Posted on Nov 25, 2024
CW2 Information Protection Technician
1.17K
8
7
2
2
0
SSI-MOHC TDY GWOT-EM ?

QFTG: A former soldier of mine, recently received information/ guidance that they're now authorized to wear the SSI MOHC from our former unit. Based on the following criteria:

-1610 (TDY ISO/ detailed location etc.)
-IDP
-Awarded GWOT-EM
-ISO a named OP.

I countered with the latest AR 670-1 pg 43-44 reference. But, him and I have been told yes( bc aforementioned ) no (no czte) and not sure. Wondering if anyone in the group has had similar experiences and or input to a way ahead. Thanks for any and all feedback.
Posted in these groups: Tdy stay sign TDY9c313be8 IDP (Imminent Danger Pay)
Avatar feed
Responses: 1
SGM G3 Sergeant Major
2
2
0
The correct answer is still AR 670-1. ch 21-18.
Specifically c. (20):"Future operations: Combatant commanders may request wear of the SSI – MOHC for future areas of operation designated and approved by the CSA."

If your deployment is not listed there, then the GCC must submit it for CSA approval.

If the aforementioned guidance included that CSA approval, then yes.
If not, then no.
(2)
Comment
(0)
SGM G3 Sergeant Major
SGM (Join to see)
2 d
CW2 (Join to see) - If that person was on orders (TDY or TCS) to a country listed in AR 670-1, and arrived in that country, yes.

If that country is not in AR 670-1 yet, then the GCC would have to submit that country, with justification and effective dates, to the CSA for approval.
(1)
Reply
(0)
CW2 Information Protection Technician
CW2 (Join to see)
24 h
I see, so only countries listed in AR for the designated operation are eligible for SSI Mohc. Which does not include countries that sub operations take place in? Appreciate all and any feedback!
(1)
Reply
(0)
SGM G3 Sergeant Major
SGM (Join to see)
23 h
CW2 (Join to see) - That is correct.

For what it's worth, we have some Soldiers on TCS orders in direct support of all the main operations going on today, and they are "deployed" to Maryland, Georgia and southern California...
(1)
Reply
(0)
COL Randall C.
COL Randall C.
5 h
SGM (Join to see) - However, for full context (since the discussion is about SSI-MOHC), I don't think you're suggesting that they would be eligible based on their CONUS deployment, correct?
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close