Unauthorized Boots, why do SM keep wearing them?

SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 10:42:28 -0500

Just the other days I saw a PFC wearing Rocky C4T boots, I asked him if he knew they were unauthorized and he told me that he does but his NCO hasn't told him anything so, he keeps using them.

Why do we keep seeing SM wearing unauthorized boots?

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 10 at 2016 10:49 AM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 10:49:45 -0500

I suspect it's for at least two reasons: (1), it may not be so much a "Don't Care" attitude as it is a "there are far more important issues to be dealt with every day," (2), and the boots shown above are so microscopically different from the regulation boots.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 10 at 2016 10:50 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 10:50:09 -0500

I think we can clearly chalk up this incident in the "I don't care" category. Based on his response he clearly knows his boots are against the regulations. Unfortunately, he doesn't have enough integrity to do the right thing without being told by his NCO.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 10 at 2016 11:01 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 11:01:14 -0500

Leaders have to enforce this. I've corrected too many Soldiers as a NCO only to be told "but SGT, "(SNCO/Officer) wear these." Any my only response could be something around the lines of "I'm telling you not to wear those boots because they're not authorized." If you correct enough Soldiers on your own, sooner or later many senior enlisted MAY fix themselves to avoid people looking at them sideways when around such situations. I've seen it.

Response by Sgt Tom Cunnally made Feb 10 at 2016 11:07 AM

Sgt Tom Cunnally — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 11:07:06 -0500

I recall seeing photos of Ted Williams in Korea holding court with enlisted & talking about hitting. Ted wore a Red Sox Baseball cap, and white sox and loafers with his dungarees. And if anyone criticized his unauthorized military uniform, Ted told them "$%#&*&^%" and kept wearing what he wanted during his time in Korea.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Feb 10 at 2016 11:09 AM

CAPT Kevin B. — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 11:09:30 -0500

I'm guilty of this one. Back in the day we wore jungle boots in CONUS because they were much more comfortable. And yes, we used the zipper inserts too. The general thinking was if they were sold in the uniform shop, you were good to go. I also wore non-issue Danners much later in life simply because they came in EE which "official" didn't come in. They kept the water out better too. My take it's one thing that gets scrutinized more when you're not deployed. I will have to say, anything not looking good would get dinged. As a Skipper, I left enlisted uniform issues up to the SEL and officers to the XO.

It's interesting looking at the pictured list that the boots shown are "bedroom slipper" versions of real durable and safe boots. That type would not pass the SEL or XO test. Seabees also purchased specialty boots that made work in their trade safer like corks. You want to break new boots in Stateside before counting on them in the badlands.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 10 at 2016 11:09 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 11:09:58 -0500

I see several reasons for this.
1) Leaders aren't aware of all of the "unauthorized boots", as there's a s-ton of them floating around in stores. Some of the boots in the photo would set off the "something's not right" alarm, just by the color/shade of the boot - but there's several out there that are the right color of tan (and I suppose even the coyote brown color for the new OCP) and hard to distinguish from authorized and unauthorized. It's easy to call out a Soldier on unauthorized gear when the color isn't right or something stands out as not normal - but not every unauthorized boot does.

2) I haven't been on a military base for almost a year - but I recall the PX/military clothing & sales having boots for sale that weren't authorized. That's part of the problem with Joe - if it's at clothing & sales, it must be authorized? Hopefully this has been or is in the midst of being corrected, as clothing & sales shouldn't carry anything that isn't authorized and even for the commercial geardo stores within the PX - they shouldn't be authorized to sell unauthorized clothing items either imo.

In the end, it's on the leaders and the individuals themselves to ensure they adhere to standards. So the blame is equal imo.

Response by Capt Tom Brown made Feb 10 at 2016 11:13 AM

Capt Tom Brown — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 11:13:26 -0500

Always like a down-to-earth issue like this for discussion. Found the reference for boots on pp 123 & 124 of Army regs and would be hard pressed to select a pair from any source which I was certain would meet the descriptions contained therein. Is there a photo(s) of boots which are 'authorized' or which meet the regs? I imagine the PX sells only boots which are somehow authorized. A junior NCO might not be able to distinguish unauthorized styles when faced with so many varieties on the market. Hope this can be settled before the SMA has to get involved and put his foot down.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 10 at 2016 11:16 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 11:16:24 -0500

My response might rub some folks the wrong way...but here it is: We've created an "operator cult" in the modern military. Try as we may, we're all trying to be "heroes", and we don't see many films called, "Civil Affairs-The War for Hearts and Minds" starring Vin Diesel, or "Squids-Midwatch Hell" staring Clive Owen. Folks will push anything they think they can to be more "high speed", and boots are no exception.

