Unauthorized Boots….What's your thoughts?

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 01 Jun 2014 08:38:29 -0400

What's everyone's thoughts on the attached photo? Are we worrying more about things like this and less on ensuring our force is a T on all tasks? Couldn't we spend some more time worrying about bigger issues and less on what type of footwear a Soldier is wearing?

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2014 10:42 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 30 May 2014 10:42:28 -0400

I never had them, so I won't miss them at all :0

Response by SSG Robert Burns made May 30 at 2014 10:48 AM

SSG Robert Burns — Fri, 30 May 2014 10:48:31 -0400

1SG, can you post a reference for this so we can read up on it?

Response by SGT Joseph Sierra made May 30 at 2014 11:07 AM

SGT Joseph Sierra — Fri, 30 May 2014 11:07:25 -0400

1SG, are the Rocky C4T's on that chopping block? These boots are awesome. I would also like to read the reference, I searched via Google and came up empty handed.

Response by SSG Robert Burns made May 30 at 2014 11:46 AM

SSG Robert Burns — Fri, 30 May 2014 11:46:28 -0400

I cant wait for my Soldiers to say, but SSG Burns, these cost me $150, I don't wanna get rid of them!"
My response.......JUST DO IT!
Priceless.

Response by SFC Justin Davis made May 30 at 2014 11:47 AM

SFC Justin Davis — Fri, 30 May 2014 11:47:39 -0400

The boots in question are made of synthetic materials and the reffrenced DA PAM 670-1 states: "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." So... Your boots must be made of cow leather and nylon!

Response by 2LT Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2014 12:20 PM

2LT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 30 May 2014 12:20:31 -0400

This is so sad, I just bought a pair of of Rocky C4T's to replace my worn out Nikes. They're much more comfortable on me than the boots I was issued.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2014 1:07 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 30 May 2014 13:07:45 -0400

I think like any other regulation out there people will pick and choose what they want to enforce. It is not right, but it is part of the "do as I say" culture that is out there.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2014 11:25 PM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 30 May 2014 23:25:06 -0400

There is a rumor that companies like Nike will upgrade so they continue to sell the boot. However, they no longer offer the boot on their website. Nike is a conglomerate and like Apple, see no financial reason to conform to satisfy the Army's requirements.

A couple of jumps and one fast rope and those Nike boots turned into hot garbage. In my opinion they serve only one purpose, comfort in garrison.

Maybe an upgrade is warranted. Only the private industry can create a upgrade consisting of both comfort and durability.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made May 31 at 2014 3:32 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 31 May 2014 15:32:33 -0400

The answer is yes, miss them very much. It seems the Army selected all of the comfortable boots and made them unauthorized as per that picture below. I'm sure when Nike see's their sales drop they will make the in real cow hide leather and then I will get a pair of those. At least they still make for good riding boots on the ATV so not all is lost.

Response by SFC Justin Davis made Jun 1 at 2014 9:16 AM

SFC Justin Davis — Sun, 01 Jun 2014 09:16:07 -0400

I'm glad the Army is now focusing on our footwear and taking it off our head gear.

Response by CPT Jacob Swartout made Jun 1 at 2014 10:02 AM

CPT Jacob Swartout — Sun, 01 Jun 2014 10:02:41 -0400

1SG Conner, with so many styles of boots out there to buy, the answers you hear from others are: if they were unauthorized, we wouldn't sell them or they are ok in garrison but not in combat or my chain of command all wear these styles in my unit. I keep asking myself if I buy this pair off post, will I get ten different feedbacks of why I can or can't wear them? This poster helps a lot and is there one that shows for sure what we can wear? People may interpret the regs differently as everyone here knows. You will get those hard chargers that target this issue occasionally. Honestly, I don't see it happening much as of lately for many reasons that are out there.

Response by CSM Randy Thomas made Jun 1 at 2014 12:48 PM

CSM Randy Thomas — Sun, 01 Jun 2014 12:48:20 -0400

This begs the age-old question of us having to look hard at our priorities. I think as Leaders we must strive to achieve balance. You will find yourself struggling with peers who focus most of their attention (80/20) on enforcing AR 670-1 and the like, rather than ensuring their Soldiers are trained and ready to perform their mission! Then again, I have a huge problem with subordinate Leaders who disregard enforcing standards, and in some cases, abiding by those standards of their accord! As a Sergeant Major, I tend to focus my attention on mentoring, training, and coaching my subordinate Leaders, and I place the responsibility square on their shoulders. Oh by the way, I hold them accountable!

