Taking the high road....

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 09 Jan 2014 14:30:47 -0500

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Jan 9 at 2014 2:36 PM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Thu, 09 Jan 2014 14:36:34 -0500

I WANT to say it's faddish, but your rationale concerning the pad on the ACH makes complete sense to me.. You've given me a conundrum.

Response by CW2 Joseph Evans made Jan 9 at 2014 3:04 PM

CW2 Joseph Evans — Thu, 09 Jan 2014 15:04:07 -0500

Being the only female in your unit creates the hard part of the issue for you. Several units I have been in (largely co-ed) have had female personnel with hairstyles blatantly outside of regs that never get corrected by their CoC. If you had other women in your unit to compare against to determine if you were being singled out, your question would have a different implication.<div>As it is, with you being the only female in the unit, it creates an awkward situations. Regardless, the SGM has spoken and wishes you to wear your hair in a different style, of which there are many options. He has not insisted you cut it.</div><div>So, now you can comply, or fight. "Flip you for it, hmmm SGM>SFC, you lose". Now, if there actually is a real EO issue, and lets face it "two bun, or not two bun" is pretty low on the totem pole, you should look to IG. But first I recommend you sit down with the Chaplain, an EO rep or even a peer to see if the issue is him, or you before you compound an already sticky situation.</div>

Response by SFC James Baber made Jan 9 at 2014 3:18 PM

SFC James Baber — Thu, 09 Jan 2014 15:18:10 -0500

Do you have a back view photo, it would be easier to determine or see another point of view from another "angle of view"?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 9 at 2014 4:56 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 09 Jan 2014 16:56:10 -0500

This is a hard subject because the SGM is saying that your hair is "unprofessional". Well ones opinion of what is unprofessional may vary from someone elses. Unless I am missing something from the extract of 670-1 (I don't know if you pasted the whole section) then I would say that you hair is within regulation. Because the words "professional" and unprofessional" are not in there and that then makes it the SGM's opinion. I do know that the standards for females hair are changing and will be addressed more detailed in the revised 670-1 coming out. Sometimes 670-1 is so vague that it is often misinterpreted.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 9 at 2014 5:05 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 09 Jan 2014 17:05:13 -0500

I would really venture to say this hair style seems faddish, But as we all know faddish is a very vague term and hard to determine. One issue you may run into is extreme styles that protrude from the head are prohibited (a single bun would do the same thing). That is also very subjective and your hair style could fall into that category depending on your chain of command and whom ever is making those type of judgments. I am not sure how far I would push a hair style issue especially through IG if your CoC is just asking you to change you hair style. On the othe hand if you feel you have been singled out, wronged, or descriminated against push it as far as you need to.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 9 at 2014 5:56 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 09 Jan 2014 17:56:47 -0500

SFC Dees, I have great respect for what you have accomplished, having over 15 years of service, thriving and kicking butt in a male-dominated field.  I hope someday to be much like you.<div><br></div><div>I agree with what the previous posters said about subjectivism.  I would just like to add that I've listened to some great NCOs address this subject with others, and three guidelines they gave us regarding our hairstyles were 1) If your hair can be seen from the front while you're wearing a PC, 2) If it's so unique that you never see others wearing the same style, or 3) If more than 1 NCO has questioned you regarding your style, then your hair style is not professional.  My favorite NCO told us that in order to be a great leader, everything about our bearing and appearance must be unquestionable and beyond reproach. </div><div><br></div><div>Going by the standards I was taught, if you were my platoon sergeant with that hair style, I might look for a different leader to model myself after. I say that with all due respect for your rank and accomplishments.  </div>

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Jan 9 at 2014 6:36 PM

SSG Robert Burns — Thu, 09 Jan 2014 18:36:03 -0500

Ok so here's the deal.  Who makes the determination if your hair is faddish, unprofessional, whatever?  Your supervisors.  Part 2.  What does that mean?  Well if they don't tell you that, then it means nothing.<div>Secondly the 15-6 is for who?  The Commander.  It is not addressed to you, it is not for you, it is for the Commander to make an informed decision.  Within this packet you saw a statement from the CSM who says your hair is unprofessional.  And?  What did he do about it?  Nothing.  It bothered I'm so much that as your leader he felt like you were in need of correction and decided not to make such correction.  That is pretty weak.  Maybe expect that from a peer, maybe 1 up from you; but from the CSM?  Weak sauce.</div><div>Worth mentioning however, is that if the overall perception is that it is faddish or unprofessional, I would suggest changing it so that people don't continue to perceive you as an unprofessional Sr. NCO.  If it is not situationally necessary as you stated with your ACH anymore.  I'd bite the bullet and take one for the Coprs.</div><div>I have spoken.  ;-)</div>

Response by CH (CPT) Heather Davis made Jan 9 at 2014 6:41 PM

CH (CPT) Heather Davis — Thu, 09 Jan 2014 18:41:02 -0500

<p>SFC Dees:</p><p><br></p><p>I have always been one to pick my battles wisely. The last thing I wanted to do as a professional NCO would be to frustrate my Senior Mentorship over a regulation. I have found that depending on the generation the interpretation is different.</p><p><br></p><p>In 1988, I had one hair strand that would sometimes hit the back of my collar. Intense hairspray did not fix this issue. I was always in trouble. I ended up cutting the one hair.</p><p><br></p><p>The reason why I am stressing this is when you have Senior Leadership that mentor and develop you they hold you to a higher standard. </p><p><br></p><p>I didn't see that back then, but now I understand that I had many Senior Mentors that expected me to excel. I was the first female in my unit to break that barrier, and much was expected out of me.</p><p><br></p><p>V/R</p><p><br></p><p>CH (CPT) Davis</p><p><br></p><p><br></p>

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 9 at 2014 9:31 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 09 Jan 2014 21:31:05 -0500

Faddish is a very open term. I have seen it used correctly and yet seen it used the same way it is being used against you.

How did you come to read a copy of the investigation? When a CDR conducts an investigation the results can be published for others to see if the CDR deems it necessary. If you came by it correctly I would approach the CDR and ask for his opinion. That may help.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 9 at 2014 9:55 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 09 Jan 2014 21:55:16 -0500

I know this is a route that most would not want to take, and most people will likely tell you that this approach is like using a B2 to blow up an ant hill, but here I go. I would send an email to the proponent of AR 670-1 asking for simple clarification. Leaving out anything that would unnecessarily escalate the issue. Good luck SFC.

Response by SPC Gary Basom made Jan 10 at 2014 10:32 AM

SPC Gary Basom — Fri, 10 Jan 2014 10:32:20 -0500

As far as I know, your hair is off your collar, out of your eyes, off of your ears, does not affect or curtail the use of any head worn equipment issues, you are within regs.

Back in the 80s men could wear their hair long, those were the guidelines we had to follow, just no block haircuts. Sounds like the IG may be a good idea. However, this may not make you very popular with your officers. Now, respectfully, why is the US flag laying in the dirt behind you?

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 10 at 2014 5:26 PM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 10 Jan 2014 17:26:22 -0500

Solely based upon the exerpt that you listed, stating that unbalanced pigtails, buns or pony tails are unauthorized, you're hair style in the photograph is authorized. Since your buns are balanced (neither is larger than the other, and they are spaced corretly) I can't see why you would be hassled. Perhaps the SGM is simply trying to enforce an unruly standard and wanted to make the example of you. It's happened in the past...

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 10 at 2014 5:51 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 10 Jan 2014 17:51:46 -0500

SFC Dees,

In my opinion you hairstyle doesn't appear to be unprofessional. However, that being said someone told me very early in my career, if the issue at hand is not a clear black and white issue it is best to let it go and pick your battles. I can't see anyway that you walk away from this situation as a winner. The chances of not facing some sort of blow back seems inevitable. I do not admire the position you are in but wish you all the best in dealing with it.

