Why do officers get a one time stipend to buy their uniforms and enlisted receive an initial issue and a uniform allowance?

LTC Paul Heinlein — Sat, 13 Sep 2014 07:47:43 -0400

Officers get a one time uniform stipend when they get commissioned and then for the rest of their career they are expected to pay for their upkeep and replacement of their uniforms out of their pay. Enlisted get a complete initial issue of uniforms and then are paid a yearly allowance to keep up with the replacement cost for uniforms.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 13 at 2014 1:21 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 13 Sep 2014 13:21:50 -0400

I was always told its because officers make more money. Though enlisted get a yearly allowance it in no way will pay for what you are expected to buy, and I know I spend well over the allotted amount each year ensuring that I maintain my uniforms/equipment. It also gives NCOs more ammunition in enforcing standards as you can tell a soldier with a jacked up uniform to get it squared away. If they try to use the excuse of not having money it is easy to just reply with, 'the Army gives you a clothing allowance for just that purpose' or something along those lines.

Response by TSgt Joshua Copeland made Sep 13 at 2014 1:24 PM

TSgt Joshua Copeland — Sat, 13 Sep 2014 13:24:45 -0400

It comes from historical tradition where Officers were expected to be basically be self supporting. Going back even further to the British systems where Officer Commissions were actually Purchased and your retirement was in part, the proceeds of selling your commission.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 13 at 2014 2:02 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 13 Sep 2014 14:02:46 -0400

Gee, thanks for the heads up, sir. Not what I wanted to hear since I submitted commissioning package not too long ago :-(

Response by LTC Paul Heinlein made Sep 13 at 2014 2:19 PM

LTC Paul Heinlein — Sat, 13 Sep 2014 14:19:55 -0400

MSgt Joshua Copeland, I had a similar understanding but I'm unable to find the information as I was lead to understand.

As you stated it is basically a "custom" of the Military Service. In the early days of our Military and our Militias, the Officers were the rich citizens that could afford to buy the equipment for the units, i.e. you want to be the Battery Commander of a Field Artillery Battery, then buy the cannons and recruit Soldiers to man them. Thus since they were the "rich guys buying everything, they are the ones that bought the uniforms".

So, our Military is no longer organized as such and anyone of any social status can be an Officer, why does that custom continue?

SSG Zachary Canfield, Yes in general Officers make more money. But a Platoon Sergeant normally makes more money than his/her Platoon Leader. The Platoon Leader still has to buy his/her own uniforms and the Platoon Sergeant does not, so the rationale of the income level starts losing some validity. Also, if it is because they make more money, why don't they reduce the salary in kind and replace it with uniform allowance that is not taxed versus the salary? But, in the long term that policy does not really help because a uniform allowance would not be figure into an Officer's Retirement pay since it would no longer be considered "Basic Pay" which retirement is based on. So the follow on question or thought would be, "why don't the enlisted fight to have their basic pay increased by the amount of the uniform allowance (and thus the uniform allowance would go away) and they would benefit by an increase in retirement pay when they retired?"

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 13 at 2014 3:29 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 13 Sep 2014 15:29:26 -0400

Sir,

Maybe it's because enlisted folks' uniforms suffer actual wear and tear. ;)

Response by WO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 13 at 2014 6:15 PM

WO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 13 Sep 2014 18:15:51 -0400

I've read somewhere that allowance was first used back in the 80's and 90's when military pay was far less then what it is now. The allowance was a PR tool used to assist lower level SM's who were already on Food Stamps and other government assistance.

I honestly can't remember where and it's just a likely a made up story. I wouldn't quote it as a fact.

Response by SPC David S. made Sep 13 at 2014 6:28 PM

SPC David S. — Sat, 13 Sep 2014 18:28:42 -0400

Not saying its fair its just the way it is sir.

Newly commissioned officers are authorized an initial clothing (uniform) allowance of $400.00.

