Posted on Mar 20, 2014
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.
4.43K
34
20
1
1
0
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.
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 10
4
4
0
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.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
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.
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
For those that need a link, here's a decent overview:
http://www.ncosupport.com/military-news/ar670-1.html
New revision of army regulation 670-1 will define the following terms: eccentric, faddish, conservative, inconspicuous, unsightly, hair braids/plaits.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
CSM Michael J. Uhlig
it used to be customary that if you flew in uniform it was in A's or B's with tie
(8)
(0)
MSG Phil Herndon
It's going to be a pain for the guys in AK. Those guys fly back and forth all the time between Rich and Wainwright. Now they have to have a bag for a change of clothes.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Not exactly pleased about the photo/memorandum requirement for tattoos...
(1)
(0)
MSG Phil Herndon
Me either, but there isn't another way around it. I don't like the extra workload of creating and uploading all that paperwork.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I love the detailed descriptions/photos, takes away much of the ambiguity.
(1)
(0)
MSG Phil Herndon
Between that and the distinctive measurements, it does make a leader implementation plan easier
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
SGT Bryon Sergent
Well the high spot on my head is the top. It favors a horse shoe. And being in the National Guard and not around and active duty post, I hate and can't get a good high and tight.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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?
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
I welcome these changes. Just too bad we are not back to BDUs and black boots. Pressed and shined.
(2)
(0)
SSG Robert Blum
I have no problem with the changes. Its the chance that Tattoos could be used (not saying that they will be) to determine an individual who has been serving with honor chances of promotion, or potentially effect if he/she is selected for seperation. On a side note How is Fort Carson Treating you SFC Kirk, We miss you in Baumholder.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google