From "coyote brown" tactical gear to Oakleys (usually 'Oakies') and "morale patches"...There's a million and one uniform infractions that get tolerated, if not "excused" downrange that end up filtering "up" range as well. I've still got my "modified" DCUs to prove it (shame on me).

Leadership has to lead the way, and that never works when undermined by leaders, whether commissioned or NCO who don't support those trying to uphold discipline and standards.

Response by PFC Tuan Trang made Feb 10 at 2016 11:37 AM

PFC Tuan Trang — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 11:37:01 -0500

I'll would say "Lack of leadership" since the leader of the soldier didn't stay up to date will rules and regulation.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 10 at 2016 11:40 AM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 11:40:34 -0500

I think the uniform emphasis has decreased for two reasons. 1) Due to all of the uniform changes over the last decade, leaders have become tired of it. Multiple uniforms, boots, IBA rules, PT belts on FOBs, etc. As long as soldiers don't look completely crazy most leaders have better things to do with their time. 2) This funny thing called war has been going on and people actually had to fight in what they were wearing. Even senior leaders spent time in kit patrolling and meeting senior indigenous leaders. During this time they realized that a lot of these unauthorized boots are really comfortable, a lot more comfortable than the cheaper issued boots. I think this is the biggest reason you see a lot of leaders looking the other way. They can't look their soldiers in the face and tell them to wear that boot over there just because its authorized. We all like to take care of our feet...its a day 1 basic training task.

Response by SSgt Kyle Holler made Feb 10 at 2016 11:52 AM

SSgt Kyle Holler — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 11:52:03 -0500

In the Marines we didn't really have this problem. If the boots didn't have the Egale, Globe and Anchor stamped on the outside of the heel, then they aren't authorized!

Response by SFC William Swartz Jr made Feb 10 at 2016 12:00 PM

SFC William Swartz Jr — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 12:00:45 -0500

Long story short in my opinion, their leaders allow them to without consequences or because their leaders themselves are wearing them!

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 10 at 2016 12:21 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 12:21:34 -0500

Who walks around with the list of boots that are unauthorized?? I know I don't. I also don't have that thing memorized. Obviously if the color is off or there is a huge zipper on them they will look suspicious. I think soldiers are wearing them because nobody takes the time to check. You don't know what you don't know. There are pairs of boots out there that are unauthorized but look 100% the same as those that are.

Response by SSgt Mark Lines made Feb 10 at 2016 12:36 PM

SSgt Mark Lines — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 12:36:02 -0500

In my mind, it comes down to lack of leadership and maybe a lack of a clear standard. As an NCO/ SNCO, you have responsibility to ensure that not only your people meet all regulations, but yourself as well. In the case you sited, leadership was not happening. As an outsider looking in, it seems as if the Army's standard for footwear is not clear. If you have to show a slide containing examples of what is NOT authorized, then the standard is not clear. One idea is to give them a list of what is authorized, and ensure the PX/ BX only stocks those choices in the uniform shop.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 10 at 2016 12:36 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 12:36:43 -0500

Can't go off the picture to reference unauthorized boots, instead do the boots on their feet meet the regulation?

All the ones pictured were quickly remodeled by the companies to meet regulation. So you really can't say at a glance. Gotta check if the boots meet regulation. If they don't then make a correction.

Response by SGT Dave Tracy made Feb 10 at 2016 1:33 PM

SGT Dave Tracy — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 13:33:46 -0500

I have a pair of C4Ts, and love 'em, but with much sadness, I choose to lead by example and keep them at home. For me, the brand and model were highly recommended, so I bought them (if I remember right) from AAFES online, not knowing they were prohibited--or just prior to them being prohibited, can't say I remember--and it was some time before I or really anyone in my unit, learned they shouldn't be worn.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 10 at 2016 2:09 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 14:09:16 -0500

I brief my Soldiers about all the variations of boots. I actually took pictures of all the boots sold at the local PX and Patriot Outfitter store on post. If I am going to make a 200+ dollar purchase out of my pocket I would want to ensure that they are authorized for the uniform. NCO's especially should be counseling their Soldiers on what is and what is not authorized. Due to all the variations of manufacturers it can be somewhat confusing but a few minutes of research can answer all your questions.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 10 at 2016 2:22 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 14:22:46 -0500

Why does Joe do it?
Why does Joe do anything that they are not supposed to do?
Because they can get away with it.
Because leaders don't care, or worse do it themselves.