Response by SFC Dennis Leber made Jan 10 at 2014 9:09 PM

SFC Dennis Leber — Fri, 10 Jan 2014 21:09:58 -0500

get out wear your hair however you want

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Jan 10 at 2014 10:35 PM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Fri, 10 Jan 2014 22:35:03 -0500

It took an EO 15-6 to investigate and to determine whether or not your hair was out of regulations. Wow.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 11 at 2014 1:30 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 11 Jan 2014 01:30:45 -0500

SFC Dees, I've know you for like, ever! I have never known you to be "unprofessional" or unkempt in your appearances on or off-duty. That being said, using such a generic term for your hairstyle without and supported backing as to why just equates to someone saying "I don't like it". That actually blows my mind how as you get higher in rank people are entirely more objective and critical of one another. I could understand if it was a charge for some type of conduct unbecoming, but a hairstyle? As long as you can wear head gear securely, use your M40 series effectively and doesn't detract any attention from the Sergeant First Class I've come to know and love, what's the big whoop? Maybe they should've said it's not "conservative" or used terminology out of the regulation to make their case, but "unprofessional" is just...wow. Really?

Response by SFC William Stilley made Jan 11 at 2014 12:31 PM

SFC William Stilley — Sat, 11 Jan 2014 12:31:10 -0500

SFC Dees,

I understand your point and I would allow you or any female solider to wear that style during any operations that require you to wear your ACH with no questioned asked. Now, when we are in garrison I would expect all to maintain the same look from the front while in uniform. Right now I’m am in SLC and that would not be allowed, so if it not in regs at the school house then it is not in regs at all.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 11 at 2014 3:15 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 11 Jan 2014 15:15:58 -0500

If im the only person wearing a pair of sunglass that have any particular brand name in blantantly large print and crazy style/ color frame, they would be faddish, and not more than ONE person has to wear them to be deemed as such. So in the argument that "MORE than one person has to do it makes it faddish", I disagree. Although I do somewhat admire the misguided support of some as to you "sticking it to the man", if that is the primary point of wearing it as such just to "make a scene" then i disagree with your intent. Understanding that the style is for a particular reason such as the ACH, then that's great if it works. As for faddish (usually the eye of the beholder and their INTERPRETATION of a reg) i too would believe it to be faddish 1. mostly because you are the ONLY person doing it and it just doesnt look "normal", 2. two buns? Princess Leia? again, most women usually have just one so, why be the ONLY person pushing that style thus making it the issue that it has became? What disturbs me most is that the CSM had an issue with it and was too afraid to address you. Which addresses a more concerning issue of, if a CSM is afraid to address the issue with a suboordinate, what is it that he is afraid of, a Sexual Harrasment complaint? Im sure you have better integrity than to do that SFC, I would at least hope, but due to the numerous false allegations of females filing complaints against males for simply making a correction, most just don't say anything and the styles just get more and more rediculous. If what the reg states being that the hair should be balanced and braids must be attached to the head, where it states,"other extreme styles that protrude from the head are prohibited", when does that become releveant, when the wearer deems it as such? C'mon... I too would be agitated if I saw something like this (see images) walking around.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 11 at 2014 4:27 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 11 Jan 2014 16:27:09 -0500

SFC,

I was told my hair was faddish in ALC, you know what I did I kept it coned towards the front avoiding any problems with the SGL. My understanding your supervisor is the one that deems if your hair is faddish or in regs. I had the same issue with my old CSM and my first line told the CSM he is within regs and the whole ordeal with my hair was finished. Funny that half of the NCODP session was base on my hair. LOL

Note: The way you see my hair in my display picture was deemed faddish.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 12 at 2014 2:02 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 12 Jan 2014 14:02:55 -0500

SFC Dees,

I would definitely say that your hairstyle is "faddish". Before SSG Broadbent posted the picture, I thought to myself that you resembled Princess Leah( not sure how to spell her name) from Star Wars. With you being a Sergeant First Class, I am sure that you have heard during a safety brief that "If you have to think about whether what youre about to do is right or wrong, its probably wrong"..I would say the same applies here. If you have to carry around an exerpt from AR 670-1 to justify your hairstyle, good judgement and standing says its probably not a good idea to have it.

Response by CW2 Stephen Pate made Jan 12 at 2014 2:47 PM

CW2 Stephen Pate — Sun, 12 Jan 2014 14:47:57 -0500

Ok so I'm sure everyone is going to blast me on this response but here goes. I think this has a lot to do with wanting to express individualism in a situation where everyone suld be the same. Lots of troops do it, not just females with their hair but males with colored bracelets supporting some sort of cancer research, rings, watches, necklaces, haircuts pushing regs etc. I think while in uniform soldiers need to stop trying to set themselves apart from others with these tactics and use things such as their fitness, their ability to lead, their ability to follow, and their ability to choose the hard right over the easy wrong.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 12 at 2014 5:30 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 12 Jan 2014 17:30:31 -0500

SFC Dees,

I am going to address your question and not the 15-6.

The answer to your question, "Are 2 equally balanced pigtails in buns authorized?" is, unequivocally, yes. "Ponytails, pigtails, or braids that are not secured to the head (allowing hair to hang freely....are prohibited." Therefore, PIGTAILS which ARE secured to the head are not prohibited. People can get themselves in a tight spot when they start calling perfectly authorized practices (by regulation and local policy) unprofessional. End of story.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 14 at 2014 11:32 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 Jan 2014 11:32:20 -0500

<font color="#000000" size="3" face="Times New Roman">

</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"><font color="#000000" size="3" face="Calibri">It’s been awhile but I have never seen a 15-6 without
supporting documentation, counseling statements or other corrective action taken
first.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>It sounds to be at best a SGM
that has little to do with the time on their hands and in there boredom they
are taking things that don’t really effect the mission and making them into
something that will end up effecting the mission. GO TO IG<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">   </span>If you really feel that this was triggered
by a EO complaint you are a part of GO TO IG, NOW!!!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>This shouldn’t happen its unfair and degraded
the entire system, and oh ya it’s against regulations. The U.S. Army is
supposed to be a zero retaliation zone for anyone who reports.</font></p><font color="#000000" size="3" face="Times New Roman">

</font>

Response by SPC Robert Patrick made Jan 14 at 2014 12:01 PM

SPC Robert Patrick — Tue, 14 Jan 2014 12:01:46 -0500

SFC Dees

My suggestion with newer and fresher eyes having only been in for 4 years is to speak with the CSM and ask why he believes it to be unprofessional if its a slight change that needs to be made the hairstyle go with it but if he has absolutly no legitimate reason for saying this that is when it will qualify under IG and EO. I can only go off of regs and the picture which is not clear enough for me to tell but it may be better to talk with your CSM with someone else in your chain of command or NCO Support channel but take into consideration that this is the Army and that some battle we will be right but we will be wrong at the same time. I hope everything turns out right.

Respectfully SPC Patrick

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 14 at 2014 12:30 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 Jan 2014 12:30:07 -0500

SFC Dees,

I'm sorry that you're going through this. It must be very difficult. Were this me, I would have listened to your justification and agreed. However, this CSM doesn't agree. Just ask yourself this: Is this the hill you want to die on?

I briefed a GO every day, and I briefed severals COLs every day. One day, a COL called me out. He was wrong. I knew it, my rater (a LTC) knew it, everyone but the COL knew it. I defended myself, and the COL continued to bite my head off. When I began to defend myself again my LTC touched my leg, and I knew to bite my lip. After the brief, my LTC said, "Mike, everyone in that briefing knew that you were right and that he was wrong, everyone except him, and he is the person who mattered the most." There are times when you should stand up for yourself even to your own detriment, and I hope that every one of us would do that when the time comes. In this instance, you have to ask yourself if this is that time; if this is that issue.

