Should boots like Nike and Rocky C4T be authorized? I have been looking at the regulations for boots and I have noticed that some the boots do not quite match with the info. My question is based on the regulation; should Nike and rocky C4T trainers should not allowed to be worn with the uniform. Do you you agree or disagree?

Should boots like Nike and Rocky C4T be authorized?

0

SGT (Join to see)

Posted >1 y ago

My honest opinion? They should be issued.

(0)

Comment

(0)

0

CSM (Join to see)

Posted >1 y ago

A lot of commercial boots are being tagged unauthorized because they are made from synthetic letter. Just got the slide show today.

(0)

Comment

(0)

0

SGT(P) (Join to see)

Posted >1 y ago

i am not sure about the boots on the left solely on the fact that i dont know what they are, but i diffenently know taht the nike boots have and still are unauthorized by 670-1 because the are made of a synthict leather

(0)

Comment

(0)

Transferred from duplicate topic

0

SGT (Join to see)

Posted >1 y ago

SFC, Yes and no commercial boots are authorize for wear, as long as they meet the requirements you can where Nike brands etc of your choice, however they must meet the requirements for example the boots must exceed 8" in height I believe that is the biggest issue I see and it does have purpose behind it to support the ankles while on different types of terrain and to help keep bugs etc. There are a lot of requirements for the boots best explanation is found in the DA PAM 670-1 Chapter 20-3 appendix (a).(3) Optional boots.

(a) As an option, Soldiers may wear commercial boots of a design similar to that of the Army combat boot (tan), as

authorized by the commander. The boots must be between 8 to 10 inches in height and made of tan flesh-side out

cattlehide leather, with a plain toe and a soling system matching the color of the tan upper materials. Rubber and

polyether polyurethane are the only outsole materials that are authorized. 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. The exterior of the boot upper will not contain mesh but will be constructed of either all leather or a

combination of leather and nonmesh fabric. Soldiers may wear optional boots in lieu of the Army combat boot (tan), as

authorized by the commander; however, they do not replace issue boots as a mandatory possession item.

(b) Optional boots are not authorized for wear when the commander issues and prescribes standard organizational

footwear for safety or environmental reasons (such as insulated boots or safety shoes). Personnel may wear specialty

boots authorized for wear by specific groups of Soldiers, such as the tanker boot, only if the commander authorizes

such wear. Soldiers may not wear optional boots in formation when uniformity in appearance is required.

(4) Organizational boots. When prescribed and issued by the commander according to CTA 50–900, personnel may

wear, instead of the combat boot, such organizational boots or safety boots with field and utility uniforms.

b. Boots, combat, black, leather. The black combat boots are an optional purchase item.

(1) Description. The black boot is made of black leather with a deep lug tread sole made of vulcanized rubber, a

removable cushioned insert, a closed-loop speed lace system, and a leather padded collar.

(0)

Comment

(0)

Transferred from duplicate topic

0

1SG Mike Case

Posted 12 y ago

I won't post the whole letter but a SGM wrote a letter to SMA Chandler about the synthetic boots being worn even though they are not authorized and asking how to get the info out to the force. This is the reply sent to him:

You are correct on all accounts. Synthetic boots are not authorized.
I am currently working on a short training package to solely demonstrate examples of authorized and unauthorized boots. It will be available on the G-1 webpage within the next month; after we release the new AR 670-1 and accompanying DA Pam. The criteria for boots is not changing, but I agree that we must educate Soldiers on the current standards.

Please contact me directly if you have further questions or concerns.

Thanks!

V/R,
SGM LeeAnn M. Conner
HQDA, DCS Army G-1
Uniform Policy Sergeant Major
Pentagon, Room 2C453
COMM: [login to see]
DSN: [login to see]
[login to see]

(0)

Comment

(0)

Transferred from duplicate topic

CPT (Join to see)

>1 y

I need new boots, but I'm going to stand by for this. There is too much confusion and even though others here seem to feel it doesn't matter as long as they aren't going to get in trouble for it (e.g., if CSM is wearing them...), that's not how I roll.

