# CAF Beard policy-CANFORGEN 158/18



## Eagle_Eye_View (25 Sep 2018)

The official CANFORGEN is out on DWAN


----------



## MJP (25 Sep 2018)

Shamelessly stolen from Reddit

R 251819Z SEP 18

FM NDHQ CMP OTTAWA

TO CANFORGEN

BT

UNCLAS

SECTION 1 OF 2

CANFORGEN 158/18 CMP 078/18

SIC WAC

BILINGUAL MESSAGE/MESSAGE BILINGUE

SUBJ: AMENDMENT TO BEARD POLICY

REFS:A.QR AND O 17.02

B. QR AND O 17.03

C. A-DH-265-000/AG-001 CHAPTER 2

1.PERSONAL DRESS AND APPEARANCE OF MILITARY MEMBERS REFLECT ON THE

PROFESSIONALISM AND CREDIBILITY OF THE CANADIAN ARMED FORCES (CAF).

IN ACCORDANCE WITH QUEEN S REGULATIONS AND ORDERS

(QRO) 17.03 (REF B), THE WEARING OF A BEARD IS SUBJECT TO

RESTRICTIONS AS ORDERED BY THE CHIEF OF THE DEFENCE STAFF

2.CONSULTATIONS WERE HELD WITH CAF MEMBERS BY THE NATIONAL

​

​

PAGE 2 RCCPJAQ1040 UNCLAS

DEFENCE CLOTHING AND DRESS COMMITTEE (NDCDC) WHICH REVEALED CONCERNS

REGARDING THE EXISTING BEARD POLICY. IT BECAME APPARENT THAT THE

EXISTING POLICY IS BROADER THAN REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN OPERATIONAL

EFFECTIVENESS. CHANGES TO THE BEARD POLICY IN THIS

CANFORGEN CONTINUE TO RECOGNIZE BOTH THE NEED TO ENSURE FORCE

PROTECTION AND COMFORT TO MILITARY MEMBERS OVER A WIDE RANGE OF

OPERATIONAL AND CLIMATIC CONDITIONS WHILE ALSO SUPPORTING THE

COMPLETE SPECTRUM OF ACTIVITY FROM CEREMONIAL DUTIES TO COMBAT

OPERATIONS, WHILE ALLOWING CAF MEMBERS INCREASED FREEDOM TO MAKE

PERSONAL CHOICES REGARDING THEIR APPEARANCE

3.EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, THE WEARING OF A BEARD IS AUTHORIZED FOR

ALL CAF MEMBERS UPON ATTAINMENT OF THEIR OPERATIONALLY FUNCTIONAL

POINT (OFP) OR HAVING COMPLETED DEVELOPMENTAL PERIOD ONE, WHICHEVER

COMES LAST. HOWEVER, COMMANDERS OF COMMANDS, TASK FORCE COMMANDERS

AND COMMANDING OFFICERS RETAIN THE RIGHT TO ORDER RESTRICTIONS ON

THE WEARING OF A BEARD TO MEET SAFETY AND OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS.

THIS INCLUDES RESTRICTIONS PERTAINING TO OPERATIONS AND TRAINING

WHERE, IN A CHEMICAL BIOLOGICAL RADIOLOGICAL NUCLEAR (CBRN)

ENVIRONMENT OR CBRN TRAINING ENVIRONMENT, A BEARD CAN BE ORDERED TO

BE REMOVED TO ENSURE FORCE PROTECTION ON OPERATIONS OR TRAINING.

​

​

PAGE 3 RCCPJAQ1040 UNCLAS

SUCH RESTRICTIONS WILL BE AS TEMPORARY AS FEASIBLE (E.G. AS LONG AS

THE ENTIRE DURATION OF AN OPERATIONAL TOUR IN A CBRN ENVIRONMENT OR

AS SHORT AS A SINGLE TRAINING DAY FOR CBRN OPERATIONS). WHERE

CURRENT CAF EQUIPMENT CAPABILITIES CANNOT ENSURE FORCE PROTECTION OR

THE ABILITY TO EFFECTIVELY EMPLOY SAFETY SYSTEMS WHILE WEARING A

BEARD, BEARD RESTRICTIONS FOR MEMBERS USING THAT EQUIPMENT FOR

OPERATIONAL OR SAFETY REASONS MAY BE PUT IN PLACE BY A COMMANDING

OFFICER

4.WHERE THE WEARING OF A BEARD IS AUTHORIZED:

A. IT SHALL BE WORN WITH A MOUSTACHE,

B. IT SHALL BE NEATLY TRIMMED, ESPECIALLY ON THE LOWER NECK AND

CHEEKBONES,

C. IT SHALL NOT EXCEED TWO CENTIMETERS IN BULK. A MEMBER WILL, ON

THEIR OWN ACCORD OR UPON DIRECTION FROM THEIR COMMANDING OFFICER OR

THEIR CO S DESIGNATE, SHAVE OFF UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPTS TO GROW A

BEARD.

