CAF Combat boots policy 2005-2018

[BinRat55]

I have no dog in this fight anymore, having retired from the CF more than four years ago now.  However, after reading the excellent description of the Mondopoint sizing system, I'm left wondering:

Mondopoint does a great job of measuring a foot in two dimensions.  However, people don't have two-dimensional feet - your feet exist in three dimensions.  Wearing the crappy old sea boots with zero arch support for so long ruined my feet, and as a result I required a pretty aggressive design of orthotic.  More times than not, I couldn't get a good fit with both the orthotic AND my foot in the same boot.  Things improved somewhat when I went to the CEMS CWWB, but they were still lacking - I still developed thick painful callouses on my feet because there simply wasn't enough height accommodation in the boot.

The powers that be may be saying "stricter controls" when it comes to LPO boots, but I don't think that plan will survive contact with the troops who are wearing orthotics.

This is a great point. One that we should all consider when both sizing and complaining. I can get you 2 thirds of the way there, but until I get a little tiny BOSS machine and a company willing to add on another 42 sizes (or more...) I got what I got. But still, a hugely valid point - too often we forget about the height of said foot - I know I did!

Did anyone at ADM MAT say anything about what should be at least 100 UCR's from the ENGR world in regards to the quality, or lack of, in the new LOTP.  I know that I have sent 3.  One for each of the Brown/Tan boots I've had in the last 3 years.  In 3 years I've burned through 6 pair of boots (2 of each style).  They have all been returned to clothing being unserviceable after anywhere from 2 weeks to 2 months.  I'm back in Rocky's again because they work, they fit, and they last.

O & T - not sure if you are actually referring to the new LOTB or just the fact that you have used the system... the "new LOTB" has only been out for a few months now and there are only 2 units on my base that has them - Engineers not being one. The brown boots you have worn over the past few years were intrem and not meant to be permanent - remember the CADPAT boot that wasn't? That was the brown boot without the paint. According to the powers that be, this new LOTB is here to stay. Get your laces or zipper on, put THEM through the paces, then see if a UCR is warranted. I'm not saying it will, I'm not saying it won't - I'm saying give them a chance.

Thank you for using the UCR system instead of taking it out on a Supply Tech BTW...

 

[SupersonicMax]

There is a simple solution that other services have in place:  authorize a list of COTS footwear and have them available at the Canex for purchase.  Give every member yearly entitlement to purchase work boots (a claim, jusrified with a receipt from Canex only).

Then the onus is on the member to get comfortable footwear and we can stop having below average footwear that destroy our lower joints and are not suitable for combat.

 

[Old and Tired]

O & T - not sure if you are actually referring to the new LOTB or just the fact that you have used the system... the "new LOTB" has only been out for a few months now and there are only 2 units on my base that has them - Engineers not being one. The brown boots you have worn over the past few years were intrem and not meant to be permanent - remember the CADPAT boot that wasn't? That was the brown boot without the paint. According to the powers that be, this new LOTB is here to stay. Get your laces or zipper on, put THEM through the paces, then see if a UCR is warranted. I'm not saying it will, I'm not saying it won't - I'm saying give them a chance.

Thank you for using the UCR system instead of taking it out on a Supply Tech BTW...

The last two I returned were the newest LOTP.  I just wrapped up an ex in Gagetown involving 4 ESR, 5RGC, CFSME and part of Ex Common Ground.  By the end of the three weeks in the field the zippers in one pair of boots had blown out and the laced ones has the Tread portion of the sole come off.  The Guys from 5 RGC were in even worse shape with there boots.  That's were the majority of the UCRs will be originating.

 

[MJP]

UCRs are decent as long as people fill them out and finish them, them coupled with command pressure can work miracles.  I know this thread is for boots but to slightly hijack the thread, can any hazard a guess how many UCRs have been done on the Tac Vest, an item hated as much as the boots?  If you guessed hundreds based on the outrage you would be wrong.  There are 6 UCRs that have been raised on the TV.  Boots by NSN is even less but I only went through the last 8-10 years of Army issued boots.  We like to complain but don't like to do any work to fix it.  Kinda like making a mean post on Facebook.  Slacktivisim at its finest.

 

[BinRat55]

There is a simple solution that other services have in place:  authorize a list of COTS footwear and have them available at the Canex for purchase.  Give every member yearly entitlement to purchase work boots (a claim, jusrified with a receipt from Canex only).

