Soldiers opposed to new grooming standards start petition, right or wrong in their actions?

MSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 05 Apr 2014 12:26:49 -0400

AR 670-1 and DA PAM 670-1 both have a set method for suggesting changes within the first few pages of each. Why would this not be the first approach?

Response by LTC Jason Strickland made Apr 5 at 2014 12:28 PM

LTC Jason Strickland — Sat, 05 Apr 2014 12:28:19 -0400

Robert, You're on track. While I understand some comments surfacing in public forums, like RallyPoint, there is a procedure to appropriately recommend changes. Let's get the discussion started - then take the preferred course of action.

Response by CPT Zachary Brooks made Apr 5 at 2014 12:30 PM

CPT Zachary Brooks — Sat, 05 Apr 2014 12:30:49 -0400

I feel that this shows their inability to properly understand the regulation if they do not follow the set methods laid out. I feel that it also shows that they wish to have special treatment or do not feel that they should follow the path most soldiers would.

I also seem to recall (at least from local news articles about it) that the soldiers that began this petition have expressed racial concerns with the standards. I already feel that female soldiers have much more leniency in appearance than male soldiers and so taking this approach seems as if they are just trying to get more lax standards for themselves only.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 5 at 2014 11:48 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 05 Apr 2014 23:48:17 -0400

I feel like it completely jumps the entire CoC.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 6 at 2014 12:07 AM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 00:07:04 -0400

OLD

Females may wear braids and cornrows
as long as the braided style is conservative, the braids and cornrows lie
snugly on the head, and any hairholding devices comply with the standards in 1–8a(3)(d)
below. Dreadlocks (unkempt, twisted, matted individual parts of hair) are
prohibited in uniform or in civilian clothes on duty.

NEW

(g) Twists. Twists are
defined as twisting two distinct strands of hair around one another to create a
twisted ropelike appearance. Although some twists may be temporary, and can be
easily untwisted, they are unauthorized (except for French twists). This
includes twists formed against the scalp or worn in a free-hanging style.

(h) Dreadlocks. Dreadlocks are
defined as any matted, twisted, or locked coils or ropes of hair (or
extensions). Any style of dreadlock (against the scalp or free-hanging) is not
authorized. Braids or cornrows that are unkempt or matted are considered
dreadlocks and are not authorized.

Like I stated in a previous
thread the new regulation only clarifies the regulation. My interpretation is that
the update never changed the regulation, only removed any gray area subject to interpretation.

So starting a petition to change
the regulation back to the way it was is a moot point. Dreadlocks and twists
were never permitted. The regulation was just ambiguous enough that many folks didn’t
enforce it because there was enough gray area to create confusion.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 6 at 2014 12:14 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 00:14:19 -0400

Soldiers should not staring petitions its goes against the chain of command and the leaders placed above us. The problem is soldiers did not educate themselves with the old regs and see thy were properly wrong. Now that the new regs are out with more definition and getting rid of the gray area they get upset. The new regs do not pick on one type of soldiers it picks on all soldiers. Its simple if your jacked up you fix yourself. The reason these soldiers are upset is because thy don't wanna reform to the new regs and their leaders allow them to walk over them. Which in its self is wrong.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 17 at 2014 8:05 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 17 Apr 2014 20:05:59 -0400

SFC Willis,

I think it is wrong, because it specifically states that there is a DA Form that you may fill out to request changes with proper reasoning, and it must also be vetted through the CoC.

SGT McLamb

Response by SSG Mike Angelo made Apr 18 at 2014 5:00 PM

SSG Mike Angelo — Fri, 18 Apr 2014 17:00:22 -0400

Ah...in my time petitioners or organizers were considered perpetrators, as such Tops sacrificial lambs for extra duty, as an attitude adjustment... gotta read the fine print first...a petition would initiate a command action, survey or town hall/NCO call? Individual carpet ride.

Response by SSG Eric Shuping made Apr 18 at 2014 5:30 PM

SSG Eric Shuping — Fri, 18 Apr 2014 17:30:06 -0400

What? The Army isn't a democracy. Regardless of how they feel, regulations are regulations and orders are orders. Whatever happened to the days when soldiers had DISCIPLINE? Soldiers like that are going to get somebody killed!

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Apr 21 at 2014 9:19 AM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Mon, 21 Apr 2014 09:19:03 -0400

"AR 670-1 and DA PAM 670-1 both have a set method for suggesting changes within the first few pages of each. Why would this not be the first approach?"

This question asumes anyone reads those sections (or heck, even the regulation), or has any idea what a DA 2028 is...

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Apr 12 at 2016 8:51 PM

CPT Pedro Meza — Tue, 12 Apr 2016 20:51:11 -0400

Sheikh way of grooming are Force Multipliers, that is why SF and Spec Ops grow beards and are un groomed.