5.THE DIRECTION PERTAINING TO THE TRIMMING OF A BEARD AT PARA 5

ABOVE DOES NOT APPLY TO CAF MEMBERS WHO ARE EXEMPT, FOR MEDICAL

REASONS, FROM SHAVING THE LOWER NECK OR CHEECKBONES

6.THIS CANFORGEN DOES NOT, IN ANY WAY, MODIFY THE RELIGIOUS AND

​

​

PAGE 4 RCCPJAQ1040 UNCLAS

SPIRITUAL ACCOMODATIONS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 3 OF REF C

7.THE INTENT OF THIS UPDATE TO THE POLICY IS TO ENSURE THE CAF

MAINTAIN OPERATIONAL CAPABILITIES, WHILE STRENGHENING ORGANIZATIONAL

MORALE AND TEAM COHESION

8.AN UPDATED REF C WILL BE PUBLISHED AT r/HTTP://CMP-CPM.MIL.CA/ASSETS/CMP_INTRANET/DOCS/EN/PUBLICATIONS/CH2-POLICY-AND-APPEARANCE.PDF

END OF ENGLISH TEXT / LE TEXTE FRANCAIS SUIT


----------



## BDTyre (25 Sep 2018)

Ah, it is what it is. Some people won't trust social medial regardless of if it's an official account. I have seen official CF accounts be hacked before, so it's not like Kratz is completely unjustified. -300 might be a little extreme, especially given the CANFORGEN came out not long after I posted but whatever...they're just milpoints. I'm not using them for anything.



			
				MJP said:
			
		

> Hahaha I can't belive Kratz gave you negative milpoints for posting the CDS's message.  Not official blah blah blah, must wait for the poorly formatted ALL CAPS message or you're an idiot for believing the top soldier in the CAF might know what he is talking about.  Just imagine a world where the top leaders use relevant social media connect with and inform their soldiers of relevant topics instead of waiting for some slow *** 1970s distribution and message system.  What's next?  The loss of the cavalry charge?  Oh pls tell me it isn't so.


----------



## brihard (25 Sep 2018)

So is anyone in a position to confirm that what is posted here and on Reddit in fact matches what went out on DWAN?