I remember when there were only a handful of authorized boots out there. It wasn't better to have fewer options, but it sure was easier to enforce the standards.
Every NCO needs to know the standard and enforce it.

Response by LTC Thomas Cunningham made Feb 10 at 2016 2:23 PM

LTC Thomas Cunningham — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 14:23:29 -0500

Are you focusing on the important or just thumping the book?

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Feb 10 at 2016 2:43 PM

LTC Paul Labrador — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 14:43:20 -0500

Because A) they are comfy and B) their NCO didn't tell them to stop.....

Response by SMSgt Thor Merich made Feb 10 at 2016 3:02 PM

SMSgt Thor Merich — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 15:02:36 -0500

The Air Force is simple. The regs say "Sage Green" boots with our ABU. If its green, its good.
Back when we wore tan boots, I wore Army boots as they were better quality and more appropriate for field duty. I knew some guys that wore USMC boots as they were great boots and comfortable. But the Globe and Anchor on the heel kind of stood out.

Response by SPC Christopher Morehouse made Feb 10 at 2016 3:22 PM

SPC Christopher Morehouse — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 15:22:46 -0500

Because they are too cool for issued boots and want you to know it.

Response by MSG Martin C. made Feb 10 at 2016 3:48 PM

MSG Martin C. — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 15:48:11 -0500

It's actually very simple. The leaders can't enforce the standard because they are unaware of it or simply don't care. I corrected so many Soldiers when the regulation changed that we end up doing a NCODP on uniform wear and appearance to once and for all catch all the misconceptions in one room.
The very next day a MSG that sat on the class was wearing the unauthorized version of the Nike boots. It must start from the top, if the top leadership don't enforce it the subordinates will not care.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 10 at 2016 4:25 PM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 16:25:40 -0500

There are some excellent points made in some of the comments. I agree that comfortable boots are important however, regulations are regulations. Should we change or improve some regulations, yeah we probably should but, until they change they must be enforced. Most of the companies that make these boots have made an "AR 670-1 authorized" boot to replace the ones shown in the picture. Nike for example replaced the unauthorized leather with authorized cattle leather and they are still comfortable.

Comfort is important but durability is more important. If your Soldiers are walking patrol in raggedy ass boots on the third month of a nine month deployment, there is a problem. NCOs should be enforcing the standard and showing their Soldiers that there are comfortable boots that meet the standard.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 10 at 2016 5:17 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 17:17:02 -0500

IDK but boots are boots , who cares , its all about contacts.

Response by Maj Chris Nelson made Feb 10 at 2016 5:52 PM

Maj Chris Nelson — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 17:52:23 -0500

Personally, I feel that the regs are too tight for boots. COLOR for uniformity.... brand?! Not so much. Lets face it, there are LOTS of boot/footgear makers that make some really good stuff. WHY should troops that need to have good foot gear not be allowed to find the boots that fit the best, provide the best support, and are most comfortable for their INDIVIDUAL FOOT not be allowed to find their footgear? So, AAFES doesn't have to sell all types..... but as long as they meet color requirements, let it be.

Response by SGT Bryon Sergent made Feb 10 at 2016 6:59 PM

SGT Bryon Sergent — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 18:59:45 -0500

If they are unauthorized then DON,T SELL THEM ON POST! Not at the PX , Not at Clothing and Sales. That way they will have to go off post to get them! then you know if the troop bought them at the Clarksville US Cav they aint right! Bam problem solved. Oh wait that makes sense.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Feb 10 at 2016 10:26 PM

COL Charles Williams — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 22:26:14 -0500

Because they don't know better, and their chain of command is failing SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member. Boots are on the authorized list (just like eye-pro) because they meet Army physical and safety standards. Those that are not, are synthetic and can be deadly in say a vehicle fire... If junior NCOs and Officers are not modeling and enforcing basic standards... that is a problem...

