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
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
2LT John Ballard - That's not what I meant I've felt that way before the attacks. We shouldn't have to look like we still have on our uniform when not in it. What I mean by civilians, I mean when I'm around civilians it's hard for me to break my military habits. I take what you said into consideration about the picture
(0)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
2LT John Ballard - And I am very committed to serving my country. Serving in the military is a family tradition and I take proud wearing my uniform. Thanks for your advice and tips
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
I agree with the SSG, I think its ridiculous to see a military member with tattoos all over and gauges in their ears and piercings outside of work. Pull up your damn pants and don't wear gothic pants with holes in them. Your not 50-cent and your not Rob Zombie or Metallica or whatever other style you want to throw in their. As far as the soldiers, they need to be at least somewhat professional outside of work.
(0)
(0)
MAJ David White
I'd just like to see standards enforced evenly, if it's to be done. Big, fabulous hairdos are against regulation, yet I used to see it all the time in support and TDA units. Perhaps in the 15 years since I separated it has changed?
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
I was at Camp Stanley during this time frame, and the 2ID Warrior Standard was beyond ridiculous. Not to mention, having to carry an 80 some odd page booklet around with you when you were on duty.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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...
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
SSG Robert Webster
SPC (Join to see), I know that in a way that part of your comment was meant to be sarcasm, but it made me think about what it is like in the civilian world for some occupations. You are quite correct that the number one item that should matter is competence. And that appearance is of secondary importance. What I found in my first full job after my time in service is that competence was an important part of getting your foot in the door, but that appearance also plays a very important part of getting through the door. Next, I learned that though you may never be seen by the customer, you were expected to dress as a professional and that had an impact on your pay and promotions. In the profession that I was in you had to be very technically competent to do the job and though we were in a cube farm and very rarely got to see or meet with a customer, we were expected to dress in acceptable business attire at all times. Think about the "Jake from State Farm" insurance commercial as an example. As long as we were/are competent, it should not matter how we are dressed, but it does matter. One way that it was explained to me, though I knew it already, was that if you have a professional appearance it can effect your attitude as to how you accomplish your job. And as others have noted in this thread, it is not what you do in public, but how you address it in private when no one is looking that sets the competent professionals apart from all others, whether it is in the military or in the civilian workplace.
From your attitude to your statement here, I would hope that you have success in your career and I would not mind one bit that if I needed medical attention that you were the one providing it.
From your attitude to your statement here, I would hope that you have success in your career and I would not mind one bit that if I needed medical attention that you were the one providing it.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
just wondering, what is so unprofessional about facial hair as long as it is well kept?
(1)
(0)
SPC James Mast
I never liked having to shave when I was in. I couldn't get a shaving profile otherwise I would have.. A well kept beard/mustache or goatee would not be an area i would mind after they finish their basic training..
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
SPC Christopher Perrien - Gas masks will seal just fine. Do you think that there are 0 firefighters in the entire world that have beards? Or that SF/SEALS/ETC are always clean shaven? I know the Army will teach you a great many truths, but not everything you're told is. Gas masks not sealing properly is a fallacy.
(0)
(0)
SPC Christopher Perrien
SSG (Join to see) - Firefighter masks, work on over pressure. And such troopers as Seals/SOC with Middle Eastern style beards are "rarely" operating in chemical warfare/contaminated environments. I myself could care less if REMFs looking like Santa Claus are throwing their guts out after a chemical attack, unless they happen to be loading bombs for airsupport. Surely thin beards do not affect gasmask seals as bad as wearing no mask at all, but when dealing with nerve gas or particulate chemicals , it is best to be on the side of easy precautions than not.
In the other aspect, there is no denying beards can catch on fire, and that is an easy avoidable hazard by shaving. This is a bigger issue is some MOS's than others.
And beards simply are not uniform and not allowed generally in most of the services or specialties in the same. And shaving profiles were a rare thing back when I was in and were frowned upon.
In the other aspect, there is no denying beards can catch on fire, and that is an easy avoidable hazard by shaving. This is a bigger issue is some MOS's than others.
And beards simply are not uniform and not allowed generally in most of the services or specialties in the same. And shaving profiles were a rare thing back when I was in and were frowned upon.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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!
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!
(1)
(0)
SPC Larry Boutwell
What no head phones in the gym??? Since when?????wtf..no pts outside of pt formation...i got out in 2011and we could still do those things at that time....
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
I'm not sure exactly what the standard is currently (my Blue Book is at home), but I know a couple of CGs ago here on FT. Sill the only time you could wear headphones in the gyms was when using a treadmill. Lo and behold, the CG did all of his cardio in the gym on a treadmill.....
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google