Then the onus is on the member to get comfortable footwear and we can stop having below average footwear that destroy our lower joints and are not suitable for combat.

Max - for many years now I have been saying this exact same thing (and I think I've said it once or twice in this tread...) but it will never happen. I agree with you - I even likened it the BTU (female soldiers bra claim) but alas, it make too much sense. I have to tow the corporate line on this one. But i'm with ya - in spirit!

 

[BinRat55]

The last two I returned were the newest LOTP.  I just wrapped up an ex in Gagetown involving 4 ESR, 5RGC, CFSME and part of Ex Common Ground.  By the end of the three weeks in the field the zippers in one pair of boots had blown out and the laced ones has the Tread portion of the sole come off.  The Guys from 5 RGC were in even worse shape with there boots.  That's were the majority of the UCRs will be originating.

Funny - I never saw any boots returned. Where did you get your boots from?

 

[TCM621]

Vern, Binrat et al. I do blame the supply system but I don't blame supply clerks. The system is not only broken, it is stupid. If a member has been issued Magnums for a decade and his wear out he should be able to get them exchanged just as any other soldier does. We all know it isnt a fit issue it is a quality issue yet emails like the above come out blaming soldiers for looking for some mythical "perfect fit " which is unattainable with issued boots but perfectly easy to find with low end (Magnums and SWATs are low end) tactical boots only available in the standard 1/2 sizes.

I totally agree that most people don't have a medical reasons for non standard boots beyond the fact that they don't want to wear crappy issue boots. The same thing happened with the MKIII, although I would wear those over the MKIV anyday especially if you spent the money on the vibrant soles. The boot allowance is the way to go but we all know that would take money out of deserving companies in Quebec.

My personal issue is not with the initial hassle,  you don't want to make it too easy.  But once a person has been through all the hoops why waste everyone's time again? Just issue a one for one exchange like any other issued boots.

On a related note,  the system can be more flexible in regards to which boot it offers. In my case the old desert boots were perfect for my issue but they were only authorized for use in a desert environment. So the system ended up buying Magnums.

 

[PuckChaser]

Here the ADMMAT response to that question ( and others) when the field force raised up a series of issues on the new boots.

ALCON,

I am sending this email in response to some of the more unreasonable requests that have been arriving in my email.  Pls note that there is no such thing as the ‘’perfect fit’’ when it comes to footwear.  Our boots are designed to accommodate 95% of the mbrs of the CAF as this is our mandate.  With the arrival of the LOTB, there will be much stricter controls put in place WRT LPO for boots.  The Technical Authority for Footwear and I have submitted changes to be added to the A-LM-007-100/AG-001 (SAM) shortly IOT support Supply techs with the ‘’how to fit footwear’’ for the mbr and to support the supply tech who needs to have the client understand that we try to supply correct and comfortable footwear but that the ‘’perfect’’ fit is virtually unattainable and beyond reasonable expectation.  Mbrs need to take some responsibility for their own comfort as well.  If an insole is all that is required for comfort or a better fit, then the mbr may purchase their own – not demand a new pair of boots thru Supply as these requests will not be entertained.

Unfortunately ADMMAT has his/her head up their ass. I should wear a 270/96 boot. However, the width is for the forefoot not the heel. I have slender heels and a 96 width means my heel slides up and down when I walk causing blisters and pain. 270/92 means I can't feel my forefoot but the heel is nice and snug. I hardly think I'm a 5% of the CAF when I can wear a pair of SWATs in 9.5D with no issues whatsoever.

 

[Old and Tired]

Got the boots in HRM by happenstance. I was told to get the "New Tan" boots. I went into local clothing they said they didn't have any but some on order. Lo and behold LOTPs showed up.

The quote below is why I have ZERO faith i  the UCR process. I know from the last Tour I did with the RCD there were 25 from my troop alone and perhaps 200 - 250 across the Battle Group that were submitted up the chain through NSE. I even have a copy somewhere of the TAV report from a Maj (LdSH) that agreed with us. The official response was "                  ". Dead Air.

