Is there such thing as interpreting regulations?

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 06 Aug 2014 20:23:03 -0400

Today I had a senior noncommissioned officer try to make an on the spot correction on my about my glasses. Being prepared for said situation because if past encounters with other members my unit I have the chapter of AR 670-1 with me. When I read that chapter to this NCO not even in my unit he responded with this " how I interpret 670-1 is that you can't wear those so take them off". My question/ theory is this. If it's an Army regulation and it's on paper not here say then there should be no interpreting needed, right?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 6 at 2014 8:39 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 06 Aug 2014 20:39:07 -0400

Army Regulations aren't up for interpretation. They mean what they say. However, that doesn't mean that they aren't often misunderstood. It is possible that you have misunderstood the regulation, or that he did. Maybe post the situation and the regulation in question and we can help you sort it out, or ask your SL/PSG their opinion.

Response by SPC David Blackman made Aug 6 at 2014 8:58 PM

SPC David Blackman — Wed, 06 Aug 2014 20:58:20 -0400

Is that Senior NCO part of you CoC?

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 6 at 2014 9:00 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 06 Aug 2014 21:00:46 -0400

They do seem to stand out. Can you state the make and model of the eye protection. Also, were they issued to you? SSG Private RallyPoint Member

Response by SPC David Blackman made Aug 6 at 2014 9:01 PM

SPC David Blackman — Wed, 06 Aug 2014 21:01:02 -0400

Then I agree with SSgt Slover

Response by COL Randall C. made Aug 6 at 2014 9:31 PM

COL Randall C. — Wed, 06 Aug 2014 21:31:51 -0400

SSG Private RallyPoint Member, actually the reg doesn't say you are authorized to wear them. Ballistic eye protection needs to be on the APEL and the CDIs were replaced by the Crossbows.

However, to your question in the last sentence about it being on paper and not open to interpreting, you are correct to an extent (if you're going to use an AR as a defense, make sure you walk the path of the righteous on all aspects of the AR), in this case is it really worth the hassle?

PEO Soldier | Approved Eyewear

U.S. Army approved eyewear for ballistic protection.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 7 at 2014 2:33 PM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 07 Aug 2014 14:33:41 -0400

I'm going to interpret the situation and not the regulation.

If you have been approached enough times about this subject that you felt the need to carry a copy of the regulation around with you; then deep down you probaly know that what you are wearing is wrong. It may not specifically say you are wrong or not permitted to wear the glasses, but that doesn't make it right or mean that you can.

Just because I can't find a regulation that says I can't crap in a sink; that doesn't mean I can.

Response by Sgt Andrew Pouliot made Aug 7 at 2014 3:06 PM

Sgt Andrew Pouliot — Thu, 07 Aug 2014 15:06:44 -0400

That's a tricky one. Any regulation in any branch is there with a clear cut answer to anyone's questions "Is this authorized?" Well let's look it up in the MCO or MARADMIN or Army Order or what have you. When I deployed I wore an orange-faced Doxa dive watch and one of my corporals told me it was not authorized. Now this guy didn't like me and we didn't get along and he had a reputation as being a hypocrite and a jerk so I looked up the regulation myself and found that while he may be a disagreeable git, he was right; my watch, as per Marine Corps Order, was not authorized for wear with the uniform (it was silver and flashy).
The regulations are clear, so there should be no such thing as 'interpretation'. If there was, anyone could put their own caveat on an order and say 'Well I interpreted it as this so it doesn't matter what you say'. Anyone who enforces orders on their own interpretation is on a power trip and just likes being in charge and telling people what to do. If I were you, I would just report it up the chain of command, or even ask your immediate superior about it, and how he/she would have handled it. If this guy continues to be a problem then have someone in your chain of command deal with him. I have had to deal with that a few times before with haircuts while on deployment; I'm a lance corporal with a medium fade haircut that I got about a week prior and the first sergeant and captain from the infantry unit on our FOB told us that we were f***ed up and needed haircuts (high and tights, to be exact). The Marine Corps Order on hygiene and personal appearance states that you will have a haircut at least (AT LEAST) once every pay period, which is once every 15 days. Also, the order states that your hair has to be at the minimum a medium fade (low fades are not authorized in the Corps) starting at a zero and then going up to no more than 3 inches of hair on top of your head. This captain proceeded to go after my sergeant, saying "Are you in charge of that lance corporal with the crazy hair?" (Mind you, I worked on a flight line, and my hair was sticking up from rotor wash from helicopters) and when he said yes sir I am the captain said "Your marines need haircuts they're being unprofessional and nasty his hair is too long" and the sergeant quoted the Marine Corps order and said "Sir, I measured his hair, its two and a quarter inch on top so it's within regulation" and he was livid.
Basically those guys were interpreting the order as they saw fit, and that is not how you're supposed to do it. They only got away with it in the infantry because nobody called them out on it.
If anyone tries things like that with you, my advice is to just ask your chain about it. That's the best you can do. Just remove the glasses and when the guy leaves put them back on and carry on with your day.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 13 at 2014 10:46 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 13 Aug 2014 22:46:15 -0400

SGT Perkins you know I am biased in my answer.....but too often people enforce "pet peeves" and not regulations. That's why we have so many problems in our Army.....a lot of Soldiers are confused as to what is right. So when SGT A says one thing and SGT B says something totally opposite ......confusion! What clears it THE REGULATION!

