Should the military have service tapes on uniforms for National Guard/Reserves?

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 03 Feb 2014 22:26:16 -0500

Today there was a huge debate: How do you feel about the military as a whole having service tapes to denote the soldiers that are in the reserve and national guard. ie ANG, AR, AFNG, AFR, Marines etc...

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 3 at 2014 10:30 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 03 Feb 2014 22:30:35 -0500

last time I check we were and Army of one.

Response by SFC Stephen P. made Feb 3 at 2014 10:36 PM

SFC Stephen P. — Mon, 03 Feb 2014 22:36:48 -0500

Sounds like a waste of time and money that would only result in further alienating the irregulars.

Is there some purpose I'm not seeing beyond labelling me as a second class soldier? If that is the goal, what benefit does it provide for the service?

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 4 at 2014 7:46 AM

SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 04 Feb 2014 07:46:01 -0500

Why would this even be under consideration? I'm not trying to sound disrespectful here but there is absolutely no reason under the sun to distinguish whether a Soldier is Active Duty, National Guard or Reserves.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Feb 4 at 2014 7:52 AM

LTC Paul Labrador — Tue, 04 Feb 2014 07:52:13 -0500

If you think there was a culture of "second-class citizen" with branch insignia and unit patches, it would only get worse by putting component....

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 4 at 2014 7:54 AM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 04 Feb 2014 07:54:00 -0500

There is no need for this. We already have different uniforms to determine whether someone is Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, or Coast Guard. We do not need immediate differential by component.

With respect to the Army, so what if a Soldier is Army Reserve? You don't know whether that Soldier is TPU, IMA, IRR, or AGR.

This is a hare-brained solution in search of a problem.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 4 at 2014 8:08 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 04 Feb 2014 08:08:49 -0500

The group that were having this discussion felt it was mainly needed on part that it helps identify what part of the branch you are in, also it would allow the soldiers to be more proud as association of the particular branch of service they joined. I myself stopped the conversation as it seemed to me that they were trying to for a lack of better terms belittle the other services within each branch. My honest opinion is the soldiers that were having this conversation seen someone of higher rank that clearly was outside of regulations as far as uniform and weight so these soldiers decide to strike a conversation about it. I wasn't bashing just wanted to see where everyone else stood on this.

Response by SSG Andrew Dydasco made Feb 4 at 2014 9:29 AM

SSG Andrew Dydasco — Tue, 04 Feb 2014 09:29:42 -0500

I don't think it needs to be displayed so blatantly.  And besides, in the Army, their unit patch will usually answer that for you.   I think the main question is, why do we need to know?  Am I not going to stand at parade rest for that National Guard NCO because he's not Active Duty?  Will I not still salute that Captain in the Reserves? Of course I will.  To me, the purpose of imposing this would be strictly for discriminating even further, which is something I thought we weren't supposed to do.   We all have our gripes with other services/components, but this has no benefit, in my opinion, SSG.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 4 at 2014 9:40 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 04 Feb 2014 09:40:36 -0500

So much for an Army of One, huh? Seems to me it is just a way for Active Duty to look down on the reserves?

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 4 at 2014 9:45 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 04 Feb 2014 09:45:10 -0500

Other then our sister services if we did that in the AC, ANG and ARC we would be saying that we are not an Army of one. It's a bad idea to alienate our ANG and Reserve Brothers and Sisters.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 4 at 2014 12:10 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 04 Feb 2014 12:10:17 -0500

Doesn't the design of the unit patch already do this?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 4 at 2014 12:42 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 04 Feb 2014 12:42:32 -0500

That's social stratification. Not sure why the Army has to engage in that level of degradation.

Response by CPT Aaron Kletzing made Feb 4 at 2014 6:24 PM

CPT Aaron Kletzing — Tue, 04 Feb 2014 18:24:37 -0500

A few points to make, based on my experiences: (1) I served down range at times with personnel from Guard and Res units, and they typically performed well and did an excellent job with the responsibilities they were given. They also brought a unique array of skill sets from their civilian professions that came in handy at unexpected times, like electricians and waste mgmt; (2) Guard and Res personnel have raised their hand and volunteered to lay down their lives and bleed for this country, the same as those on AD status; (3) tons of Guard and Res personnel used to be on AD for a long time, and often times AD personnel who rip on Guard and Res personnel end up eventually transitioning into those components after AD.

