Does the military need to dispose of antiquated "uniformity" in lieu of more individual expression?

CSM Mike Maynard — Wed, 01 Jan 2014 07:38:12 -0500

An article focused mainly on Indian-Americans was recently published where the discussion turned to changing policies (grooming, wear of uniform, etc) to allow more folks to join without comprising their religious practices/beliefs.<div><br></div><div>Without focusing on specific religions, but focused mainly on grooming and uniform standards, does the military need to dispose of antiquated "uniformity" in lieu of more individual expression?</div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://www.indiawest.com/news/15912-sikh-soldiers-want-more-indian-americans-in-u-s-army.html#kaxMGk112xXGCIbO.99">http://www.indiawest.com/news/15912-sikh-soldiers-want-more-indian-americans-in-u-s-army.html#kaxMGk112xXGCIbO.99</a><br></div><div><br></div><div class="pta-link-card"><div class="pta-link-card-picture"><img src="http://www.indiawest.com/indiawest_cms/gall_content/2013/12/2013_12$largeimg229_Dec_2013_102644053.jpg"></div><div class="pta-link-card-content"><div class="pta-link-card-title"><a target="_blank" href="http://www.indiawest.com/news/15912-sikh-soldiers-want-more-indian-americans-in-u-s-army.html">Sikh Soldiers Want More Indian Americans in U.S. Army</a></div><div class="pta-link-card-description">The United States should change its policy to allow more Indian Americans to join the military without compromising on their religious beliefs and practices, the only three Sikh soldiers in the U.S. A...</div></div><div style="clear:both"></div><div class="pta-box-hide"><i class="icon-remove"></i></div></div>

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 1 at 2014 9:52 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Jan 2014 09:52:29 -0500

CSM,<div>I think the last thing the Army needs is to abandon uniformity in favor of individual expression. We already have droves of new recruits coming into the Army with a sense of entitlement and an inflated sense of self. Uniformity is the foundation of obedience and the abandonment of your individuality that is necessary to follow orders in combat. Uniformity may be a small thing, but the more disciplined a unit is in doing the little things, the more disciplined and effective that unit will be on the battlefield. The argument that Indian Americans have to compromise their religious beliefs and practices is illogical. That's a form of free speech under the First Amendment, but free speech is curtailed all the time! Especially in the military! The Army is not selectively restricting people's right to practice religion and dress the way their religion requires them to. The Army sets a neutral standard of uniformity for all Soldiers, which means that it is not discriminatory. Sure, in effect, many Indian Americans might be discouraged from joining, but so might many from the Amish community. The Army has a legitimate reason for requiring uniformity and it should not be forced to abandon it because some people might be less inclined to sign up.</div>

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 1 at 2014 9:53 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Jan 2014 09:53:02 -0500

I think the problem becomes definitions. It is much easier to define "clean shaven" than "neatly maintained facial hair." Picture Seneca Crane's beard from the Hunger Games; is that Ok? http://stylenews.peoplestylewatch.com/2012/03/15/hunger-games-wes-bentley-seneca-crane-beard/

Even saying that people can do things as dictated by their religion, which religions? What about sects of mainstream religions? Can Jews grow Payot (long curly sideburns)? And if so, can everyone? Why not? In my mind, it is either permitted or not.

The problem is when you cannot provide exact definitions, the interpretation comes down to the leadership...and at what level? Even the "trendy hairstyles" phrasing has caused problems. Appeals and IG complaints about grooming judgement calls are a waste of resources.

My opinion is that there was a time when Soldiers could be trusted to, well, have a desire to look like Soldiers. That is gone, frankly. The current grooming standards are a reflection of this problem.

Why Wes Bentley's 'Hunger Games' Beard Drew Stares Off Set | People.com

The actor's look took three hours to create each morning...

Response by PO2 Pete Haga made Jan 1 at 2014 5:47 PM

PO2 Pete Haga — Wed, 01 Jan 2014 17:47:49 -0500

We had a discussion on RP about a month ago concern a gay couple not being allowed to go on a couples retreat because the Chaplin said it was against his religious belief to allow them to attend. Accordingly the Military needs to keep the uniformity in place is the way I feel because the recommended response to that issue was that you cannot allow your religious beliefs to come into your decision making process. If you allow a group to standout from the rest of the force just due to Religious beliefs where do you draw the line would it be a special unit for each religious belief!