UCRs are decent as long as people fill them out and finish them, them coupled with command pressure can work miracles.  I know this thread is for boots but to slightly hijack the thread, can any hazard a guess how many UCRs have been done on the Tac Vest, an item hated as much as the boots?  If you guessed hundreds based on the outrage you would be wrong.  There are 6 UCRs that have been raised on the TV.  Boots by NSN is even less but I only went through the last 8-10 years of Army issued boots.  We like to complain but don't like to do any work to fix it.  Kinda like making a mean post on Facebook.  Slacktivisim at its finest.

Funny - I never saw any boots returned. Where did you get your boots from?

 

[MJP]

Got the boots in HRM by happenstance. I was told to get the "New Tan" boots. I went into local clothing they said they didn't have any but some on order. Lo and behold LOTPs showed up.

The quote below is why I have ZERO faith i  the UCR process. I know from the last Tour I did with the RCD there were 25 from my troop alone and perhaps 200 - 250 across the Battle Group that were submitted up the chain through NSE. I even have a copy somewhere of the TAV report from a Maj (LdSH) that agreed with us. The official response was "                  ". Dead Air.

Unless someone sat on a computer and physically inputted them on the UCR website they most likely went nowhere.  I don't blame the UCR system in that case but the folks who were controlling or advising on the submission of your UCRs

 

[armyvern]

There is a simple solution that other services have in place:  authorize a list of COTS footwear and have them available at the Canex for purchase.  Give every member yearly entitlement to purchase work boots (a claim, jusrified with a receipt from Canex only).

Then the onus is on the member to get comfortable footwear and we can stop having below average footwear that destroy our lower joints and are not suitable for combat.

You've been on the site long enough now to know it will never happen.  No boot allowance will ever occur. It's a political issue.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

First and only time I've ever heard of UCRs was this site.

 

[PuckChaser]

You've been on the site long enough now to know it will never happen.  No boot allowance will ever occur. It's a political issue.

Absolutely. With so much of our kit with its only primary requirement being porkbarrelling and "Made in Canada", why would PWGSC or TB allow soldiers to buy the one thing they absolutely need 2 pairs of every few years from a company that's not in Canada (Quebec)?

From what I've heard of the LOTB, those 2 brands came in 6th and 7th on the list. Oakley and Rocky blew everyone away. They aren't made in Canada, and PWGSC picked the 6th/7th best models because a factory got 3 extra jobs to crank them out.

 

[TCM621]

First and only time I've ever heard of UCRs was this site.

This is where I have a bit of an issue. The UCR process is something most people know very little of,  I didn't know about it for at least half my career and know I know about it but I am still pretty fuzzy on the details. For example,  the post just above was the first time I heard of a website.

If I send my C7 into a weapons tech because it doesn't work right,  is it my job to do something about it or the weapons tech who has seen a hundred with the same problem? If a pilot says the new radar isn't working,  is it his job or the AVS techs job to raise the issue to be fixed?

I don't want to completely throw supply techs under the bus because I know of they have to do as they are told too but if every supply tech in the CF has seen dozens of people complain about problems with boots why does the user, who probably knows next to nothing about UCRs and the supply system, who needs to do the work? If I am working in Ottawa and I see a UCR from Cpl Bloggins from 7 Unicorn Battalion complaining about his boots,  it is easy to write off as soldiers bitching about kit.  However,  when I get a UCR from Sgt Bloggins, NCO clothing at CFB Shilo, describing the common faults seen by his section over the hundreds of boot fittings they have done,  it carries more weight. Am I wrong in having this opinion? It seems like supply techs are the perfect people to tackle issues involving kit. I can't even think it is because all they do is sit in cushy offices all day because supply techs do go in the field or to sea even if they don't have the same level of suck as the Cbt arms.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

So, in summary:

1.  current way of doing boot procurement will never change (politics, "Canadian content", all that magical shit)
2.  because of #1, the CAF will make it harder for mbr's to get LPO boots by changing some wording in the SAM and other policy documents...because paying for the shitty boots from #1 AND LPO boots is expensive
3.  for some stupid reason, despite being willing to buy their own boots that meet the standard of safety etc, mbr's will have to wear the shitty boots from #1.

4.  Because of #1, #2, and #3...CAF members will be allowed to purchase insoles out of their own pocket.

 

[dangerboy]

This is where I have a bit of an issue. The UCR process is something most people know very little of,  I didn't know about it for at least half my career and know I know about it but I am still pretty fuzzy on the details. For example,  the post just above was the first time I heard of a website.

