What would your reccomendations for AR 670-1 be, if you were the one making changes.

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 24 Mar 2014 16:40:47 -0400

Since I see and hear so many complaints about the new changes to 670-1, I am interested in the reccomendations you all would have and the reason? It seems as though many are complaining about the tattoo policy a lot! Many are releived by the sideburn portion. I see and hear a lot of complaining but would be interested in constructive recommendations from the group! Keep in mind profession of arms more so than your personal feelings.

Response by CW4 Mark Brubeck made Mar 25 at 2014 10:34 PM

CW4 Mark Brubeck — Tue, 25 Mar 2014 22:34:18 -0400

I think it would be great if they would just not keeping changing it. Tattoos, no tattoos Senior leaders state that it is time to go back to the basics. My question would have to be why did we ever leave the basics.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 26 at 2014 6:53 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 26 Mar 2014 06:53:03 -0400

As this force changes and becomes younger, stronger and faster and more lethal I think some of the changes make sense. However, as the most ethnically diverse fighting force on the planet next to say the British military we pride ourselves on having volunteers from every walk of life amongst our ranks. That said, some changes seem to unknowingly discriminate against some of these ethnic groups. Some island races wear tattoos as symbology of their race and are ancient in nature. Some wear dreadlocks for similar reasons. If the tattoos are not offensive or derogatory in nature, why are they disqualified from reaching for higher levels of responsibility if they are the best person for the job? Why can a woman not wear dreadlocks if they do not degrade the proper wear and functionality of the headgear or other head based equipment (so long as the dreads are not like 2 Chainz). We teach and preach equality and turn around and say that we are not equal with some of the policies and regulations that are drafted. 600-9; this is no longer the 1940's were the military was almost entirely composed of white males in their late teens and early 20's. Again, many ethnic groups are "thicker" people but does that automatically mean that they are fat or out of shape? What is the message being sent here? Women too are no longer of the slim, short skinny variety from back in the day. Many women are curvy and more shapely than they were even 10 years ago. With things like crossfit, and as many are now jumping into bodybuilding more so than even the early 2000's their bodies tend to become more curvy as a result especially ethnic women! Does this mean they are fat or out of shape? I think some of these policies, regs, and articles need to be revamped to more accurately reflect the composition of the Army as it is today. Just my opinions here.