Response by SrA Eric Olsen made Jan 1 at 2014 6:35 PM

SrA Eric Olsen — Wed, 01 Jan 2014 18:35:35 -0500

Individual expression is for civilian clothes not uniforms. Uniforms bring a sense of belonging of being part of something bigger than the individual and of unity. Changing that could have far reaching negative consequences.

Response by SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 1 at 2014 6:39 PM

SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Jan 2014 18:39:12 -0500

Nope, uniformity all the way.

Response by SGT Tommy Silvas made Jan 1 at 2014 6:55 PM

SGT Tommy Silvas — Wed, 01 Jan 2014 18:55:11 -0500

You have got to be kidding me, this must be a joke.

Response by 2LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 1 at 2014 6:55 PM

2LT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Jan 2014 18:55:17 -0500

CSM, what many of those that would suggest a loosening of grooming requirements forget is that the US Soldier is an ambassador. Not only an ambassador in other nations, but one that works with and exists among the American public. Our appearance as a professional is important not only to maintaining discipline within our own ranks, but also maintaining our image in the United States public opinion. Americans think of the "Soldier" of the US Army and see crisp uniforms, berets and hats set in perfect alignment, clean equipment, and physically fit service members. Thus for multiple reasons, our image as professionals is important. Also, the question of allowing a religion privileges that others may not be allowed would be discriminatory as well. As CPT Wolfer stated, "In my mind, it is either permitted or not. " Service members should take pride in their uniforms and what it reflects about themselves as a person, not seek to alter it to stand out from the crowd.

Response by CPT Ray Doeksen made Jan 1 at 2014 6:57 PM

CPT Ray Doeksen — Wed, 01 Jan 2014 18:57:40 -0500

The wear of the turban, and the prohibition on cutting hair aren't common to all Indians, just Sikhs (a religion, not an ethnic group). <div><br></div><div>Observant Sikhs embody more discipline, a stronger warrior tradition and better (just different) grooming standards than most. I have to admit I was pretty pleased to see that Captain wearing the US flash and his bars on turban. He has, I believe, and individual exception to the policy, and he's got to keep his standards high to retain it. I've seen picture of a camo turban, too. <div><br></div><div>I'm interested to see how things pan out and I wouldn't mind seeing other Sikhs accommodated in a similar fashion. </div><div><br></div><div>A different hat? I think we've gotten way to bent out of shape about hats in the past few years, between the beret, patrol caps, the Marine's fuss over their rumor of adopting a perceived "female" headgear as standard for all, and now this. If he can still get a seal on a mask and wear a kevlar, that's the standard I would not be willing to veer from.</div><div><br></div><div>I expect to be the holder of the contrary and unpopular opinion once again, but I'm in general opposed to relaxing standards for "individual expression" but in favor of granting that Sikh soldier (and probably others like him) individual exceptions to the standard headgear and haircut/facial hair standards.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div>

Response by SPC Dana Bahe made Jan 1 at 2014 7:04 PM

SPC Dana Bahe — Wed, 01 Jan 2014 19:04:50 -0500

Why,?Native American Indians are not able to keep their braids. We're made to cut our hair and the government never cared about our religious beliefs.......And don't to this day.....so why can an Indian American keep their long hair and grow a beard?.....Making a Native Amercan Indian shave even though we had nothing to shave!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!then having to spend the rest of our lives shaving. A comment made by my platoon Sgt, Bahe just because your Indian, do you think you can grow your hair long......my hair was barely touching my Ears. I would have preferred to keep my braids and never shaved, 

Response by CSM James Winslow made Jan 1 at 2014 7:19 PM

CSM James Winslow — Wed, 01 Jan 2014 19:19:16 -0500

No problem There were Sikhs in the Army in the 70's and 80's. Wore turbans. I knew one that was an NBC NCO. When the mask went on the turban came off. The long hair in that event took a bit of getting used to, but he just followed the female standard and it was ok. A standard is a standard and should apply to all equally. Wait- whoa. Did I just say that?