Commissioned officers do not receive an annual uniform replacement/maintenance allowance. Because commissioned officers make substantially more money than enlisted personnel, Congress expects them to pay the cost of uniform replacement out of their own pocket.

Note: Special *functional* uniform items, such as flight suits, are provided to the officer at no cost (assuming they perform duties which allow the wear of the item, such as flight duties).

For more information about commissioned officer uniform allowances, see Department of Defense (DOD) Pay Regulation, Volume 7A (Active Duty & Reserve Pay), Chapter 30 -- Officers' Uniform and Equipment Allowance.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 13 at 2014 7:44 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 13 Sep 2014 19:44:55 -0400

In my personal opinion all work uniforms and one dress uniform should be provided and maintained for all serving members. Then do away with the clothing allowance and add this service as a benefit to your total benefit package. You as the individual would be responsible for any additional uniforms you wish to purchase, such as the mess dress. Or if the uniform allowance must be maintained make it for E-5 and below. Just my .02

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 13 at 2014 9:56 PM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 13 Sep 2014 21:56:37 -0400

back when I was in the aviation world all of our gear like flight suits etc were issued to us, officer and enlisted. When I deployed for the first time I was given a huge complement of desert bags. Back before the Air Force jumped on the Airman Battle Uniform(ABU), all service members were issued an adequate amount of the old DCU's. If they were non serviceable than you would get them replaced at the units expense. Maybe they should cancel the stipend and do a individual issue. Then when the uniforms start getting serviceable then you have them replace at GSA base issue store.

For units that are more likely to get dirty personnel get extra pairs. This would ensure that all equipment is serviceable and take onus out of the individuals hands.

I remember back when the AF adopted our 80's style MC hammer PT gear they gave an initial issue stipend to E5's and below but everyone else paid out of pocket. No one was excited to get the PT's and less excited to pay for them.

Response by SGM Matthew Quick made Sep 13 at 2014 11:18 PM

SGM Matthew Quick — Sat, 13 Sep 2014 23:18:49 -0400

Good question...disappointed in how it's phrased. (Using 'only' and 'expected to pay out of their own pay' appears to be complaining)

The annual clothing allowance is roughly $35 per month...it's hard for me to comprehend how this question is asked when, on average, a CPT with over 4 years ($5,168/month) earns nearly $3,000 more per month than a SPC with over 4 years ($2,328/month).

I'm not sure of the reasoning behind why officers are not entitled to the extra $36 per month for clothing allowance replacement, but I'd be interested in learning of the official answer from OSD.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 14 at 2014 2:20 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 14 Sep 2014 02:20:49 -0400

Sir,
I took a look at most of the post and some responses worried me.

I don't know 110% why officers do not receive it and I would agree that the formulas are off.

However, we do know that of the three most common allowances enlisted make more BAS and receive a yearly clothing replacement allowance. However, officers receive a significantly higher BAH.

If we used the same train of thought as some of the posts than all allowances should be equal and pay should vary depending on grade.

I am not for sure how many would be thrilled at that point.

I love what I do and would never trade it in. I have also never thought I should get the same allowances as anyone else.

Response by SGT Suraj Dave made Sep 14 at 2014 6:45 AM

SGT Suraj Dave — Sun, 14 Sep 2014 06:45:43 -0400

Well Sir,
There is the fact you make more money then us.

Then, there's the fact that we tend to do more physical work then you. Every motor pool Monday, lying under the vehicles looking for leaks, checking the fluids, etc... was the #1 thing that ruined a good percentage of our uniforms. In my 4 years in the U.S. Army, I never once saw an officer PMCS a vehicle, or really do anything with a vehicle aside from getting in the TC seat. I am not saying it doesn't happen, I am just saying I have never seen it.

You don't really see officers doing outside work, yard work, etc... Which is another thing that really damages your uniform.

In Garrison, those were the 2 main ways my uniforms became un-serviceable.

**** I did find out, if you leave your patches on and wash your uniforms inside out, they last 3x as long. They don't fade nearly as fast, and by leaving the patches on you don't need to worry about the Velcro not sticking.