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 11 at 2016 1:38 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 11 Feb 2016 01:38:42 -0500

With anything Soldiers will ask, "What are they gonna do about it?" If the answer is nothing and nothing is done to deter undesired behavior it will continue.

Response by SrA Matthew Knight made Feb 11 at 2016 3:11 AM

SrA Matthew Knight — Thu, 11 Feb 2016 03:11:43 -0500

My guess is it's all about comfort.

It could be worse too, I've seen pictures on the USAWTFM page that show soldiers wearing tan Uggs in uniform.

Response by SPC Burt Epps made Feb 11 at 2016 1:24 PM

SPC Burt Epps — Thu, 11 Feb 2016 13:24:37 -0500

NCO's are not enforcing the 670-1. It's pretty simple. I see 1LT and LT. Colonels on here defending it with "take care of your feet" drivel. Gone are the days of "Do what you're told, when you're told, how you're told, or get your ass handed to you". SMH . Those damn green wool socks and original issue boots of the 80's were total garbage....but we had to wear them.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 11 at 2016 10:12 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 11 Feb 2016 22:12:09 -0500

While I agree that their needs to be regs on uniform appearance. Their also needs to common sense used on certain items like boots when it comes to the advantage of being comfortable and functional at the same time.

Response by MAJ Michael Roe made Feb 12 at 2016 1:32 PM

MAJ Michael Roe — Fri, 12 Feb 2016 13:32:21 -0500

I think that you should also throw in that AR 670-1 is being changed a bit to often. At one point, most of us had the important parts memorized and knew what was authorized. Now, it seems like we have to go look up a lot more stuff. This means you have to go back and find the culprit, or chance correcting something that may be correct. Since most clothing sales stores have big signs telling joe what isn't authorized, why don't they just quit selling the stuff? This can go for the eye protection and a dozen other things as well. I always went by "if it was issued, it was authorized".

Response by CW3 Kevin Storm made Feb 12 at 2016 4:36 PM

CW3 Kevin Storm — Fri, 12 Feb 2016 16:36:20 -0500

None of the below, lets get real for a moment, when the Clothing Sales store is selling them who is going to know the difference? Lets also be honest, as long as tanker boots & jump boots, Stetsons and God knows what else some command has authorized, is comfortable footwear that big a deal? Hell we as an Army preach Safety, so in the grand scheme of things the vast majority of soldiers should get a set of coveralls and safety boots as part of their CIF issue. But they don't, why is that, if safety is paramount? We are all supposed to be able to perform maintenance, and you are going to tell me that there is a unit that doesn't have ungodly heavy stuff that can dropped on some ones foot? Grass that doesn't need to be cut, chores that need to get done?

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 12 at 2016 5:34 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:34:57 -0500

Lol, but did you die?

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 13 at 2016 12:33 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 13 Feb 2016 00:33:49 -0500

I have rocky C4T that I wear daily; bought them off a friend for 50$
I work in Garrison as a nurse, I'm not wearing army issued boots when I have to be on my feet all day.
got them cheap and comfortable; no one is at risk of anything, pointless

Response by SPC Matthew Thibodeaux made Sep 15 at 2016 10:40 PM

SPC Matthew Thibodeaux — Thu, 15 Sep 2016 22:40:08 -0400

You do realize that the issued boots (at least initial issue) are not authorized for combat, right? I remember buying a pair of boots a few years ago at clothing sales and, while they were "authorized" and a DLATs item, I remember pulling off the tag that said something to the extent of "not for combat use".

Response by Cpl Brian Johnston made Nov 25 at 2016 4:16 AM

Cpl Brian Johnston — Fri, 25 Nov 2016 04:16:40 -0500

Have things changed!
We learned to spit-shine our black leather boots and dress shoes in boot camp!
Nothing like a spit-shined pair of boots to reflect light in a combat zone!
Not to mention the training that spit-shining gave us for civilian jobs!
As Gunny said, "You have running water, 10 toilets, and a shower: You're living in a f'ing mansion!"
We soon read the regs and found out that spit-shining footwear was a violation of MCOrders. Funny how the brass wanted us to disobey orders when it suited them!

Flash forward 10 years. I joined a State Guard unit, mainly to compete in firearms competitions.