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Jan 15 at 2014 2:25 PM

SSG Robert Burns — Wed, 15 Jan 2014 14:25:43 -0500

I think the bottom line is what you care about. If you care about what everyone's perception of you as a leader is then you should change whatever is making that a negative perception. In your case it is your hair. If you are being told by your leadership, your peers, subordinates that it makes you look unprofessional.....then that's exactly what it is.

You have to decide whether you care more about being professional or wearing your hair the way you want to. If you agree with peoples perception of you is irrelevant because it is there's.

Unless you feel like you can change eveyrone's perception, it is probably easier to just change your hair. Just my $0.10 cents worth. (I dont have any pennies)

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 15 at 2014 6:22 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 15 Jan 2014 18:22:02 -0500

I have to agree with the CoC. On Fort Hood, Phantom standards says that In addition to 670-1, female hair will not be excessive or trendy. To have two buns can present an unprofessional excessive appearance.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 16 at 2014 6:54 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 16 Jan 2014 06:54:48 -0500

I have spent the better part of 45 minutes reading through all the comments on here. It seems as though the one arguement you have, SFC Dees, is that you feel singled out especially in a unit that is dominated by males. You've brought up multiple issues in your comments that make it seems like you are being "picked on", If you have that kind of an issue you need to speak up and be strong. You have mentioned your hair, you have mentioned not getting picked to be a PSG, and now there is this CSM who, through your conveyance, has a very blunt problem with you. If this is your true arguement then I reccomend speaking with the IG.

As far as your hair styling goes, you are correct that the term "faddish" doesn't clearly define that your hairstyle, two buns, is out of regulation. In fact with the way it is written it is completely within the regulation. However, this is what I believe the original complaint by the CSM is. He did not perform and on the spot correction because he probably knew you had the copy of the regulation and he most likely knew the regulation doesn't cover your specific hairstyle. The complaint was made to your Commander because ultimately your CoC can add to the regulations but not take away from the soldier. I can almost guarantee your CoC will be pushing out guidance on female hair styling so as to not have this issue again. If it is determined that your hairstyle is "faddish".....Why not just change your hairstyling? you stated you only have 1 year left there. You have deployed for longer and been asked to do shittier things so why is this one so important to you?

You proudly told this entire community you carry it for mitigation purposes. I applaud you for doing this, it sets the example for junior soldiers. Based on your TIS and rank I would have to say you have been choosing the hard right over easy wrong for a long time. Pick your battles SFC and like I said if this is believed to be something more than just a hairstyle go talk to the IG.

Response by CSM Mike Maynard made Jan 16 at 2014 9:09 AM

CSM Mike Maynard — Thu, 16 Jan 2014 09:09:52 -0500

SFC Dees,<div><br></div><div>There are really two things you are talking about - is your hairstyle within regulation and/or is your hairstyle professional.</div><div><br></div><div>Honestly, two totally different things. I say this because the regulation only contains the words "professional military appearance" once and it relates only to the color of the hair, nothing else.</div><div><br></div><div>The regulation specifically states it is up to leaders to determine whether hairstyles are eccentric or conservative (obviously the two extremes), not professional.</div><div><br></div><div>So, with that being said, do I as a CSM think your hairstyle is within regulation - probably so. Is it professional - really doesn't matter, because according to the regulation, it is YOUR leader's interpretation, not anyone else.</div><div><br></div><div>As others have alluded to, continued pursuit of being right may not be your best course of action.</div><div><br></div><div>Now, I do have one question for you - how was your hairstyle in your DA Photo? I wonder if you were so confident in your two-bun hairstyle that you actually had your DA Photo made with your hair that way.</div><div><br></div><div>I ask, because it is similar to the conversation I have with folks who say that 1/4 inch hair on the face is professional, but they shave before going to their DA Photo.</div><div><br></div>

Response by SFC Gary Fox made Jan 16 at 2014 10:09 AM

SFC Gary Fox — Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:09:47 -0500

SFC Dees, I've had been in many different assignments where I have seen NCOs assigned in positions one down or two up from their pay grade. It's not unusual at all. I knew a high speed SSG who was promoted to SFC while in the secondary zone. As a SSG he was serving as a PSG because he was better than the other SFCs in his BN. A year after he was promoted to SFC, his CSM put him in a 1SG position because he had proven himself to be a better leader than the MSGs in his BN. Were those MSGs upset? Most definitely, but had they been doing what they should have been doing to earn the CSM's trust and respect, one of them would have been the 1SG.

There have been many times during my career where I knew I was right and my leadership was wrong, but arguing with them and trying to make some kind of point to prove I was right wasn't going to help me at all. Had I chosen to fall on that sword, they still would have been there and I would be under a microscope with them watching every move I made just waiting for me to make one mistake. You have to know when to move on.

You are only going to make yourself look like a poor leader if you continue to carry the paper in your pocket for the purpose of whipping it out to prove your two buns are within regulation whenever challenged on it. Faddish is not defined in the regulation, it's subject to determination by leadership. One may agree with you and another may not.

I suggest you wear your hair in a more traditional manner for female soldiers while in your present command climate. If you continue with the two buns, you will only be tarnishing your own career there. Suck it up SFC Dees and move on.

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2014 2:37 AM

GySgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 17 Jan 2014 02:37:39 -0500

All I know is that would not fly in the Corps! Grooming standards should not be eccentric or interfere with the uniform or gear. Eccentric, sometimes can be difficult to really define and from ones persons view may be good to go, some crusty old Sergeant Major may have a heart attack.

Response by CWO2 Shelby DuBois made Jan 17 at 2014 9:21 AM

CWO2 Shelby DuBois — Fri, 17 Jan 2014 09:21:11 -0500

" I have been asked about it plenty of times and I normally carry a sheet of paper with an excerpt from 670-1 ..." is enough for me to question whether you want to lead or seek attention. It is apparently a distraction..while not a major issue, it may be enough for those under you to start questioning authority and pushing the envelope with regard to other grooming standards. How do you address a person under you who is borderline on his/her haircut when they are looking directly at your buns?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2014 9:44 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 17 Jan 2014 09:44:14 -0500

I have had female and male Soldiers and I had to tell them
about grooming their hair properly. Long as there air is in accordance with
670-1 and doesn’t present an unprofessional appearance and doesn’t conflict
with them wearing their head gear (patrol cap, fleece cap or ACH) properly it’s
not a problem. But everyone should remember this is a professional environment and
not a fashion show, males and females.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2014 11:45 AM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 17 Jan 2014 11:45:36 -0500

<p>Ahh my favorite game...rock, paper, rank.  So here is what I have not read anywhere, you can add too, but not take away from the regulation.  For example, as a long time 82nd bubba, we were never allowed to have mustaches.  It was against the unit's policy.  The hair on your head is no different than the hair on your face.  Once CSM says change it, you conform and if you dont CSM just puts out a policy letter and problem solved.  I wanted my NCOs to be better, so I put out a policy letter that stated you cannot go to the promotion board unless you have a 250 APFT average, were enrolled in a minimum of two Correspondence Courses or a College Course, and you shot 32 out of 40.  Sent it up to legal...no issues at all with adding to the minimum. </p><p> </p><p>Now I will say this, as a SGM I can tell you that I push my NCOs to be better than the minimum.  Carrying the reg around tells me you know you are pushing the minimum or doing something outside the norm.  In my BN all assignments are given on performance/potential not necassarily on rank.  I have SSG PSGs while I have SFCs sitting on staff.  I will only put the best in position, not the ones just trying to scrape by on the minimum.  </p><p> </p><p>I doubt he is that worried about the 15-6.  As a SGM he has probably had one or two of those along the way.  It doesnt mean a thing.  It means that the Commander wants to ensure nothing is wrong.  Me personally, if I was going to keep you from a particular position, you would have more 4856s than you could shake a stick at.  You are probably a squared away NCO, why let some hair and a conflict place friction on your career?  </p>

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2014 12:11 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 17 Jan 2014 12:11:37 -0500

SFC Dees,

Still getting notifications about this, I noticed something one of the CSMs said and something you said as well. The CSM states whether or not he believes your appearance is professional or not is irrelevant, because regulation states that your Leader determines. You then say later in an unrelated comment to the CSMs that you've been "unprofessional" the whole time being an E-5/E-6, yet you got promoted. I refer you back to the CSMs comment..your Leader determines whether or not you are deemed professional or unprofessional. So obviously, who ever your last two Leaders were, they thought that you were either professional or didnt care enough to make an assessment. That being said, you cant go around making a ruckus because ONE person has made a judgement call different from the rest.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2014 1:36 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 17 Jan 2014 13:36:17 -0500

With all due respect to your situation - IF there is an aspect of my personal appearance that might be perceived as close to or borderline out of regulations, as a leader in the United States Army I feel it is my duty to set the example of exactly how the regulation needs to be seen by all soldiers. I would worry about creating soldiers that challenge the regulations rather than simplifying their military experience by following them without exception.