Response by 2LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 1 at 2014 7:23 PM

2LT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Jan 2014 19:23:59 -0500

There are no individuals in the military. Uniformity is a must. How can someone in a leadership position tell someone to correct something if they aren't in uniform with the regulations either.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 1 at 2014 7:28 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Jan 2014 19:28:21 -0500

I think a good way to answer this question, CSM, is to look at the standpoint of why we have uniformity in the first place, which as some previous posters have stated, is to instill discipline and a sense of consistency within the organization.<div><br></div><div>Now, I think we have to look at exceptions to policy in the same way. What are we gaining by making such an exception. Some will look at the Sikh officer and say that if he cannot abide by the regulations we have set forth (which as someone already stated is already an arbitrary creation), that he should not be permitted to serve. But, by allowing him to serve, we are not only making the Army more representative of the United States (in regards to the Ambassadorial role), but we are also gaining a huge asset in a realm or culture that we may not have had the expertise in.</div>

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 1 at 2014 7:28 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Jan 2014 19:28:36 -0500

if you want to look like the enemy, then move back to there country..if I see this is in the military that I serve, I will never wear my uniform with pride. it will have all been taken away as we begin to cater to the enemy and allow them to infiltrate our ranks. absolutely despicable.

Response by SFC Jason Porter made Jan 1 at 2014 8:06 PM

SFC Jason Porter — Wed, 01 Jan 2014 20:06:12 -0500

CSM M<div>From the newly retired aspect, I hate to say it but until NCO's meet the standards and start following and enforcing the regulations and policies that are out there now I would say NO!  The force is not ready. I am a shotgun blaster this a if the shoe fits kind of answer. </div>

Response by Sheyla Acevedo made Jan 1 at 2014 8:20 PM

Sheyla Acevedo — Wed, 01 Jan 2014 20:20:09 -0500

Hell NO!!! If that is the case, then why even bother wearing a uniform! Regardless of religion or nationality everyone that signs up for the military should go by the same rules and regulations! If people are going to be allowed to keep their beards and head dresses, then why bother having any grooming regulation! Just because someone is an officer and of different religion doesn't exempt them... If they can't be uniform with everyone else and respect the American uniform, get he hell out!

Response by 1SG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 1 at 2014 8:53 PM

1SG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Jan 2014 20:53:49 -0500

The Army's mission is to fight and win our Nation’s wars... etc. etc.  With that in mind I suggest that we look to our MoH recipients as examples of grooming standards.  First order of business, NO MORE HIGH AND TIGHTS!  If you want to look like a hero, grow some hair like Audie Murphy!  Second, the only acceptable mustache is a handle-bar like Lew Millett.  NO MORE CHEESY STACHES.  If you think your standards are higher than these two, seek therapy.  http://www.badassoftheweek.com/millett.html<br><br><div class="pta-link-card"><div class="pta-link-card-picture"><img src="http://www.badassoftheweek.com/millett.jpg"></div><div class="pta-link-card-content"><div class="pta-link-card-title"><a target="_blank" href="http://www.badassoftheweek.com/millett.html">Badass of the Week: Lewis Millett</a></div><div class="pta-link-card-description">The ultimate list of all badasses past and present.</div></div><div style="clear:both"></div><div class="pta-box-hide"><i class="icon-remove"></i></div></div>

Response by CW2 Stephen Pate made Jan 1 at 2014 9:54 PM

CW2 Stephen Pate — Wed, 01 Jan 2014 21:54:37 -0500

I think that uniformity is for the benefit of the commander, regardless of what level of command. If you know that all of your troops are uniform across the board then you can apply you forces more accurately, not having to integrate into your planning any more concessions than need be made. Plus, a group of Warriors that are uniform are more intimidating to the enemy in my opinion (with the exception of ODAs and such, I know you have your reasons and wish I could be there with ya!).

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 1 at 2014 10:31 PM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Jan 2014 22:31:17 -0500

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 1 at 2014 10:39 PM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Jan 2014 22:39:40 -0500

Absolutely NOT! There are reasons that the military has standards for uniformity. How many of you have seen a move with an American Actor (Bruce Willis, Samuel L. Jackson, whoever) wearing a US Army uniform and there was something wrong with their uniform, their salute or how they did something? We all have and picked up on those discrepancies right away. Those standards have been engrained in our very fiber from the first day of basic training.

