What does "conspicuous" mean regarding wear of civilian sunglasses in the updated AR 670-1?

2015-11-29T22:43:09-05:00

I've seen soldiers wearing sunglasses with the giant O from Oakley, giant MK from Michael Kors, etc I wear electric sunglasses and their logo is a lightning bolt. I've been told I can't wear them because of the lightening bolt. I've looked up the definition of "conspicuous" and I feel it leaves too much grey area for a regulation on a logo the size of a pencil eraser. Some NCO's don't say a thing to me while others try citing outdated regulations. Some clarification please?

Response by SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL made Nov 29 at 2015 10:48 PM

2015-11-29T22:48:42-05:00

SPC Private RallyPoint Member I would go to JAG and get a legal definition on the AR from good measure, you can't go wrong!

Response by COL Jon Thompson made Nov 29 at 2015 10:57 PM

2015-11-29T22:57:04-05:00

Ultimately it comes down to what the commander deems as conspicuous. As long as it is applied across the board, no one can complain. The definition of conspicuous is "standing out to be clearly visible". Save yourself some trouble and get sunglasses with no logos. I recommend getting some good Oakleys through their military program because the "O" is subdued and therefore not conspicuous. Or wear the issue eye-pro. Be glad you can wear it because for a good part of my career, we could not wear sunglasses on a regular basis. Good luck.

Response by PVT Robert Gresham made Nov 30 at 2015 12:30 AM

2015-11-30T00:30:55-05:00

SPC Private RallyPoint Member, AR 670-1 (10 April 2015) Ch. 1-15 section 3 says that, "Eyeglasses or sunglasses that are trendy, or have lenses or frames with initials, designs, or other adornments are not authorized for wear. Soldiers may not wear lenses with extreme or trendy colors, which include but are not limited to, red, yellow, blue, purple, bright green, or orange. Lens colors must be traditional gray, brown, or dark green shades. Personnel will not wear lenses or frames that are so large or so small that they detract from the appearance of the uniform." If you follow those regs you can never be wrong.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Nov 30 at 2015 1:39 AM

2015-11-30T01:39:03-05:00

Probably anything Elton John would wear. That said, "conspicuous" is in the eye of the beholder. There won't be a bright line on this one. JAGs advise, not make determinations, or have line authority.

Response by SCPO Joshua I made Nov 30 at 2015 4:05 AM

2015-11-30T04:05:36-05:00

Ultimately, SPC Private RallyPoint Member , you've got your exact answer below from PVT Robert Gresham -- the AR spells it out in detail.

But allow me to digress for a moment, and give you some unsolicited advice from a 20+ year senior NCO. When your seniors tell you not to wear something because it's trendy or "conspicuous" or whatever -- you have a choice to make. You can sea-lawyer it (that's our term, I'm sure you have one similar to it in the Army), and try to work out a way in the regulation that your senior is not quite exactly correct and you should be authorized to wear whatever it is or do whatever they told you not to do.

And then you can show up every day wearing those sunglasses that he told you not to wear, and he believes are "faddish" (that's our term), or "conspicuous" or whatever other term of art (not science -- it's vague for a reason) applies. And every time he sees you, it's like you're poking him in the eye with a stick. "I was right, you were wrong, see how cool I am in my cool shades that are just barely on the right side of unauthorized and I can get away with it because I got the IG to say I was right". And you might be. But how do you think that's going to go for you? I've seen this play out, many times, and generally that's the road to pain, suffering, and what could have been a good career ruined to wear some cool shades.

Or... You can try to follow the rules carefully. In the military, we have a way of life. We should be quiet, unassuming, not flashy or trying to draw attention. Not wearing fancy colors or things we think we can get away with because we're just a little above the law. Instead of asking if you can get away with something, when you go shop for sunglasses to wear in uniform you want to shop for the pair that would most fit in with your military uniform. Look for the sunglasses your senior NCO wears -- how would he possibly jack you up for wearing the same thing he does? I know -- we're old and not stylish anymore -- but realize that the military is not about being stylish, it's about doing a job. Wear the cool sunglasses with the lightning stripe when you put your civilian clothes on at the end of the day to go out with your friends -- that's your time to be stylish and impress the ladies and whatever else ya'll young people do these days...

Response by SPC George Rudenko made Nov 30 at 2015 4:34 AM

2015-11-30T04:34:04-05:00

When In Rome son

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 30 at 2015 10:41 AM

2015-11-30T10:41:49-05:00

The logos are supposed to be subdued. Most brands carry a "military edition" for this reason.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 30 at 2015 11:47 PM

2015-11-30T23:47:02-05:00

I would like to thank everyones input on this question. The updated regulation dated 10 April 2015 from AR 670-1 states as follows:

"(3) Eyeglasses or sunglasses that are trendy or have lenses or frames with CONSPICUOUS initials, designs, or other adornments are not authorized for wear. Soldiers may not wear lenses with extreme or trendy colors, which include, but are not limited to, red, yellow, blue, purple, bright green, or orange. Lens colors must be traditional gray, brown, or dark green shades..."