----------



## larry Strong (25 Sep 2018)

R 251819Z SEP 18
FM NDHQ CMP OTTAWA
TO CANFORGEN
BT
UNCLAS
SECTION 1 OF 2
CANFORGEN 158/18 CMP 078/18
SIC WAC
BILINGUAL MESSAGE/MESSAGE BILINGUE
SUBJ: AMENDMENT TO BEARD POLICY
REFS:A.QR AND O 17.02
B. QR AND O 17.03
C. A-DH-265-000/AG-001 CHAPTER 2
1.PERSONAL DRESS AND APPEARANCE OF MILITARY MEMBERS REFLECT ON THE
PROFESSIONALISM AND CREDIBILITY OF THE CANADIAN ARMED FORCES (CAF).
IN ACCORDANCE WITH QUEEN S REGULATIONS AND ORDERS
(QRO) 17.03 (REF B), THE WEARING OF A BEARD IS SUBJECT TO
RESTRICTIONS AS ORDERED BY THE CHIEF OF THE DEFENCE STAFF
2.CONSULTATIONS WERE HELD WITH CAF MEMBERS BY THE NATIONAL
​
​
PAGE 2 RCCPJAQ1040 UNCLAS
DEFENCE CLOTHING AND DRESS COMMITTEE (NDCDC) WHICH REVEALED CONCERNS
REGARDING THE EXISTING BEARD POLICY. IT BECAME APPARENT THAT THE
EXISTING POLICY IS BROADER THAN REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN OPERATIONAL
EFFECTIVENESS. CHANGES TO THE BEARD POLICY IN THIS
CANFORGEN CONTINUE TO RECOGNIZE BOTH THE NEED TO ENSURE FORCE
PROTECTION AND COMFORT TO MILITARY MEMBERS OVER A WIDE RANGE OF
OPERATIONAL AND CLIMATIC CONDITIONS WHILE ALSO SUPPORTING THE
COMPLETE SPECTRUM OF ACTIVITY FROM CEREMONIAL DUTIES TO COMBAT
OPERATIONS, WHILE ALLOWING CAF MEMBERS INCREASED FREEDOM TO MAKE
PERSONAL CHOICES REGARDING THEIR APPEARANCE
3.EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, THE WEARING OF A BEARD IS AUTHORIZED FOR
ALL CAF MEMBERS UPON ATTAINMENT OF THEIR OPERATIONALLY FUNCTIONAL
POINT (OFP) OR HAVING COMPLETED DEVELOPMENTAL PERIOD ONE, WHICHEVER
COMES LAST. HOWEVER, COMMANDERS OF COMMANDS, TASK FORCE COMMANDERS
AND COMMANDING OFFICERS RETAIN THE RIGHT TO ORDER RESTRICTIONS ON
THE WEARING OF A BEARD TO MEET SAFETY AND OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS.
THIS INCLUDES RESTRICTIONS PERTAINING TO OPERATIONS AND TRAINING
WHERE, IN A CHEMICAL BIOLOGICAL RADIOLOGICAL NUCLEAR (CBRN)
ENVIRONMENT OR CBRN TRAINING ENVIRONMENT, A BEARD CAN BE ORDERED TO
BE REMOVED TO ENSURE FORCE PROTECTION ON OPERATIONS OR TRAINING.
​
​
PAGE 3 RCCPJAQ1040 UNCLAS
SUCH RESTRICTIONS WILL BE AS TEMPORARY AS FEASIBLE (E.G. AS LONG AS
THE ENTIRE DURATION OF AN OPERATIONAL TOUR IN A CBRN ENVIRONMENT OR
AS SHORT AS A SINGLE TRAINING DAY FOR CBRN OPERATIONS). WHERE
CURRENT CAF EQUIPMENT CAPABILITIES CANNOT ENSURE FORCE PROTECTION OR
THE ABILITY TO EFFECTIVELY EMPLOY SAFETY SYSTEMS WHILE WEARING A
BEARD, BEARD RESTRICTIONS FOR MEMBERS USING THAT EQUIPMENT FOR
OPERATIONAL OR SAFETY REASONS MAY BE PUT IN PLACE BY A COMMANDING
OFFICER
4.WHERE THE WEARING OF A BEARD IS AUTHORIZED:
A. IT SHALL BE WORN WITH A MOUSTACHE,
B. IT SHALL BE NEATLY TRIMMED, ESPECIALLY ON THE LOWER NECK AND
CHEEKBONES,
C. IT SHALL NOT EXCEED TWO CENTIMETERS IN BULK. A MEMBER WILL, ON
THEIR OWN ACCORD OR UPON DIRECTION FROM THEIR COMMANDING OFFICER OR
THEIR CO S DESIGNATE, SHAVE OFF UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPTS TO GROW A
BEARD.
5.THE DIRECTION PERTAINING TO THE TRIMMING OF A BEARD AT PARA 5
ABOVE DOES NOT APPLY TO CAF MEMBERS WHO ARE EXEMPT, FOR MEDICAL
REASONS, FROM SHAVING THE LOWER NECK OR CHEECKBONES
6.THIS CANFORGEN DOES NOT, IN ANY WAY, MODIFY THE RELIGIOUS AND
​
​
PAGE 4 RCCPJAQ1040 UNCLAS
SPIRITUAL ACCOMODATIONS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 3 OF REF C
7.THE INTENT OF THIS UPDATE TO THE POLICY IS TO ENSURE THE CAF
MAINTAIN OPERATIONAL CAPABILITIES, WHILE STRENGHENING ORGANIZATIONAL
MORALE AND TEAM COHESION
8.AN UPDATED REF C WILL BE PUBLISHED AT r/HTTP://CMP-CPM.MIL.CA/…/PUBLI…/CH2-POLICY-AND-APPEARANCE.PDF
END OF ENGLISH TEXT / LE TEXTE FRANCAIS SUIT
OBJ: CHANGEMENT DE POLITIQUE - PORT DE LA BARBE
REF. A.ORFC 17.02
B. ORFC 17.03
C. A-DH-265-000/AG-001 CHAPITRE 2