If an enemy combatant tries to put on an American uniform and get across the wire, chances are, there will be something wrong with what they're doing. An American Soldier walks a certain way. We talk a certain way. We salute a certain way and we wear our uniform a certain way. If something is wrong, we'll spot it. That attention to detail will save you and your buddy's life.

CSM Mike Waller

Response by WO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 1 at 2014 11:10 PM

WO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Jan 2014 23:10:30 -0500

Im going to make a religion, get however many followers it takes to be a recognized religion and its policies will include no shaving and no haircuts. Then I will get all my followers to join the Army and make more discussions like this. Another perk is that all my followers would save about $598 a year and countless hours waiting on a haircut.

Think the Army would honor that? NO, OF COURSE THEY WOULDN'T. So why are we making exceptions for a few privileged individuals. If you don't like the Army policy on grooming, don't join, it's that simple. The Army doesn't let Christians stop running missions on Christmas, or the Jewish off mission for Hanukkah, so what is the difference?

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 1 at 2014 11:28 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Jan 2014 23:28:07 -0500

Maintaining uniformity requires discipline (by shaving, getting a haircut, staying trim, not adhering to fads) in an age of no shine boots, no press uniforms, RFI, and RESET, the last thing we need is less discipline.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 1 at 2014 11:28 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Jan 2014 23:28:08 -0500

Response by MAJ Samuel Weber made Jan 1 at 2014 11:32 PM

MAJ Samuel Weber — Wed, 01 Jan 2014 23:32:32 -0500

CSM,

I had a Sikh in my BOLC class. The Army only made the exception because he was dentist. The problem I saw was that because he received "special" treatment" he acted "special". Without going into details, it was detrimental to good order. My last assignment was in a joint command and I was able to see how our coalition brothers/sisters worked. They allowed beards, long hair, relaxed uniform standards and it showed in their work and discipline. The way they spoke to superiors and how well they pulled their weight. For me, it simply proved that we have the best military for a reason. I think we need to focus on the fact that they don't have to serve in the Armed Forces, BUT if hey want to, then they need to conform. I bet if they were offered a Million Dollar a year job but they had to conform to a set standard that was against their "religion or beliefs" then I bet they would do it.......This is just my opinion

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 2 at 2014 12:24 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 02 Jan 2014 00:24:35 -0500

This administration is trying to squeak out as many changes to the military while downsizing it at the same. Every person should look alike, no one is special as far as that is concerned.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 2 at 2014 12:28 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 02 Jan 2014 00:28:30 -0500

I have been in the Army for 17 years, I truly believe that, just as someones religion is a "way of life," the Army is also a way of life...with established roots, history, norms, and policies and procedures put in place in order to provide guidelines to good order and discipline. As it is, the longer I stay in...it seems like the percentage of people with shaving profiles had tripled...but, what cracks me up is too see their DA photo's, or they go to a promotion board....all of the sudden that shaving profile is not important.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 2 at 2014 12:38 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 02 Jan 2014 00:38:57 -0500

CSM,

Honestly to tell you the truth, we do need discipline, but I think giving up individualism which is one of the four core American values as nothing to do with following orders and obedience. I've deployed with Czec soldiers, Jordanians, Canadians, Australians, Kiwi's, Fijians, And they all clearly have a military standard but are still more relaxed then the majority of U.S soldiers. What I see from them is more togetherness, happier soldiers, and more camaraderie, am I saying that we need to all grow beards be individuals etc. not really but our appearance standards whether we have a beard or not does not affect good order and discipline if it did the following mentioned fighting forces would have a problem. In current light of the new changes to the standards I don't think the length of your sideburns matter unless they are very well below the earlobe and a certain thickness. I also don't think it matters if you grow a beard off duty, or what you or your wife choose to wear off duty, as long as it would not bring discredit to yourself and I mean clearly something that should not be worn. I think standards are starting to nit-pick especially on the off duty soldier. I think were already as Army professional as we can get, without a brief case, suit and tie.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 2 at 2014 12:59 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 02 Jan 2014 00:59:33 -0500

670-1 is not about creating or equaling discipline. It's about documenting the STANDARD. These are a particular and set group of rules and guidelines that apply to everyone, not particular individuals. It establishes that everyone is treated the same, not differently, based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion. It is no different than BRM standards when it comes to qualifying, or the APFT. And before anyone would like to argue the differences in that arena, they are purely physiological, and nothing else.

