United States Army tightens rules on hair, tattoos, makeup

[jollyjacktar]

I for one, won't be nitpicking anyone about headdress on or off in their POMV.  If I start, it'll be time to get posted to Esquimault.

 

[smale436]

"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 recall a person in another platoon during BMQ who had many tattoos. During PT I noticed on his leg he had a swastika however over top of it there was a red circle and diagonal line. (Like on a no left turn traffic sign) The symbol was still visible. I don't know, nor did I care to know, what if any activities or organizations he might have been part of or if he got the symbol and red slash/circle at the same time. Never saw him again and I think he released afterward. I wondered at the time had he remained in the CF what course of action would occur the way it had that red circle/line.

 

[Occam]

Well, this has turned into quite the dog's breakfast.

Looking over the entire discussion, we've had members (including senior personnel) state:

- that members shall be clean shaven to go on base, regardless of reason, on duty or not;

- that members shall be clean shaven if they are conducting business on the base, such as attending the orderly room, MIR, etc.

- that members shall always wear headdress in a PMV

- that members shall only wear headdress in a PMV if it doesn't interfere with the operation of the vehicle

- that members don't need to wear headdress in a PMV at all

When I asked nerf herder for the reference about being clean shaven, it wasn't trolling - it was to find out what reference he was going to cite.  Nerf herder eventually elaborated somewhat by stating "Base Standing Orders".  Which Base Standing Orders?  Esquimalt?  Winnipeg?  Edmonton?  Gagetown?  Because I can assure you if you look at the Base Standing Orders at 10 different bases, you're going to find at least 7 different interpretations on dress policy.  There's something seriously wrong with that.

The whole issue with the headdress in a PMV got me curious.  The previously quoted paragraph has been present in the CFP 265 since at least the 1995-09-26 version, because I have it here if anyone wants to take a look at it.  The only significant change since then has been to add "(4) in a staff car, PMV or bus.", and that was in the 2001-06-15 version of the CFP 265, Change 2 dated 2003-02-13.  We made it all the way through four more changes to that version of the pub, and a completely new version of the CFP 265 dated 2011-06-01.  If there had been a typo in that para, I'm sure it would've been picked up somewhere in the last 16+ years.  It's just horribly written and leaves everything open to interpretation.

Which brings me to the next issue:  I may have missed something over the last 26 years, but where does a Base-level commander get the authority to contradict National dress policy?  That's absolutely ludicrous to even suggest.  The Foreword and Chapter 1 explicitly spell out that A-DH-265-000/AG-001 is "issued on authority of the Chief of Defence Staff" and "supersedes all dress policy and rules previously issued as a manual, supplement, order, or instruction" with a few notable exceptions, none of which are salient to this discussion.  Chapter 1 para 2 and 4 spell it out pretty clearly on whose authority the dress manual is issued, and whose permission is required to make changes to this policy.  The only delegated authority is to Commanders of Commands who are authorized to issue rules for the design and wear of their respective operational dress.  Nowhere do I see anything granting Base or Unit-level authorities permission to contradict National dress policy.  If I'm wrong on this, I'm open to someone showing me the appropriate regs.  Never once did I see a Base Chief of CFB Halifax contradict CFP 265; I saw them expand on it, or clarify it such as saying blue jeans are never acceptable civilian dress while on duty.

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.

Damn good point, I was wondering the same thing myself yesterday when this all started.  QR&O 17.02 says "The dress and appearance of officers and non-commissioned members shall on all occasions be such as to reflect credit on the Service".  On all occasions, to me, means all the time, anytime.  So if your boss shows up at your door at 0900 on a Sunday morning and you haven't shaved since Friday morning, should you be doing the hatless dance?  Certain people here are going to say "No, Occam, don't be ridiculous, that's not how it's supposed to be interpreted".  But according to the letter of the law, you're a discredit to the CF because you look like a bag of crap - it doesn't matter that you're in your basement playing Xbox.  That's the big problem - there's grey area, and instead of handing a grey area off to a national level to make a policy on it, we have 26 different policies across the country.

All that to say:  Is it any bloody wonder that Pte Bloggins doesn't know if he needs to shave or not, or throw on casual pants and a collared shirt instead of jeans and a tee in order to pay a visit to the Canex to buy a chocolate bar, or whether he needs to leave a beret on his head when he jumps in his car to drive home?  Clearly it's a serious enough issue for senior leadership to get bent out of shape over perceived disrespect for dress policy.  Maybe senior leadership should strive to write dress policy that isn't open to interpretation 26 different ways depending on which base/unit/element you belong to.

 

[Container]

"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 recall a person in another platoon during BMQ who had many tattoos. During PT I noticed on his leg he had a swastika however over top of it there was a red circle and diagonal line. (Like on a no left turn traffic sign) The symbol was still visible. I don't know, nor did I care to know, what if any activities or organizations he might have been part of or if he got the symbol and red slash/circle at the same time. Never saw him again and I think he released afterward. I wondered at the time had he remained in the CF what course of action would occur the way it had that red circle/line.