Obviously you have earned your rank by proving your leadership capabilities. I don't mean to minimize your accomplishments or your dedication to your job as a leader of soldiers.

It is Ironic that I am graced with a receding hairline that I have decided to wear bald. As long as no hair is not a faddish style this is one thing I will not have to worry about. (And I save about $24 per month by not going to the barber or buying shampoo)

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2014 2:02 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 17 Jan 2014 14:02:24 -0500

The higher in rank you go, the more the spot light is going to be on you. This younger soldiers are always watching what we say, how we dress and what we don't say. If you are not comfortable with your hair style and always defending it, you might want to take a step back and look from the outside. "How do my soldiers see me in my uniform?" This has been a issue since the early eighties. You know what to do. You know what is wrong and you know what is the right thing to do. Adapt to the changes or you will get left behind.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2014 2:08 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 17 Jan 2014 14:08:46 -0500

SFC Dees

As an NCO, I don't think there is anything wrong with the way you wear your hair. It is neat and does not put off an unprofessional appearance. The equipment we wear needs to fit comfortably, if that means wearing your hair in such a way then so be it. We have to have our faces clean shaven, not only for professional looking standards, but also because our promasks won't seal with facial hair. We do what we need to do in order to use the equipment the military wants us to use.

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Jan 17 at 2014 2:47 PM

SSG Robert Burns — Fri, 17 Jan 2014 14:47:46 -0500

Ok I'm gonna be straight up. The whole ACH justification I think is a real stretch. This is not the first female with long hair. I've seen thousands of females with long hair, longer actually wear an ACH without having to put their hair into this style. So let's not say this is absolutely necessary in order to wear the ACH like some others have suggested on here. If that was the case we'd see this all the time and we simply don't.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2014 7:50 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 17 Jan 2014 19:50:49 -0500

"and other extreme styles that protrude from the head are prohibited."

With respect SFC, you are the one who posted this straight out of 670-1. Am I the only one who thinks this hits the nail on the head?

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2014 7:51 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 17 Jan 2014 19:51:16 -0500

<span style="color: rgb(77, 77, 77); font-size: 12px;">"and other extreme styles that protrude from the head are prohibited."</span><div><span style="color: rgb(77, 77, 77); font-size: 12px;"><br></span></div><div><span style="color: rgb(77, 77, 77); font-size: 12px;"><br></span></div><div><span style="color: rgb(77, 77, 77); font-size: 12px;">With respect SFC, you are the one who posted this straight out of 670-1. Am I the only one who thinks this hits the nail on the head?</span></div>

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2014 9:57 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 17 Jan 2014 21:57:14 -0500

Only things it ever really states in 670-1 for females is that your hair cannot drop past the bottom of the shirt collar and that your headgear has to fit and be worn properly without bunching or completely distorting the appearance of the patrol cap/beret. I cannot recall the exact text to cite properly but I see no issue with the buns as they are. All said and done if you have all the proof necessary to negate the SGM's 15-6 and you're able to show that you are still within compliance with 670-1 I'd call IG.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2014 11:47 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 17 Jan 2014 23:47:42 -0500

From one senior NCO to another--- one word. Bulky.  I have read the regulation plenty.  Spent my DS career explaining this regulation on a frequent basis and the last 13 years as an NCO.  Just because you are used to having it, doesn't make it right.  And you know its not right because you carry the regulation with you.  I would expect that a Senior NCO would set the example.  I care not about the 15-6 or your EO complaint.  Your question was about your hair.  And honestly, in uniform, from that picture.  You look unprofessional.  First impressions can be lasting impressions.  You asked a question and on just about every comment, you became defensive.  Again, another sign to me, that you know its wrong.  Fix your hair.  Everyone here pretty much tells you the same thing.  If you don't like it, get out.  That easy.  If you are the only female out of 300 as you said, EVEN MORE reason to set the example.  People always feel its personal when all it really often is.... is professional.

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 18 at 2014 1:05 AM

SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 18 Jan 2014 01:05:56 -0500

SFC Dees,

One day I reported for duty and my first-line told me I need a haircut AKA a change of style. Later that evening I whipped out the clippers and cut everything off! I'd rather be in the right and know it than always have people question if I am or not. I believe the same thing applies to you, play it safe!

SSG Burns and I are in the same unit and our CSM just has to put to fingers in the air, wag them around and say, "FIX IT." That is the end of the discussion.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 18 at 2014 1:36 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 18 Jan 2014 01:36:17 -0500

Stop crying.  Change your hair.  You are embarrassing yourself.  If your rank wasnt next to your name I'd think we were talking to a PFC.  I definitely wouldnt let you stand in front of one of my formations looking like that.  You are a Senior NCO, start acting like it.  I'm sure that is just one of the reasons you weren't privileged to being a PSG.  You think your 1SG wants to keep having to answer for you every day standing out there looking like that?<br>

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 18 at 2014 2:37 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 18 Jan 2014 02:37:28 -0500

I honestly don't think it is being discriminated against. You have to always remember when you express and let things out to always have your sucks in a row because you open the door to be corrected on any and everything. Also if your SGM deems it unprofessional then it does state that in AR 670-1. There was a female in my old bn who wore her hair in 2 buns and pulled together and was told she couldn't do it. SFC don't take it as being picked on or singled out but take it as a learning took and just don't give them any extra ammo. Sometimes we push the limits a bit because no one else will correct is but then when it's that one who does say something we feel a way about it

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 18 at 2014 5:45 AM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 18 Jan 2014 05:45:36 -0500

SFC Dees,

I wanted to thank you for all the time that you've served in the military thus far. I have to agree though with SPC Thundercloud below, but I am looking at it from a Junior Officer perspective. As a brand new lieutenant, we look to our NCO's for the answers, because you all have so much more experience than us. It is pretty easy to tell which ones are squared away and which ones need some work, but never the less we still look up to you and truly rely on you in shaping our officership. With that being said, The picture shows one that makes me question that. I am sure that you are a great NCO and it sounds like you've gone above and beyond but at a first glance, it makes me question this. Just food for thought.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 18 at 2014 6:42 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 18 Jan 2014 06:42:48 -0500

<p>I used to wear my hair in a fashion not adopted by many of my peers. It was by the black and white of the regulation "within the standard", even though just slightly. As I've grown as a leader, I cut my hair shorter, and adopted a more professional look. I feel like it was something I grew into, there's a time and a place for everything, but fighting over something as trivial as a hairstyle was never something I thought I wanted to put my career on the line for.</p><p> </p><p>There is always the "letter of the law", which I'm sure most can agree can at times be vague, and open to much interpretation. I have been learning that it is much more prudent to look towards the "intent of the law" for a clearer meaning.</p>

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 19 at 2014 8:00 AM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 19 Jan 2014 08:00:30 -0500

I voted this topic down, and I would like to explain. I don't know the answer to this and some of the issues being brought up are worth the read. While there may be right/wrong answers all of this topic (and we SHOULD use rallypoint to enlighten and educate ourselves within our military network) , I am hesitant to support such personal encounters with the chain of command on here.