Response by SFC Stephen P. made Sep 14 at 2014 10:31 AM

SFC Stephen P. — Sun, 14 Sep 2014 10:31:17 -0400

Enlisted make excuses.

If we require PVT Snuffy to buy his own uniform, food, housing, etc., he will claim that he can't afford it.

The clothing allowance, which is specifically designated for him to purchase and maintain uniforms, removes all legitimacy from that excuse.

I believe a higher level of professionalism is expected from our officers.

As a consolation, at least it should be tax deductible.

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Sep 14 at 2014 11:10 AM

SSG Robert Burns — Sun, 14 Sep 2014 11:10:56 -0400

I'll take a stab at this one. Let's see...a 20 year career of clothing allowance is about $12-13K. The difference between O and E pay makes that up in about 3-4 months. That's including the BAH.
My question is why does a CPT with 1 kid makes more in BAH that a SPC with 4? It's a housing allowance, not a rank allowance. If they are on post that CPT is in a single family 3br/2bath detached home while that SPC is in a quadplex with the kids doubling up.
I'm not saying it's not fair, I'm just saying I wouldn't worry about the clothing allowance.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 14 at 2014 11:18 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 14 Sep 2014 11:18:21 -0400

I'd be curious for the real reason - the Army always has one even if they are shrouded in the mysteries of time.

My guess: once upon a time, officers never got dirty doing work. They were the aristocracy of the military, and above such things.
However, they were required to attend ceremonial functions far more frequently then their enlisted comrades, and as such needed to possess the various dress uniforms to be worn depending on the occasion.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 14 at 2014 11:27 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 14 Sep 2014 11:27:13 -0400

Sir,

I'm not sure if this question was answered yet, however I hear this one all the time. I'm in a unit that has a temporary civilian clothing allowance (CCA) authorized, and I would like to get the officers the same allowance as the enlisted. In the DoD 7000-14-R, 7A (the financial management regulation) there's many references to federal law when discussing officer civilian clothing allowances, however I've yet to find the law or the reason for the law. I did see where if you were permanently station overseas and required a CCA you could get one. Uniforms aren't cheap, any way you look at it.

I will tell you that the clothing allowance replaces: 1 full dress uniform set when we transitioned from Class A's to ASU's. You don't get any ACU's from this if you buy the dress uniform. If you want ACU's it stretches to about two uniforms, a pair of regulation boots and the patches, unless you pay the $ to get everything sewn on and a patrol cap. You might squeeze a PT shirt and shorts from this too. We don't get a full replacement, just enough to give me ammunition when Soldiers uniforms are messed up.

In deployment situations there is the ADO program, where everyone gets clothing replaced due to operational need. So there is some parity in the clothing debate as well, as everyone deployed is eligible for this.

SFC Hanley

Response by MAJ Ronnie Reams made Sep 14 at 2014 1:23 PM

MAJ Ronnie Reams — Sun, 14 Sep 2014 13:23:06 -0400

I remember when EM changed from DX to a uniform allowance. I think it was to save money. CIF doesn't have to keep a big inventory and you only spend a set amount to give to the EM/EW. I liked the DX better, myownself, when I was enlisted. Officers have always, AFAIK, gotten the $300 initial allowance and paid for their stuff there after. I was lucky and just took the stripes of my fatigues and sewed on the bar and branch. Also, folks could see I had been a NCO and did not
look at me as a brand new 90 day wonder.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 14 at 2014 1:31 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 14 Sep 2014 13:31:54 -0400

Great theories in all of the comments above, most of which focus on pay differences between officers and enlisted, and some of which focus on the history of armies in general, and the U.S. Army in particular. Most of these comments hit on parts of the real answer, found in 37 U.S.C. §§415-419.

http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/pdf-files/Military_Comp.pdf

See page 998 - 1002.

