Posted on Feb 22, 2014
Spouses/dependents wearing your uniform components in public?
271K
502
246
55
55
0
We have all seen it, spouses wearing their "sponsors" pt jacket, fleece jacket etc while walking around in public. I would really like to know why it is that "YOU" as the service member allow your spouse to wear a part of your uniform in public. Do you not have any pride in your uniform or your profession, or do you just not care that they do it? I would never let my wife wear my PT Jacket or anything else of mine that is essentially INITIAL ISSUE OR TA-50 in public. If she wants to support what I do and it is cold out, I'd get her an Army hoodie, not strip my name tapes off and let her walk around in MY Army issued fleece jacket. There is a discussion about Soldiers walking around in uniform after COB and "how wrong that is". So why do people think this it is OK to let their spouse wear their uniform and announce "my family is in the Army" or "give me special attention". And knowing that dependents are REALLY not so much subject to 670-1/ UCMJ in that aspect, is there any input as to what can be done about it besides walking away disgusted.<br>
Spouses
Uniforms
DA Pam 670-1
Posted 12 y ago
Responses: 133
Suspended Profile
<div>SSG Broadbent,</div><div><br></div>That would be so wrong in my generation. He would have to shave his legs. My own cover, blouses, and skirts would look very odd if he could even fit into them. <div><br></div><div>His uniforms would look extremely baggy and just awful on me. His cavalry hat and silver eagles would look completely out of place. This is totally insane.</div><div><br></div><div>I think either of us wearing the others uniform parts<span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); "> would be completely wrong. <span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); ">How could anyone even think about even trying this today?</span></span></div><div><div><br></div><div>Warmest Regards, Sandy</div><div><br></div></div>
MAJ Ronnie Reams
Reminded me of a time, Sandy, when still in the cotton fatigues and no jungles yet. I talked a friend of mine at the 24th out of one of her female fatigue jackets and wore it with regular fatigue trousers. Cut out the modesty flap. Really liked it and especially the pockets on the arm. The guys were wondering where I got it and wanted some. Fortunately the jungies came in shortly there after.
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
<p>I agree. My wife does not ever wear my military gear(PT, fleece, anything). One, it looks goofy in civilian clothes anyways, two, we don't need to draw extra attention to the fact that we are military, and three, there is no reason to do so. She has civilian clothing and jackets. Most installations have some sort of rules for the uniform after COB. I know Ft. Wainwright and Ft. Richardson have the Blue book which limits off post wear to 0500 to 1900. There are exceptions about stopping at gas stations, etc to get essentials in order to get home. Fort Drum was the exact same way. </p><p><br></p><p>Folks who where that military gear in public like that are merely attention hunting. There is no reason when we are supposed to be quiet professionals. We should not be out seeking attention. </p><p><br></p><p>Just my thoughts. I completely agree with you brother. </p>
(5)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
So you're saying that privates and specialists coming down on orders to Ft. Wainwright have clothing for down to -60 Fahrenheit for themselves and family members? If you think that you don't need to be in charge of Soldiers.......
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
My wife wouldn't wear my uniforms because they are too big, but if spouses want to wear our uniforms, who cares? It might look silly, but the last thing we need in the Army is more arbitrary rules to enforce.<br>
(4)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
SFC B,
There's nothing to be corrected in this instance. The reason I responded to this post in the first place is that, IMO, far too many Senior NCOs have a bad habit of trying to correct people for violating their own personal pet peeves that aren't against policies or regulations. That type of mentality, IMO, is poisonous and doesn't help anyone. For example, the government spends money buying and issuing us Boonie caps through RFI when we deploy, and then inevitably some CSM or Officer doesn't like the way it looks and doesn't permit their soldiers to wear it. Never mind the fact that taxpayers paid for it, or the fact that the hat is designed to keep the sun off a soldier's neck. So and so doesn't like the way it looks and therefore that's that, money wasted down the drain. I can go on and on with different examples I've experienced over multiple deployments. As a Senior NCO now, I feel obligated to throw out my thoughts when I see people heading down this road, because senior personnel making arbitrary rules based on their own personal dislikes usually doesn't help anyone in the long run.
By all means, if a given action violates a rule, then make the correction. I find myself correcting male soldiers for wearing earrings fairly often. But when someone, especially a civilian, is not violating an official regulation, just let it go.
There's nothing to be corrected in this instance. The reason I responded to this post in the first place is that, IMO, far too many Senior NCOs have a bad habit of trying to correct people for violating their own personal pet peeves that aren't against policies or regulations. That type of mentality, IMO, is poisonous and doesn't help anyone. For example, the government spends money buying and issuing us Boonie caps through RFI when we deploy, and then inevitably some CSM or Officer doesn't like the way it looks and doesn't permit their soldiers to wear it. Never mind the fact that taxpayers paid for it, or the fact that the hat is designed to keep the sun off a soldier's neck. So and so doesn't like the way it looks and therefore that's that, money wasted down the drain. I can go on and on with different examples I've experienced over multiple deployments. As a Senior NCO now, I feel obligated to throw out my thoughts when I see people heading down this road, because senior personnel making arbitrary rules based on their own personal dislikes usually doesn't help anyone in the long run.