The military is and always has been a private organization, just like any corporation. You must apply and be accepted. You agree to the rules and regulations therein in order to join. If at any time you break, choose not to support the rules and regulations, or no longer meet those qualifications, you can be terminated, or quit.

Therefore, standards help to 'enforce' discipline by way of leaders having a way to gauge the motivation of their troops to meet a standard, to follow rules and orders, to be a member of the team, conform to uniformity and attaining a common goal. Discipline is believing and doing the above.

For instance...the soon to be published 670-1 with its severe changes, disguises the real problem. DISCIPLINE. I don't believe there is a need to change the current regulation, as grooming is not the issue at hand - it is discipline. If leaders were not so afraid to tell that Soldier that her hair style is out of regulation, her nails are the wrong color or too long, or mentoring the young soldier and teaching him that we represent the military everywhere we go and in everything that we do, therefore that his pants around his legs with his underwear showing is unprofessional....for fear of an EO or IG complaint.

The current reg clearly defines the acceptable, the do's and don't's. Surprisingly, there are way too many leaders that do NOT read or understand the regulation, as well. They go by what they think, or were told by their leaders. If I had a dollar for every time I was told "I really don't know what the reg says/means, so I just leave female soldiers alone..or let other females make those corrections", I would have retired years ago. That to me is a travesty, not to mention poor leadership. That is where the lack of discipline comes in.

Lastly, if we allow for individualism, or different standards for different religions, etc, soldiers and leaders will lose the desire for, and ability to maintain, discipline. With different rules for different people, separation and segregation will creep back into our ranks. Standards are there to reinforce team, uniformity, equality...which together leads to discipline. A unified goal, be it grooming and uniform standards, APFT standards, military customs and courtesies, religious accommodations, and so on.

Standards lead to discipline, not vice-versa.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 2 at 2014 1:04 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 02 Jan 2014 01:04:53 -0500

The image of Bin Laden and 9/11 has done a lot of damage. People see the facial hair as being terroristic. This is a cause and effect and political correctness would force people to utter a lie as the truth. That the images of Bin Laden did not affect us, especially after the bombings. There must be honesty here, because those guys on Duck Dynasty could claim the same. We are here acting like the SSG is the one who is the threat, when he is not.

He has a position based on his experiences and those should be respected whether we disagree or not. I think in any case, that one should be measured in how they respond to something like this. Kind of like going to another country and violating their customs. I would suggest reading the following information regarding a woman who has death threats issued by Muslim clerics. http://freethoughtblogs.com/taslima/

So how does this square with us changing our traditions and not getting that same respect in Iraq, Iran or Afghanistan?

Now, bothering innocent civilians is without exception absolutely wrong but his rights do not exceed those of our military members. If he abused a person here for their faith or country of origin, that would be unacceptable but calling him the KKK is patently wrong and divisive. Wouldn't it be better to talk this out rather than excoriate a person who serves this country?

Standards are there for disciplinary reasons not punishment. When people stop believing in their core values they stop believing in any thing. A clean cut soldier implies uniformity and cohesiveness and we do not need to be re-educated to the whim of social antagonists.

Let them experiment on campuses if they must but not to destroy the discipline that now exists. Our leaders have to represent us and too many don't. When free speech is up for sale then so will be the respect that this generation and past generations have fought for,

No Country for Women

Humanism, Secularism, Feminism

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 2 at 2014 1:47 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 02 Jan 2014 01:47:57 -0500

CSM,

The grooming standards for men in lieu to haircuts and facial hair is based on perception of certain individuals and how it relates to appearance, same with the tattoo policy changes.

Shaving my face every morning does not show discipline. It takes me 5 minutes to do along with the 5 I spend on my teeth.