Response by SSG V. Michelle Woods made Jun 1 at 2014 1:28 PM

SSG V. Michelle Woods — Sun, 01 Jun 2014 13:28:05 -0400

1SG Conner

I understand and I am forced to respect/enforce a standard such as this one which I do not agree with. I believe it's ridiculous to be so restrictive on Soldiers' boots when a Soldier's feet are probably the most important part of the body to care for. You would think it's obvious everyone's feet don't do well with the Army standard issued boots but there are some people out there who believe that because the Army boots work for them, they must work for everyone else.

At the end of the day, I suppose a standard like this doesn't leave room for someone with my rank to use discretion. It's unfortunately black and white regulation.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 1 at 2014 1:42 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 01 Jun 2014 13:42:18 -0400

I guess it's the MI in me, but I think it would be helpful to explain WHY each boot is unauthorized. I know side zip boots are a safety hazard because they create give in a direction your ankle shouldn't bend when additional support could prevent injury. If Soldiers understood that there was a performance, safety, or other reason, beyond just saying "unauthorized," it would help us to know what to look for in boots we purchase, and would help make the policy self-enforcing.

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 1 at 2014 2:08 PM

SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 01 Jun 2014 14:08:07 -0400

The main problem I have with it is the first sentence at the bottom- This is not an all inclusive listing. This goes back to what CPT Wolfer stated about knowing the why's about them. I would be upset if I purchased different pair, only to find out they were unauthorized. I guess the DA PAM 670-1 would better explain, but there are still those lingering questions at the end of the day.

Response by 1LT(P) Jan I. made Jun 1 at 2014 2:48 PM

1LT(P) Jan I. — Sun, 01 Jun 2014 14:48:33 -0400

Is this part of the new 670-1? I haven't seen the original PPT, memo, etc., so I'm wondering if this clarification coincides with the new reg. I already know of half of my MIBOLC class and my current unit that would need to switch out boots, based off of this list.

Response by 1SG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 1 at 2014 2:57 PM

1SG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 01 Jun 2014 14:57:47 -0400

Zippered boots are for dumbasses. If the zipper breaks, and they do, the boot is useless. Laces, however, are easy to replace. Boots with zippers are for the truly lazy, and possibly stupid. The Army should allow them so that you'll know which soldiers to avoid.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 1 at 2014 2:59 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 01 Jun 2014 14:59:23 -0400

1SG,

While I agree we should be spending more time on focus on being a "T" at our METL tasks, I think as leaders we must still "worry" about things like this.

If we cannot trust our Soldiers to follow the simple regulations that the Army prescribes (whether we agree or not), how can we trust them to follow the complex Doctrine, TTPs, and task requirements to achieve the "T" in those METL tasks.

I think a lot of this goes back to the concessions we, as a military, made during the prolonged war, to accepting less than desirable Soldiers to serve in our ranks because needed numbers and not necessarily professionals. It all goes back to discipline and the basics. We continue to fail at both of these and will take a long time to get our beloved military back to where we once were.

Just my opinion.

Response by SPC Jeramie Hinsinger made Jun 1 at 2014 3:00 PM

SPC Jeramie Hinsinger — Sun, 01 Jun 2014 15:00:28 -0400

I think the boot reg could use an overhaul myself. But as it stands I do see far too many Soldiers out of reg. in the C4T's mostly. I see them being sold in AMCS with no sign as to being with-in the regulation or not, while another pair of boots next to them clearly states they are not within reg. Sign is posted by AMCS and not by the company which impacts the Soldiers decision on purchasing.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 1 at 2014 3:07 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 01 Jun 2014 15:07:28 -0400

This is crazy! Why don't we put an emphasis on training and strengthening the Soldiers in our formations.
I will absolutely put this on my list of stupid things to overlook.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 1 at 2014 3:12 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 01 Jun 2014 15:12:01 -0400

In my opinion, a boot is a boot is a boot, whether it be cold weather hot weather etc etc but I don't think the Army should be regulating the type of boot we choose to wear to the degree that it currently is. On the other hand, a regulation is a regulation, and it will be followed and enforced by some but not all. I believe the real issue that needs to be addressed here is this:

ARMY says hey, this is whats right and this is whats wrong...
BUT, the ARMY gives Commanders power to "authorize" "unauthorized" boots. While a description of these "unauthorized" but "authorized" by commanders boots does exist, everything can be interpreted differently from person to person at every level.

