Posted: 11/8/2009 1:51:02 AM EDT
|
This is quite strange to me, especially being a Marine. My current assignment has me (unfortunately) attending conferences all the time. Many times these conferences are of a joint nature. I have noticed it over and over again so I have to ask.
Does the Army authorize the wear of the ACU uniform anywhere and everywhere? Example of why I ask - Last week I was in Panama City Florida for the Department of Defense Joint Committee on Tactical Shelters Convention. All civilians were wearing suits or business casual at minimum. Marines, Navy, and Air Force were wearing service/dress uniforms (not cammies / utilities etc). The Army was guys were wearing the ACU uniform. Is this normal and is it authorized? In my opinion it simply puts forth a bad image of the service. Maybe that is because I am a Marine and it simply goes against everything we can do, and what I have been taught. I know that it isn't wrong because it is different from what we do and I am not even trying to say that. I am just curious. ETA: This conference was not on base. We (Marines) often wear our utility uniform to conferences on base too. This conference was out in town at the Bay Point Marriott Golf Resort & Spa |
|
The Army wants to try and remind everyone that we are "An Army at War." At least in the era of the BDU/DCU and black boots you could press it out and shine it up and look impressive. Wash and wear combined with boots that are impossible to clean is not impressive. And let's not even talk about the ASU debacle. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Isn't it against the UCMJ? and that is standard for all branches, right? What does the UCMJ have to do with uniform regulations? Everything! In the Marine Corp, you would be charged with article 134. §934, Article 134. General article. Includes offenses that are not specifically listed in the Manual for Courts-Martial and which may "cause disorder and neglect to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, or conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces." Article 134 is often considered to be a "catch-all" for various offenses that aren't necessarily covered by the other articles in the UCMJ. Article 134 offenses include disloyal statements , unclean equipment, improper wear of military uniform , abuse of public animals, adultery , bigamy , bribery, fraternization, et al. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Isn't it against the UCMJ? and that is standard for all branches, right? What does the UCMJ have to do with uniform regulations? Everything! In the Marine Corp, you would be charged with article 134. §934, Article 134. General article. Includes offenses that are not specifically listed in the Manual for Courts-Martial and which may "cause disorder and neglect to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, or conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces." Article 134 is often considered to be a "catch-all" for various offenses that aren't necessarily covered by the other articles in the UCMJ. Article 134 offenses include disloyal statements , unclean equipment, improper wear of military uniform , abuse of public animals, adultery , bigamy , bribery, fraternization, et al. Not sure where you are getting your cite from, but it is not the text of of Article 134 itself. I have never read the Marine Corps uniform reg, but the Army uniform reg is not punitive, most regs are not. If a Soldier shows up with a jacked up uniform he would need a specific order to fix the uniform before we could procede under the UCMJ. Now I know the Corps sends people to GCM for stuff we give Company Grade Article 15's for so maybe the uniform reg is punitive. In any event "improper wear of the uniform" would still be service specific and from what the OP described I would say they were wearing the uniform IAW current policy. |
|
I couldn't tell you one way or another about the army, but I know first hand that in the Marine Corp you can be charged under 134 for wearing your utilities out in town.
I believe there are a few exceptions, like getting gas on your way to post, and a few others... But actually wearing them out, is not allowed and a chargable offense. |
|
Quoted:
I couldn't tell you one way or another about the army, but I know first hand that in the Marine Corp you can be charged under 134 for wearing your utilities out in town. I believe there are a few exceptions, like getting gas on your way to post, and a few others... But actually wearing them out, is not allowed and a chargable offense. Not arguing that at all. I would not be surprised to find the Corps uniform reg is punitive or that some other order makes the wearing of your utilities in the wrong place punishable. The ability to punish though flows from that specific order, not the UCMJ itself. |
|
It's actually article 92, Failure to obey order or regulation. Marine Corps ORDER (MCO) P1020.34G is just that an order, like all other written orders.