I believe I know that guy. Was he Navy? He did release- I was in the kitchen at the time he received that tattoo....in a guys PMQ....it always had the "no" red circle and line (this was a fewe years before he joined the forces). It has since been covered up.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Headdress on or off it doesn't matter.....as long as said member has it on when he/she steps out of said PMV....

 

[jollyjacktar]

Headdress on or off it doesn't matter.....as long as said member has it on when he/she steps out of said PMV....

Ohhhh don't go and start talking sense here.  The committee with too much time on their hands have eyes and ears everywhere. 

 

[Ex-SHAD]

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.

Probably the most common sense answer I've ever heard on this issue. Now I wish that some 1st Sgt's(a majority actually) would actually go out of their way to punish those who have ACU's that look like a white sheet with little blocks on it.

 

[Towards_the_gap]

I've been watching this thread with interest, and have yet to comment on it. As most who know me on here will attest, I am on the liberal side of the fence when it comes to dress and deportment, namely sideburns, non-issued kit and no boot-bands.

But on this I have to state, I fully agree, we are a professional body, and a certain standard must be kept. But in regards to the last argument, re headdress and POMV, I have to poise this question: what operational or institutional effect will a soldier, not wearing headdress on a base in his car, have on the CF? Will Joe civvy see Cpl Bloggins drive past, head bare for all to see, and immediately think 'Dear God, since when did we let this mob of rapists and bandits defend our country?' I should think not. Our razzman has  a bee in his bonnet about wearing headdress in POMV while on base, so I toe the party line and wear it, but once I'm past that gate it gets whipped into the back seat.

Perhaps for once the dress regs actually contained some common sense when they said 'you don't need to wear headdress when you're driving your car'.

 

[buzgo]

You all missed something from the pub:


b. When headdress has been removed in accordance with the provisions of thepreceding sub-paragraph, it shall be replaced:

(1) when approaching and leaving a military establishment; and

(2) immediately upon exiting a military vehicle or PMV

So you can drive your car without a hat on, but not on the base...

 

[aesop081]

You all missed something from the pub:

Thanks for that.

In that case, i will continue to assume that troops not wearing theirs on base are doing so for safety reasons, until someone gives me a good reason to believe the contrary.

I would rather do that then go around assuming that everyone is violating orders just because they don't like it. You tend to get better out of people when you treat them like adults.

 

[Good2Golf]

Okay, we've pretty much run that one around the block, both the original topic and the tangent.  If someone has a meaningful addition to add, PM a mod.

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[The Bread Guy]

Bump with the latest - highlights mine....

In the works for more than a year, strict new rules governing things like tattoos and grooming for soldiers have been approved by the Secretary of the Army and are only awaiting a final signature, Sgt. Maj. of the Army Raymond Chandler said Saturday.

Speaking to troops at bases in eastern Afghanistan, Chandler said Secretary John McHugh has approved but not yet officially put his name to the changes to Army Regulation 670-1.

“We’re just waiting for the secretary to sign,” Chandler said during a town hall meeting with soldiers from the 4th Combat Brigade Team, 10th Mountain Division, at Forward Operating Base Gamberi. He made similar remarks to troops at FOB Fenty in Jalalabad.

The regulations cover things such as tattoos, grooming, and uniforms and apply only to soldiers. Other branches of the military have their own grooming and appearance rules.

Chandler said he expects the changes to become policy in 30 to 60 days.

Media reports last year identified potential changes to rules governing things such as make-up and fingernail polish, hair styles, body piercings, and the length of sideburns, among other items. Chandler, however, only confirmed changes to the policy on tattoos.

Under the new policy, new recruits will not be allowed to have tattoos that show below the elbows and knees or above the neckline, Chandler told troops. Current soldiers may be grandfathered in, but all soldiers will still be barred from having any tattoos that are racist, sexist or extremist.

Once the rules are implemented, soldiers will sit down with their unit leaders and “self identify” each tattoo. Soldiers will be required to pay for the removal of any tattoo that violates the policy, Chandler said ....

 

[OldSolduer]

I see an opportunity for a new command:

Tattoosrus.com

;D

 

[medicineman]

I see an opportunity for a new command:

Tattoosrus.com

;D

Populated entirely by Sgt's Maj?

MM

 

[OldSolduer]

Populated entirely by Sgt's Maj?

MM

Nope, keen young Sgts and WOs.

 

[GAP]

Tattoos have changed.

It used to be on the arms, some body, but full sleeve, neck, facial tattoos were frowned on generally....

that seems to have changed to the point that there are some really inappropriate/ugly tattoos are flourishing.....all with not a wit of understanding of what they are going to look like 20+ years down the road....

 

[Journeyman]

.....all with not a wit of understanding of what they are going to look like 20+ years down the road....

Yes, but the whole generation will be aging along with them and having spent their lives watching the ink age and sag, won't see anything out of place with them.

:dunno: