United States Army tightens rules on hair, tattoos, makeup

[aesop081]

by now, you should be well aware of the fact that BSOs and ROs are "orders" and that they are legal orders too.

Yes, i am well aware of those things.

What i am also aware is that when something is clearly permited, for another level to verboot it, is one of those small things that pisses people off.

Kinda like those rules about toques at certain western Canada army bases  ;D

 

[aesop081]

That still does not negate the fact that some locations publish the rule that head dress shall indeed be worn.

Yup, and if i was posted to such a base, i would still disregard that order, for the very same reason that i currently do not wear my headress in my car.

 

[armyvern]

Since when has there been a problem with soldiers pressing their ACU's, I mean I've never seen anyone even the most highspeed spending their time or money to have their ACU's pressed.

Perhaps the rule is caused not by the troops wanting, needing or intending to waste their money or their time by dry-cleaning/pressing their ACUs, but by someone above them in their CoC insisting upon "dry cleaning" of them. Ergo, it is now laid down that dry-cleaning is out, but that pers can take an iron to them if someone deems that their ACU should be 'pressed".

My phone ran off the hook a couple years ago when one of the numerous COs who was having a Change of Command parade put it out there that he wanted all his personnel in brand new, and then dry-cleaned/pressed cadpat uniforms on that parade. Uhhhhh, not going to happen.

Sometimes, rules happen not because of what the troops' do, but because of what some higher would attempt to do.

 

[armyvern]

Yup, and if i was posted to such a base, i would still disregard that order, for the very same reason that i currently do not wear my headress in my car.

Well, you have a wedge and if that makes it unsafe for you, fill your boots.

 

[armyvern]

Yes, i am well aware of those things.

What i am also aware is that when something is clearly permited, for another level to verboot it, is one of those small things that pisses people off.

Kinda like those rules about toques at certain western Canada army bases  ;D

I wasn't posting to you, but that rule was also in Gagetown when you were there ... and still in the army.

Clearly - it's a typo. Based on the PMV at the intro para, and the neglect of the use of "SMP" (but instead "PMV" again) in the last para. No worries, they'll fix it. 

PS: we didn't end up losing our fleece toques out there despite the pers who wanted to take them away. Why? Because they WERE issued kit. It was a good fight and it was won by the right side.

 

[Towards_the_gap]

My phone ran off the hook a couple years ago when one of the numerous COs who was having a Change of Command parade put it out there that he wanted all his personnel in brand new, and then dry-cleaned/pressed cadpat uniforms on that parade. Uhhhhh, not going to happen.

Total tangent here but doesn't ironing degrade/diminish the IRR treatment quicker than through normal laundering?

 

[OldSolduer]

Just to to throw a wrench in the works, Base/Wing commanders and Unit Commanding Officers may publish orders that dictates when/where headress shall be worn. It may run contrary to 265 or other orders.

 

[armyvern]

Total tangent here but doesn't ironing degrade/diminish the IRR treatment quicker than through normal laundering?

Yep, and that's why my phone was ringing off the hook when the original word to those troops came down as to what they were to do. I followed up with the facts above and the dry-leaning/pressing disappeared from the requirements, but the troops were still sent down en masse to exchange a set of cadpat for brand new stuff. We turned them away as the op restriction was still in place on exchanges too.

I actually expected to hear more about turning them away, but did not.

 

[aesop081]

I wasn't posting to you, but that rule was also in Gagetown when you were there ... and still in the army.

Yup, and i stopped wearing my beret there too as every time i turned my head left, the badge caught the inside above the door and the whole thing was in  my face.

 

[armyvern]

Just to to throw a wrench in the works, Base/Wing commanders and Unit Commanding Officers may publish orders that dictates when/where headress shall be worn. It may run contrary to 265 or other orders.

That is correct.

Very difficult for them to tell troops that they can not wear issued kit though --- unless it was kit that was purchased for a specific trial.

 

[Franko]

Funny how some people interpret the regs. That quote is for extended travel, not for tootling around on base. The first para is applicable for safety regardless of distance traveled. 

It's in descending order for a reason.

Military and Privately Owned Motor
Vehicles (PMV)

a. Members wearing the uniform shall wear
appropriate headdress while operating or
travelling as a passenger in all military
vehicle except:

(1) if the roof of the vehicle is too low to   
permit headdress to be worn with
comfort and safety;

(2) on extended trips;        <-------extended trips

(3) on order of the senior members
present; and

(4) in a staff car, PMV or bus.

Again, Base Standing Orders are the go to Regulations on any Defence establishment. Head dress on in Gagetown and Petawawa. Leave the gate, you can take it off.

Regards

 

[armyvern]

Yup, and i stopped wearing my beret there too as every time i turned my head left, the badge caught the inside above the door and the whole thing was in  my face.