"H.R. 5007, 81st Congress, 1st Session (1949), that became the
Career Compensation Act of 1949, ch. 681 [Public Law 351, 81st Congress], 63 Stat. 802 (1949), as follows: Whenever an officer goes into the service, he does so knowing he will be required to subsist himself. Any time a man enlists in the service, the law requires that the Government subsist that man. And, if the Government does not subsist that man, then we will have to reimburse him for that food. Under his contract, they agree to feed him, clothe him, and shelter him. But there is no contract with the officer."

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 14 at 2014 1:31 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 14 Sep 2014 13:31:43 -0400

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 14 at 2014 6:55 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 14 Sep 2014 18:55:24 -0400

I was told you're an officer and you make more than I do. But I never knew the Army did it's officer corps like that!!!

Response by PO1 Ken Johnson made Sep 15 at 2014 7:13 AM

PO1 Ken Johnson — Mon, 15 Sep 2014 07:13:23 -0400

It's because we wear out our uniforms doing actual work... :)

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 15 at 2014 3:38 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 15 Sep 2014 15:38:54 -0400

In the Marine Corps recruits pay is deducted during bootcamp in order to pay for the uniforms. Therefore the enlisted do pay out of pocket for their uniforms which are "issued". The annual uniform allowance is about enough to buy a single pair of quality boots, so maintence of everything else is still on the enlisteds shoulders.

Response by Cpl Peter Martuneac made Sep 15 at 2014 6:39 PM

Cpl Peter Martuneac — Mon, 15 Sep 2014 18:39:22 -0400

To be fair, officers make a whole hell of a lot more than enlisted guys. And it's not like the uniform allowance is all that much anyway, I don't recall it ever being enough to cover yearly uniform expenses. Just getting your blues squared away for the Marine Corps Birthday Ball can cost well over a hundred bucks. Having to get all your patches changed every time you get promoted is also a pain, and let's not forget how quickly grunts go through boots.

Response by SGT Alicia Brenneis made Sep 15 at 2014 6:41 PM

SGT Alicia Brenneis — Mon, 15 Sep 2014 18:41:29 -0400

It is my opinion that the majority of the Officers in the military do not get down and dirty with the enlisted. That is not to say all do not. I have seen plenty lead from the front. In return those officers were also told to manage the soldiers not do the work. There is also the fact that officers are promoted less frequently than enlisted and have less to change on their duty/dress uniforms. A new enlisted soldier can be promoted 3 times in the first 2 years, four times if they are that good. Updating your class As that many times gets very expensive. These reasons may not be the full reason but it is a good one.

Response by LTC Hillary Luton made Sep 15 at 2014 6:44 PM

LTC Hillary Luton — Mon, 15 Sep 2014 18:44:33 -0400

I have read several of the responses on here from some who see officers as complaining about the expense of buying our own uniforms. Granted, I'm not keen on the idea of purchasing a new uniform every other year, but at the same time, I'm not really complaining about the expense at this late date in my career. What's done is done.

The time I had a real problem with this expense was when I was a TPU lieutenant and I didn't exactly have a high paying job. In fact, at the time, I was working two jobs on top of my Reserve duty just to make ends meet. My Reserve pay was only about $170 a month before taxes (we are talking a LONG time ago).

When you ask a Reserve lieutenant to shell out money for uniforms every other year because the Army decides to change the design, its a lot to ask. There is no guarantee that a Reserve officer has a job that pays the same as an Active Duty officer of the same rank, but they are still expected to shell out the same money for uniforms.

Response by SPC Jeremy Hendley made Sep 16 at 2014 10:38 AM

SPC Jeremy Hendley — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 10:38:11 -0400

It has been a long time since i was in but i can remember getting to my unit(1/505 PIR) back in the 1990's and my squad leader take me to the uniform store(sorry forgot the proper name) and signing me up for credit. i had to buy a large rucksack(only issued the small one) more BDU"S(yes the green ones) A new set of dress greens(could have the yucking issued ones wouldnt look good for funeral details). By the times i was done i had over a $1000 in credit used because i would need it...Oh ya and had to buy jump boots too. Airborne, all they way!