If the Army wants to regulate it, then do it and stop pussyfooting around leaving things open to interpretation and allowing Commanders to alter regulations but then keeping them from altering them to their units requirements or needs.

Either make it a regulation, define it to a T, and thats it or give Commanders the power to allow whatever kind of boot they see fit to be worn in their units.

One or the other ARMY... Cant have your cake and eat it too, but they can surely try!

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 1 at 2014 3:33 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 01 Jun 2014 15:33:39 -0400

I wear these to feel extra airborne. I imagine they are authorized since this is the same company that makes our jump boots worn with our ASUs. Anyone know one way or the other?

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 1 at 2014 3:34 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 01 Jun 2014 15:34:03 -0400

Is this really a priority? I know there is gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands over this, but perhaps the energy expended on worrying about footgear could be applied to other issues the army is facing right now.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 1 at 2014 3:39 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 01 Jun 2014 15:39:30 -0400

For any Airmen that come across this thread the USAF regulation for boots is as follows:

AFI 36-2903

"6.4.3. Footwear (males/females) Combat boots. Will be worn with the Airman battle uniform, or the flight duty uniform. (Exception: Athletic shoes may be worn if medically necessary, as determined by competent medical authorities at a civilian or military treatment facility and approved by the commander.) The black combat boot can be worn (optional) with the service dress and services uniforms when not wearing a skirt, maternity service dress and/or maternity jumper. Laces will either be tied and tucked in the boot or tied and wrapped around the boot. No ―bowtie boot laces. Logos will be the same color as the boot.
Note: The phase out date for the black combat boot with the FDU was 1 November 2011 (ref attachment 6).

"6.4.3.1. Boots (black). Will be worn with the battle dress uniform or the flight duty uniform. Can be worn with the service dress and service uniforms when not wearing a skirt. Black boots are not authorized with the Airman battle uniform. Exception: If approved by MAJCOM commanders, black boots are temporarily authorized with ABUs in industrial work environments or in work center where industrial products or processes cause irreparable staining to the sage green or tan boot. This exception is in effect until a
stain-resistant green boot becomes available and is not specifically restricted to flightline activities. If worn, boots will be black plain rounded toe or rounded capped toe with or without a perforated seam. A zipper or elastic inserts may be worn; however, if worn, they will be without design. Boots can be either with or without safety toe. A high gloss or patent finish boot is optional.

"6.4.3.2. Sage Green Boots. Will be worn with the Airman battle uniform, the battle dress uniform or the flight duty uniform. Boots will be sage green, lace up with plain rounded toe or rounded capped toe with or without a perforated seam. A zipper or elastic inserts may be worn; however, if worn, they will be without design. Green boots can be either with or without a safety toe. Exception: If approved by MAJCOM commanders, black leather boots may be temporarily authorized with ABUs in industrial work environments or in work center where industrial products or processes cause irreparable staining to the sage green suede or tan suede boot. This exception is not specifically restricted to flightline activities and is in effect until a stain-resistant green boot becomes available."

**A stain resistant boot is now available.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 1 at 2014 3:46 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 01 Jun 2014 15:46:10 -0400

There goes every pair of boots I wore on dismounted patrols in combat and every ruck march I've done the last few years. Looks like I'll be going to Commando's soon to spend money to replace the closet full of boots I already have. My checking account would have appreciated a phase-in period for changing this standard.

Response by WO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 1 at 2014 4:04 PM

WO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 01 Jun 2014 16:04:45 -0400

my problem is with the wording...

(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.

A side note, if a commander (at my unit) at any level is wearing such boots, that would tell me the boots are authorized.