Response by SPC Troy Luster made Feb 6 at 2014 3:53 PM

SPC Troy Luster — Thu, 06 Feb 2014 15:53:19 -0500

Bad idea. We are/were all active duty when deployed so the change is illogical and would only serve to further undermine the value of Guard and Reserve troops who are already sometimes viewed as second rate or inferior in the eyes of some Active personnel. Not to mention changing the name tapes would likely result in another change to the Army slogan. Frankly I thought "Army of One" effectively conveyed the idea of many fighting together as one, yet someone felt it necessary to change it to "Army Strong". If we change name tapes to reflect Guard, Reserve, and Active components then what will the slogan be? "Army of Three".

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 6 at 2014 7:12 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 06 Feb 2014 19:12:28 -0500

I looked high and low and couldn't find that actual article. It seems like they are A) doing the typical wasting millions or more likely HUNDREDS of millions on dollars and B) going against the core Army value that we are one team, one fight. By singling out a soldier, a group, or another branch of the Army, you are telling them they aren't part of the team, and they aren't part of our fight. This is in direct contradiction to what is taught in basic to ALL components of the Army, active or not. You are broken down from your civilian status of being your own person, and made into your military status of being a soldier.

Response by SSG Robert Spear made Feb 10 at 2014 12:33 PM

SSG Robert Spear — Mon, 10 Feb 2014 12:33:13 -0500

The Reserve, and National Guard components should be indistinguishable from our active duty counterparts, why waste the resources?

Response by SFC Joe Ping made Feb 11 at 2014 2:55 PM

SFC Joe Ping — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 14:55:16 -0500

Another dumb idea.. Lets see if we can create more annomosity between the Guard and Reserve and the Active Duty..

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 11 at 2014 3:48 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 15:48:38 -0500

I think I am genuinely confused as to what purpose this serves. It's not as though it delineates what type of Soldier, Sailor, Airman, or Marine one is. Also I thought the DoD pretty much cleared this up years ago when they went to the extent of removing the words Reserve and National Guard from the Common Access Card.

If we are going to go to that extent, why don't we just start adding a name tape for MOS and so forth.

Also if we are going to start putting this on name tapes I have a request. I would like my name tape to say "AGR" since according to this methodology I am not quite regular Army, but a little more than reservist. Haha and this post has been my humor for the day.

Response by SGT Ben Keen made Apr 18 at 2014 8:39 AM

SGT Ben Keen — Fri, 18 Apr 2014 08:39:09 -0400

Let's keep in mind, there are really only four different branches of the military that receive a budget. The Marines draw their budget from the Navy. And while the same can be said about the AR, ANG, AFNG and AFR; the Marines are not the reserve component of the Navy. The others are; therefore they service tape should read US Army or Air Force.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 18 at 2014 11:00 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 18 Apr 2014 23:00:20 -0400

If the ARNG were to wear a separate tape, would it stop there? Or would two years later after $1,000,000 in unique tapes for the service, then someone somewhere would decide that instead of ARNG it should be the state or territory abbreviation and ARNG "AL ARNG""AK ARNG""AZ ARNG" etc... What purpose would it serve? I am a 92Y which means the same thing on paper between the ARNG and the AD. In reality it means that I do by myself what an entire office of personnel typically do in a day.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Jun 10 at 2014 12:57 PM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Tue, 10 Jun 2014 12:57:06 -0400

one force, one uniform! No body cares what component your from when you're returning fire. Its quite aggravating that this kind of thinking is still going on after all that the NG and USAR have done since 2001 to prove their worth.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Sep 22 at 2014 3:41 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Mon, 22 Sep 2014 15:41:24 -0400

Change them all to "WARRIOR"

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 22 at 2014 5:59 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 22 Sep 2014 17:59:01 -0400

Emphatically no. We spent the last decade and a half at war trying to get rid of the stigma of the Active component vs. Reserve Component. We do not need to go and do something that would take us back to that place.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 22 at 2014 9:36 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 22 Sep 2014 21:36:16 -0400

it would serve no purpose. a waste of time and money

Response by LTC Stephen B. made Oct 28 at 2015 10:12 AM

LTC Stephen B. — Wed, 28 Oct 2015 10:12:53 -0400

How about different color reflective belts? Ft. Drum would certainly have a field day with that...

6.) I see Soldiers wearing different colored reflective belts during PT. What’s the reason for that?