(0)

Reply

(0)

0

MSG Phil Herndon

Posted 12 y ago

From SMA:

"
PEO
Soldier and NSRDEC maintain a close relationship with the footwear

buyers
at AAFES to ensure they are not buying anything for MCSS that does

not
meet the Army Uniform requirements. If AAFES has an interest in selling

a
specific COTS boot in MCSS, they forward PEO Soldier and NSRDEC a pair of the
specified boots. PEO Soldier and NSRDEC provide the AAFES footwear buyers feedback if the boots do or do not meet Army
requirements."

Not every boot meets spec, because some are authorized for other services, but for the most part, if MCSS sells it, it is a good chance it has been approved.

(0)

Comment

(0)

0

SSG (Join to see)

Posted 12 y ago

The
Army authorizes COTS boots as long as they are between 8 to 10 inches in height
and made of tan rough side out cattlehide leather, with a plain toe,

and
with a soling system similar in color to the tan upper materials. The

soling
materials cannot exceed two inches in height, when measured from the

bottom
of the outsole, and can not extend up the back of the heel of the

boot
or over the top of the toe (See attached pictures). The exterior of

the
upper boot can not contain mesh but must be constructed of all leather

or a
combination of leather and non-mesh fabric. Boots with metal or plastic

cleats
in the bottom of the soles and sewn-in or laced-in zippers or velcro

inserts
are not authorized (See attached pictures).
There are other

leathers,
such as pigskin, that do not meet the performance criteria of

cattlehide.
Cattlehide leather is more durable, and provides better

performance
in combat over pigskin. Soldiers should be aware that some

companies
sell "Warrior Leather" which is a common-use name for pigskin
leather. Rubber and polyether
polyurethane are the only outsole materials authorized. Rubber and
polyether polyurethane are the only outsole materials that currently
meet
the need for durability and traction on surfaces in multiple

environments
and temperature ranges. Other materials,
which may be of a

lighter
weight, do not meet Soldiers performance standards.

(0)

Comment

(0)

Transferred from duplicate topic

2

0

2

CPT (Join to see)

Posted 12 y ago

There's going to be issues if someone tries to take away my Nike's. I just might fight somebody.

(2)

Comment

(2)

show previous comments

MSG (Join to see)

>1 y

Unfortunately, CSM, that is exactly what's going on. I see it every day. I work at the MSCoE NCOA and we make corrections in the building on a daily basis to both NCO's and officers. We get the head nod and the "I'll do whatever I want look" and we see them wearing the same boots the next day. It's really bad with the LT's and the CPT's in the BOLC and CCC courses. The other issue is a lack of knowledge by leaders. Honestly, until recently, I was unaware of the standard. As soon as I found out, I fixed myself. You can look at one of the older comments on this and there is a 1SG who says he wears them daily, has been wearing them for 3 units, and thinks it is up to his commander whether or not he can. Leaders aren't aware of the standard so they don't make the correction, or they are aware, but they choose not to abide by it.

(0)

Reply

(0)

SGT (Join to see)

>1 y

If the regulation does not support boots that are worn, then why are they being worn? Is the regulation not what the Army lives by?

(0)

Reply

(0)

MAJ (Join to see)

>1 y

1LT Gilcrest, I hope you see the angst created amongst NCOs/SNCOs when leadership presents an image of being cavalier (at best) or insubordinate (at worst). Whether the intention of your comment matched what was perceived, only you know, but as leaders, we must always be cognizant of what we say, how we say it, where we say it, and to whom we say it.

(0)

Reply

(0)

SGT (Join to see)

>1 y

I agree 100%, SGM; Nike seems to be going in the right direction with their next generation of boots, though.

(0)

Reply

(0)

0

GySgt (Join to see)

Posted 12 y ago

No Eagle, Globe & Anchor on the outside of the heel, no wear. However, the rules bend in combat for some units like Recon or ANGLICO will have the whole unit issued different boots that are not Marine Corps standard.

(0)

Comment

(0)

0

CW2 (Join to see)

Posted 12 y ago

Switch back and forth from my Garmonts to my Nikes, and I never knew the reg issue with the Nikes. Good thing to know!

(0)

Comment

(0)

Should boots like Nike and Rocky C4T be authorized?

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.