If the concern is due to professionalism check the grooming standards of coalition forces that allow beards and facial hair IE the Scottish. See how they keep the standard on it. A male can have facial hair and not have a crew cut and still look the professional.

Personally I spend 30-40 a month on haircuts. That is money i would rather put towards my savings account.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 2 at 2014 3:39 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 02 Jan 2014 03:39:05 -0500

I know this is a tricky terrain and I can appreciate. People and speaking their minds honestly has been threatened but things will turn around.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 2 at 2014 5:13 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 02 Jan 2014 05:13:11 -0500

I know I'm going to be in the wrong here (for thinking a little outside the box), but I think uniformity should apply to uniforms within each unit. I'm not butt-hurt because PFC Smith is wearing a cooks uniform and I can't. Geeze, people. Aren't there more important things than uniforms, like, idunno, finding terrorists and securing the land?

Besides that, let's look at these things from a historical point of view: Vikings had beards and long hair. Spartans had beards and long hair. Colonial era soldiers had beards and long hair. I think it's safe to say that beards and long hair did not deter from their ferocity in battle. Hell, it probably added to it. And THAT was their uniform! Ha, imagine that!

And while we're on the subject of hair, let's discuss hats. I understand why you would need a hat-- to shield your eyes and skin from the sun. But just how much does that PC really cover. Umm, my neck is sunburned every summer in spite of it. Why can't we just make the boonie hat official? Is it because it looks goofy? Guess what-- ACUs look goofy. Tucking pants into boots looks goofy.

Let's get down to the really meat, though. Want to know what really boosts competence and confidence within the troops? Not uniformity or fairness. Its competence and confidence in leaders!!!! Those are the two things that our junior enlisted look for in our leadership!! When they can actually focus on a mission and engage in their own 'job.'-- THAT is what soldiers want!

So, with that said, got troops worried about what they can and cannot wear? Give them a real mission, lead them, and then they'll be less worried about what they have on and more worried about what their enemy has on.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 2 at 2014 9:03 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 02 Jan 2014 09:03:10 -0500

Well on the subject of uniformity... This has nothing to do with long hair or tattoos, however. The best policy change I experienced for the better was actually when my unit decided uniformity was more of a hindrance than helpful. When it comes to wearing "KIT" in combat or otherwise. They used to like a uniformed standard. Everybody had to look exactly the same. Then they finally realized that it was actually impossible to have a uniformed formation since 19K don't use the same gear or weapons that 11C do and so forth etc... I don't get issued grenades, they generally give them to the scouts and infantry And most of the admin folks didn't get issued M9 pistols. So why am I wearing a grenade pouch if I'm never issued them and why does she have 9mm magazine pouches and no weapon to accompany it? It was simply ridiculous. They eventually changed the policy to state "You will have on your uniform at a minimum..." The essentials (eyepro,gloves,ach,iotv etc...). Where you put it was up to you with one exception. The IFAK must be placed in the same place on all soldiers for obvious reasons. Best common sense usage I've seen the Army implement in a long time. As far as hair goes, I don't have any problem with a soldier that has long hair if it is their religion. I have never been to a place on the battlefield that we did not have enough proper warning to get into MOPP gear. If you get any less warning than that, chances are you're dead anyways. If one of these soldiers finds themselves on that battlefield and chemical attack is likely, I'm sure they will shave on the spot in order to survive. As far as the "Professional" side of it, I like my high and tight. I always have. I think it looks more professional. But that's just me. When I retire, then i'll grow my hair out and look like a mountain man.

Response by SGT Ben Keen made Jan 2 at 2014 4:26 PM

SGT Ben Keen — Thu, 02 Jan 2014 16:26:48 -0500

Doesn't the military spend our first few weeks and months in the military teaching us the standards? Standards are standards for a reason. They are the rules that we as DoD employees have agreed to in order to receive the pay and benefits as said employee. I'm all for the freedom of speech and all that good stuff but where does it stop? "I'm sorry SGT, I can't wear my uniform correctly because my beliefs say I can't wear the color green." "I'm sorry SGT, I can't protect your back because my beliefs teach me not to shoot a gun but can you please help me fill out this tuition assistance form so I can go to school this year?"

If you want your college loans paid off or whatever from the service, then you must be willing to do what the military says when the military says. I'm sorry if that goes against your beliefs but that is how it is. You want this, well the military wants that.

