Would wearing a dog tag(s) be considered an OPSEC violation?

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 25 Nov 2014 14:51:07 -0500

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Nov 25 at 2014 3:00 PM

Capt Richard I P. — Tue, 25 Nov 2014 15:00:25 -0500

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member, It is definitely not an OPSEC violation, though your dog tags do contain PII with your name and social on them.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 25 at 2014 3:07 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 25 Nov 2014 15:07:15 -0500

Well, according to the code of conduct, the only information carried on them are things you can give out anyway. While I agree, they are horrid when having a little chest hair or in the cold. But we do what we must.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 25 at 2014 3:14 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 25 Nov 2014 15:14:43 -0500

No.

Response by TSgt Joshua Copeland made Nov 25 at 2014 3:15 PM

TSgt Joshua Copeland — Tue, 25 Nov 2014 15:15:50 -0500

Not at all. Potential PII issues sure. Potential personal secure issues sure.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Nov 25 at 2014 3:26 PM

LTC Paul Labrador — Tue, 25 Nov 2014 15:26:03 -0500

OPSEC? No. Force protection? Possibly

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 25 at 2014 6:02 PM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 25 Nov 2014 18:02:02 -0500

Certainly a good way to get your identity stolen.

Response by SSG Maurice P. made Nov 25 at 2014 6:08 PM

SSG Maurice P. — Tue, 25 Nov 2014 18:08:04 -0500

say what?????????????????????????it was part of my uniform the whole time i was in the marine corps army navy and air force...

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 26 at 2014 8:36 AM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 26 Nov 2014 08:36:45 -0500

Operational Security violation? Meh - maybe. I know in the past there were times where we had to sanitize ourselves to the point of cross-checking to make sure your battle had any military-related gear with us (down to checking our tighty-whiteys for ID markings). It was a scary thought surrendering that Green ID Card and dog tags before going on mission. But those days were extremely rare.

As mentioned in this thread - I might consider it a PII violation if you're wearing them for a status symbol. As SSgt Private RallyPoint Member mentions, there are individuals among us that can and will use any information available for a few bucks. Keeping one's PII under wraps makes sense these days and I suspect will become increasingly more important in the future.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 26 at 2014 9:38 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 26 Nov 2014 09:38:12 -0500

Obviously, wearing it while in uniform (of course the proper way/tucked) is not an OPSEC violation. I have not seen any clear and specific directive/regulation on dog-tags and OPSEC or INFOSEC. There are rules against photographing/photocopying certain official documents/articles.

I tell you what I have seen that wrenches my guts. I have seen service-members proudly display them hanging on their rear view mirrors on their POV. Some took selfie pictures with it hanging ontheir neck-looking all cool (aaand zoom, zoom, there goes your social). Heck I've seen Soldiers, Civilians, and their Families take pictures of DoD CAC, Birth Certificates, and voting ballots. The problem about all of this are obvious violations of all sorts and some not so obvious breaking of DoD Directives, Federal, and some state law.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 28 at 2014 12:57 PM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 28 Nov 2014 12:57:09 -0500

Potentially, but everything needs to be put into context and perspective. For 99% of how and where people operate, I think that's a big stretch.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 1 at 2014 10:07 AM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 01 Dec 2014 10:07:24 -0500

Let's look at our terms to understand what is being asked. From FM 1-02:

operations security – (DOD) A process of identifying critical information and subsequently analyzing friendly actions attendant to military operations and other activities to: a. identify those actions that can be observed by adversary intelligence systems; b. determine indicators hostile intelligence systems might obtain that could be interpreted or pieced together to derive critical information in time to be useful to adversaries; and c. select and execute measures that eliminate or reduce to an acceptable level the vulnerabilities of friendly actions to adversary exploitation. [Note: the Army replaces “critical information” with “essential elements of friendly information.”] Also called OPSEC. See FM 3-13.

'OPSEC violation' is not explicitly defined. However, let's take it to mean something along the lines of, 'Any action taken by a Soldier, DoD Civilian, or DoD-supporting contractor which violates the measures selected for execution through the OPSEC process in order to eliminate or reduce to an acceptable level the vulnerabilities of friendly actions to adversary exploitation."

If we can agree to that definition, the only way for the wearing of 'dog tags' to be an OPSEC violation would be for the NOT wearing of dog tags to have been selected as a measure to eliminate or reduce to an acceptable level the vulnerabilities of friendly actions to adversary exploitation. While it is very possible that under specific circumstances that could be a measure adopted for a specific mission, it is not a general measure I've personally seen any level of Command make for its personnel.

Response by SPC John Decker made Dec 1 at 2014 2:09 PM

SPC John Decker — Mon, 01 Dec 2014 14:09:30 -0500

I would have to know the OPSEC specifics to be able to give a valid opinion. Are there still multiple levels of OPSEC dependent on specific circumstances?