By all means, if a given action violates a rule, then make the correction. I find myself correcting male soldiers for wearing earrings fairly often. But when someone, especially a civilian, is not violating an official regulation, just let it go.
(5)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
It is simply a pet peeve of mine, but it is simply a pet peeve. I am asking if there is any regulation, since I personally know of none, I cannot correct anyone for it being just a pet peeve. You are correct in that statement but incorrect in the assumption that i do it. But I agree that a lot of people have pet peeves with 670-1 etc but they cant be pet peeves if they are regulation. I understand what you are saying, but I do not believe I fit in that category because, well the situation is different. Respectfully. and i have not said that i am making corrections to these dependents. Civilians of course are another issue and there is no telling them what to do, I am not that mislead. Please understand that I am not correcting these family members and telling them anything based on MY issue with them wearing it because I cant enforce something that isnt there, or that is just an annoyance. The original question is asking if there is anything out there. If there is, then enforcing it is everyone's job just like any other reg etc.
(0)
(0)
SSG(P) (Join to see)
SSG Broadbent,
I share your sentiment and it frustrates me as well. I have seen a lot of Soldiers whose dependents walk around in Army issued equipment which is really only supposed to be worn by the Servicemember in garrisson or field environments.
I have always been big on military regulations. The most important one IMO has always been the AR 670-1, but there are many other regs I have acquainted myself with simply because I am of the belief that if I am going to correct someone, fix something or complete a task then I should know what I am talking about or doing.
I have done research on the very topic you have posted about. There is absolutely nothing out there. Army Publishing Directorate doesn't have anything and I can't even find an ALARACT that defines or cites the rules on this topic.
I think it really comes down to Command influence/guidance. Commands need to put something on paper in the form of a policy letter to their troops to state that it's not OK for their dependents to do this, but then SFC Thomas brought up an excellent point about how so and so disagrees so it doesn't happen. If a Battalion or Regiment Commander doesn't have an issue with it then it will never be something that can be enforced.
Now what should be enforced and I wish that more NCO's and Officers did so is the wear and appearance of Army uniforms in places such as the PX, Commissary, Bowling alleys and so on.
I am a National Guardsman out of Arizona and recently visited Fort Benning, GA for my girlfriend's son's graduation from basic. While visiting the main PX I witnessed a Soldier walking through the PX with winter IPFU's on. Pant legs rolled up, sandals on and the fleece cap on his head with headphones on. I watched in astonishment as a 1SG, CPT and LTC who all looked at him did nothing to correct the situation. I was in civilian clothing, but I walked up to the troop and read him the riot act after identifying myself. I wish that there was more enforcement of uniform violations comitted by Soldiers as opposed to what Soldiers dependents are wearing in public.
(2)
(0)
LTC Charles Sherman
SFC Thomas hits an important point about Senior Officer/NCO personal likes and dislikes becoming defacto policy. Over the last dozen years, I've seen the proliferation of SGMs, many of whom seem determined to correct what they think is wrong with the Army...whether it's actually a problem or not. If we could focus on basic discipline more, and less on hemming our soldiers in, I suspect that it would improve morale and actually reduce the number of problems. Stern (and sometimes creative) penalties for screwing up, and holding Battle Buddies and fireteam-mates responsible for their errant comrade could go a long way toward curbing the major acts of stupidity. Too many teammates and first-line NCOs "check out" at the end of their days, because they leave the Company area and go home. When they do get called on the carpet, it's over pet peeves and unofficial policies of way-higher leaders, which sends the wrong messages.
But I'm a dinosaur, and my time ended in March. So soldier on, and I'll stand by and shake my head in the time-honored tradition of "ye olde warre-horses".
But I'm a dinosaur, and my time ended in March. So soldier on, and I'll stand by and shake my head in the time-honored tradition of "ye olde warre-horses".
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
Taking this scenario at prima face, there's no harm. Maybe they just buried their uncle and their aunt gave away his old jackets? Who knows? At the end of the day, they weren't "poising." They weren't causing trouble. They're just kids... Certainly, their fashion statement doesn't jibe with our personal/professional standards. But, that's not our issue.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
I am slightly at a disadvantage in this regard due to the fact that my spouse is also Active Duty Army. That being said should he choose to wear any portion of my uniform I would most likely give him extra points for being able to pull it off as I am quite a bit smaller than him :). If my spouse was a civilian, however, I would not allow him to leave the house with anything on that was part of my uniform. This includes my fleece, my gloves, my pants, my brown t-shirts or any portion of my physical training uniform. I think it is disrespectful and quite frankly lazy of the spouse to throw on something uniform related. I believe that any spouse who wears a portion of the uniform in public is an embarassment and should be immediately corrected regardless of AR 670-1 not applying to their civilian status. It comes down to a matter of respect to me. Respect for your spouse, their position in the military and their dedication to our country. If a spouse truly wants to wear a portion of our uniform then I am well aware of a location that I can take them to that will afford them the opportunity to wear it properly.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
I dislike it when people do that as well.