Response by SPC Jeremy Hendley made Sep 16 at 2014 11:03 AM

SPC Jeremy Hendley — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 11:03:34 -0400

though its been many years since i was in (1992-1997). i remember getting to my unit and my squad leader taking me to clothing exchange and sighning me up for credit so i could purchase things i would need that i wasn't issued. I had to buy a large rucksack because i was issued a smalll one. i had to purchase more bdu's had to purchase a new set of dress greens so i would look good for funeral details. oh ya had to purchase a pair of jump boots because they were not issued too. Airborne, All the way!

Response by Sgt W Hibshman made Sep 16 at 2014 4:22 PM

Sgt W Hibshman — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 16:22:03 -0400

Enlisted uniforms are not free. That is a myth.
My first job after finance school was to credit back the clothing issue deduction to balance out the pay records of recruits who did not graduate boot camp.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 16 at 2014 8:03 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 20:03:15 -0400

Maybe they should give officers a clothing allowance, because the only ones that look professional always end up being prior NCOs.

Response by CH (MAJ) Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 16 at 2014 10:02 PM

CH (MAJ) Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 22:02:54 -0400

I've got one better. I started out as an Army Reserve chaplain and when I got commissioned, I couldn't leave my church for the whole period so I had to break apart my initial training.

Because I didn't go the first ninety-days through of my service, and did the otherwise same training in two iterations, I was only given a fraction of that initial stipend, and no second half to follow up the next time I was on extended active duty.

Same uniform requirements as anyone else, less uniform stipend.

Response by CSM Dean Bridges made Sep 16 at 2014 11:26 PM

CSM Dean Bridges — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 23:26:41 -0400

It is because over the years the pay raises have been on Percentages. So Officers already have a higher base pay so with Percentage raises the gap between Officers and Enlisted just keeps getting larger and larger. So one way to help with that gap is with the Uniform allowance. The gap was never intented to be as large as it is now.

Response by PO2 Corey Ferretti made Jan 2 at 2015 10:29 PM

PO2 Corey Ferretti — Fri, 02 Jan 2015 22:29:24 -0500

I was always told that because you guy as officers make more money then we do. But honestly your uniforms are more expensive too so i have no idea. it kind of stinks too since you can dump 500 bucks into one uniform.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 3 at 2015 4:18 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 03 Jan 2015 16:18:23 -0500

Sir,
I believe that an officer of O-1 to 0-3 should get an allowance and officers O-4 and higher shouldn't get an allowance. I believe this because I have seen 0-1 - O-3's actually do some manual labor and need uniforms more often. I have never seen an 0-4 or higher do work like this. So their uniforms last longer. I agree that all service members should get an initial issue on gear and uniforms but when uniforms change we enlisted are even forced to go out and spend our own money on new uniforms. For example the new Army PTs are not being issued to me nor will I get compensated for purchasing them. I know a lot of enlisted that have had to purchase ASUs out of pocket as well. Our allowance is for us to purchase 2 new uniforms, boots, and PTs. It doesn't cover

Response by SPC Christopher Smith made Jan 3 at 2015 6:30 PM

SPC Christopher Smith — Sat, 03 Jan 2015 18:30:54 -0500

I came in at E-4 compared to an O-1 like I should have, and the math is really simple.

If everything was the same, we both are single and living in barracks (which the Lt wouldn't be but for this he is)

E-4: Monthly pay= 2019.60*12= 28,650
O-1= Monthly pay= 2934.30*12= 38,252
Difference at end of year= 9,602

As time goes on I will not keep up with that new Officers promotion rate or income generation. So that $9,602 only grows larger and larger, I'm sure replacing a few uniforms and some boots won't hurt the wallet all that much.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 15 at 2015 1:22 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 15 Mar 2015 13:22:24 -0400

For enlisted the so called issued is deducted from your pay. As far as upkeep of military uniforms I have never seen an officer turn a wrench, kive in garrison conditions etc. If they lived the same way enlisted did and held to the same standard aka not looking a bucket of trash as most officers do compared to enlisted then I would agree they should have an allowance. In my experience in 5 years the allowance paid for dry cleaning or service and dress unifroms not actually replacing uniforms from being unserviceable. For this why I believe officers often don't realize they live in a different realm of reality.

