The Leader's guide to the new 670-1 was published today. The good news is it isn't as bad as you thought it was.

2014-03-20T20:59:59-04:00

It's actually the most strict on female hair styles. Guys get to keep sideburns. Tattoo policy isn't going to make anyone happy, but a relative compromise from what initially proposed.

Response by MSG Martinis Butler made Mar 20 at 2014 9:49 PM

2014-03-20T21:49:00-04:00

I am very excited to have it and see how people react now. Many people had their opinions but to see them conduct themselves now that its out will really display the true pride that Soldiers have for rules and regulations.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 20 at 2014 10:02 PM

2014-03-20T22:02:36-04:00

Good to see that we get to keep sideburns. Personally I thought the recommendation was a little extreme as the only real winner would of been AAFES barber shops.

Overall very pleased with the new policy. Especially liked the photo and drawn examples, added a clear cut example that was not open to interpretation.

EDIT: Found the Army Times .ppt article.

http://projects.militarytimes.com/pdfs/new-ar-changes.pdf

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 20 at 2014 10:45 PM

2014-03-20T22:45:57-04:00

The change I wasn't expecting was flying in uniform. Looks like I won't be planning any same day as travel meetings unless I'm in ASUs.

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Mar 20 at 2014 11:00 PM

2014-03-20T23:00:41-04:00

For those that need a link, here's a decent overview:

http://www.ncosupport.com/military-news/ar670-1.html

2014 Army AR 670-1 Update

New revision of army regulation 670-1 will define the following terms: eccentric, faddish, conservative, inconspicuous, unsightly, hair braids/plaits.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2014 10:02 PM

2014-03-21T22:02:32-04:00

I love the detailed descriptions/photos, takes away much of the ambiguity.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Mar 21 at 2014 10:11 PM

2014-03-21T22:11:54-04:00

Not exactly pleased about the photo/memorandum requirement for tattoos...

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 22 at 2014 3:27 PM

2014-03-22T15:27:30-04:00

I don't agree with the photographs or memorandum at all. For those soldiers who were detained by MP's or CID, it was ok. It placed in their file for recognition purposes like any other Law Enforcement agency. But now we are doing it to everyone. . If it is going to happen, there has to be a non-disclosure agreement signed by the command in order for those photographs never to released unless for review of tattoo policy. Also I don't agreed with the enlisted soldiers not being able to attend OCS due them having a tattoo sleeve. I think it is about time we adapt to a newer way of thinking. Look at all the field grade officers in recent times who have left the elder ice with just a slap on the wrist when they should have been in jail. Most recently the case comming out of Fort Bragg. Now we are just limiting the potential of these enlisted persons who have served multiple tours and telling them, sorry, we discriminate against tattoos. So you are not worthy of being an officer. That's BS. I have known many officers in the past who couldn't hold a candle next to some of the enlisted soldiers I have served with. I'm disappointed.

Response by SSG Robert Blum made Mar 22 at 2014 5:55 PM

2014-03-22T17:55:12-04:00

Personally The Sideburns part makes me happy. I can never been an Officer Now because I have five tattoos either below my elbows or my knees, one of them being no bigger than a dime. But I don't want that for my career anyway. My question is are these Tattoo MFRs and Photos (since they are going into our OMPF) going to be viewable by Selection Boards, (SFC, MSG, QMP, QSP, Etc...) and if the are, are they going to be used or viewed upon negatively for promotion, or as a determining factor between Soldiers for early separation? I already know that Tattoos above the Neck and on Hands that can be seen in a DA Photo can and will hurt you. So will it Hurt us the same way?

Response by SSG Zachery Mitchell made Mar 23 at 2014 6:00 AM

2014-03-23T06:00:22-04:00

It's not near as strict as what was originally thought. I am glad they are more specific with Females hair. I am glad they addressed the Males hair in more detail too. I have seen the "horseshoe" haircut on quite a few people in the past and think it's horrible. The tattoo policy is pretty stiff but I'm not that worried about it. I have one tattoo on my leg below the knee that I will need to get a picture of and the memorandum submitted to my OMPF. My only confusion on the tattoo part is where it says sleeve tattoos are not authorized but service members will be grandfathered. Then it says Soldiers are only authorized 4 tattoos below the elbows. Is this 4 tattoos for new personnel coming in? or is this 4 tattoos saying if I wanted to go get 4 tattoos below my elbows I can as long as I get them documented in my OMPF? or does it mean I'm not allowed to get any below my elbows at all? That's my only real confusion on the tattoos. Other than that I'm excited for the new policy and am anxiously awaiting the DA PAM and AR to be published.

Response by PV2 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 1 at 2015 4:44 PM

2015-02-01T16:44:49-05:00

I agree.