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
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
3
3
0
1SG (Join to see)
In order to have freedom, there has to be rules. Did you really make that comment or someone logged in using your login? Just saying!
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
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.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
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!
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
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
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
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
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
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
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.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
1SG Kenneth Talkington Sr
It used to be for the Army as well. It seem that there has been a major breakdown in discipline. The same thing happened during and after Viet Nam. It took a lot of work and training as well as numerous reductions in rank, Bad Conduct and other non favorable discharges to correct the problem. During times of conflict we have to keep our standards high and not let them go by the wayside.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google