If I send my C7 into a weapons tech because it doesn't work right,  is it my job to do something about it or the weapons tech who has seen a hundred with the same problem? If a pilot says the new radar isn't working,  is it his job or the AVS techs job to raise the issue to be fixed?

I don't want to completely throw supply techs under the bus because I know of they have to do as they are told too but if every supply tech in the CF has seen dozens of people complain about problems with boots why does the user, who probably knows next to nothing about UCRs and the supply system, who needs to do the work? If I am working in Ottawa and I see a UCR from Cpl Bloggins from 7 Unicorn Battalion complaining about his boots,  it is easy to write off as soldiers bitching about kit.  However,  when I get a UCR from Sgt Bloggins, NCO clothing at CFB Shilo, describing the common faults seen by his section over the hundreds of boot fittings they have done,  it carries more weight. Am I wrong in having this opinion? It seems like supply techs are the perfect people to tackle issues involving kit. I can't even think it is because all they do is sit in cushy offices all day because supply techs do go in the field or to sea even if they don't have the same level of suck as the Cbt arms.

While the individual troop is not expected to know about or fill out the UCR form his supervisor should.  The majority of Platoon WOs and up should know that the process exists and while they might not be familiar with it, they know to ask questions.  If supervisors are noting deficiencies on new pieces of kit they should be documenting them and sending them up the chain.  A briefing note with a cover letter from a unit CO to the brigade carries a lot of weight. 

 

[dapaterson]

EITS: Your #3 is directly related to the immortal question of why raincoats and toques are incompatible; in other words, the 'possum was right.

 

[MJP]

This is where I have a bit of an issue. The UCR process is something most people know very little of,  I didn't know about it for at least half my career and know I know about it but I am still pretty fuzzy on the details. For example,  the post just above was the first time I heard of a website.

If I send my C7 into a weapons tech because it doesn't work right,  is it my job to do something about it or the weapons tech who has seen a hundred with the same problem? If a pilot says the new radar isn't working,  is it his job or the AVS techs job to raise the issue to be fixed?

I don't want to completely throw supply techs under the bus because I know of they have to do as they are told too but if every supply tech in the CF has seen dozens of people complain about problems with boots why does the user, who probably knows next to nothing about UCRs and the supply system, who needs to do the work? If I am working in Ottawa and I see a UCR from Cpl Bloggins from 7 Unicorn Battalion complaining about his boots,  it is easy to write off as soldiers bitching about kit.  However,  when I get a UCR from Sgt Bloggins, NCO clothing at CFB Shilo, describing the common faults seen by his section over the hundreds of boot fittings they have done,  it carries more weight. Am I wrong in having this opinion? It seems like supply techs are the perfect people to tackle issues involving kit. I can't even think it is because all they do is sit in cushy offices all day because supply techs do go in the field or to sea even if they don't have the same level of suck as the Cbt arms.

The real weight behind changing anything is command pressure full stop.  It is amazing how fast some things change once commanders get involved.  As an aside, there is a Tech reporting mechanism on the UCR site but I have never used it, but from my understanding it is for techs of all natures to ID mechanical issues on equipment

To address your points I feel the UCR process is for units and individuals to display their dissatisfaction with a piece of kit or aspects thereof.  By downloading that responsibility to another agency is IMHO just another way of getting out of doing any real work.  By doing your own UCR(s) or hell even multiple ones on the same piece of kit and getting the Chain of Command on board with their comments (there is a section for substantiation that can be filled out by any number of people) lends more weight than any non-user ever could.  Besides the Supply Tech/AVS/Wpns tech only knows that something has failed to work properly.  The actual end user that experienced that failure know in what conditions the item failed or is lacking and what is required to bring it up to speed.  A Tech of any nature most likely won't have those details or knowledge of every particular job to do a UCR justice.  FWIW I don't say that the end user should be the one to write it because it would be my folks and I want to shelter them from work.  I have been in your shoes and put my money where my mouth is and wrote numerous UCRs to highlight our sometimes shitty kit.  I can honestly say that doing them with several peers, we came up with better write ups and justification than any supporter could because we knew what we wanted our kit to do and be. 

