Posted on Jan 25, 2015
Wearing a ring on the left hand; allowed by AR 670-1 but not by an NCO. How would you handle it?
102K
298
132
7
7
0
I wear a ring on the pointer finger of my left hand. It's sterling silver and isn't even as big as a class ring. However, a SSG from my unit is constantly telling me to take it off because it is not a wedding ring. I tell him AR 670-1 states in section Jewlery that a soldier my wear a total of 2 rings; 1 on each hand, and a wedding band set is considered 1. It also states that rings must be conservative in taste and not extreme. Nowhere in the Regs does it say a soldier can only wear wedding rings. My ring meets all requirements but he still yells everytime he sees it. How can I educate him more or resolve the situation without taking off my ring and without getting chewed out?
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 61
Other than a wedding ring, the only other rings allowed by any service are Service Rings. As a Marine I am authorized to wear a Marine Corps ring (like a class ring) and no other jewelry is authorized. Common sense dealing with what we as military do on a daily basis, I didn't even wear that. As for Army, AR 670-1 explains what you can and cannot wear, and a wedding band/set plus Class Ring (e.g. Naval Academy, Air Force Academy, or West Point) or Service Ring. Others are NOT authorized.
Your Staff Sergeant was half correct, however ignorant on the details of the order and should re-familiarize himself.
Your Staff Sergeant was half correct, however ignorant on the details of the order and should re-familiarize himself.
(0)
(0)
CW3 (Join to see)
This is not true, SSG Peterson. In the Army, AR 670-1 clearly states one ring per hand. It does NOT specify what kind of ring that has to be. If it did, I'd be in violation right now, because the ring on my right hand is a Masonic one.
(0)
(0)
Doesn't matter if it's in the 670-1 or not. As your leadership and an Nco he can make the standard more restrictive if he chooses. Similar to haircuts in boot versus later in permanent party. I had an NCO who refused to let us wear the fleece or authorized "sneaker" or go fast boots. As leadership, it's his prerogative. But in case that's not adequate, check out some of the injuries of soldiers who caught there ring on a duece and a half's tailgate or other gear. It's not pretty. My advice? Do as you're being directed. Wear it in a chain or on your dog tags in your pocket.
(0)
(0)
CW3 (Join to see)
Regulations were not set up to enforce personal whims, SSG(P) Nadeau. You can't just decide one day you don't want to allow your soldiers something normal like that. Are you going to tell a married soldier who works in an office he or she can't wear their wedding ring?
(0)
(0)
MSG(P) (Join to see)
CW3 (Join to see) - I never once said that it could be done at a whim. If I believe as the NCOIC that rings are dangerous either because of the nature of the duty of because I tactical considerations, I most certainly can. I can also come up with any number of "reasons" why i mandate shorter haircuts than allowable by reg. It is a common place practice in the combat arms and most specifically the infantry. Even in basic we are made to keep our hair shorter than allowed by reg. The excuse is for hygiene purposes but we ALL know that there are no more or less hygenie issues with a high and tight versus any other regulation haircut. So are you telling me and would you advise new soldiers to disregard the "whims" of drill sergeants and infantry platoon leaders because they are enforcing a standard more restrictive than the reg allows???
(0)
(0)
CW3 (Join to see)
If you're not willing to articulate the 'why' of enforcing a standard more restrictive than the reg allows, then yes, that is a whim. In the original posting, the NCOIC wasn't willing to articulate the why. I got the impression that this was an in-garrison situation, and in garrison it sounds to me like it's just a power trip....
(0)
(0)
MSG(P) (Join to see)
I mentioned that also. If it wasn't a standard for everyone and this NCOIC is just enforcing it on the one Soldier then there is a problem. We do have to keep in mind though that this is the Army, not the cub scouts. A leader isn't required to articulate the whys and wherefores. If they say no rings, then no rings. It really is that simple. It's a lawful order. The reg supports that standard.
So... no rings. If that's a whim ok then but it's still the way the Army and the system work. Now is that MY leadership style? No, of course not. Could some people have an issue with it or call it toxic? Probably. The simple fact is, and my original point is this: the reg simply lays out what is allowable. It NEVER states anywhere that a Soldier can do whatever the reg allows regardless of what their leaders lawfully order them to do. Soldiers get this confused by this or think that their "feelings" matter. That was my point.
I myself learned it the hard way when I was a PVT 25 years ago. The reg allows either the regimental crest or the unit crest on the epaulette of the dress uniform (at the time). Well, I liked the regimental crest better and thats what I went with. My NCOIC however did not. He wanted the unit crest on there. We argued for some time about this and my reasoning was that the reg said I could. Guess who was wrong? I was counseled by him, the 1SG and the Commander. Right or wrong, it's a lawful order. Arguments like uniformity etc are really nothing more than someone, somewhere up the chain's whim in one form or another. Simply put, the reg allows things sure but it also states that leadership has a right, BY REG, to make it more restrictive and no where does it specify they have to articulate why. Again. I don't lead this way but some do and they are within their right to do so.