Of course correct me if I am wrong.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 1 at 2014 4:59 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 01 Jun 2014 16:59:52 -0400

I find this regulation "update" humorous as 49 of the 50 teams who participated in this years Best Ranger Competition wore Nike SFB boots

Response by SPC Christopher Smith made Jun 1 at 2014 6:02 PM

SPC Christopher Smith — Sun, 01 Jun 2014 18:02:35 -0400

I know for sure I'm out after this term, comfort comes first, then reliability. Nothing can be reliable if you don't use it, or it is damaging the user. If boots are on top of the list of things to fix in the Army, while pay cuts are still on the table, I'm willing to wash my hands with this organization. I don't wear Nike boots, but I can understand in a garrison environment why lighter more comfortable boots are reasonable. Done with my rant. Out.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 1 at 2014 6:30 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 01 Jun 2014 18:30:21 -0400

It might be better to have an "authorized list", instead of whole lotta guessing at what boots meet the wierd army authorized description. When a company makes a a boot that meets the "standard of the day" they get added to the list.

Response by CMSgt James Nolan made Jun 1 at 2014 7:04 PM

CMSgt James Nolan — Sun, 01 Jun 2014 19:04:43 -0400

All I have to say is the Army has got nothing on the Air Force when it comes to the coolest boots period! I mean, Smurf green> who would have thought.....
All we can hope for is that talked about "multi-service" uniform....CANNOT frigging wait for it! At least when we originally went to the ABU, we were authorized tan boots.

Those are my thoughts on unauthorized boots!

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 1 at 2014 8:25 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 01 Jun 2014 20:25:10 -0400

OK, fine. I will petition the President about the boots and all of this will be solved real quick.

But first, I have to conduct a barracks check to root out unauthorized PT belts.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 1 at 2014 8:57 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 01 Jun 2014 20:57:29 -0400

Just curious, but I've seen this picture twice, but I have yet to see an official source.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2014 2:22 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 02 Jun 2014 02:22:11 -0400

MSG Conner- if only we would spend this much time ensuring Soldiers could accurately and effectively shoot their weapons. Or that they were trained and proficient in their METL tasks. Think of the fighting force we'd become!

This is going to get me started down a rabbit hole, that I don't want to do here...but the last few months is the complete opposite direction the Army needs to be heading. IMHO. We have an awesome opportunity to truly train, certify, refine, fix, and validate our individual and collective proficiency. But we expend an enormous about of effort on the most trivial of things...

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2014 3:08 AM

GySgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 02 Jun 2014 03:08:29 -0400

Uniformity is a good reason to not have people wearing timberlands in formation or uggs. More importantly, members of my team in a previous deployment along with other units tasked with specialized missions are issued "special" gear. One of these pieces of gear were oakley boots, the glue just melted off in the heat causing the boots to just fall apart and everybody went back to the Marine Corps issued boots. Go with whats proven, if there is a piece of gear in the inventory that is a continuous failure, report it!

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2014 6:13 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 02 Jun 2014 06:13:53 -0400

Honestly, I tell my Soldiers when they are wearing unauthorized boots and why they're unauthorized. However, I won't simply tell a junior enlisted Soldier "don't wear them again" because many of them are expensive. If there were progressive phases to this with a complete list of unathorized boots, especially those sold in Military Clothing Sales, this would be easier to enforce. However, not too many Leaders are going to tell a Soldier to toss their best boots without wondering if he/she will go out buying another unauthorized pair.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2014 6:31 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 02 Jun 2014 06:31:08 -0400

My thought is that there are a ton of companies out there just making "cool" looking boots to get Soldier's money, this may be part of "Big Army" taking care of Soldiers?!

Every time one of these lists are published it just makes one want to go and find them just to see how they look and try and figure out why they are unauthorized, and of course enforce the standard.

Response by CPT Chase Sanger made Jun 2 at 2014 8:33 AM

CPT Chase Sanger — Mon, 02 Jun 2014 08:33:14 -0400

I don't see the new Rocky C5C's that just came out...I picked mine up a couple of weeks ago. Maybe Rocky made these within the regs? Anyone know for sure?