Response by SGT Suraj Dave made Aug 12 at 2015 10:42 AM

SGT Suraj Dave — Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:42:41 -0400

1. Money, you get more of it.
2. The enlisted do things like clean, fill sand bags, yard work etc.... We actually tear and rip our uniforms. No offense, but Officers don't do that sort of work. Taking care of your uniforms is easier because you don't do things that rip or stain them.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 13 at 2015 1:43 PM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 13 Aug 2015 13:43:37 -0400

Sir-I think the bill on my initial issue as an ensign was somewhere north of $3k, but it's been a while. Service Dress White alone is several hundred with all the "frills". My own opinion is that even very junior officers are often required to attend events where more expensive uniform is the order of the day. I read somewhere active duty O-4 are required to own full Mess Dress and regulation sword...easily a couple grand (based on what I spent). This may explain the one time stipend, and why the requirement for more expensive kit is later in career....by comparison, enlisted personnel are even further limited in discretionary income, but perhaps held to a higher (enforced) standard for the maintenance of the few uniforms they are required to have. In the end, I feel it works out fairly.

Response by COL George Antochy made Dec 17 at 2015 6:23 PM

COL George Antochy — Thu, 17 Dec 2015 18:23:55 -0500

Interesting comments. Always bothers me when officers and enlisted play the equality card. Everyone had a choice to make whether they wanted to be an Officer or Enlisted and they should just live with the choice they made. Saying that when I was commissioned the initial officer clothing allowance was $100. When I was mobilized for DS/DS I was given a $300 allowance and when I was mobilized for OIF I was given RIF issue. Over my 30 year career I have spent thousands on uniforms and maintenance, never complaining, but always taking them as a deduction from my taxes (only class C uniforms). Not counting 'fatigues' and boots I went through 3 Class A, 2 Dress Blue, 2 Mess Blue and one Mess White in 30 years. It bothers me how often the Army changes uniforms, and the burden these changes place upon all Soldiers (O/W/E). Now I understand that the ACU, which is about 10 years old, is being phased out for another uniform. Uniforms cost significantly more today than when I purchased them back in the late 70's. I do not understand why the Army does not allow it's Soldiers (En) to DX their un-servicable ACUs ( qty based upon clothing bag requirements) for the new uniform. I realize that these Soldiers receive a yearly $4## clothing allowance, but that will not cover the cost of replacing all these uniforms. Especially since that also has to cover the cost of replacing other items as well as maintaining their Class A and B uniforms. We do not need new uniforms every time the CSA and SMA change.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Dec 17 at 2015 6:32 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Thu, 17 Dec 2015 18:32:39 -0500

Enlisted have rougher parties. Just Joking!

Response by MSG Gerry Poe made Dec 24 at 2015 12:30 PM

MSG Gerry Poe — Thu, 24 Dec 2015 12:30:52 -0500

I think every soldier regardless of rank should get equal money to purchase uniforms!

Response by SPC Bryan Guzman-Piedra made Dec 24 at 2015 6:08 PM

SPC Bryan Guzman-Piedra — Thu, 24 Dec 2015 18:08:05 -0500

I always made fun of officers for their clean uniforms and boots.

WOs who track maintenance test pilot were always exempt.

Response by 1SG Jack Crutcher made Dec 24 at 2015 6:26 PM

1SG Jack Crutcher — Thu, 24 Dec 2015 18:26:38 -0500

Compare the pay for an officer and the enlisted soldier year for year. A officer with less time in service and time in grade will make more than any enlisted. Also enlisted soldiers are the ones doing the physical labor such as crawling under vehicles, laying out concertina wire and other task that will ruin the uniform. Officers are normally better at managing money than a lot of enlisted especially the lower ranks.