Response by WO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 2 at 2014 6:04 PM

WO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 02 Jan 2014 18:04:18 -0500

"When you start looking like Marines, you'll start feeling like Marines; when you start feeling like Marines, you'll start acting like Marines"

Gunnery Sergeant Highway

Heartbreak Ridge

It's from a movie but I have seen it firsthand in the Army with my own men.

Response by Maj Walter Kilar made Jan 2 at 2014 11:43 PM

Maj Walter Kilar — Thu, 02 Jan 2014 23:43:23 -0500

The military is merely changing as America is changing. Just under 20 years ago when I enlisted, the world expected individuals to conform to the majority. Somehow the paradigm has flipped and now people expect the majority to conform to the individual. The concept of uniformity has been virtually eliminated from public schools in the 1990s (maybe slightly before that), and has been slowly eroding from the military since then as well. It is up to us old folks to accept that some things need to change, but that other things have been allowed to change because we have not taken a stand against those unnecessary changes.

Soldiers wearing turbans will not change. The fact that it bothers me is more of a reflection of my inability to accept the simple fact that the world has changed and I have not. Soldiers wearing tongue rings in formations is where I can take a stand against individuality. That happens, because youngsters get away with it, and us old folks have failed to identify the problem or we have given up wasting our breath on youngsters that do not listen any way.

Should the military fight back against these changes? I think so, but I am in that minority that thinks volunteers in an all-volunteer force knowingly surrender the right to individual expression. There needs to be more of us to reverse this trend of individuality, or else we become part of the problem--the changing face of America.

Response by Col Joel Anderson made Jan 3 at 2014 9:01 AM

Col Joel Anderson — Fri, 03 Jan 2014 09:01:14 -0500

The way you phrased the original question is quite interesting, and maybe a tad bit leading.

Regardless you have created a very interesting discussion thread.

I think we could go down several different paths.

1) Stay the course and ensure good order, discipline while not usurping individuality.
2) Change the policies and skew them towards individual expression and liberties at the expense of the whole.
3) Go the route of the Village People and sing YMCA all day. Please understand that this comment is not a jab at lifestyle, rather I refer you to the visual of the group up on the stage and the diversity in clothing and apparel only.
4) Take your discussion to the extreme and open the aperture widely. Today your discussion is on Sikh's. Lets open this up to every plausible scenario and see where that leads us.
- Turban's
- Beards
- Hijab's
- Bonnet's
- yarmulke (OK, there is an interesting one. What makes it different than the turban?)
- Talissman's
- Robes
- Hats ( or in Marine speak--religious covers)
- and on and on and on......

I am sure that we could take this list and many other examples of individual expression to extremes. Then again, maybe the antiquated notion of "uniformity" isn't that antiquated after all.

Grooming standards and dress code deviations should be mission driven, not personality or individual in nature. There are reasons for uniformity. One has a choice to enter and the rules, regulations and uniform codes that apply are all part of any consideration.

What happens next if you go the individuality route. Not just from religious preference and nuance, but look at your individual units. Lets see how easy it will be to lead a gaggle of individuals who all have different beliefs, wear different clothes, think the mission and the way it is executed should be done differently, and on and on.

Then again, is it really that big of a deal? Look at other military examples where Sikh's for example are allowed to serve. Has it hindered their ability to execute their assigned roles and missions?

Just some thoughts.

Response by Capt Frank McClung made Jan 3 at 2014 6:36 PM

Capt Frank McClung — Fri, 03 Jan 2014 18:36:45 -0500

Unity is often confused with uniformity. We need look no further than our own Revolutionary War to understand the difference. The British were uniform but not unified, we were unified but not uniform. The same case might be made for Vietnam and the current war on terrorism. The benefits of uniformity, certainly during the indoctrination and forming of a unit are well known. The benefits of uniformity operationally may be less so.

Response by CW2 Geoff Lachance made Jan 3 at 2014 8:09 PM

CW2 Geoff Lachance — Fri, 03 Jan 2014 20:09:05 -0500

We don't need individual expression! We need personnel that respect the uniform and are dedicated to defending the constitution! I'd hate to see where this would end! Think about the regulation that would be required to keep up with the need for "individual expression!" WOW!