Then, the rules covered you. We're talking about people who have no safety problems caused by their height etc while wearing headdress; something you keep typing is not applicable to you.

 

[armyvern]

Funny how some people interpret the regs. That quote is for extended travel, not for tootling around on base. The first para is applicable for safety regardless of distance traveled. 

It's in descending order for a reason.

Again, Base Standing Orders are the go to Regulations on any Defence establishment. Head dress on in Gagetown and Petawawa. Leave the gate, you can take it off.

Regards

Descending order is a tricky thing. You may have something with the "and", but the fact that para 4 itself is not indented (nor is 3 related to 2 etc) leaves room for interpretation.

1 - 4 are all sub-paras of a. The para's have semi-colons, not commas and thus are not extensions of the sub-para before. If 4 was a sub-para extension of #3, then it would be indented under 3 and #3 would end with a colon itself.

It needs to be re-written.

 

[aesop081]

Funny how some people interpret the regs.

Yes, how you are interpreting it is indeed rather funny.

 

[Franko]

1 - 4 are all sub=paras of a. The para's have semi-colons, not commas and thus are not extensions of the sub-para before. If 4 was a sub-para extension of #3, then it would be indented under 3 and #3 would end with a colon itself.

It needs to be re-written.

Yeah, no shit. These regs were in place ever since I got in and they sure as shit haven't changed.

Now because of one typo everyone and their dog who, more than likely, knows it's wrong is jumping on the bandwagon and claiming "It's in the Regs".

Nice way to lead by example.          :

Yes, how you are interpreting it is indeed rather funny.

Again, Base Standing Orders trump it. Nice troll BTW.

 

[armyvern]

...
Again, Base Standing Orders trump it. Nice troll BTW.

Yes they do. All perfectly legal.

 

[421_434_226]

A few years ago when I was posted to Pet we had our unit MWO read us the riot act with regards wearing of headdress while on base in your POMV, as he had personally observed some members in contravention of this order . Not a big deal although it does loose some credibility when you observe the same person the next day driving his own truck about the base without his headdress, and in no way would headroom have been a safety concern. Although I believe a small whine was sent up the chain and I do not think he was seen doing the same later the same day at least.

 

[armyvern]

A few years ago when I was posted to Pet we had our unit MWO read us the riot act with regards wearing of headdress while on base in your POMV, as he had personally observed some members in contravention of this order . Not a big deal although it does loose some credibility when you observe the same person the next day driving his own truck about the base without his headdress, and in no way would headroom have been a safety concern. Although I believe a small whine was sent up the chain and I do not think he was seen doing the same later the same day at least.

Good; there's nothing wrong with expecting your leaders to follow those same orders that you are subjected to. After all, that's what leaders are supposed to do: Lead by example.

 

[smale436]

    Reading some of these examples from Pet and Gagetown are quite interesting compared to what you see driving around Cold Lake. I remember when I owned a convertible, which I rarely drove to work, deciding to always have the roof up with headdress on to avoid getting into a situation. This was after seeing other people with the roof down wearing no headdress or holding on with one hand to readjust every 20 seconds. There was also the time I witnessed a wedge blow off in the wind and helped the guy retrieve it from the side of the road. He put the roof up immediately after.

 

[Jarnhamar]

“The appearance of tattoos detracts from a uniformed service,” Chandler told the Fort Jackson soldiers. “The uniformed services, we all generally look the same. Now, if you have a tattoo that draws attention to yourself, you have to ask the question, are you a person who is committed to the Army? Because the Army says you are part of the same organization. We all generally look the same. And we do not want you to stand out from the rest of the Army. Yes, we want you to set yourself apart and do great things and so on, but that does not mean tattooing yourself or doing other extreme things that draw attention to you, the individual. You are part of something larger.”

I find that a little weird.  Tattoos detract from a uniformed service?  In here he is not mentioning the obviously inappropriate tattoos but seems to be referring to tattoos in general. One can really let their mind run wild with the possibilities of how far an army could go to make everyone look the same.  Stricter height and weight restrictions. Stricter hair cut policies. (Women will have short hair only)

Considering the racial make up of the US military stating that "we all look the same" seems weird to me. The US military is pretty damn diverse.

Chandler listed a number of examples of inappropriate tattoos he has seen in the past nine months. Every one was on a noncommissioned officer who was inked while on active duty.

Visible inappropriate tattoos should be removed from visibility or the members released in my opinion.  That said inappropriate can be very subjective. I don't think there is anything wrong with a skull but someone up the chain might find it in bad taste and say it's not allowed.


I'm curious if these rules mean members need to be clean shaven to use base facilities while on leave OR if Pte Boner sitting at home for a week playing xbox should technically still shave every day.