What I do know, is that if I made a correction to a soldier - as their officer and their leader, and I came on rallypoint or other social network to see them writing something like this - it could easily be perceived as a challenge to the good order and discipline of my platoon. What's even worse about rallypoint is that it is a purely military network, and people beyond your immediate scope are able to pinpoint you down to your unit of assignment - thus it is possible to look up the person you are referencing.

In addition, rallypoint also mass blasts messages like this to users emails AND facebooks - it now invites attention to your BDE Commander and BDE CSM over a hair regulation on multiple social platforms (I don't use twitter but I'm sure it promotes there too). We need to recognize the difference between going to a group of our peers and asking them for professional advice, or going to our friends in private to voice our concerns on leadership - as opposed to going to such a public forum like this.

Thus why I had to vote this topic down - as I hope we don't promote this trend.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 19 at 2014 8:38 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 19 Jan 2014 08:38:25 -0500

I neither voted this discussion up nor down. With that being said from some of the responses I have read in this thread and the discussion in general. The reduction board is obviously not being used throughout the Army. The day you stop being a follower, you are no longer an effective leader. I could just imagine the reaction some of you Leaders would have if these comments and discussions being posted and created on RallyPoint were from your Soldiers. What happened to Soldiers receiving an on the spot correction, responding with a "HOOAH, Airborne, Roger, Ai-ee-yah" and then moving out smartly to complete the mission?

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 19 at 2014 1:08 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 19 Jan 2014 13:08:29 -0500

All I have to say is wow.  All this grief over hair.  When a SGM/CSM tells you to do something, you do it.  How much time was waisted because you felt that he was "discriminating against you"?  Folks may not believe this, but SGM/CSM have more important fish to fry.  One bun, two buns, is not the issue.  Good order and discipline is. By showing your dislike of a decision made by a SNCO, look at the example you are setting for your subordinates?  File an EO complaint for hair?  Come on, really.  What if a junior NCO was using his general military authority and told you the same thing? Would you file an EO complaint on the NCO? No, you would chew some but and stifle the Soldiers initiative.  That's why we see Soldiers running around looking like spilt f?!&$.  Instead of accepting your wrong, folks create such ass pain that Soldiers are less inclined to make on the spot corrections.  Who is responsible for the standards in your BN? The CSM.  He simply played the "sesame street game" and found that one of these things is not like the other.  He looked at it as you being an individual player and not a team player.  I have waisted to much time on this just like all the folks who got sucked into the 15-6.  WOW,

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 19 at 2014 1:55 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 19 Jan 2014 13:55:20 -0500

There should have been a reprisal memo but since it was informal I don't think your EO rep did one or the CDR. Anyway if it's not out of regs then I don't see the problem. However you're saying that you wear your hair like that because of the ACH. I'm sure you do not wear that thing 24hrs. Army don't have pads on the patrol cap. I think it's more of you trying to look good and feel good in your uniform. Nothing wrong with that but at the end of day if the SGM is telling you that it's not professional then you might want to rethink about your hairstyle not because it's an opinion. It's perception and I'm sure you DA photo didn't have two buns. And by the way I don't find this as an EO because of a hair unless if you filed it under gender but then again we are talking about your hair. So it's not an EO SFC.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 19 at 2014 5:47 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 19 Jan 2014 17:47:10 -0500

Just for the sake of playing devils advocate if a Junior NCO deems a Senior NCO haircut faddish or unprofessional, should the Senior NCO cut their hair? If the answer is no explain why.

Response by SGT James P. Davidson, MSM made Jan 19 at 2014 9:15 PM

SGT James P. Davidson, MSM — Sun, 19 Jan 2014 21:15:10 -0500

"...other extreme styles that protrude from the head..."

Maybe? Seems up for debate, however. It seems something that would and could be interpreted differently by different individuals.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 19 at 2014 10:37 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 19 Jan 2014 22:37:54 -0500

SFC Dees, is this getting any better. How do things stand right now and what is your plans?

Response by CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 20 at 2014 12:36 AM

CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 20 Jan 2014 00:36:19 -0500

I am still struggling to figure out why an EO complaint was made...<div><br><div>from the G-1 website: </div><div><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 17px;">The EO complaints processing system addresses complaints that allege unlawful discrimination or unfair treatment on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, and national origin.</span><br></div><div><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 17px;"><br></span></div><div><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 17px;"><br></span></div><div><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 17px;">So the original poster thinks she didn't get this PSG position due to her gender? Or what?</span></div><div><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 17px;"><br></span></div></div>

Response by SGT Michael McMahon made Jan 20 at 2014 12:39 AM

SGT Michael McMahon — Mon, 20 Jan 2014 00:39:58 -0500

SFC Dees,

There are at least two completely different issues involved here. Whether or not they are related, is only in the mind of your CSM.

The First and most serious is the CSM passing you over for PSG and giving it to a subordinate. Without documentation to support not appointing you as the PSG, when you are the ranking NCO in the Platoon and have not turned down the position or requested to not to be considered, you should be appointed the PSG for the Platoon, And the decision on PSG's is not the CSM's, it is the 1SG's, as he is the Top SGT in the Company, if the CSM is overriding the 1SG, then that is micromanaging, and detrimental to the order of the enlisted ranks. If you have never been counselled by your 1SG or your Rater, Sr. Rated, or Reviewer about the hairstyle, then there is a serious problem in the NCO Support Channel. I would ask to speak with the BDE CSM, informally, to seek input, into the issue of being passed over without any negative counsellings or NCOER's. IG is the last resort, as that will follow you until you are no longer in the military, like many others said earlier, pick your battles carefully, as SGM's and CSM's are a network, and they will talk to one another, especially when they have IG complainers (although it is against Regs to retaliate, it does happen), the word will reach the next assignment, before you do.

Next, the hair. From the picture you posted, it appears to be all to one side, which would give an appearance of being unbalanced, which could look unprofessional to some. But if it is, then it is the duty of your peers and superiors in the NCO Channel, to mention it to you first, then counsel/NCOER it, if you failed to comply. But you said that was never brought up to you by anyone! Hair is a very touchy situation, and being a former S1 PSNCO, with a subordinate staff of mostly females, I had to ask a female NCO from another Staff Section to assist me when I had to do inspections, and I returned the favor when she had her inspections, and she had some of the females intentionally do their hair out of regs, to demonstrate what is and is not in compliance with the regulations, to check my understanding of the regulations and to help develop me as a NCO.

Now the possible third point, as the CPT (John) below said, something is not adding up, and there is a problem! Is the CSM possibly being gender biased? Is your 1SG and other NCO's not living up to their duty to ensure that the standards are being kept by you, either by fear of being complained against to the EO/IG, or they just don't care? Is it that your 1SG and other senior NCO's in your company not sure if your hairstyle within the regs, and the CSM is certain and correct? Whatever the correct situation is, you have been wronged, and needs to be fixed, as either you have been set up (intentionally or unintentionally) for failure or are being potentially discriminated against.

The best solution is to schedule an informal meeting with all the NCOs involved (CSM, 1SG, PSG and other peers), and try to get a consensus on what the facts are, where the disconnect is, and how to fix the situation, in an informal way, and make sure what is said is consistent with what the Regulations and Appropriate Unit SOP's state. We never want a fight within the Corps of Noncommissioned Officers, as that is not good for the Corps nor for the subordinate soldiers of the command. And like I said earlier in this post, you could also ask your next level CSM for informal advise on the issue, as if you do anything in an official manner, that can open a can of worms that could harm not just one or the other, but many others as collateral casualties from the dispute. I wish you the best of luck in untangling this mess, and I hope that you and the CSM can find a mutually beneficial solution that is in the best interests of all involved, and where nobody's career is destroyed (if possible). Thank you for your dedication to the Corps of Noncommissioned Officers, the United States Army, and the United States!

