Posted on Jul 28, 2019
Are two braids (female) prohibited in the Army regulation for appearance AR 670-1?
98K
86
20
4
4
0
So for years I’ve been wearing my hair I’m two braids (that’s one single part down the middle of my head and all of my hair secured in two braids on each side and i tie them together in the back) and every once in a while a get an NCO that tells me that it’s out of regulation, I ask How and i always get the same answer “Go look up the regulation” at this point i have it memorized and still do not for the life of me understand how it is prohibited. Can someone help me out with an actual explanation?
Posted in these groups: 
The Standard
Regulation
The Standard Regulation
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 7
14
14
0
AR 670-1 and the presentation for "clarification" on the G1 website (provided in a comment) appear to contradict each other.
The presentation says more than 2 and approximately 1/4" in diameter in the reference to braids.
AR 670-1 doesn't state more than 2 when referring to braids, and states diameter shouldn't exceed 1/2".
Both state ends secured with inconspicuous rubber bands, so tying the ends appears to be contrary to the regulation.
If the 2 braids don't exceed 1/2" in diameter, AND the ends are secured with inconspicuous rubber bands, AND meet the bulk and other requirements, my interpretation is it would be authorized.
My interpretation has zero real world value.
Your commander is whose interpretation matters.
I dislike NCOs or officers who respond with look it up. An on-the-spot correction isn't meant to intimidate, but to teach/instruct what the deficiency is, and what is correct.
The presentation says more than 2 and approximately 1/4" in diameter in the reference to braids.
AR 670-1 doesn't state more than 2 when referring to braids, and states diameter shouldn't exceed 1/2".
Both state ends secured with inconspicuous rubber bands, so tying the ends appears to be contrary to the regulation.
If the 2 braids don't exceed 1/2" in diameter, AND the ends are secured with inconspicuous rubber bands, AND meet the bulk and other requirements, my interpretation is it would be authorized.
My interpretation has zero real world value.
Your commander is whose interpretation matters.
I dislike NCOs or officers who respond with look it up. An on-the-spot correction isn't meant to intimidate, but to teach/instruct what the deficiency is, and what is correct.
(14)
(0)
CPT Lawrence Cable
I agree. NCO's should use the 1st Sgt. at Sabalauski Air Assault when I went through. First formation, he gigged me for a non regulation mustache. Then he clarified that tomorrow he wanted it trimmed up just like his.
He was clean shaven, of course. But I didn't need further instructions or to look it up either.
He was clean shaven, of course. But I didn't need further instructions or to look it up either.
(4)
(0)
1SG Thomas Jasak
awesome response especially about on the spot used for teaching/instructing not intimidating
(2)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Not specifically “Tied together” But secured with a black hair tie behind my head.
(2)
(0)
9
9
0
The other comments have provided you with their interpretation of the regs. My advice would be to not start an argument with the NCO, but ask for verification from your chain of command. The best response is always, "Roger Sergeant, I have reviewed the regulation with my platoon sergeant, and I they determined that I am in compliance, if you disagree with their interpretation I would be glad to have you sit down with us and see where the disconnect is". Your efforts to understand the regulatory guidelines are admirable, now as a future NCO your duty is to connect people with knowledge.
(9)
(0)
MAJ Byron Oyler
Roger Sergeant, I have reviewed the regulation with my platoon sergeant, and they determined that I am in compliance, if you disagree with their interpretation I would be glad to have you sit down with us and see where the disconnect is".-----BEST ADVISE yet!
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
I feel your pain. I wear glasses. I was 111121. My glasses were Tri-Focal. The Army (1975ish) would not make them but I had authorization to have them made off-post at my expense. The doctors had them special made at a facility. In those days there was no light-weight glass.
So I got four pairs - two wire frames for social and two batman goggle types that used head-straps, worn with the gas mask. What could go wrong?
"Only aviators are allowed Wireframes, SSG!";
"Batman! - Na, na, na, NAW!!!" (It was pretty funny, but I got tired of telling it.)";
"You are not to wear your field glasses except in the field - get out of PT Formation!" (only happened the one time as my CSM had a talk with my shiny new 2LT);
Speak with your CO & 1SG. If they agree then that's all you have to say.
Your CO decides, 1SG enforces. God be with you.
So I got four pairs - two wire frames for social and two batman goggle types that used head-straps, worn with the gas mask. What could go wrong?
"Only aviators are allowed Wireframes, SSG!";
"Batman! - Na, na, na, NAW!!!" (It was pretty funny, but I got tired of telling it.)";
"You are not to wear your field glasses except in the field - get out of PT Formation!" (only happened the one time as my CSM had a talk with my shiny new 2LT);
Speak with your CO & 1SG. If they agree then that's all you have to say.
Your CO decides, 1SG enforces. God be with you.
(4)
(0)
SFC Ralph E Kelley
1SG (Join to see) - I used the glasses for years with zero leaks at the annual CBR (later NBC) Training. My problem was the army would only make single and bi-focal inserts. Maybe with the thinner glass they have now they can do the deal w/inserts.
(1)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
SFC Ralph E Kelley Not leaking during a chamber exercise is likely why Soldiers thought it made them safe to wear.
Bifocal inserts were available during that era, but the effort required to obtain them, and the (poor) quality, led to 70% of Soldiers who required them, not having them, according to a 1977 Army survey. (As quoted by Rengstorff, Problems with Optical Inserts in Military Protective Masks, ~1980)
Those glasses became very popular. They were offered for sale as "Ranger" glasses, and sellers advertised them as being authorized for wear with the protective mask.
Soldiers being Soldiers said, "Nothing says they aren't authorized for wear," and they were advertised as authorized.
Then, then came the obligatory message stating they weren't authorized, as memory serves, that was mid-90s, which was post your time period.
I didnt take over my first NBC room until 1985, and the effort required to obtain inserts remained a problem.
Bifocal inserts were available during that era, but the effort required to obtain them, and the (poor) quality, led to 70% of Soldiers who required them, not having them, according to a 1977 Army survey. (As quoted by Rengstorff, Problems with Optical Inserts in Military Protective Masks, ~1980)
Those glasses became very popular. They were offered for sale as "Ranger" glasses, and sellers advertised them as being authorized for wear with the protective mask.
Soldiers being Soldiers said, "Nothing says they aren't authorized for wear," and they were advertised as authorized.
Then, then came the obligatory message stating they weren't authorized, as memory serves, that was mid-90s, which was post your time period.
I didnt take over my first NBC room until 1985, and the effort required to obtain inserts remained a problem.
(2)
(0)
SFC Ralph E Kelley
1SG (Join to see) - Good to hear the history. I can see where they would have an issue in the rough and tumble of a run, dodge, jump fight.
(1)
(0)
Capt Michael Wilford
Sometimes we use the letter of the law to spite the spirit of the law, even now.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google