Response by CH (CPT) Heather Davis made Jan 8 at 2014 1:05 AM

CH (CPT) Heather Davis — Wed, 08 Jan 2014 01:05:23 -0500

CSM Maynard:

General Patton addressed this very question in his day. Taken from the words of General Patton:

"An army is a team. It lives, eats, sleeps, fights as a team.
This individuality stuff is a bunch of bullshit."
- General George Patton Jr

Response by CPT Ray Doeksen made Jan 11 at 2014 6:41 PM

CPT Ray Doeksen — Sat, 11 Jan 2014 18:41:29 -0500

I don't think the question is exactly well-formed: accommodating a service-members religious requirement is not the same as allowing individual expression. All cases like the one depicted are exceptions to policy that are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, on their merits and the needs and requirements of the Army.

Response by SFC James Baber made Jan 11 at 2014 10:11 PM

SFC James Baber — Sat, 11 Jan 2014 22:11:08 -0500

I think this is a good thread for those we are trying to get to join can see the substance of some things we discuss between us as current and former military, soft spoken as well as informational and mentoring types of postings.

Response by CMC Robert Young made Jan 24 at 2014 9:33 PM

CMC Robert Young — Fri, 24 Jan 2014 21:33:35 -0500

It's a bad idea. We are here to protect democracy not practice it. We all understood when we enlisted that some of our rights would be curtailed for the greater good. This will be one more thing that allows people to think of themselves as individuals instead of recognizing they are part of something greater. Individualism is the enemy of unit cohesion.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 24 at 2014 10:25 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 24 Jan 2014 22:25:00 -0500

Its not about fairness. Its a job you volunteered for knowing full well its not your typical 9-5. The military needs to work as a single fighting force with all the same rules. There is no room for individuality.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 16 at 2014 9:41 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 16 Mar 2014 21:41:41 -0400

There are so many posts. Did anyone state the obvious. This has to be a political motivator to alleviate our image overseas. "Look, we are compassionate towards your culture." If you can't or don't meet the requirements, regulations, or expectations of the Armed Services, you are A: Rid of at MEPS or B: Discharged. That's the Military I know. One Team, One Fight.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 1 at 2014 12:58 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 01 Apr 2014 12:58:40 -0400

No, it shows a doublestandard. It detracts from the proffessional apearance. Today's society is too woried about being politically correct, the don't want to hurt anyones's feelings.

Response by SGT Bryon Sergent made Apr 1 at 2014 1:11 PM

SGT Bryon Sergent — Tue, 01 Apr 2014 13:11:06 -0400

well what makes you religion better than mine. Can I claim what ever relgion on my dogtag and not have to shave or cut my hair. Please enlighten me on this subject as I to, do not wish to shave!

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 1 at 2014 1:13 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 01 Apr 2014 13:13:46 -0400

Don't care in the least either way. If someone wants to wear a religious covering, more power to them. I am not religious in the least, not does it bother me that some people are.

Response by Sheryl Verhulst made Feb 5 at 2015 3:35 PM

Sheryl Verhulst — Thu, 05 Feb 2015 15:35:32 -0500

If you want to be an individual, move to Portland. I kid. But seriously, the military isn't the cub scouts where everyone gets a participation award. If you know what you are signing up for, you shouldn't be offended if you don't get what you want. Additionally, for the sake of cohesion and proper psychological effectiveness of a unit, individualism should not be taken into consideration.

Response by SSG Waldo Yamada made Mar 31 at 2016 2:13 PM

SSG Waldo Yamada — Thu, 31 Mar 2016 14:13:56 -0400

Saw the news about the 4 Sikh's making a lawsuit. The thing is Basic Training does not need to be changed to accommodate Sikhs. It's good where it needs to be. After earning graduation then you can freely express your right as a Sikh. I believe it's a good form of diplomacy to have different Americans represent where they come from and the Sikh's can help us win hearts and minds. I think the Sikh soldiers are missing the point of earning rights and privileges from Basic Training. The purpose is that we Equally train and grow a camaraderie relationship among each other to be able to fight for each other during time of war and peace.