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 20 at 2014 11:54 AM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:54:47 -0500

Your hair looks childish and unprofessional.  First impressions are sometimes hard to overcome and your hair screams to me that you are more concerned with how you look than looking like a professional Soldier.  Put your hair in a bun and concentrate your energies on bigger issues.  May be work on your leadership competencies or worry more about your Soldiers welfare.  This whole subject is ridiculous and I can't believe I spent time responding to it.  Take a lesson from SPC Thundercloud, she gave you some very sound advice.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 20 at 2014 1:16 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 20 Jan 2014 13:16:24 -0500

SFC Dees,

I remember you wearing your hair like this years back. Viewing it in person, I can say that it never looked faddish. A hair bun is a hair bun, there's simply two in this case. It still looks neat & professional, although I honestly don't know what the regs state about it.

Response by CPL Jay Strickland made Jan 20 at 2014 1:32 PM

CPL Jay Strickland — Mon, 20 Jan 2014 13:32:51 -0500

SFC D, I have a lot of respect for you and I understand your position.

When I was in I was the E-4 with very long hair (for a male) and I too carried AR670-1 with me to prove I was still in the regulations. I got a lot of crap and made a lot of enemies among higher ranking NCOs by my refusal to back down.

Eventually I learned that being technically right one can still be wrong. At this point in your career there are time you just have to learn to back down.

Now if your hair is important to you by all means fight it, and seek support higher up the chain of command. But realize you will make enemies and you may well be unable to make E-8 and you may find yourself in a shitty assignments.

Is it fair ? No. Are you technically right ? Yes. Is it worth the fight ? That is for you to decide.

Response by CSM David Hopkins made Jan 21 at 2014 12:30 AM

CSM David Hopkins — Tue, 21 Jan 2014 00:30:56 -0500

SFC Dees, it seems to me that your bottom line question is whether or not the SGM is able to correct you after 7 years of wearing your hair in that style. The short answer is yes. As long as what he is telling you is not illegal, immoral, or unethical he does then have that ability. NCOs are typically empowered by the Commander to set and enforce the standards. Because there are many standards within AR 670-1 open to interpretation, if the SGM believes it is an extreme hairstyle or faddish, it is unfortunate, but he gets to make that determination. I have read a lot of the other comments on here, and there have been some very good points, but the bottom line is the legal, moral, and ethical question.

Response by CW3 Clayton C. made Jan 21 at 2014 1:00 AM

CW3 Clayton C. — Tue, 21 Jan 2014 01:00:43 -0500

"Add to but not take away from" strikes again.
No one has ever given me a reliable answer on exactly what that means. So I just take it to mean, "I'm the boss and I make the rules on professionalism." To that I reply, "Fair enough, you win until you retire/PCS and I take your place. Then I can make the rules."

So, like I usually do, I just "roger up" and do what I'm told. I've tried fighting battles of this sort and I've lost every single time, even when I've technically won.

On a personal level, I feel that providing for my family is my number one priority. To do that the best I can I must succeed at what I do. I'm not saying I'd fight it, I'm not saying I'd roll over. It's all up to you and what you want to accomplish during your career. Unfortunately the political game starts, often times unsolicited, and we must play or resign ourselves to stagnate. Good luck SFC Dees, I hope you achieve your desired result.

Response by CSM Stuart C. O'Black made Jan 21 at 2014 10:20 PM

CSM Stuart C. O'Black — Tue, 21 Jan 2014 22:20:49 -0500

After all these post I would like to know your opinion as to what you think about your hair and how you would mentor our Junior females on their hair styles?

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 22 at 2014 9:34 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Jan 2014 21:34:44 -0500

Regarding the hair I can't tell, but in the news today it looks like Soldiers will be allowed to wear religious attire and grow beards. Odd that we'd allow beards now, when we are tightening down on tattoo's. We're going to allow beards, but give this NCO a hard time about her hair? I was told you had to shave everyday in order to get a good seal with your pro-mask, or a face wound was harder to treat with facial hair, was this not true? I always thought the red & white or black & white keffiyeh or ghutrah looked great with any military uniform. Regarding hair, back in 1985 in Korea, we all wore high and tights, because we wore pile caps in the winter, and long hair would get itchy under that hat especially after 2 or 3 weeks in the field in the winter. I stopped cutting my hair short a long time ago. Short hair never made me run faster, shoot straighter or stronger. Longer hair is great in the field and a deployment. It's a great litmus test that tells you it's time to do some personal hygiene. Now really long hair can be a liability in combat and for the Military Police, it's a great thing for the enemy to grab hold of and jerk you around with. Same reason why cops wear clip-on ties.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/22/pentagon-relaxing-rules-on-religious-clothing-facial-hair/

Pentagon relaxes rules on religious apparel, facial hair

The Pentagon is planning to relax its rules governing the religious clothing, facial hair and hairstyles that troops can wear while in uniform, a senior Defense official told Fox News.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 22 at 2014 9:56 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Jan 2014 21:56:01 -0500

Did you try rearranging the ACH pads for a better fit with your previous hair style?

Response by SPC Rachel Stubbs made Jan 23 at 2014 9:27 AM

SPC Rachel Stubbs — Thu, 23 Jan 2014 09:27:42 -0500

As a woman who had very long hair while in, I was able to keep it up and neat with in military regulation with only one bun in the back. It never interfered with me wearing the ACH, or anything else. Me personally I think her hair in the photo looks faddish because it looks too much like Princess Leia from Star Wars.

Response by CWO2 Shelby DuBois made Jan 24 at 2014 10:07 AM

CWO2 Shelby DuBois — Fri, 24 Jan 2014 10:07:51 -0500

Pushing this anything goes politically correct agenda is getting no push back from our so called military leaders on Capitol Hill. No medals for bravery will have to be struck for the brass there.

Response by SSG Jason Neumann made Jan 24 at 2014 4:04 PM

SSG Jason Neumann — Fri, 24 Jan 2014 16:04:49 -0500

Here to ruffle some feathers. I present you exhibit "A", AR 670-1 Rapid Action Revision (RAR) Issue Date: 11 May 2012 says such:

(3) Female haircuts will conform to the following standards.
(a) Females will ensure their hair is neatly groomed, that the length and bulk of the hair are not excessive, and that the hair does not present a ragged, unkempt, or extreme appearance. Likewise, trendy styles that result in shaved portions of the scalp (other than the neckline) or designs cut into the hair are prohibited. Females may wear braids and cornrows as long as the braided style is conservative, the braids and cornrows lie snugly on the head, and any hairholding devices comply with the standards in 1–8a(3)(d) below. Dreadlocks (unkempt, twisted, matted individual parts of hair) are prohibited in uniform or in civilian clothes on duty. Hair will not fall over the eyebrows or extend below the bottom edge of the collar at any time during normal activity or when standing in formation. Long hair that falls naturally below the bottom edge of the collar, to include braids, will be neatly and inconspicuously fastened or pinned, so no free-hanging hair is visible. This includes styles worn with the physical fitness uniform/improved physical fitness uniform (PFU/IPFU).
(b) Styles that are lopsided or distinctly unbalanced are prohibited. Ponytails, pigtails, or braids that are not secured to the head (allowing hair to hang freely), widely spaced individual hanging locks, and other extreme styles that protrude from the head are prohibited. Extensions, weaves, wigs, and hairpieces are authorized; however, these
additions must have the same general appearance as the individual’s natural hair. Additionally, any wigs, extensions, hairpieces, or weaves must comply with the grooming policies set forth in this paragraph.
(c) Females will ensure that hairstyles do not interfere with proper wear of military headgear and protective masks or equipment at any time (see 1–8a(1)(a), above). When headgear is worn, the hair will not extend below the bottom edge of the front of the headgear, nor will it extend below the bottom edge of the collar.