There are two distinct options on reversing that trend:
1)
Post commanders could write JAG-blessed-off-on-this policy letters that prohibit that kind of personal dress on post and hold Soldiers accountable for their dependent's actions in conjunction with frequent courtesy patrols through the entirety of the military reservation (to include housing).
There is a "no earphones if you are moving from point A to B in any shape or form" policy on Fort Lee that fines the individual in question and which can lead to mandatory pedestrian safety classes that the service member must attend with the dependent if the dependent has been found in violation of said policy.
The hard core courtesy patrols are the other necessary part of such an intrusive policy. The abovementioned earphone policy is hardly enforced because no one checks the hotspots for that kind of activity. There is a post housing policy against tethering dogs outside and I have run out of fingers counting the tether-spots I can see from my back patio. Any policy that is not enforced might as well be null-and-void.
2)
Mentor Soldiers to tell them that this is a big no-no for being a professional. They may not be able to control their spouse but they can hopefully talk to them about what their actions mean to their career. The senior positions in the military come with an unofficial requirement to have your own home in order and to serve as "example family" for your organization.
I think number two is a lot easier and it is something that has been neglected in some units. A lot of Army culture faux passes are because Soldiers don't know the rules or don't know why the rules are important.
1)
Post commanders could write JAG-blessed-off-on-this policy letters that prohibit that kind of personal dress on post and hold Soldiers accountable for their dependent's actions in conjunction with frequent courtesy patrols through the entirety of the military reservation (to include housing).
There is a "no earphones if you are moving from point A to B in any shape or form" policy on Fort Lee that fines the individual in question and which can lead to mandatory pedestrian safety classes that the service member must attend with the dependent if the dependent has been found in violation of said policy.
The hard core courtesy patrols are the other necessary part of such an intrusive policy. The abovementioned earphone policy is hardly enforced because no one checks the hotspots for that kind of activity. There is a post housing policy against tethering dogs outside and I have run out of fingers counting the tether-spots I can see from my back patio. Any policy that is not enforced might as well be null-and-void.
2)
Mentor Soldiers to tell them that this is a big no-no for being a professional. They may not be able to control their spouse but they can hopefully talk to them about what their actions mean to their career. The senior positions in the military come with an unofficial requirement to have your own home in order and to serve as "example family" for your organization.
I think number two is a lot easier and it is something that has been neglected in some units. A lot of Army culture faux passes are because Soldiers don't know the rules or don't know why the rules are important.
(3)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
i agree, if the soldier is responsible for a friggin spouse writing and bouncing checks or destroying on post housing etc, why is this so hard to manage?
(2)
(0)
TSgt (Join to see)
Actually you DO have to control your spouse! I cannot remember how many Soldiers have been called onto the BN CSM's carpet for stupid things their spouses have done, especially posting dumb stuff on the unit FB page...
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
SGT Sean O'Hara This is common I am also not in favor of the practice. However, their freedom is what we fight for. I am encouraged by your view and glad to see that the pride I have is being paid forward.
(2)
(0)
SGT Sean O'Hara
I feel if you want to wear the uniform, then you have to serve with the men in woman who give their lives wearing that uniform. I understand it is their family member's uniform, but that is not the way to honor them. (in my opinion)
(0)
(0)
Capt Mark Strobl
Agreeing w/ SFC Stephen King's point: I am, similarly, encouraged that you do care.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
12–3. Occasions for wear
a. All-purpose wear. The physical fitness uniform is authorized for wear on and off duty, on and off the installation,
unless restricted by the commander. Soldiers may wear all or part of the physical fitness uniform with civilian attire off
the installation, unless restricted by the commander. The physical fitness uniform is not intended for wear as an allpurpose
uniform when other uniforms are more appropriate.
a. All-purpose wear. The physical fitness uniform is authorized for wear on and off duty, on and off the installation,
unless restricted by the commander. Soldiers may wear all or part of the physical fitness uniform with civilian attire off
the installation, unless restricted by the commander. The physical fitness uniform is not intended for wear as an allpurpose
uniform when other uniforms are more appropriate.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I was at a movie one time and saw a young female wearing an Army PT shirt. She happened to sit right behind me and after the movie I asked about her shirt. I said "Hey cool shirt! I've got one at home just like it. Where did you get it?" She said, "I got it from my boyfriend... where did you get yours?"
..................................
"I EARNED IT!"
It was a little silly but somehow felt like a win.
..................................
"I EARNED IT!"
It was a little silly but somehow felt like a win.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google