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 24 at 2015 7:04 PM

Maj Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 24 Dec 2015 19:04:50 -0500

It's mandated by Congress, who approve all pay and allowances ... Who determoned O's basepay is high enough to abosrb the costs. You can Google it ...

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 24 at 2015 9:11 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 24 Dec 2015 21:11:18 -0500

How about I'll take your rank pay and you take mine and see how affordable that allowance really is.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 24 at 2015 9:13 PM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 24 Dec 2015 21:13:54 -0500

Because officers make more in a month than enlisted do in 4.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 25 at 2015 5:49 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 25 Dec 2015 17:49:40 -0500

Well my PL gets dirty and rips his uniform just as much as myself and my gun team but my xo and 1sgt go out but don't ruin there uniforms so if you still operate at the platoon level you should get uniform allowance if not then no there's no need to

Response by SPC Rory J. Mattheisen made Dec 25 at 2015 7:00 PM

SPC Rory J. Mattheisen — Fri, 25 Dec 2015 19:00:54 -0500

This is a joke right?!!

Response by Sgt William Biggs made Dec 25 at 2015 7:42 PM

Sgt William Biggs — Fri, 25 Dec 2015 19:42:29 -0500

My thought is the disparity in pay coupled with the alteration fees enlisted members incur was the reasoning. It's not exactly fair, but I think it is in the right mindset. I think officers should be accommodated for utilities at a minimum.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 26 at 2015 3:27 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 26 Dec 2015 03:27:46 -0500

I am not to try to justify why I make almost 6K in base pay and receive a clothing allowance. It is ridiculous to justify my 27 years of service being eqauted to an O2 with 6 months in service. Grow up and dole out the extra money you make every month and stop whining. No disrespect intended, but really? We are all just enlisted that don't have the same responsibility that is commensurate with our pay.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Dec 26 at 2015 5:19 AM

PO1 John Miller — Sat, 26 Dec 2015 05:19:20 -0500

I'm not sure if you're even checking this thread anymore (it's over a year old, LOL) but I saw that it got some recent activity. I don't have an answer to your question but I do have a gripe to further it as I do agree with your complaint.

I see a lot of senior enlisted and officers say that "You get a uniform allowance so don't say that you can't afford it..." That's the biggest cop out I've heard over this debate. The paltry UA an enlisted person gets yearly is not nearly enough to replace uniforms without cutting into your pocket.

I believe the solution should be to do what the National Guard does (at least the Air National Guard unit I work for as a contractor). That is to issue at no cost to the service member (I'm not sure about the Officers as I haven't asked them) their ABU's. These guys wear that uniform or flight suits almost exclusively. I only see them wearing dress uniform once in a blue moon on the occasional drill weekend so obviously that uniform doesn't get as much wear and tear.

Response by Capt Tom Brown made Jan 5 at 2016 4:18 PM

Capt Tom Brown — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 16:18:00 -0500

I always thought it was because officers were paid more than enlisted that they could afford to buy their own uniform clothing. Nothing like purchasing that MC 'Mess Dress' uniform and all it's accessories.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 5 at 2016 4:24 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 16:24:11 -0500

I think it may have something to do with the vast pay difference between the Officer and Enlisted Pay amounts. I can tell you that without that clothing allowance, I would never be able to afford upkeep on my uniforms with what I get paid now. However, a 2LT who gets paid over twice what I do, even at the same age and less military experience, can afford to maintain their uniforms considerably easier than I can. Granted, I do not know the documented reason, but that seems logical to me. Fair? No, probably not. But logical? Certainly.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 5 at 2016 3:31 PM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 05 Feb 2016 15:31:04 -0500

I have a somewhat unique situation. I was a regular officer 8 years ago, was honorably discharged from the IRR, then decided to join the AFR and was re-appointed as a Reserve officer. I content I am eligible for another "initial" clothing allowance, as I am joining a new reserve component and the required uniform has changed (I used to have the old BDUs). Has anyone won this argument with Reserve Pay or gotten a reg clarification from ARPC?