It says nothing about the logo having to be black or subdued as previous versions of the reg. Also, Oakley is a trendy brand, as trendy as sunglasses come, so their logo, if you were to go off the old reg, would be in the wrong, but it has been accepted in Army Culture without any problem at all.

If you do a quick search on google for conspicuous sunglasses you see some stuff that would fit in perfectly for a costume party or halloween. I would never wear anything like that. I wouldn't imagine someone reading the reg and saying, I'm going to go wear some white frames sunglasses with this crazy design, or something straight out of the matrix...

I'm not trying to pick battles with any NCO's, I just want an explanation of the updated reg. I stopped wearing them as soon as I had 3 NCO's in one week recite the outdated regulation to me, when I commented that there was an update on the reg regarding conspicuous initials or designs and that my sunglasses weren't conspicuous, I got the usual "you're sunglasses are conspicuous as f***, take them off." Getting an answer like that made me want to question if they even knew what the definition of conspicuous means. I want to know if I'm really in the wrong here with my interpretation of the definition of "conspicuous."

I uploaded 3 pictures, the first is the sunglasses in question, the second, my visual definition of conspicuous. I have also included a pic of a popular pair of oakleys I've seen soldiers wearing. I have seen chrome logos everywhere... I understood that if you don't look like everyone else you're wrong, but the updated reg pretty much states that you can wear examples like the 1st and 3rd picture. The regs don't say: only chrome oakley logos are the only acceptable civilian sunglasses or issued eyepro.

I've read on forums about how years ago wearing a camelbak was against regs, until the regulations were updated to where soldiers now can wear camelbaks ranging from multi cam, coyote brown, black, acu print, etc I kind of see the sunglasses reg going the same route as camelbaks in the near future...

Once again I would like to thank everyone for their input and clarification on this issue.

Response by CPT Mark Gonzalez made Nov 30 at 2015 11:58 PM

2015-11-30T23:58:38-05:00

I highly recommend just doing what your NCOs tell you regardless of your personal feelings. Ultimately your commander decides what is conspicuous and what isn't. However, on daily basis those NCOs can make your life hell with valid corrective action for something as simple as being a few minutes late or making minor mistakes. Being cute isn't worth it. Learn from your well intending leaders and one day you'll enforce standards to the best of your ability as well.

Response by CSM Charles Hayden made Dec 1 at 2015 12:02 AM

2015-12-01T00:02:21-05:00

SPC Private RallyPoint Member Do you want to atract attention to your self? Continue to wear those glasses and expound about AR 670-1.

Then, 'we' will know who you are, and you will learn who 'we' are!

Response by CW4 Guy Butler made Dec 1 at 2015 6:38 AM

2015-12-01T06:38:11-05:00

Yup, looks like you've got a problem.

I remember, way back in the day when the Army still had steel pots, ALICE gear, pin-on BDU rank, and GP tinies, I used to get dogged out for having conspicuous shiny bits on my gear. By strange coincidence, most of time I was unable to get to Clothing Sales or the PX to get new stuff (and OCIE was near impossible to get anyways, needing letters and the like). This meant coming up with ways, including field expedient ways, to make shiny things not so shiny. Fortunately, with the advent of sew-on rank and molded color plastic parts, this isn't that big a problem in today's modern Army.

Now, if I was a young PFC wiTh a spiffy pair of eye pro I'd been told I couldn't wear because they're too conspicuous (and not because they're on the banned list), I might try to figure a way to make them fit in. In this case, I might use a fine or extra fine sanding sponge to scratch up or remove that glossy chrome plating. Then I might try a sharpie, or maybe even some M-Nu to make that logo blend in to the rest of the frame. I'd probably wind up trying a couple things to find out which didn't damage the plastic and lasted the longest.

But that's me. No idea what you're going to do.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 1 at 2015 2:38 PM

2015-12-01T14:38:18-05:00

Thank you to everyone who commented, I wasn't expecting so much input so quickly. I'm going to keep wearing the all black $20 sunglasses I got at the px until they break, The electric's cost me over $100 so I'll just keep those for when I'm in civvies. I'm glad I could use rallypoint for feedback and not get on any NCO's bad side over some sunglasses... Again, thank you to everyone for the input!!!

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 5 at 2016 1:28 PM

2016-07-05T13:28:58-04:00

If your sunglasses are ALL black including the logo, you should be ok. I just stay on the safe side and wear cheap no logo sunglasses. It's not a fashion show.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 5 at 2017 7:13 PM

2017-11-05T19:13:20-05:00

As long as the glasses do their job, who gives flying you-know-what about the manufacturer. Really ! Think about it. Just more bullshit to worry about. Which product a soldier decides to protect his vision with should be at the bottom of the pile.
Ummm....hold on bad guy, I have to change my eye pro. Can’t use these Oakley’s because they’re conspicuous.
Ugghhh....

Response by SSG Sidney Galloway made Jul 19 at 2021 2:06 PM

2021-07-19T14:06:26-04:00

If the appearance causes another reasonable person (or the purchaser) to say "Holy crap! Look at those great sunglasses," they're fadish. Go with Blues Brothers shades. You'll never hear a peep.