One day during a Brigade gathering, I wore my spit-shined leather oxfords. My SgtMaj tells me that as a SSgt, I'm not authorized to wear high-gloss Corframs, only low-gloss. I started laughing. You should have seen their faces when I proved that I was wearing spit-shined leather oxfords!

Response by SSG Mark Franzen made Dec 16 at 2016 5:59 PM

SSG Mark Franzen — Fri, 16 Dec 2016 17:59:28 -0500

I Think the Leadership in todays Military needs a new Look at who they are promoting because
they don't care for the way there troops look and what they wear. When I was in we had an In ranks inspection every morning by the PLT SARGENT to see that you were in compliance with AR670-1 both the Uniform and hair cuts. Today they need more training on how to inspect there personnel and rooms. The Leadership should be more active in there troops appearance and there welfare.
SSG MARK FRANZEN

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 16 at 2016 9:13 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 16 Dec 2016 21:13:56 -0500

Leadership failure and lack of personal/uniform discipline. There is no other excuse than that.

Response by MSG Dan Castaneda made Dec 17 at 2016 12:28 AM

MSG Dan Castaneda — Sat, 17 Dec 2016 00:28:33 -0500

I wear the Nike ones and my boss also wears the Nike ones as well. Guess what? No one cares. Just do your job.

Response by 1LT William Clardy made Dec 18 at 2016 9:59 PM

1LT William Clardy — Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:59:14 -0500

If you need a cheat sheet to keep track of which boots are authorized and which ones aren't, then there really isn't an enforceable standard, is there?

Response by SPC ! Spartan7G made May 23 at 2017 6:14 PM

SPC ! Spartan7G — Tue, 23 May 2017 18:14:17 -0400

Agreed with CW2. Too many changes in such a short time frame. Also. Leader are more worried about training and preparing soldiers, if they don't look like a bag of ass and are atleast presentable then so be it. Hell down range you see so many unauthorized boots, why?! Because they are practical and much better for the soldiers feet. Clean (unless in field or down range) 8in the proper tan without a zipper should be enough.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 23 at 2017 5:09 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 23 Sep 2017 17:09:15 -0400

I feel like you answered your own question in your statement. The PFC said "His NCO hasn't told him anything" In my eyes that PFC is not failing his leadership is failing him by not nipping the issue when it first started. Remember as a private or even young specialist you're a direct reflection of your leadership.

Response by SGT Mathew Husen made Sep 23 at 2017 10:58 PM

SGT Mathew Husen — Sat, 23 Sep 2017 22:58:21 -0400

In the sandbox, these boots where the best thing to happen for people who regularly went outside the wire.

Response by SSG James Swarr made Sep 23 at 2017 11:34 PM

SSG James Swarr — Sat, 23 Sep 2017 23:34:33 -0400

Up to leadership to enforce the standard if it's really that big of a deal....only tan boots I dealt with were in 1991 and there were only one style issued....but let's talk about black boots....you had cruit boots, 4 styles/brands of jump boots, tankers boots, 4 or 5 different cold weather boots, 2 styles of jungle boots....AND, if you were in Germany, German army boots...all sold in MCSS. Officers loved their jungle boots, senior NCOs liked there jump boots, and everybody else wore whatever.....we worried more about training I believe than what was on your feet.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 24 at 2017 3:38 AM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 24 Sep 2017 03:38:52 -0400

A couple of thoughts for what they are worth...

The soldiers I have deployed with have all had the mentality that their demise was likely to be met through a catastrophic IED explosion. Govt approved boots weren't going to make a bit of different when you're a double, triple, or quadruple amputee. So why not patrol comfortable?!

I understand that there are far less serious injuries approved boots are intended to save soldiers from; however, the Army acquisition system focuses their Public Affairs more on high tech anti drone lasers than on boot education (ie the system is not transparent).

Lastly, there are always people in the military who will refer back to the military "in their day"....lets just acknowledge that many things have changed since even Kosovo in 1995. My father was a LRSP team leader in Vietnam. He patrolled with jungle boots, and half unbuttoned cotton blend trousers and blouse and a ton of ammo. Our soldiers today are breaking under the weight of the gear being mandated on them by leadership. Body armour, helmet, rifle, ammo, extra batteries, food, water, etc...hip and leg injuries are crushing our fighting forces.

