Posted on Jun 14, 2019
RFI issue boots not authorized for garrison use?
21.8K
32
18
5
5
0
So I was issued a few pairs of these boots through RFI but was recently told they are not authorized for garrison use due to the fact that the sole wraps around the heel and toes. Now to me I dont think that I would count that material as the sole of the shoe but that's just me. I mainly just found it odd that they would issue non authorized boots so I wanted get your opinions on if they were actually not authorized
Posted 6 y ago
Responses: 10
The boots are designed for more aggressive terrain and not necessary in Garrison. They can be worn in a field training environment. Also, you receive a clothing allowance, if you wear out these issues boots CIF replaces them for. Operational budget, when you wear out boots through days to day routine it is your responsibility to replace based on that clothing allowance. I mention this so that you can see the broader spectrum. Thank you for your service.
(5)
(0)
SPC Cesar Freytes
Too many options, go back to the generic black leather boots and spit shine them every night then cry .
(1)
(0)
SPC Cesar Freytes
I know I've been out for awhile, but are there no standards any more... just use what the fuck your told to use... or please tell me to shut the fuck up because this is the new Army and I don't know what I'm talking.... either way I see no standards or discipline. I see confusion not good.
(1)
(0)
Those boots are garbage anyways. I’ve been issued them twice and both blew out fairly quickly.
(2)
(0)
I have seen many, including senior NCOs, wear these. I, personally, do not have a pair, so I don't wear them. I would agree with the other comments that state it is commander's discretion, but I would find it odd that a commander would care enough that a soldier is wearing these boots, as they are in fact an issued item.
(1)
(0)
"The soling materials will not exceed 2 inches in height, when measured from the bottom of the outsole, and will not extend up the back of the heel or boot or over the top of the toe."
So to what I have read it seems like it is out of reg but defiantly find it a little crazy they would issue you something out of reg. I would see what you COC can do about that since these were issued to you. I have 2 new coyote boots issued to me and neither look like this. But neither are as comfortable as the new Nike coyote boots I have. Unless doing and inspection I wouldn't go nuts over these since you have the proof they were issued to you I would actually figure out the reason y and correct it if they are truthfully out of regulation.
So to what I have read it seems like it is out of reg but defiantly find it a little crazy they would issue you something out of reg. I would see what you COC can do about that since these were issued to you. I have 2 new coyote boots issued to me and neither look like this. But neither are as comfortable as the new Nike coyote boots I have. Unless doing and inspection I wouldn't go nuts over these since you have the proof they were issued to you I would actually figure out the reason y and correct it if they are truthfully out of regulation.
(1)
(0)
I'm pretty left-brained about this sort of stuff. If my PSG/1SG/Co said "do it," so long as it was legal, I did it. I would be inclined to put these boots in my "B" bag and get some boots that met the requirements of my command for garrison use. I doubt that, when you are in the field, anybody is going to care very much what you put on your feet so long as they don't stand out, your feet stay dry and you stay mobile.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
I totally get that and it actually wasn't even anyone in my COC that had said anything about them. it was one of the E-6 instructors at the NCO Academy(only person to ever have questioned me about them) and seeing as it was the first time anyone had said anything i wanted to ensure i wasn't the one that was fucked up.
(1)
(0)
I have worn these same boots for over 2 years (I don’t have other boots either that this point) and have never been told they were not compliant to AR670-1.
To add to one of the other comments, the material on the back of the heel is technically separate from the sole
To add to one of the other comments, the material on the back of the heel is technically separate from the sole
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Got cut off - so from this semantic standpoint I would say they are fine. I also know that there have been ALARACTS authorizing these boots for garrison wear - though they won’t be reissued to you unless you go back to Afghanistan/
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
SGT (Join to see) why would there be an alaract. As each garrison has its own local policies?
(0)
(0)
The hours I spent spit shining boots and we could have had these the whole time.
(0)
(0)
SPC Cesar Freytes
Drill Sargent, the hours you have trained troops to shine boots this whole time exceeds the time you shined your boots.... I will say this, troops of past took pride in shinny boots, taking hard work and personal time to show that pride.
(0)
(0)
Theyre mountain boots for afghsnistan. They dont meet regulstion do therefor arent authorized in garrison. Used to deal with this all the time before ocp becsme officisl, with multicam uniforms.
(0)
(0)
SPC Cesar Freytes
If specific to deployment, should be TA-50 unless things have changed.... Wow the new Army.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next