The brown Temperate Combat Boot (AKA: Mk IV Cbt Boot) - No longer CADPAT

[DirtyDog]

Before I went on pre-training for Afghanistan I had the foresight to get a boot chit to allow me to wear my Lowa's from the M.O. The pre-training was being run by 1 RCR and sure enough the first day that we were on the ranges I was confronted by the platoon warrant and told that as per the D.S I wasn't allowed to wear them. It was at that point that I presented him with my laminated boot chit. I agree it maybe  an extreme length to go to but I knew it would be necessary because of my past experience with the RcR.

When was this?  In 7 years I've never even heard a mention of boots... and some people push the limits pretty hard.

 

[DirtyDog]

Someone needs to let Clothing Stores at Kingston know that, it was mentioned while I was trying on my "custom" desert boots.

Well their idiots and who cares what they say.  I have more than a couple of friends walking around on pricey prosthetics who weren't wearing issue kit at the time of their injuries.

 

[DirtyDog]

Can we not agree that the use of non-issue kit is the least of the CF's concerns? The CF is faced with significant budget cuts and should probably be more focused on how those will be implemented as opposed to what boots a soldier chooses to wear. I would have thought that the lessons learned in Afghanistan would have reinforced the use of non issue kit and eliminated any debates over it's use.

Well, when it come to boots anyway... I really don't understand where this is an issue.  I've never been anywhere in the last 7 years, other than basic training, where a single person once mentioned anything about non-issued boots.

If it's a problem in Quebec, I guess that's because, well, Quebec.

 

[x_para76]

That would be great if the only issued kit that was lacking was the boots.

 

[armyvern]

...

So, on the one hand we have RSM's telling us ''Ottawa says the surgeon general said issue boots for all'' and the next day I see a Major General visiting my course wearing Original Swats.

I have had many an RSM in my career and I have yet to hear a single RSM mention the Surgeon General in any statement regarding what is/is not appropriate footwear or it's policy for wear.  I too, as a former CSM, have never passed along such a statement to my pers.

 

[armyvern]

Someone needs to let Clothing Stores at Kingston know that, it was mentioned while I was trying on my "custom" desert boots.

I'll call them tomorrow; already had to call them once today.  Sigh.  LSS Kingston --- please career gawds NEVER post me to that place!

:facepalm:

 

[armyvern]

The CoC doesn't have the power to override a medical chit. They may go to the source and question it, but unless they hold a medical degree, they have no business countermanding what a MO says.

I'd also take the RSM comments about what the 'Surgeon General' had to say without a reference.

You are correct; there is no change to the medical requirement for footwear - and clothing will purchase footwear for chitted personnel; this purchased footwear is then placed onto their clothing docs and legally becomes their "issued footwear".

The only thing that has changed is that the medical system is no longer supposed to be writing "specific brand name" boots.  IE: "Buy this mbr Swats" --- it is now supposed to be "Mbr requires LPOd footwear due to medical issue" or "Mbr requires LPOd, mesh-sided footwear due to medical issues" etc etc.

 

[Jarnhamar]

The chain of command really needs to stop using the "you won't be covered" boogyman explanation for various things and leaders need to start challenging the veracity of such statements.

 

[armyvern]

Absolutely. I've never seen a reference, or heard a reference but have had numerous supply techs spread the myth along all without documentation. I'm not a confrontational guy, so I normally just nod and smile, but one day I'll ask someone to prove it.

Wow. I is one and I've never heard a Sup tech say such a thing.  I will however, call clothing supervisor here tomorrow and let him know what one of his staff apparently told you and will ask him to speak to his staff and put an end to the perpetuation of such myths.

 

[PMedMoe]

and clothing will purchase footwear for chitted personnel; this purchased footwear is then placed onto their clothing docs and legally becomes their "issued footwear".

Until someone in clothing pulls it off your docs and says it needs to be reviewed every two years.  :

 

[armyvern]

Until someone in clothing pulls it off your docs and says it needs to be reviewed every two years.  :

That actually comes from the CFMOs; it is not a Sup policy, but a medical one.  Same as the no-shave chits needing to be reviewed/done annualy now.  I put that CFMO ref up here years ago now so it's somewhere on the site already.

 

[PMedMoe]

I no longer give a shit about boots or chits.  I'll hang onto my old and improved (by me) combat boots, my one pair of issued Magnums and my (personally purchased) desert boots.  At least I won't have to bitch about the new ones!   

BTW, there are no CFMOs anymore. 

 

[x_para76]

I find it amusing that we even have to have this conversation. In the Para's there was little if no restriction on our choice of footwear. This flexibility extended to most field kit too including webbing, rucksack, and most other tactical kit. We had the benefit of having officers and Snr Nco's still serving with the battalion who had served in the Falkands and were painfully aware that much of the kit that is issued by the army is woefully inadequate compared to what can be privately purchased.

 

[armyvern]

...

BTW, there are no CFMOs anymore. 

So what are they called these days?  Anyway - their policy vice a Sup one.

 

[armyvern]

I find it amusing that we even have to have this conversation. In the Para's there was little if no restriction on our choice of footwear. This flexibility extended to most field kit too including webbing, rucksack, and most other tactical kit. We had the benefit of having officers and Snr Nco's still serving with the battalion who had served in the Falkands and were painfully aware that much of the kit that is issued by the army is woefully inadequate compared to what can be privately purchased.

Well, this is Canada and the CF isn't "the Paras" just in case anyone is tracking.  You've almost got me forgetting where we are and it's a whole different political fight over here with procurement laws.

 

[OldSolduer]

I have had many an RSM in my career and I have yet to hear a single RSM mention the Surgeon General in any statement regarding what is/is not appropriate footwear or it's policy for wear.  I too, as a former CSM, have never passed along such a statement to my pers.

The Surgeon General isn't the CDS nor is he the Army Comd.

Whatever RSM said this....if he/she in fact did, pulled out of their butts.

 

[armyvern]

The Surgeon General isn't the CDS nor is he the Army Comd.

Whatever RSM said this....if he/she in fact did, pulled out of their butts.

Agreed.

 

[PMedMoe]

So what are they called these days?

P&Gs (Policy and Guidance).  Someone just cut and paste the CFMOs into new documents.  I should apply for that position for my retirement job.  ;D

 

[x_para76]

It really had very little to do with procurement and more a case of the powers that be recognizing that the purchase and use of aftermarket kit was not the transgression that certain elements of the CF make it out to be. I've had the fortune of serving on Op's with both militaries and was really taken aback by the rigid adhesion to issued kit by certain command elements of the CF.

 

[armyvern]

P&Gs (Policy and Guidance).  Someone just cut and paste the CFMOs into new documents.  I should apply for that position for my retirement job.  ;D

Yes!! Worth a Mastered in "Leading Change" and "Initiative" for them I bet!!