Normal violations of the uniform order will result in NJP, however I have seen a dumb ass say he would take the court martial instead and the command called the bluff. |
|
Quoted:
It's actually article 92, Failure to obey order or regulation. Marine Corps ORDER (MCO) P1020.34G is just that an order, like all other written orders. Normal violations of the uniform order will result in NJP, however I have seen a dumb ass say he would take the court martial instead and the command called the bluff. My understanding from Marine Judge Advocates is the Corps also routinely takes E-3's that test positive on a urinalysis for marijuana to GCM. Different cultures. |
|
Quoted:
I couldn't tell you one way or another about the army, but I know first hand that in the Marine Corp you can be charged under 134 for wearing your utilities out in town. I believe there are a few exceptions, like getting gas on your way to post, and a few others... But actually wearing them out, is not allowed and a chargable offense. There's a very simple answer for this: THE ARMY IS NOT THE MARINE CORPS. We are allowed to wear our ACUs wherever we need to, there is no regulation saying we can't (aside from obvious things like while drinking and at political rallies) The whole ACUs at the convention thing is what a previous poster mentioned: we're at war, being stateside does not change that (as evidenced by last week). |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's actually article 92, Failure to obey order or regulation. Marine Corps ORDER (MCO) P1020.34G is just that an order, like all other written orders. Normal violations of the uniform order will result in NJP, however I have seen a dumb ass say he would take the court martial instead and the command called the bluff. My understanding from Marine Judge Advocates is the Corps also routinely takes E-3's that test positive on a urinalysis for marijuana to GCM. Different cultures. You are correct, if a Marine pops on piss test you normally will go to a summary or special court martial and normally receive discharge. However most MSC commanders will suspend the discharge for the term of their enlistment, if they don't fuck up they get a normal discharge. This prevents guys from smoking dope to avoid a deployment, they will still get at least a deployment out of them. Normally only SNCOs and Officers go automatically to GCMs. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I couldn't tell you one way or another about the army, but I know first hand that in the Marine Corp you can be charged under 134 for wearing your utilities out in town. I believe there are a few exceptions, like getting gas on your way to post, and a few others... But actually wearing them out, is not allowed and a chargable offense. There's a very simple answer for this: THE ARMY IS NOT THE MARINE CORPS. We are allowed to wear our ACUs wherever we need to, there is no regulation saying we can't (aside from obvious things like while drinking and at political rallies) The whole ACUs at the convention thing is what a previous poster mentioned: we're at war, being stateside does not change that (as evidenced by last week). I have heard that logic used before for the argument of wearing utilities off base. It simply makes no sense. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I couldn't tell you one way or another about the army, but I know first hand that in the Marine Corp you can be charged under 134 for wearing your utilities out in town. I believe there are a few exceptions, like getting gas on your way to post, and a few others... But actually wearing them out, is not allowed and a chargable offense. There's a very simple answer for this: THE ARMY IS NOT THE MARINE CORPS. We are allowed to wear our ACUs wherever we need to, there is no regulation saying we can't (aside from obvious things like while drinking and at political rallies) The whole ACUs at the convention thing is what a previous poster mentioned: we're at war, being stateside does not change that (as evidenced by last week). I have heard that logic used before for the argument of wearing utilities off base. It simply makes no sense. I agree! |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I couldn't tell you one way or another about the army, but I know first hand that in the Marine Corp you can be charged under 134 for wearing your utilities out in town. I believe there are a few exceptions, like getting gas on your way to post, and a few others... But actually wearing them out, is not allowed and a chargable offense. There's a very simple answer for this: THE ARMY IS NOT THE MARINE CORPS. We are allowed to wear our ACUs wherever we need to, there is no regulation saying we can't (aside from obvious things like while drinking and at political rallies) The whole ACUs at the convention thing is what a previous poster mentioned: we're at war, being stateside does not change that (as evidenced by last week). I have heard that logic used before for the argument of wearing utilities off base. It simply makes no sense. I agree! Not saying it makes sense, just saying; that's what it is. Personally, I don't have a problem with it. It's a hell of a lot more practical. You guys have to realize: just because the Marines do something one way, and the Army chooses to do it another - doesn't mean we're wrong, or for that matter that we even care what you think about it. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I couldn't tell you one way or another about the army, but I know first hand that in the Marine Corp you can be charged under 134 for wearing your utilities out in town. I believe there are a few exceptions, like getting gas on your way to post, and a few others... But actually wearing them out, is not allowed and a chargable offense. There's a very simple answer for this: THE ARMY IS NOT THE MARINE CORPS. We are allowed to wear our ACUs wherever we need to, there is no regulation saying we can't (aside from obvious things like while drinking and at political rallies) The whole ACUs at the convention thing is what a previous poster mentioned: we're at war, being stateside does not change that (as evidenced by last week). I have heard that logic used before for the argument of wearing utilities off base. It simply makes no sense. I agree - just telling you what the party line is - as I noted in my first reply the Army as gone full retard on uniforms. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I couldn't tell you one way or another about the army, but I know first hand that in the Marine Corp you can be charged under 134 for wearing your utilities out in town. I believe there are a few exceptions, like getting gas on your way to post, and a few others... But actually wearing them out, is not allowed and a chargable offense. There's a very simple answer for this: THE ARMY IS NOT THE MARINE CORPS. We are allowed to wear our ACUs wherever we need to, there is no regulation saying we can't (aside from obvious things like while drinking and at political rallies) The whole ACUs at the convention thing is what a previous poster mentioned: we're at war, being stateside does not change that (as evidenced by last week). I have heard that logic used before for the argument of wearing utilities off base. It simply makes no sense. +1 |
|
Quoted:
Oh, and the Army service/dress uniforms look like shit.  Coming from a Marine  ...I think it's big improvement over the dress greens
The class A's (Army Dress Blues?) look sharp 
The class B's look a little too much like the cook whites or good humor ice cream man 
Army should have gone back to Pinks and Green circa WWII Monk |
| When Strategic Air Command, and the rest of the Air Force, went to cammies stateside in the mid 80's, it was Verboten to wear them off-base unless we we driving to and from duty, pumping gas, going into a convenience store for a short time, or an emergency. Now I see idiots wearing them everywhere, even shopping at the mall. That burns my ass. I agree with the Marine Corps line on this. |
|
Its normal for Army delegates and even recruiters to wear the ACU in a formal setting where it it clearly should not be. Its part of the ongoing stupidity in my beloved Army to remind the American people we are at war. But nothing says "we're at war" like a terribly fitting, unflattering, ineffective, and completely out of place Army Combat Uniform at a social or academic function where everyone is in casual or business clothing.
Army Strong... and dense. I blame DAHQ. |
|
I watched our local ROTC detachment present the colors at a football game this weekend - in ACU's.
It looked like warmed-over dogshit. On a separate note, why'd the Army switch from the greens to the blues anyway? I'm guessing that deep down it was a way for all the people who have dodged deployments for the past 10 years to hide behind the fact they don't wear two shoulder patches. I like the blues alright, but I kind of dug the greens. I agree, Ike waistcoats and pinks/greens is the way to go. |
If I were in the Army in a job where I attended conferences with other Soldiers wearing ACUs, I would wear class Bs just so I would look like the HMFIC, compared to everyone else in ACUs. You're welcome for the suggestion. 
Seriously, why can't the local commander/OIC just mandate that Soldiers wear Bs to conferences? Simple solution. |
| My favorite is the OSUT infantry soldiers here at benning who graduate basic in ACUs I cant imagine anyone even thinking about graduating in utilities when I came in...come on at a conference or formal function ACUs is not appropriate, I saw COS Casey on meet the press the other day in ACUs!!!! when I saw that I did'nt have the words. we in the army have gotten really slobby in the last few years |
|
I’d rather throw ACUs in the washer instead of taking all the crap off of the A’s and having to drop off and pick up at the dry cleaners. Then after the trips to the cleaners you still have to put all the crap back on the A’s…
I’ll take ACUs over A’s, B’s, or dress blues any day other than a no shit formal event… Not to mention, A’s = hot as hell in the summer…
|
|
Granted Guys ive only been in the Army for 4 months and new to this forum, although i have been reading it for well over a year, i feel obligated to add my input.
Graduated BCT at Fort Benning, GA. Wore class B's for Family Day, wore ACU's for Graduation Day, and traveling to my current post for AIT. Here, at my current phase of training i have to wear Class B's if i go off post on pass till i phase up. Also in order for the Army to bus me to airport for christmas, we must all travel in ACU's. The thing you guys were hashing out in the beginning and i seen a few people correct, Marines isn't the Army. Does'nt pay trying to compare the two. From what Iv'e picked up is ACU's are considered acceptable in all situations because the whole "At War" thing. Don't ask me why, i don't ask questions the way it is. As far as it matters to me, i do whatever im told to keep me out of trouble. Tis the Army way! |
|
in 1984 we graduated in BDUs and spit shined boots. When I got to my regular unit we never wore our uniforms off duty; same deal in Germany. Nothing written that I remember but it was implied that if you go out on the town you did it in civies, not uniforms. I recall that after we were released from duty we couldn't get out of the uniforms fast enough and into civies so we could go into town. (Fort Hood/Killeen and Schweinfurt) |