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 13 at 2014 10:53 PM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 13 Aug 2014 22:53:37 -0400

*completely not related to the actual question* (Sorry OP)..... but is anybody else experiencing dejavu with the whole "I carry a copy of AR 670-1 with me" and the response of "if you have to carry the reg with you to justify your action, you probably know you're wrong..."

I feel like this is the double buns thread all over again.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 23 at 2014 2:15 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 23 Aug 2014 14:15:17 -0400

SSG Joaquin Goicoechea I got it about the changes to AR 670-1 about hair, but I don't think this is the same since they aren't changing the regulation on eyewear. I did see the PEO page. SGT Perkins is my NCO, I told him to carry the regulation on him because the day before a 2LT and a SFC were giving him a hard time about it. If I have a question about something I research then act....I don't enforce pet peeves. If the leaders who were making these on the spot corrections educated SGT Perkins .....like you just did with me....this discussion on Rally Point would have never happened. I enforce no profanity ...it's any Army policy...but when I do that I tell the Soldier where it comes from and why it is important to be professional no matter WHERE you are or what your rank is. Thanks for the Rally Point lesson....I honestly never knew how to use the discussion "stuff".

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 23 at 2014 2:32 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 23 Aug 2014 14:32:01 -0400

CSM Private RallyPoint Member , I think this sends the wrong message. To me it's saying if I outrank you I can enforce certain things. In our brigade we have a problem with some leaders. I know part of it is lack of knowledge, respect, and simply put pride. So when the two SFCs made that correction .....one I know, the other one I don't ...was it based on their knowledge or just a pet peeve? With the one I know, it wasn't based on knowledge. Either way if they had explained their reason....it would been better than just "take them off because I said so." I understand at times we may not have time, but in this instance to improve a Soldier's understanding of a regulation or task I think time should have been made. I believe if you improve yourself, you improve your ability to lead. If you improve your Soldiers you improve the unit. When you improve your LEADERS you will improve the ARMY. In my mind both SFCs missed an opportunity to improve a SGT a LEADER, by not explaining their reason for the correction 1SG.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 25 at 2014 2:29 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 25 Aug 2014 14:29:39 -0400

When Army regulations are written and approved there is no such thing as interpretation. It was written in black and white no grey area and no way to misunderstand its intent. The problem is with a radically increasing need for attention to polictical correctness the new generation finds itself lost without a further read or overinterpretation to the original message or direction being desired of the military. Your eyewear in your photo to me looks unsat for the regulation.. Flat black frames with no logos and no reflective lenses is the basic regulation here i have seen the new reg on it but this is what is says verbatim "3–10. Eyeglasses, sunglasses, and contact lenses Note: This paragraph is punitive with regard to Soldiers. Violation by Soldiers may result in adverse administrative
action and/or charges under the provisions of the UCMJ.
a. Eyeglasses and sunglasses.
(1) Conservative civilian prescription eyeglasses are authorized for wear with all uniforms.
(2) Conservative prescription and nonprescription sunglasses are authorized for wear when in a garrison environment, except while indoors. Individuals who are required by medical authority to wear sunglasses for medical reasons, AR 670–1 • 31 March 2014 15 other than refractive mirrror, may wear them, except when health or safety considerations apply. Commanders may authorize sunglasses in formations or field environments, as appropriate.
(3) Eyeglasses or sunglasses that are trendy or have lenses or frames with conspicuous initials, designs, or other adornments are not authorized for wear. Soldiers may not wear lenses with extreme or trendy colors, which include, but are not limited to, red, yellow, blue, purple, bright green, or orange. Lens colors must be traditional gray, brown, or dark green shades. Personnel will not wear lenses or frames that are so large or so small that they detract from the appearance of the uniform. Personnel will not attach chains or ribbons to eyeglasses. Eyeglass restraints (to include bands) are authorized when required for safety purposes. Personnel will not hang eyeglasses or eyeglass cases on the uniform and may not let glasses hang from eyeglass restraints down the front of the uniform. Glasses may not be worn on top of the head at any time.
(4) Soldiers are authorized to wear ballistic spectacle eye protection issued by the Army, including lens colors or logos that do not comply with paragraph 3–10a(3), above, in garrison or field environments unless otherwise directed
by their chain of command. See the Army Combat Readiness Center for a list of currently approved protective eyewear. b. Restrictions on contact lenses. Tinted or colored contact lenses are not authorized for wear with the uniform. The
only exception is for opaque lenses that are prescribed medically for eye injuries. Clear lenses that have designs on them that change the contour of the iris are not authorized for wear with the uniform. Contact lenses may be restricted
by the commander for safety or mission requirements."