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Jun 2 at 2014 9:58 AM

MSG Brad Sand — Mon, 02 Jun 2014 09:58:25 -0400

Unauthorized...not authorized.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2014 11:17 AM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 02 Jun 2014 11:17:26 -0400

FROM THE SMA

Leaders Book Note - Boots

Leaders,
In this edition of my leader book notes I would like to inform leaders of
the authorized and unauthorized Commercial-Of-The-Shelf (COTS) and Army
issued boots for wear with the ACUs.
There has been misunderstanding with the ALARACT Message 140/2007 with
leaders in interpreting which COTS boots are authorized and which are not.
My intent is to add clarity to the ALARACT message giving leaders a better
understanding of which boots are authorized for wear and why.
With regard to pure COTS items, Program Executive Office (PEO) Soldier and
U.S. Army Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Center
(NSRDEC) do not have a "certification" process for boots. AR 670-1 and
ALARACT messages provide guidance on what approved standards industry uses
to manufacturer boots that are authorized for wear. This includes what
material requirements have to be met to ensure boots meet the durability and
performance requirements for Soldiers. These guidelines provide the
aesthetic requirements to ensure any authorized items maintain uniform
standards for our Soldiers.
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.
There are many COTS items available that meet the aesthetic guidelines. Some
examples of these items include, but are not limited to, the Belleville
Model 390, the 8-inch Danner Desert TFX, the 8-inch Oakley S.I. Assault Boot
as well as many other more traditional Army tan combat boot styles (See
attached pictures). The purpose of listing these items here is to give
examples of styles that fall within the guidelines and authorization as
optional to wear.
PEO Soldier and NSRDEC establish high quality standards for both the end
items and component materials going into our combat boots. Current Army
footwear is designed to be durable and provide the functionality needed by
Soldiers in current and potential future operational environments. This
process ensures that Soldiers have functional boots (the NSN ones) to
accomplish their mission.
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. Our
Military Clothing Sales Stores stock items that are authorized for wear by
other services, whose mission requirements are different than ours. Because
of these different mission requirements not all boots carried in our MCSSs
are authorized for wear by our Soldiers.
The individual Soldier is responsible for buying authorized boots that meet
Army requirements. Leaders have the responsibility of ensuring optional
footwear meets Army requirements. AR 670-1, Appendix E requires all Soldiers
to have one pair of each of the Clothing Initial Issue (CII) Bag item boots.
This requirement includes both the Army Combat Boot (Hot Weather) and the
Army Combat Boot (Temperate Weather). Any optional footwear discussed above
that unit commanders authorize does not relieve Soldiers of their
requirement to possess one pair of each of CII boots.
The Army develops and issues Soldiers the best equipment available for
accomplishment of their mission COTS items provide a different aesthetic
look compared to the NSN footwear and/or contain material components that
were selected for business reasons and not always aimed at improved
performance.
The attached slides provide examples of authorized and unauthorized boots.
These slides do not endorse these individual companies but provide leaders a
method of verifying authorized boots for wear. Currently there are hundreds
of companies producing desert tan boots.

Leaders, let's make sure our Soldiers are wearing the proper boots. Army
Strong! HOOAH!
SMA
.
.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2014 12:11 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 02 Jun 2014 12:11:03 -0400

I think this issue like many, has been brought up a couple of years too late. The standads never changed and the ALARACT stating Soldiers could purchase off the shelf boots never deviated from the main point of having cowhide or animal leather, the standrad was always the same, the problem is everyone did what they wanted and just ignored the standard. The one thing I find funny is the fact that we are harping on unauthorized boots, when everyone that's deployed to OEF in the past 3-4 years was issue unauthorized foot wear, for the simple fact that the rubber of the sole extends 2 inches above the toe and heel, most olive green/brown mountain boots issued made by bates and belleville. This goes along the now ridiculous amount of time spent trying to figure out what camo pattern we'll use is simply a waste of resources and time. It's our JOB as NCO's to enforce the standards and educate young Soldiers and our peers as well, but it's ultimately higher echelons responsibility to clarify what the standard really is and prevent our PX's from selling these item that are clearly not authorized for use based on the AR.

Response by CSM Mike Maynard made Jun 2 at 2014 6:12 PM

CSM Mike Maynard — Mon, 02 Jun 2014 18:12:04 -0400

DA Pam 670-1, 20-3, a., (3), (a)

".....Soldiers may wear commercial boots of a design similar to that of the Army combat boot (tan). The boots must be made of tan flesh-side out cattlehide leather. 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.

The SMA Letter and picture folks are referring to are from 2007 - the new DA Pam is the overarching guidance on boots now, not previous ALARACTS, not SMA notes and not this picture.

