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
""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.
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.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
However, I don't like the idea of someone telling me how to shave, dress, or dictate my style.
(3)
(0)
SPC George Long
SPC Moore thank you for your sacrifice. Please know many have gone before you and many will follow. All have sacrificed. And some paid the ultimate price.
(1)
(0)
SSG David Kaelin
Yeah, because that's why the Army fights!
For dress codes and the right to tell folks to pull up their pants!
Hooah!
For dress codes and the right to tell folks to pull up their pants!
Hooah!
(1)
(0)
1SG Kenneth Talkington Sr
As a service member you gave up your right to freedom when you signed your contract. I believe part of the contract was that you would follow and obey all order both written and oral of those appointed above you. So buck up young lady. You can still can be a female . You just have to follow the rules. The rules are there for a reason I suggest you try learning about them
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
I can't stand going someplace and seeing a dudes pants sliding down to their skanky butt cracks. Drives me nuts.
(3)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
That makes me crazy! I also don't like when people wear clothes that don't fit or are transparent material, even worse is pajamas in public! I think it's possible to maintain a style and individuality without looking like a bum. Personally, I think some of the supposed "skimpy" clothing is nit-picking. If women can wear tanks, so should men, as an example. When it comes to facial hair, I think everyone's skin needs a break! Nobody tells me I must shave my legs daily, why fuss about off time?
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
Good afternoon Dave. It's been my experience in the military that when policies are created or revamped something happened to bring that policy into fruition. It is my personal opinion that men and women in our profession should dress in such a manner that we represent our individuality without disrespecting or embarrassing the military and the organizations that we are assigned to. A grown man shouldn't be out in public styling with his pants down around his thighs unless he's getting ready to utilize the bathroom. A woman doesn't have to reveal all of herself when she goes public just because she can. The beauty of the constitution in America is that it gives us certain rights but that doesn't mean what we do under the sections of the constitution is right. We all raised our hand to come into this profession and we knew we would have to follow their law. For those of us who don't like it, help your battle buddies out by exiting to the left so that those of us who are trying to stay in are not sent home in order to meet a projected number for total service. Stay up killa and I'll catch you later at M.A.D.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
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.
(3)
(0)
PV2 Abbott Shaull
Well damn almost none of Delta Force are in regulation or that Naval unit formerly known as 'Seal Team 6'.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
I am grateful I am do not have to worry about this. Although Special Force teams, regardless of who they are with, have different rules that they go by cause their mission is quite a bit different.
I don't think that guys should have to shave all the time. Your time is your time, you should be able to give your face a break.
I don't think that guys should have to shave all the time. Your time is your time, you should be able to give your face a break.
(0)
(0)
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
SSG David Kaelin
A soldier with a beard who is fit looks one hundred times more professional than any of the fat slobs running around in uniform.
If you are wearing a uniform that could be used as a GP Medium Tent or bulging out of your Smedium uniform jacket and trousers, you do much more harm to the image of the military than any bearded or mustachioed soldier.
I've never understood how these fat 1SGs, Captains, Major, CSMs and Generals are promoted through the system.
They look terrible and I'm embarrassed every time I see one of them.
If you are wearing a uniform that could be used as a GP Medium Tent or bulging out of your Smedium uniform jacket and trousers, you do much more harm to the image of the military than any bearded or mustachioed soldier.
I've never understood how these fat 1SGs, Captains, Major, CSMs and Generals are promoted through the system.
They look terrible and I'm embarrassed every time I see one of them.
(0)
(0)
SPC George Long
In 1969 and part of 1970 I was a MP at Ft Wood. Civilian clothes were not allowed, facial hair would get you an Article 15 and uniform violations would get you braced on the street. Hands in your pocket were prohibited, you had gloves. This was a time when people were still drafted. Believe it or not there were almost no violations. I guess times have changed. About 6 years ago I was at Ft Wood and couldn't tell a soldier from Jody. Very unprofessional.
(2)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
That is definitely a good point. I am not sure if it was a written rule or unwritten, but I was TDY on a naval base and you didn't wear your uniform off base at all. They even changed at lunch. I recommend that we FT Gordon adopt the same policy.
(1)
(0)
PV2 Abbott Shaull
No matter what you wear, your cut, and your bearings will send out clear signal that you are military regardless if you are wearing civies or uniform. One of the things that use to make us laugh back in the 1989, in the 82nd. Since it an unwritten regulation to go get High and Tight, or Side Walls depending on who you talked to. Yet, most of us, including Officers got them. One of the main reason was the general fear of Soviet agents in the immediate around the Fort Bragg trying to get information.
What gets to me is how many people don't get with the recent threat advisory that been issued. Many of the people still refuse to take information down off their social media sites. There one thing about being tough like John Wayne, but when shit hits the fan, and it becomes reality. It may be too late to take the information down.
What gets to me is how many people don't get with the recent threat advisory that been issued. Many of the people still refuse to take information down off their social media sites. There one thing about being tough like John Wayne, but when shit hits the fan, and it becomes reality. It may be too late to take the information down.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
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
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
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.
(3)
(0)
PV2 Abbott Shaull
Totally agree, mentorship at times was way lacking, even when I was in, in the small little chunk of the world inside the Army I seen after Basic/AIT and Airborne School at Fort Bragg. The worlds only "Airborne" capable Infantry Division, and some of the unprofessional bullshit that I seen with the Company that I was assigned too. Yet, it is all good, the same company was with first Battalion to ship out with the 82nd for Desert Shield. It wasn't such a 'bad' company, we were outstanding in the Field. Just while in the barracks, this was when Zero Tolerance was starting, and "Wall-to-Wall" counselling was no longer allowed, many Leaders and Commanders were more happy to cash you out, than to help you become a better soldier. Yes, in some cases some honestly may must not know any better and need to corrected.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google