If your looking for fancy smancy authorized ballistic eyepro that is 670-1 compliant all service members can utilize the http://www.usstandardissue.com apply for an account and purchase through that website.

Again solely based on your photo your eyewear is not authroized for wear that presents a professional appearance and represents the military.

Oakley Military & Government Sales

Infinite Hero’s pledge to those who have risked their lives is to reward their sacrifice and bravery with support that articulates our gratitude.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 26 at 2014 1:54 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 26 Aug 2014 13:54:44 -0400

SGT Perkins,
We cannot fully answer your question, I get your side of it, but, what glasses were you wearing? If we knew that it would help us understand first of all 1. if you were correct and the NCO was wrong, 2. If the NCO was correct and you were wrong.

That said, generally speaking regulations are not interpreted, however a Commander can add to a regulation with regard to a unit standard which is more specific than an Army standard, but cannot reduce the standard set forth in regulation without exception to policy.

Response by CW3 Kevin Storm made Jul 14 at 2015 5:38 PM

CW3 Kevin Storm — Tue, 14 Jul 2015 17:38:08 -0400

Having had to wear prescription sunglasses for years, I have had had to correct more than one individual who said you can't wear them in formation...unless prescribed.

Response by SGM Omer Dalton made May 7 at 2020 7:09 PM

SGM Omer Dalton — Thu, 07 May 2020 19:09:54 -0400

I find some of the comments in this thread amusing. Bottom line regulations tells you what is to be done, what can’t be done, what can be done, and sometimes how to do it. They can’t and don’t cover all situations. The best of things is to know the regulations, and uniformity enforce them as a leader. Research if you are not sure before you act. What regulations don’t cover, is left up to the judgement of the chain of command and the situation at the time. Poor judgement by the chain of command can be a moral buster. Been there seen that. And yes there are times when regulations conflict with each other or are just plain foolish. Again this is the time when good judgement comes in play. There is no time to debate when lives are involved.

Response by MSG Thomas Currie made Sep 11 at 2022 11:38 AM

MSG Thomas Currie — Sun, 11 Sep 2022 11:38:10 -0400

I've been on both sides of this sort of issue on occasion.

Let me start by saying that there are almost no regulations that don't require interpretation -- most are clear enough for normal situations, but it is very rare that a regulation is so detailed that it covers all situations.

My military career spanned 45 years with the army, 17 in uniform and 28 as a DA civilian. Most of that time, both in and out of uniform, interpreting regulations was a specific part of my job -- as a Training NCO, as an Operations Sergeant, as an advisor to NG units, as a Training Developer, and as an Administrative Officer. Most "interpreting" consisted of reading the regulation (ALL of it, and related regs) to advise commanders on what the regs actually said. Occasionally my task was to find a way to interpret a reg to support what the commander wanted to do. Sometimes that was impossible, but the truth is that I was damn good at it, which is why I spent so much of my career in those kinds of jobs. I've been retired for a decade and there are still regulations and policies that include text I personally authored regardless of whose name is on the signature block.

Since you chose not to give any sort of explanation, I can't say whether you are right or wrong in YOUR INTERPRETATION of AR 670-1. It could be that you fall into some situation not covered precisely in the regulation and you are choosing to interpret something in the reg (or the lack of something in the reg) the way you want to. It is also possible that you actually fall into some odd quirk in the regulation.

I strongly suspect that you are simply lying to yourself about "interpreting" the regulation.

AR 670-1 specifically requires glasses to be "Conservative" and NOT be "trendy or have lenses or frames with conspicuous initials, designs, or other adornments" -- words like conservative, trendy, and conspicuous all require interpretation and it seems likely that YOUR interpretation of those words is at odds with the interpretations of many others.

There is very little in AR 670-1 Paragraph 3-10 that could reasonably support the sort of "I'm right and I can prove it in the reg" that you seem to be trying to pull off. Really only subparagraph a(4) lends itself to that sort of "see I told you so" situation.

Of course, you could always tell us what the specific problem really is...

Response by SFC Billy Huether made Sep 13 at 2022 11:10 AM

SFC Billy Huether — Tue, 13 Sep 2022 11:10:54 -0400

You cannot add nor take away from regulations. NCOs are to enforce regulations not interpret them. You came across a EGO driven knuckle head.
If your PLT SGT doesn't have an issue with your glasses, then tell your PLT SGT what happened and let them deal with the Big Head on a professional level. In my 20 years, I had a few of those conversations. Nobody messed with my Soldiers but me, the HAMFIC.