Response by SFC Christopher Perry made Jun 3 at 2014 8:31 AM

SFC Christopher Perry — Tue, 03 Jun 2014 08:31:40 -0400

Let me start by saying that I am one of the guilty ones. After my foot was rebuilt (I would make a $60 million man reference but the Army did the work) it became a serious struggle to find boots that did not hurt like the dickens and or make it swell up like a darn watermelon. For me it is obviously not about the $150 I spent on each of the two pairs I own, it is about not being in more pain than necessary. That being said, I am beginning the process of finding a boot that will work that has not found itself on this list.

Thankfully, big Army is focusing on the important stuff right now, like the boots on my feet or a new color pattern for yet another unnecessary change to the uniform.

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 3 at 2014 9:52 AM

SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Jun 2014 09:52:23 -0400

Maybe they shouldn't be sold on Post. I think the perception is, if they are sold on post they must be within regs. If a soldier sees another soldier wearing them, they must be within regs. And then a hundred soldiers are wearing them, they must be within regs. Don't sell them on Post. At the very least, don't sell them in the the tan color. That's like saying ice cream is unauthorized but then it's made available in the DFAC.

Response by SSG Brian Stoneback made Jun 3 at 2014 10:35 AM

SSG Brian Stoneback — Tue, 03 Jun 2014 10:35:55 -0400

I had 52 combat equipment jumps with the 82nd all in Cochorans, you know the one's with the spit shined toes. We used to run in them for PT at Airborne School and during certain early morning runs through the woods at Fort Bragg. Running shoes did not become mandatory till later in my carreer. I later switched back and forth from Cochorans to the green jungle boots when I went to the field and during Desert Storm I was issued the standard desert boots. I had severe pain over the course of my career in the Army having had several (6) heel surgeries to remove heel spurs and to reattach my achilles tendon for a complete heel resurfacing. My last surgery was to relieve pain in the platarfacia area with a plantarectomy where they slice some of the tendon to relieve stress on it. That did take away the pain but put me out of the Army for good. I could no longer wear ANY type of "authorized" boot and WOULD NEVER where the soft boots types my doctors were prescribing. I just did not like the stigma of looking like an incomplete soldier out of uniform, even to save my career. I was medically discharged with 17 years of service and given a severence pay and no retirement because at the time they would only rate pain as the underlying reason for discharge during my PEB...could I have fought it on appeal, sure, but I was done...I was ready to move on and take my time in service and create a career in the Governement where I now have almost 30 years of service in and will be looking at a wonderful retirement package to include my VA compensation at 80 percent which I feel is right about what I deserve. If I had known 10 years into my career what I know today I would have left the Army years earlier and just started my career in Government earlier. I'd possibly be a GS-15 by now insteand of a GS-12 target 13 I am today. Get into the field of Government Contracting...it's a great career GS-1102 series. You will be challenged and you will be able to go just about anywhere in the world with it.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 3 at 2014 10:39 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Jun 2014 10:39:51 -0400

I still have the Converse boots with the zipper on the side. I bought them downrange and I promise a week later they were unauthorized. I was so mad. They look brand new sitting in my closet. Im waiting for the day i can wear them to work lol

Response by LTJG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 3 at 2014 12:54 PM

LTJG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Jun 2014 12:54:10 -0400

This is a big issue that was happening on Fort Hood, TX while I was active duty. Most SM get their boots from clothing and sales and they just assume that if they are selling them then they should be in regulation. It got to the point that our 1SG was having to put out pictures and information on boots that were authorized because too many were buying unauthorized boots. Do I think that authorized boots and unauthorized boots are an issue? To a point, yes, because as a medic I need to know that I can cut someone's boot off without having to worry about there being a zipper on it or not.
There are definitely more issues that, I think, are higher priority than this

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 3 at 2014 1:39 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Jun 2014 13:39:05 -0400

Honestly I have to question leadership on this one. If you want to create a list o unauthorized boots then why don't you just say this is the only authorized boot and deal with it. They decided 670-1 needed new guidelines, now we're concerned about boots? Unless any of those prescribed non-authorized boots can make me do a 12 mile ruck in an hour and fifteen minutes, then who cares. Focus the new unifrom and how you're going to allocate it out to the force instead of worrying about what type of boot we're wearing. God forbid, SMA or the Chief of Staff in photos wearing one of these boots. they'll be leading by example.....Army of One!!! HOOOAH!!!