So... no rings. If that's a whim ok then but it's still the way the Army and the system work. Now is that MY leadership style? No, of course not. Could some people have an issue with it or call it toxic? Probably. The simple fact is, and my original point is this: the reg simply lays out what is allowable. It NEVER states anywhere that a Soldier can do whatever the reg allows regardless of what their leaders lawfully order them to do. Soldiers get this confused by this or think that their "feelings" matter. That was my point.
I myself learned it the hard way when I was a PVT 25 years ago. The reg allows either the regimental crest or the unit crest on the epaulette of the dress uniform (at the time). Well, I liked the regimental crest better and thats what I went with. My NCOIC however did not. He wanted the unit crest on there. We argued for some time about this and my reasoning was that the reg said I could. Guess who was wrong? I was counseled by him, the 1SG and the Commander. Right or wrong, it's a lawful order. Arguments like uniformity etc are really nothing more than someone, somewhere up the chain's whim in one form or another. Simply put, the reg allows things sure but it also states that leadership has a right, BY REG, to make it more restrictive and no where does it specify they have to articulate why. Again. I don't lead this way but some do and they are within their right to do so.
(0)
(0)
I agree with COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM below. That said...
It sounds like you are already at the point where you need to go to your PSG or 1SG, if you think this is such a big deal. That said, my experiences tell me you have to pick your battles. Is this a battle you want? I believe you are correct in your reading of 670-1, but I also believe that most folks consider the wedding ring the only left hand ring allowed. What will be the impact of you calling your SSG out, and the PSG or 1SG having to get involved?
If this is a big deal to you, then dig in and fight for what you believe is right. But, remember, there are always second and third order affects of the decisions we make.
In my view, which may be contrast to the AR, the two rings are the wedding ring, and a school type ring, but in most places I have been most Soldiers wear only a wedding ring, and many times not even that for safety and/or security reasons.
I only ever wore a wedding ring, and still only do, and that was only in garrison, when doing things where it did not present a safety hazard.
It sounds like you are already at the point where you need to go to your PSG or 1SG, if you think this is such a big deal. That said, my experiences tell me you have to pick your battles. Is this a battle you want? I believe you are correct in your reading of 670-1, but I also believe that most folks consider the wedding ring the only left hand ring allowed. What will be the impact of you calling your SSG out, and the PSG or 1SG having to get involved?
If this is a big deal to you, then dig in and fight for what you believe is right. But, remember, there are always second and third order affects of the decisions we make.
In my view, which may be contrast to the AR, the two rings are the wedding ring, and a school type ring, but in most places I have been most Soldiers wear only a wedding ring, and many times not even that for safety and/or security reasons.
I only ever wore a wedding ring, and still only do, and that was only in garrison, when doing things where it did not present a safety hazard.
(0)
(0)
SSG(P) (Join to see)
a. Soldiers may wear a wristwatch, a wrist identification bracelet, and a total of two rings (a wedding set is considered one ring) with Army uniforms, unless prohibited by the commander for safety or health reasons. Any jewelry worn by Soldiers while in uniform, or in civilian clothes on duty, must be conservative. Identification bracelets are limited to the following: medical alert bracelets, missing in action, prisoner of war, or killed in action (black or silver in color only) bracelets. Soldiers are only authorized to wear one item on each wrist while in uniform, or in civilian clothes on duty.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
SSG(P) (Join to see) "Soldiers are only authorized to wear one item on each wrist while in uniform, or in civilian clothes on duty." People usually wear their rings on their fingers, not their wrists.
Back to your original question. The reg stated that Soldiers may, not Soldiers must.
Back to your original question. The reg stated that Soldiers may, not Soldiers must.
(0)
(0)
After seeing the ring in question, I would recommend getting the opinion of someone higher in "the food chain" as to whether they feel it meets the "conservative" jewelry allowed in 670-1. I will also say that after seeing some of the other responses to the ring, it's probably a good thing I didn't have anyone of the responders as a superior while I was in and wore the silver skull ring that I often wore!! Sheeesh....fashion Nazis ....lol
(0)
(0)
You can take the ring off for Drill Weekend and AT, or get used to answering to Private again.
(0)
(0)
Guess you're gonna have get married then...each day wear it on a diffrent finger, confuse and confound them.
(0)
(0)
If it were me i would take of the ring then in private ask him why it is so important that you take the ring off. He might have a legitamate reason.... Sorry for my spelling. If the nco has a valid reason such as the ring is shiny and will give you away in the field then keep it off if he has no good reason keep in mind the nco dosent have to tell you anything and the problem persists keep the ring off and request a meeting with the commander to gain clairity on the issue. No matter what do what your chain of command says its not worth messing up your carrer over a ring bro you will get a new dity station in a few years anyway and a new nco
(0)
(0)
It also says in AR 670-1 that the command structure has final say in the matter. If the SSG who is saying this is part of your chain of command, you have to follow his directive, regardless what 670-1 says. Also he is giving you an order that is neither immoral or illegal, therefore it is a direct order that he is perfectly able to give you. Being that it is a direct order, you as a soldier must follow said order.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next