Under the 10th Mountain Division policy, Soldiers wear a different colored PT belt depending on their rank. All officers wear blue reflective belts, NCOs wear green reflective belts, and junior enlisted Soldiers wear yellow reflective belts. Battalion-level and higher command teams wear a blue reflective vest for PT.

http://www.drum.army.mil/3rdBCT/Pages/faq.aspx

Frequently Asked Questions

1st Battalion, 32nd Infantry Regiment - “Chosin”2nd Battalion, 87th Infantry Regiment – “Catamounts”3rd Squadron, 71st Cavalry Regiment – “Titans”4th Battalion, 25th Field Artillery Regiment – “Wolfpack”3rd Brigade Special Troops Battalion -- "Vanguards"710th Brigade Support Battalion -- "Spartan Support"

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 28 at 2015 4:44 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 28 Oct 2015 16:44:17 -0400

Absolutely not. Reserve/National Guard are part of the total force; many have seen multiple deployments; Years ago reserves had a different color ID; later they got the some color. Now they have the same CAC. Many members of reserve components are on active duty anyway. They are Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Airman and "Coasties" like AD.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 29 at 2015 9:39 AM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 29 Oct 2015 09:39:29 -0400

Last time I checked (about 29 years ago) I was in the Army. My retirement check comes from the Army. The fact that my active duty time was Air Force and my Army time was Reserve does not show on the check.

I was Army, and I am retired Army who also proudly wears an Air Force Vet hat.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 30 at 2015 7:06 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 30 Oct 2015 07:06:11 -0400

A soldier is a soldier. We wear the same uniform for a reason. There are excellent soldiers in active, reserve, and guard status. There are dirtbags is all as well. That being said, we all raise our right hands and swear to protect and defend the same Consitution. There should NOT be a uniform differentiation.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 30 at 2015 10:37 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 30 Oct 2015 10:37:25 -0400

I think most Service members in the guard and reserve do an amazing job upholding standards that are equal to the full time services. Those that don't brand themselves without the need for the name tape designation. It's about the job they do while in the uniform not how often they do it.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 30 at 2015 11:08 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 30 Oct 2015 11:08:40 -0400

I don't understand why this is even a question. We all ( active/guard/reserve) raised the same hand and took the same oath. We all fight the same fight. We all went thru the same basic training with our respective branches. There is already strife between active components and guard/reserve components. Adding distinguishing service tapes would add to that.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 31 at 2015 5:38 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 31 Oct 2015 17:38:59 -0400

I'll play devil's advocate for this one.
I agree with everyone that for the active, reserve, and guard forces there shouldn't be different service tapes, for sake of the discussion I'll argue that the guard should have two.
The active and reserve forces are the same entity, paid completely with federal tax dollars, subject to orders from the federal government, under the constitution and applicable federal law. The national guard is not. The national guard is not. It is a state militia, organized and run by the state, tasked by the state, under the U.S. constitution, the state constitution, and applicable state law unless called up for federal duty under title 18(?) USC. As such they aren't subject to laws like Posse Commitatus and have great latitude, under state law, to perform operations within the borders of our country that would get federal troops in a lot of trouble.
It is true that over the decades, particularly the last sixty, the national guard today resembles the active force in structure, uniform, and equipment. The idea of the cold war going hit presented a need to quickly integrate the guard into the active force structure if the worst were to happen. The federal government gave money to the states to restructure, gave access to the federal bureaucracy for pay and administrative purposes, and took over training responsibilities and established standards to ensure the guard would perform to the same standard as the reserve force.
All this makes the three organisations very close indeed, but legally the guard is its own beast. For state level functions, I think clearly identifying the Guard from federal troops is a good idea, but once under federal control slap a federal tape on their chest.
But that's only in a perfect world, with an unlimited budget. In this world, with my tax burden, leave it alone.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 5 at 2015 12:16 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 05 Nov 2015 12:16:32 -0500

Don't our bad haircuts, sloppy dress, and inability to do most basic military tasks already give us away?

I don't see any purpose in having the designation shown on the uniform. Besides adding no value, it could strengthen the wrong perception that the part time military are somehow second rate.

Response by SMSgt Thor Merich made Apr 24 at 2018 11:16 AM

SMSgt Thor Merich — Tue, 24 Apr 2018 11:16:15 -0400

Response by LTC Charles T Dalbec made May 29 at 2019 9:42 PM

LTC Charles T Dalbec — Wed, 29 May 2019 21:42:34 -0400

No way as For the Army A Soldier is A Soldier regardless of their Component. Just like the other Services