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 3 at 2014 3:22 PM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Jun 2014 15:22:03 -0400

The regulation already eixists, but the wording isn't easy to follow and unless you have it with you when you buy boots, it is very easy for someone to get a $150 pair of boots that aren't within regs.

Response by SSG Trevor S. made Jun 3 at 2014 3:48 PM

SSG Trevor S. — Tue, 03 Jun 2014 15:48:58 -0400

I think Airborne/Air Assault units should be allowed tan shineable jump boots.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 3 at 2014 9:27 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Jun 2014 21:27:52 -0400

As long as they are the correct color and height, it should not matter.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 4 at 2014 9:59 AM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 04 Jun 2014 09:59:04 -0400

Ok...was able to upload it in a response to another post that was similar...here we go...

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 4 at 2014 10:17 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 04 Jun 2014 10:17:23 -0400

I get wanting uniformity and all, it's a shame though since many of the unauthorized boots are more comfortable and hold up better than the authorized kind. Although I'm going to say it's going to be tough to enforce unless boot checks are done every formation, at a glance some of them look perfectly authorized.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 4 at 2014 5:04 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 04 Jun 2014 17:04:10 -0400

It’s pretty damn sad that the Military Services have to release an Unauthorized Boot policy with pictures too. The Military boot has come along away and even gone in the wrong direction to a point. Yes I do agree All the Services do need a lighter, stronger and superior boot than before. BUT, to each his/her own: Pandora’s Box opening now:
The boots issued at Basic YOU had to brake in, fit and form to YOUR feet in the correct size. And yes, they are heavy. But once you get to your new Unit, “Now I can get the Converse, Danner, Bates or Rocky’s that will feel better on my feet. WRONG! Some hard nose NCO, 1SG or Officer?? Might just do an on the spot correction and your done! BUT Wait! There are some Boots out there that do fit the bill, you just have to know what they are and can they be used in your MOS.
The bottom line, we as soldiers need the protection not only for our feet, ankles and heals, but we also need to feel somewhat comfortable in them too. Even when we’re in the suck with 60-80lbs of gear on our backs.
Heck, I wore a pair of Marine Corp boots due to sole of my “Issued Bates” come off. I’d go back to the USMC boots in a heart beat!

Response by SSG Brian Stoneback made Jun 5 at 2014 2:45 PM

SSG Brian Stoneback — Thu, 05 Jun 2014 14:45:10 -0400

There is a completely different way of looking at this whole authorized vs unauthorized. I'm a contracting specialist and was at a time a Contracting Officer. The Army purchases "Official" boots that they issue to ALL soldiers at the very great price of (lets say $30.00) a pair. Why such a good price? because they buy them in bulk. The Army gives you a clothing allowance based partly on what it would cost to replace those boots once every year or so depending on use. The other "Unauthorized boots" cost WAY MORE then what the Army could or would pay because they then lose the leverage of buying in bulk. It's a money issue....not a comfort issue.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 10 at 2014 3:00 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 Jun 2014 15:00:28 -0400

As the uniform changed from green to gray, I have seen people wear what were supposedly unauthorized boots. In some cases on a check of the REG they were and unauthorized. In other cases on a check of the REG they were in fact authorized. I do not profess to be a boot expert. Many of the boots pictured look similar to authorized boots (e.g. the New Balance look very much like authorized desert jungle boots). In an inspection I might notice but in passing I would likely not be able to identify many of them as not be being compliant with regulation.

Response by PO1 Michael G. made Aug 17 at 2014 8:49 AM

PO1 Michael G. — Sun, 17 Aug 2014 08:49:37 -0400

SGM Private RallyPoint Member This debate is going on right now in the Navy, actually (well, a form of it, at least). As I've been given to understand it, the Army and the Navy want to be sure that the footwear that each Soldier and Sailor is wearing meets a certain quality standard and they aren't going to waste time verifying that each commercially available boot meets those standards. They've got their list of what is sat, and beyond that, they're ready to move on to the next issue. It's *slightly* more efficient to enforce the uniform standard on a few styles of footwear, rather than to have to go an analyze every boot manufactured this season.

Not to mention, there's the slightly more existential (I'm being tongue-in-cheek) reason of enforcing uniformity because, well... it's a uniform.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 13 at 2016 10:43 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 13 Sep 2016 10:43:16 -0400

I believe that as long as color matches , it shouldn't matter, I like comfort for my feet and army issued boots are pretty bad.