Response by SFC William A. McCoy made Sep 1 at 2016 11:38 AM

SFC William A. McCoy — Thu, 01 Sep 2016 11:38:05 -0400

Doesn't sound fair. Especially if the officer has children to support.

Response by LTC Jerry Clanton made Sep 1 at 2016 2:36 PM

LTC Jerry Clanton — Thu, 01 Sep 2016 14:36:15 -0400

http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/pdf-files/Military_Comp.pdf

It's the law, see Chapter V.C.2. It has more to do with the contractual obligations between the government and the individual. That said, I think this needs a modern relook.

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made Feb 26 at 2018 10:31 AM

SGM Bill Frazer — Mon, 26 Feb 2018 10:31:25 -0500

Officers receive high pay/allowances. In the earliest days of our history- officers where all gentlemen and equipped themselves 100%, and often part of their men. Now days- how many O-3's and above do you see breaching obstacles, crawling thru brush etc. When I was in the fantastic allowance let me buy 2 set of BDU's, 1 set of boots, a new beret and damn little else. If there were uniform changes then you were screwed.

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made Apr 25 at 2018 7:24 PM

SGM Bill Frazer — Wed, 25 Apr 2018 19:24:30 -0400

Gee Sir, 1. You folks make more money- I didn't see many O's over CPT, crawling thru mud, or breaching wire, etc. 2. My clothing allowance never ever covered my clothing costs- heck Jump boots were $150 when I retired, if I was lucky- it added up to 1- 2 sets of fatigues- a Class A shirt or new Beret, 1 pr field boots. Lord help us if the was a uniform change that year.

Response by SMSgt Lawrence McCarter made Nov 3 at 2018 5:21 PM

SMSgt Lawrence McCarter — Sat, 03 Nov 2018 17:21:09 -0400

I would expect that Officers would be paid more with the increased responsibility due to their position however its not like they have an option of what to wear to work. I see no valid reason why Officers shouldn't also receive a uniform allowance to be issued or to purchase and maintain their uniforms. In the case of an Officer or Enlisted Member the allowance should be sufficient to cover issue type uniforms but perhaps not optional uniforms or related items that normally wouldn't be issued. That is My opinion as to what I consider fair and reasonable for all Military Members of any rank, Commissioned, Warrant or Enlisted.

Response by PVT Mark Zehner made Nov 3 at 2018 6:13 PM

PVT Mark Zehner — Sat, 03 Nov 2018 18:13:22 -0400

Two fold one officers make more and secondly enlisted get more wear

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 5 at 2018 10:40 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 05 Nov 2018 10:40:02 -0500

I'm not sure but it may have to deal with the amount of money that a 2LT makes being equivalent to that of a SFC with 14 years of service.

Response by CPT David Miller made Nov 8 at 2018 5:43 AM

CPT David Miller — Thu, 08 Nov 2018 05:43:30 -0500

Sir, I suspect that we, as gentlemen of "considerable personal fortune", were expected to equip ourselves entirely at personal expense. As an ROTC graduate in 1980, I was issued a set of AG-44 greens which needed to be altered to officer specifications with black mohair trouser and sleeve braid. The one-time stipend could be used to pay for the dress blue uniform. While attending Armor Officer Basic, I lucked out at the post thrift shop and found a blue mess uniform jacket that fit well enough to take to Marlow White and have it altered to the Armor branch yellow facings and sleeve decoration. When the Army transitioned to the BDU in 1981, I gave up my green fatigues quite reluctantly (they fit under the organizational cold weather uniform better than the BDU).

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 6 at 2019 11:06 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 06 Feb 2019 11:06:05 -0500

Uniform stipend is a lie. 6 years on active orders and no stipend yet.