatory guidance are designed for one thing and one thing only: BUREAUCRATIC DOMINANCE of the Military.
The guys who fought the actual wars and who carry the emotional & psychological trauma will be discarded for they are no longer needed in such numbers.
This happens after every war.
The Pattons and SGT Yorks are chased off. The Gordon Sullivan and Henry H. Halleck types will move forward in planning for the last war allowing us to be caught off guard again for the next attack.
It's a lovely world.
HOOAH!
Oh...I was a straight REMF for most of my career in the Military. However, I can recognize real warriors when I see them. I work with some now. Awesome guys who actually fought and didn't sit on the FOB chugging M&Ms.
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
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.
(5)
(0)
5
5
0
PO1 (Join to see)
Uh... wow... TMI 1LT William Clardy . I think I'll just have another beer - beer goggles work right?
(1)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
Sure they do, PO1 (Join to see), sure they do. Have a few, even.
And when you're ready to take a break, you can strut your stuff in your own Speedo. Your Mom said the stripes would go well with your beard...
And when you're ready to take a break, you can strut your stuff in your own Speedo. Your Mom said the stripes would go well with your beard...
(0)
(0)
SSG David Kaelin
Burqinis...looks like this Chain of Command learned all the wrong lessons in the Stan/Iraq.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google