Posted on Sep 24, 2018
What guidance is used in the Army for prior service Marines to wear the 1st or 3rd MARDIV patch?
14.2K
16
15
2
2
0
OCP
Posted 6 y ago
Responses: 3
5
5
0
AR 670-1 states:
“(3) Other services. The Department of the Navy, the United States Marine Corps (USMC), and the Air Force do not authorize wear of SSI. Therefore, personnel who served in one of the designated areas during one of the specified periods, but who were not members of the U.S. Army, are not authorized to wear the SSI–FWTS on their right shoulder. The only exception to this policy is for U.S. Army members who served with the USMC during World War II from 15 March 1943 through 2 September 1946.”
I’m a prior service Marine as well and it makes no sense that a Soldier assigned to or attached to a Marine unit is authorized to wear their patch, but a Marine who served in that unit during the same time wouldn’t be authorized to wear it.
Personally, I wear mine still and I haven’t been challenged on it. Semper Fi
“(3) Other services. The Department of the Navy, the United States Marine Corps (USMC), and the Air Force do not authorize wear of SSI. Therefore, personnel who served in one of the designated areas during one of the specified periods, but who were not members of the U.S. Army, are not authorized to wear the SSI–FWTS on their right shoulder. The only exception to this policy is for U.S. Army members who served with the USMC during World War II from 15 March 1943 through 2 September 1946.”
I’m a prior service Marine as well and it makes no sense that a Soldier assigned to or attached to a Marine unit is authorized to wear their patch, but a Marine who served in that unit during the same time wouldn’t be authorized to wear it.
Personally, I wear mine still and I haven’t been challenged on it. Semper Fi
(5)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
I spent a few minutes deployed, and I’m fairly familiar with the RIP process. I’d argue that any uptick/downtick in attacks can be correlated to a lot of other things above the wearing of unit patches. But I guess that’s for another thread.
As for the regs. Respectfully, I’d argue that setting a good example for young soldiers, living the Army values (you joined the Army, gotta live by them)..those are better ways to show respect for not only your brothers who didn’t make home but for for everyone else’s, too.
If a prior service Soldier serving in the Corps put unit patch on his uniform, and said, ‘fuck it, respect’, I don’t know if that would fly. Willfully disrespecting the regulations of your service is disrespectful. All of us, alive or dead, are ultimately on the same team. Wearing a patch doesn’t necessarily show honor, and not wearing one doesn’t mean you honor them any less. It just means you wear the uniform according to regulations.
As for the regs. Respectfully, I’d argue that setting a good example for young soldiers, living the Army values (you joined the Army, gotta live by them)..those are better ways to show respect for not only your brothers who didn’t make home but for for everyone else’s, too.
If a prior service Soldier serving in the Corps put unit patch on his uniform, and said, ‘fuck it, respect’, I don’t know if that would fly. Willfully disrespecting the regulations of your service is disrespectful. All of us, alive or dead, are ultimately on the same team. Wearing a patch doesn’t necessarily show honor, and not wearing one doesn’t mean you honor them any less. It just means you wear the uniform according to regulations.
(0)
(0)
SSG(P) (Join to see)
To each his own. When someone approaches me and verbally has a problem with it, we can discuss it then. But as long as I see Soldiers who are wearing a patch for merely being attached to the same unit that I was actually in, a unit that I took pride in being a part of and involved in their deep and rich history, then I’m not taking it off.
By the way, it would be great to see who I’m responding to rather than just Sgt Anonymous.
By the way, it would be great to see who I’m responding to rather than just Sgt Anonymous.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
I guess we’ll agree to disagree. I’d ask though, would not wearing an unauthorized patch somehow indicate you’re no longer prideful of having served in that unit? I’d argue ‘no’.
I’d then ask, as an NCO, where would you draw the line for Privates willifully disregarding any particular regulation? And at what point would their justifications not be acceptable?
I’m not disparaging your friends. But at what point point does ‘tribute to the fallen’ then stop being reasonable rationale for violation of a regulation?
As RP regulations don’t mandate displaying information, I choose not to. I’m no one important. But I stand by what I write.
I’d then ask, as an NCO, where would you draw the line for Privates willifully disregarding any particular regulation? And at what point would their justifications not be acceptable?
I’m not disparaging your friends. But at what point point does ‘tribute to the fallen’ then stop being reasonable rationale for violation of a regulation?
As RP regulations don’t mandate displaying information, I choose not to. I’m no one important. But I stand by what I write.
(0)
(0)
SSG Carlos Madden
GySgt John Olson -
1) Reinforce an ARMY tradition
2) Draw a reasonable line regarding prior service.
"It is an ARMY rule for SOLDIERS, to protect "bragging rights" of SOLDIERS, not anyone else."
I get all that and per the rule that makes sense. My personal issue isn't that but with the spirit of it. I think it is a bad tradition because we (i.e. Soldiers) shouldn't be looking to brag about anything, nor hold our past experience to create potential bias against others. The only thing that should matter is "US Army" and the rank. This is why I like the Marine model better.
1) Reinforce an ARMY tradition
2) Draw a reasonable line regarding prior service.
"It is an ARMY rule for SOLDIERS, to protect "bragging rights" of SOLDIERS, not anyone else."
I get all that and per the rule that makes sense. My personal issue isn't that but with the spirit of it. I think it is a bad tradition because we (i.e. Soldiers) shouldn't be looking to brag about anything, nor hold our past experience to create potential bias against others. The only thing that should matter is "US Army" and the rank. This is why I like the Marine model better.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
The Army’s has this ‘problem’ since at least Vietnam. I recall a former Marine 1st MARDIV VietVet I met at Benning in the mid70’s. He was a 1SG and proudly wearing his 1st MarDiv patch along with all his other Ranger paraphernalia. Seems regardless of DA’s ‘official’ position, people are still gonna wear it. And now the Air Force gets to play the game, too.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
Thanks for your responses gents. Reason asking is I’m now Air Force and there are other prior service Marines here I serve with. With the transition to OCPs for Air Force starting Oct 1st, I’ve brought it to my leaderships attention that this will most likely be a “fad” amongst prior Marines within the Air Force. I’ve asked permission to wear mine, but due to not being able to find any regulations on it, my leadership is concerned about me wearing it. Quite frankly I’ve gotten mixed answers from “no” to “fuck you it you earned it, wear it”.
(3)
(0)
SrA (Join to see)
LTC Jason Mackay
Being a member of the 49th wing, per the AFI, it simply states identifier tabs and functional badges can be worn, which I do not believe the MARDIV patch falls under. But then again I’m not aware of any reg. That states people who cross train to wear their former AFSC occupational badge. And considering that Airmen are authorIzed to wear Ranger tabs, and Air Assault badges.. I don’t see why this wouldn’t be allowed. I would think the Air Force would want to show how diverse of a branch it is but allowing sister branch service members to show off their former branches
Being a member of the 49th wing, per the AFI, it simply states identifier tabs and functional badges can be worn, which I do not believe the MARDIV patch falls under. But then again I’m not aware of any reg. That states people who cross train to wear their former AFSC occupational badge. And considering that Airmen are authorIzed to wear Ranger tabs, and Air Assault badges.. I don’t see why this wouldn’t be allowed. I would think the Air Force would want to show how diverse of a branch it is but allowing sister branch service members to show off their former branches
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google