Now, this is what the regulation states. Now, when taking excerpts out of regulations or heck out of anything, perception of what is read when bits and pieces are presented can be misleading. When having such amount of hair that you have to "try and manage it" to make sure you are in regulations, then you are probably wasting your time and should have it cut down in order to look professional. As it states in 3A, bulk of hair be not excessive. What is excessive? Well that would be interpretation from your commander, but if you have to second guess yourself or find ways then it's probably wrong. Also, in 3C it states, "will not interfere with proper wear of headgear or PROMASK." Now, maybe i'm reading into this, but this is my interpretation. When you have an excess of hair and it looks like a train wreck or some type of animal is trying to get into your head, that just looks wrong and unprofessional. Now, we as males can't get away with having an enormous amounts of hair and do not have to deal with pinning or finding a way to make sure it doesn't fall down when doing PT or whatnot. This is why I have always said there should be a certain length for females hair AND males hair, so that there isn't the going around and trying to slip past the regulations and be able to keep your PRECIOUS hair. I find it funny, since when on the trail as a Drill Sergeant, the males had one kind of style, BALD like a cue ball when graduating Basic Training. Unfortunately, on the week of graduation, males sit back at the CTA cleaning, while the females are getting their " Hair did" lol, so that they look good. Just my opinion, but I think that is wrong and never went to babysit those Soldiers getting their day at the spa..... Release the hounds now.

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 25 at 2014 12:22 AM

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 25 Jan 2014 00:22:11 -0500

Having crossed over from the Air Force I have observed a few things about the Army that I find very interesting. First, they do not follow most of their own regulations. This not only covers the dress and appearance regulation but several others. Second, rank means everything. What I mean by this is that if you have SGM or a CDR that are breaking the regulation then the thought process is that people let is slide.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 25 at 2014 10:04 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 25 Jan 2014 10:04:54 -0500

I think at the end of the day you have to ask yourself what would I rather have my chain of command be doing- wrangling legal issues and investigations over my hair or working to accomplish my unit's mission.

As non-commissioned officers it's our job to enforce the standards. When it comes to appearance- standards exist to give a base-line professional appearance metric to ensure that those in our formations think, look and work as a team.

You are absolutely free to wear your hair in that fashion when you are off-duty, but when we lace up our boots in the morning and head in to supervise our Soldiers it's not only our job to enforce the standards- but to be that shining example for our Soldiers to follow.

I believe your hair is one of those grey areas in the Uniform and Appearance reg that comes up from time to time.

Whenever I personally run into a grey area in regulations I always try to ask myself "What's in the best interest of the Army and the military service and what do I think is the intent of the senior commander"

When you say your CSM is discriminating against you as a person- and this is just an unbiased opinion from somebody who knows absolutely nothing about the backstory-

He looks down his formation and sees a senior Non-commissioned officer that is wearing a hairstyle that nobody else in his formation has (and that I have never personally seen in 12 years in the Military service across two branches) and it doesn't appear to meet the criteria for the wear of female hair according to the regulation.

An impartial investigation is completed by the command and the hairstyle is found to be not in regulation. You should at this point receive a written counseling on it- but results of a 15-6 are literally there in black and white for you.

As per the investigating officer and your unit commander it's not authorized.

You can always appeal or contact the IG, but ask yourself once again- would I rather have my chain of command dealing with my desire to have a unique hairstyle or training, educating and conducting the unit's mission?

You and I hear it all the time about how an NCO is supposed to conduct ourselves- Be, know, do.

We have to be the shining example for other Soldiers to follow, so they may grow and develop into the leaders that will one day replace us.

We have to know our jobs and be able to lead and train our subordinates to standards so they know what right looks like and be able to have the requisite knowledge to perform at the next higher level.

We have to do the right thing, regardless of if somebody is watching or not. We have to train our Soldiers to have the same mentality.

Anyhow- there are a great many Soldiers on this forum with years and years of professional experience that have given you their input, and it's overwhelmingly telling you the same thing.

We all want you to succeed, and to prosper and grow.

It kind of reminds me of a Soldier I had in my Squad a few years ago. He met a girl out in town that was absolutely a horrible choice as a spouse. The sheer level of insanity that was this woman boggled all of us, and we did everything we could to try to convince him not to marry her- but at the end of the day it was his choice.

He was authorized under the regs to get married, and so he did. She became pregnant from another Soldier, made his life a living hell and currently gets a large percentage of his BAH until the divorce becomes final.

I know that's a somewhat bad example- but I hope it lights a spark in you- Just because something's authorized doesn't always mean it's the best idea for you to do.

And in this case your command, and all of your peers here are telling you the same thing-it's not authorized.

Response by PV2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 25 at 2014 2:25 PM

PV2 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 25 Jan 2014 14:25:22 -0500

SFC Dees, the purpose behind AR 670-1 is clearly stated within the regulation, uniformity amongst ranks. With all due respect I believe if you feel the need to carry around an excerpt from 670-1 then you must already know the answers to your questions. I've been told by past leaders that if I have doubts about whether something is right or wrong, it's wrong. No excuses, no exceptions.

I understand you started wearing your hair in that fashion during a deployment and maybe your leadership looked passed it because there were bigger things to worry about. However, I believe after your deployment you should have gone back to a more conservative hairstyle, even more so because you weren't wearing the helmet that caused you to change hairstyles as often anymore. SFC Dees, I personally do not find your hair style conservative or professional however that is my personal opinion and as many have brought up in past posts it is up to your leaders judgement. Furthermore, and again I have much respect for all you have accomplished, I do not feel as though you're exercising good judgement with your hairstyle or by questioning the judgement of your SGM or BDE CDR.

What kind of message is being sent to lower enlisted by you questioning a higher ranking official on a subject that you know is so touchy you have to "educate" those that question it? The power of influence is in your hands SFC Dees, as my sergeants have told me, pick your battles wisely.

Response by SSG Genaro Negrete made Jan 25 at 2014 6:53 PM

SSG Genaro Negrete — Sat, 25 Jan 2014 18:53:28 -0500

Let me start off by saying this one incident does NOT define you or your career.

AR 670-1, para 1-8a(1), dated 11 May 2012
"...is not possible to address every acceptable hairstyle, or what constitutes eccentric or conservative grooming. Therefore, it is the responsibility of leaders at all levels to exercise good judgment in the enforcement of Army policy..."

This section, in my interpretation and context as I understand it, says that it is not practical to list all possible variations of hairstyle and it is up to all of us as leaders to use our best judgement. It seems you don't agree with that CSM's best judgement. I don't see where it says we have to agree with that judgement (unless unlawful or immoral of course)

After reading the entire para1-8 (to include the portions regarding tattoos) I would have to say that based on the one image you posted, your hair does not appear to be out of regulation. I stress, however, this is after seeing ONE picture and I am not YOUR leadership.

If other CoC's in the past have not said anything to you regarding the hair style, then that tells me those individual leaders interpreted the regulations similar to myself. However, this CSM has a different interpretation of this regulation.

As far as I can see, this is a case of a CSM issuing an order to a SFC. In the time I've been in, E-9 trumps E-7 every time. A few others on this thread have suggested you choose your battles. This may imply your concerns are petty. Since an assignment that may be instrumental to your career progression has been denied on the basis of your hairstyle, I understand your fervor.

Yet, if we look at this issue as I stated above, a CSM issuing an order to a SFC, that to my knowledge was not unlawful or immoral, we have what is basically one Soldier disregarding orders given to her by her leadership. I dare say this may have been the underlying reason that CSM did not choose you to fill that particular PSG slot.