Response by Sgt Wayne Wood made Sep 26 at 2017 2:22 PM

Sgt Wayne Wood — Tue, 26 Sep 2017 14:22:41 -0400

Ya left out an option for "better boots"

Response by SFC Jim Ruether made Sep 26 at 2017 2:28 PM

SFC Jim Ruether — Tue, 26 Sep 2017 14:28:51 -0400

I think the fact the boots are broken in and darn comfortable has some still wearing them. Also if they are issue they are cheap and why not wear them till they are not serviceable. I saw guys still wearing Jungle Boots well into the 80's when I was in and no one ever called them on it.

Response by CSM Richard StCyr made Sep 26 at 2017 3:45 PM

CSM Richard StCyr — Tue, 26 Sep 2017 15:45:46 -0400

Because there is a lack of enforcement of standards. I am also not entirely convinced that our NCO corps knows in many cases what rite looks like.

Response by SGT Chad Cherry made Sep 27 at 2017 9:55 PM

SGT Chad Cherry — Wed, 27 Sep 2017 21:55:39 -0400

Price and coolness

Response by 2LT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 6 at 2017 1:55 PM

2LT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 06 Dec 2017 13:55:43 -0500

Because it doesn't matter, the entire 'Boot Jihad' was done by flat-out the WORST garrison-gay SMA we have had in my lifetime, and we have real problems to worry about...

Seriously, if the boots are the right color brown, about 8" high, and not raggedy-ann worn out, who cares?

P.S. It doesn't matter what shoulder(s) you wear your backpack on, what color that backpack is, or any of the other 'PT Belt Nazi' stuff Chandler freaked out about & pushed down to the rest of the NCO Corps. Get. Over. It.
The 80s/90s Garrison Army died on 9/11 & we shouldn't be bringing it back.

- Ex NCO, now an officer.
Will NEVER care about this stupid stuff for myself OR my troops, any more than we 'cared' about PT belts on our front-line COP in the 'Stan.

Response by SSG Edward Tilton made Dec 6 at 2017 3:27 PM

SSG Edward Tilton — Wed, 06 Dec 2017 15:27:22 -0500

You have to wear authorized boots so the correct parasite gets the profit

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 19 at 2018 7:39 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 19 Aug 2018 19:39:31 -0400

What about them is outside DA pan 670-1 part 18-4

Response by SGT Larry Reed made Aug 20 at 2018 3:27 PM

SGT Larry Reed — Mon, 20 Aug 2018 15:27:45 -0400

There is a difference between knowing shat is right and what is wrong. Article 15?

Response by SrA John Monette made Aug 21 at 2018 7:19 PM

SrA John Monette — Tue, 21 Aug 2018 19:19:08 -0400

I'm assuming SM is Sergeant Major. So, because he can?

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 3 at 2018 10:17 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 03 Sep 2018 10:17:16 -0400

Part of the reason is a lack of awareness of the regulations in AR 670-1. Soldiers simply didn’t know and a lot of times leadership isn’t aware either. As others stated, even if they are, most of the time it is a matter of priorities: if it doesn’t look jacked up, is it that big of a deal?

I will also say that I think a lot of leaders realize too (from experience) that these other boots are way more comfortable to wear, so they go with it. Considering that the issues boots don’t jive with a lot of people, there is only so much blame from that perspective to go around.

Given now with the new uniform changes, I have noticed most of these boots have been madecAR670-1 compliant, so I feel this issue has diminished quite a bit.

Response by SFC Aaron Lutz made Dec 22 at 2018 7:21 AM

SFC Aaron Lutz — Sat, 22 Dec 2018 07:21:59 -0500

Who cares? You gonna reccomend that everyone wear the same type/color underwear too?

Response by SFC Stanley Wood made May 12 at 2019 11:36 AM

SFC Stanley Wood — Sun, 12 May 2019 11:36:26 -0400

I know in my case I have a odd size 10 1/2 4 wide. I could not get boots through the system. So I ordered a pair of Nike, then when they came in asked my CO and 1SG if they were good to go? They asked "do they fit?", I said "Yes", they both said wear them. I wore a couple of pair out in Iraq and another pair in Afghanistan.