 

[TCM621]

The real weight behind changing anything is command pressure full stop.  It is amazing how fast some things change once commanders get involved.  As an aside, there is a Tech reporting mechanism on the UCR site but I have never used it, but from my understanding it is for techs of all natures to ID mechanical issues on equipment

To address your points I feel the UCR process is for units and individuals to display their dissatisfaction with a piece of kit or aspects thereof.  By downloading that responsibility to another agency is IMHO just another way of getting out of doing any real work.  By doing your own UCR(s) or hell even multiple ones on the same piece of kit and getting the Chain of Command on board with their comments (there is a section for substantiation that can be filled out by any number of people) lends more weight than any non-user ever could.  Besides the Supply Tech/AVS/Wpns tech only knows that something has failed to work properly.  The actual end user that experienced that failure know in what conditions the item failed or is lacking and what is required to bring it up to speed.  A Tech of any nature most likely won't have those details or knowledge of every particular job to do a UCR justice.  FWIW I don't say that the end user should be the one to write it because it would be my folks and I want to shelter them from work.  I have been in your shoes and put my money where my mouth is and wrote numerous UCRs to highlight our sometimes shitty kit.  I can honestly say that doing them with several peers, we came up with better write ups and justification than any supporter could because we knew what we wanted our kit to do and be.

My post wasn't to take the responsibility of the end user as much as it was a question of the appearance of a lack of a GAF on the supply side. The idea that supply knows it is a problem and sympathize but until the end user does a  UCR it is not their problem. I don't want to point at people like you,  ArmyVern or Bindra because I know that you guys do GAF but at the end of the day the Supply Techs job is to get the right kit in the hands of the end user.  The claim that " I have heard a million complaints about the TAV but only 5 UCRs are written"  is a bit of a cop out,  wouldn't you say? If you hear a million complaints,  then do you staff up reports on the feedback you are getting from the end user? It seems to me that the supply chain is definitely an important route to take these issues up the chain.

Basically I am talking data points. When dealing with bureaucrats nothing sells like charts and spreadsheets.  Not many people will UCR tightness at the arch of the foot,  so you won't get the numbers to make a difference.  However,  80% of supply sections are reporting that arch tightness is a common issue amongst end users might get traction? Maybe this is done already,  I am not a supply tech so I don't know.  Maybe the CF needs to put a survey up on the DIN, I don't know.

I would like to give a little props to supply though,  just so they don't think they are being picked on all the time.  A good supply tech is worth their weight in gold and whiskey and sometimes we don't tell them when they are doing a great job.

 

[McG]

I don't want to completely throw supply techs under the bus because I know of they have to do as they are told too but if every supply tech in the CF has seen dozens of people complain about problems with boots why does the user, who probably knows next to nothing about UCRs and the supply system, who needs to do the work? If I am working in Ottawa and I see a UCR from Cpl Bloggins from 7 Unicorn Battalion complaining about his boots,  it is easy to write off as soldiers bitching about kit.  However,  when I get a UCR from Sgt Bloggins, NCO clothing at CFB Shilo, describing the common faults seen by his section over the hundreds of boot fittings they have done,  it carries more weight. Am I wrong in having this opinion?

You are wrong.  The perspective from Ottawa will be that if it is not important enough for a single user/operator to document his/her concern with the kit, then it is clearly not important enough to consume staff effort.  Just because a supply tech has listened to hundreds of infantrymen whine about a particular piece of kit does not make that supply tech best qualified to communicate the operator perspective to the technical authority.

So if it matters to you, then you need to do the leg work and communicate your perspective.

Every UCR goes through the source unit's UCR coordinator (from my experience, this is usually somebody in maintenance and not supply) who gives an element of chain of command support.  Nothing stops units from passing the UCR through other technical or operator SMEs either. So, for example, an Army unit could have all UCRs receive comment (as "additional substantiation") from the originating sub-unit's sergeant major before those UCRs are forwarded to Ottawa by the UCR Coord.

As an aside, there is a Tech reporting mechanism on the UCR site but I have never used it, but from my understanding it is for techs of all natures to ID mechanical issues on equipment

Yes.  The TFR is used when something has failed in unusual, unexpected, or spectacular way and when the failure of something may suggest a fleet wide problem.  Techs will do both UCR and TFR, but they write from the perspective of a repairman.  If something is incapable to perform its job while fully serviceable, that most likely becomes a user/operator generated UCR.