If we expect our Soldiers to adhere to standards and our orders and guidance in enforcing those standards, regardless of personal opinion, we must set the same example. I don't know you, your job, or the details behind this incident, so I can only infer the underlying intent behind the words you chose to describe your predicament.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 26 at 2014 1:47 AM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 26 Jan 2014 01:47:32 -0500

For as much action as this thread has gotten, I haven't seen much from the OP. It seems like the majority of the comments are not in favor of this hairstyle. So, SFC Dees, what have you decided to do with it? Stick with the double buns, or adopt a different hairstyle?

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 26 at 2014 1:59 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 26 Jan 2014 01:59:54 -0500

I do not want you to feel marginalized but a senior NCO you may be confronted with challenges to your own authority. SFC is no joke and I know as a woman you have suffered through some issues exclusive to women but I also know that to other women what you do is significant. We want a military who is decisive and not one that found a niche and has thought to use that. When I was young what happened matters.

For example, when I went to my first unit a SSgt in the Parachute Shop was heading to Leavenworth. As an 18 year old that hit me hard and this is how our actions as NCOs can be construed as positive or toxic. Even if you are right is this the legacy you want? I want to be fair with you because you have achieved a lot. Do not let is derail your career over personal animus. Please.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 26 at 2014 2:12 AM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 26 Jan 2014 02:12:51 -0500

I used to wear my hair in different ways as well, although always within regs - so much that I earned the nickname Princess Leia throughout my active career. Our AFI 36-2903 is worded VERY similar to your 670-1. We also have matching paragraphs in our regulations that say the reg can't possibly cover every situation. Our governing catch-all is that any one over you can add to but not take away. So if a supervisor said to follow stricter rules, I would have to. If I had to carry the reg in my pocket to educate someone when questioned, I would have changed my hair to the stricter style they asked for. Either way, our reg changed and we can no longer have more than one mass of hair. We also cannot do the ponytail flip that gives the appearance of a "rooster tail." Our hair will now keep the same original requirements of not below the bottom of the collar, no bangs with the BDU/ABU uniform, no hair extending below the eyebrows, etc. The added part is that the hair will be in one single mass, so I had to change. Even though some of my hairstyles were functional as you say yours were, "the reg rules." I did use quick-clips on my single bun when we would deploy or go thru an exercise. That way, as I donned my gas mask, my hand could knock the bun out of the clips & my mask would seal perfect. My hood covered the rest & I was golden. As for the helmets both old & new (I have over 19 yrs of combined active & Guard service) never fit my hair unless I wore my bun very low, like on the nape of my neck right at the hair line. Then it was perfect. I ask: is your hairstyle in uniform really that important or is your duty performance what people will remember you for?

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 27 at 2014 6:15 AM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 27 Jan 2014 06:15:31 -0500

If a Soldier feels the need to have to carry around a regulation to justify their appearance they know good and well they are not keeping with the regulation. They carry an excerpt around in order to try to cheery pick what part of the regulation they choose to abide by.

AR 670-1, para 1-8a(1), dated 11 May 2012
"...is not possible to address every acceptable hairstyle, or what constitutes eccentric or conservative grooming. Therefore, it is the responsibility of leaders at all levels to exercise good judgment in the enforcement of Army policy..."

I will repeat (cherry pick) "Therefore, it is the responsibility of leaders at all levels to exercise good judgment in the enforcement of Army policy..."

If your leader says your hair is unprofessional, then it is unprofessional.

Consider yourself lucky your SGM did not repeatedly counsel you, then recommend you for NJP for failing to obey and finally mark it on your evaluation.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 27 at 2014 1:47 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 27 Jan 2014 13:47:42 -0500

I really wish I knew how to delete a thread. . . Thank you for all that supported me and for the rest  - I understand your points and I have thought about all of this and can see how differently AR 670-1 can be interpreted.  To those of you who were just mean and argued diligently, thanks for showing how passionate you are about a subject that you can only opinionate.  The bottom line is that nobody in my chain of command has ever told me that my hair is out of regulation.  I read it in the findings of a 15-6 that was completed at the beginning of December.  I would also like to note that I have been in this BN for 2 years.  I have never been told that I can't wear my hair that way and still have not been told to my face or in a counseling.  An informal complaint was lodged about something completely different and my hair was mentioned in the findings.  It feels more like a reprisal and will be addressed as such.  Thanks to all and have a great day.  PS, if someone knows how to delete a thread, please educate me. 

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Jan 29 at 2014 11:06 AM

SSG Robert Burns — Wed, 29 Jan 2014 11:06:52 -0500

I would just love to send an invite to Rally Point to a particular SFC's NCO support chain. This is unbelievable. If they don't know (and I'm sure they do) of this NCO's behavior, it should be known to prevent further influence on junior Soldier's and NCOs. I am about sick to my stomach.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 29 at 2014 2:39 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 29 Jan 2014 14:39:05 -0500

SO I only have a few questions. Why has the the OP only commented on post that stick holes in her argument. I have seen a lot of post that ask for clarification and even a better photo. Why have none of those been addressed? And the more lumming question in my head is, SFC Dees, if you only read the statement concerning your hair in the 15-6 findings then why carry a exert from 670-1. That gives the impression that you KNEW you might/would be confronted about your hair. If that is the case then you know you are in the gray area and should act accordingly.
I have been in a situation where it seamed as though my entire COC/NCO support channel was out to get me. I did not carry a copy of any AR with me. I filled my mind with what it said, so much so that I could quote it. That makes more of an impression if you can do that. Although my situation was very different just though I would share that.
I have read so many post that all state one thing, "pick your battles", I would state the same. As another poster stated you can "win the battle but lose the war". We would like to think this is not the case but lets be honest here, it is.
One last thing if you had a soldier that was in the "gray area" of 670-1 but carried a copy of it just to "prove" you wrong after you told them to change it, how would you feel about that soldier.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 29 at 2014 7:17 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 29 Jan 2014 19:17:28 -0500

I apologize for jumping in here late and not reading all the posts, but I believe the real question at hand is by what criteria is your leadership permitted to change their mind about truly anything that is discretionary.

It would seem the answer would be that they have complete discretion to change their opinion of things at their discretion at any time they feel necessary so long as it is not illegal or immoral.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 30 at 2014 10:17 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 30 Jan 2014 10:17:40 -0500

While I was at the DLI in monterey this was a touchy subject for women as well.
There ARE a lot of females who do get away with unprofessional hairstyles and other varied uniform issues.
I was taught the same general guidelines that SPC Thundercloud posted:
"1) If your hair can be seen from the front while you're wearing a PC, 2) If it's so unique that you never see others wearing the same style, or 3) If more than 1 NCO has questioned you regarding your style, then your hair style is not professional"

On that note, I've never seen a soldier of any rank wear a double bun in the back.
No matter what it will be seen as "unprofessional" in the military because it is unique.
Because it is unique, It will be seen as a civilian hairstyle as well.

Ultimately everything in AR670-1 is left up to the interpretation of your commander.
So if it actually caused enough of a fuss to spark an EO complaint, I wouldn't worry about anything further unless Guidance came from a commanding officer.

but all that is just my personal thought and opinion.

Response by LCpl Mark Lefler made Feb 17 at 2014 1:12 PM

LCpl Mark Lefler — Mon, 17 Feb 2014 13:12:45 -0500

I guess I missed the OPs orginal comments.

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 18 at 2014 12:29 AM

GySgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 18 Feb 2014 00:29:02 -0500

SFC Dees, what happen to your post and all of your comments?

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Jul 15 at 2014 8:40 PM

SSG Robert Burns — Tue, 15 Jul 2014 20:40:24 -0400

Just took a trip down memory lane. Wow! I wonder whatever happened with this investigation.