Response by SFC David Xanten made May 12 at 2019 11:55 AM

SFC David Xanten — Sun, 12 May 2019 11:55:34 -0400

What’s wrong with the NCO Corps

Response by SPC Donn Sinclair made May 12 at 2019 12:12 PM

SPC Donn Sinclair — Sun, 12 May 2019 12:12:03 -0400

An interesting dilemma. When I was in 100 years ago, (seems like it sometimes), we had two choices. Issue, (we called them KP boots), or Corcoran jump boots, if you could afford them. Either required a high shine, the infamous "airborne cap" on Corcorans. This new generation of boots that are deemed unauthorized. I'd be curious as to why.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made May 12 at 2019 12:13 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 12 May 2019 12:13:09 -0400

None of this addresses what is unauthorized about the boots

Response by MSG Bo Mikel made May 13 at 2019 12:54 AM

MSG Bo Mikel — Mon, 13 May 2019 00:54:34 -0400

It seems that there is a day and night difference between the “garrison” era leaders and the “combat” era leaders in the responses to this post.... while “most” of the folks that served a garrison army with peace time and few deployments during their tenor in the army are saying “lack of leadership, nco’s are not doing their jobs”..... The “combat” era leaders that have deployed multiple times with their joes (and multiple times with different joes too) are the ones that know that there are more effective ways to spend your time than uniform inspections for unauthorised boots.... if joe is wearing boots that are comfortable for him and they allow him to complete his mission with out foot injuries (blisters, bleeding, or broken ankles) that is called a win! “Combat” leaders are more focused on training muscle memory tactical operations to make sure you bring them all home at the end of the NEXT deployment...The garrison “spit-shined” 9-5 soldier is long gone!

Response by SSG Dave Johnston made May 21 at 2019 11:47 PM

SSG Dave Johnston — Tue, 21 May 2019 23:47:57 -0400

Congress decreed decades ago that what would be issued and authorized for servicemembers had to be made in the USA, not: Usa, China/India/Bangladesh/Vietnam/Mexico/Peru/Chile/Paraguay/Adnausem,

[Here's your culprit: Berry Amendment, USC, Title 10, Section 2533a, originally passed in 1941 to require a buy-American policy for the military. The latest version, which took effect Nov. 16, 2006, prohibits the Department of Defense from buying items of clothing "unless they are wholly of U.S. origin."]

but… I got a mild case of frostbite or while on AD between '76 and 92 because the issued "leg-boots" and multiple pairs of "OD Green wool socks didn't stand up to guard duty in the cold and snow... and yet there were boots available that were designed to withstand the rigors of a North Dakota winter and 'looked" like an approved boot however......

Response by SPC Ted Ronayne made Sep 18 at 2019 12:39 AM

SPC Ted Ronayne — Wed, 18 Sep 2019 00:39:22 -0400

That pair of OTBs looks similar to the pair of OTBs I have (junglelites)... The only issue I've found is that the soles are soft and wear down after a few months of continuous use, while my basic training boots still hold up strong as ever...

I would say most don't know about it... Boot culture is a thing for obvious reasons, though the regulations aren't well known (except for colors)

I would say in my experience, it's a case of you see them advertised for the military, for sale on post, or another SM wearing them, and you make an assumption

Response by SPC John Decker made Mar 29 at 2020 6:39 AM

SPC John Decker — Sun, 29 Mar 2020 06:39:19 -0400

One option missing. All of the above. Add another. They're probably available at the PX

Response by Maj John Bell made Aug 29 at 2022 2:15 AM

Maj John Bell — Mon, 29 Aug 2022 02:15:16 -0400

Because leadership allows it. Hell, they are probably the worst offenders.
I've made this point on a number of occasions.
-Officers, SNCO's and NCO's make more money than the troops. They can afford better gear. Which removes them from understanding the issue gear related problems their troops face. Those leaders who don't comprehend that and all of the ramifications don't deserve to be troop leaders. ["Never ask your troops to do what you are not willing to do."]

On a more generous day I'd take the unit out on a 25 miler. 10 miles into it, I'd do a boot inspection. Those who were not wearing issue would be told they have a choice.
-Turn around, go back and put on your issue gear, hump back out here and then we'll continue.
-Take em off, along with any other non-issue gear and continue the rest of the force march bare foot.

On a less generous day, I'd run the leadership at office hours (art 15.)

I'm usually less than generous when it comes to leadership failing to deserve their position. But then I'm just a mean-spirited SOB.