LA TENUE ET L APPARENCE INDIVIDUELLE DES MILITAIRES REFLETENT SUR

LE PROFESSIONNALISME ET LA CREDIBILITE DES FORCES ARMEES CANADIENNES
(FAC). CONFORMEMENT AUX ORDONNANCES ET REGLEMENTS ROYAUX APPLICABLES
AUX FORCES CANADIENNES (ORFC) 17.03 A LA REF B, LE PORT DE LA BARBE
EST ASSUJETTI AUX RESTRICTIONS PRESCRITES TEL QU ORDONNE PAR LE CHEF
D ETAT-MAJOR DE LA DEFENSE

LE COMITE SUR LA TENUE VESTIMENTAIRE DES FORCES CANADIENNES

(CTVFC) A TENU DES CONSULTATIONS AVEC DES MEMBRES DES FAC. DES
​
​
PAGE 5 RCCPJAQ1040 UNCLAS
PREOCCUPATIONS CONCERNANT LA POLITIQUE ACTUELLE SUR LE PORT DE LA
BARBE ONT ETE IDENTIFIEES. IL A ETE PERMIS DE CONSTATER QUE LA
POLITIQUE ACTUELLE A UNE APPLICATION PLUS GENERALE QUE REQUISE POUR
MAINTENIR L EFFICACITE OPERATIONNELLE. LES CHANGEMENTS A LA
POLITIQUE SUR LE PORT DE LA BARBE CONTENUS DANS CE CANFORGEN
RECONNAISSENT LA NECESSITE D ASSURER LA PROTECTION DE LA FORCE ET LE
CONFORT DES MILITAIRES DANS DES CONDITIONS OPERATIONNELLES ET
CLIMATIQUES VARIEES EN SUPPORTANT TOUS LES CHAMPS D ACTVITES
MILITAIRES, DU DEVOIR RATTACHE AUX CEREMONIES MILITAIRES AUX
OPERATIONS DE COMBAT, TOUT EN PERMETTANT AUX MEMBRES DES FAC D AVOIR
UNE PLUS GRANDE LIBERTE DE CHOIX PERSONNELS CONCERNANT LEUR
APPARENCE
3.EN VIGUEUR IMMEDIATEMENT, LE PORT DE LA BARBE EST AUTORISE POUR
TOUS LES MEMBRES DES FAC, UNE FOIS QU ILS ONT COMPLETE LE NIVEAU
OPERATIONNEL DE COMPETENCE OU LA PERIODE DE PERFECTIONNEMENT UN (LA
PLUS LONGUE PERIODE DES DEUX SERA APPLIQUEE). LES COMMANDANTS DE
COMMANDEMENT, LES COMMANDANTS DE FORCE OPERATIONNELLE ET LES
COMMANDANTS CONSERVENT LE DROIT D IMPOSER DES RESTRICTIONS SUR LE
PORT DE LA BARBE AFIN DE REPONDRE AUX BESOINS OPERATIONNELS ET AUX
BESOINS EN MATIERE DE SECURITE. CELA INCLUT LES RESTRICTIONS
​
​
PAGE 6 RCCPJAQ1040 UNCLAS
RELATIVES AUX OPERATIONS ET A L ENTRAINEMENT. DANS UN ENVIRONNEMENT
CHIMIQUE BIOLOGIQUE RADIOLOGIQUE NUCLEAIRE (CBRN) OU DANS UN
ENVIRONNEMENT D ENTRAINEMENT CBRN, LE PORT DE LA BARBE PEUT ETRE
INTERDIT AFIN D ASSURER LA PROTECTION DE LA FORCE DURANT LES
OPERATIONS OU ENTRAINEMENTS. DE TELLES RESTRICTIONS SERONT AUSSI
TEMPORAIRES QUE POSSIBLE (PAR EXEMPLE, PENDANT LA DUREE ENTIERE D UN
TOUR OPERATIONNEL DANS UN ENVIRONNEMENT CBRN OU DURANT UNE JOURNEE D
ENTRAINEMENT AUX OPERATIONS CBRN). LORSQUE LES CAPACITES ACTUELLES
DE L EQUIPEMENT DES FAC NE PEUVENT ASSURER LA PROTECTION DE LA FORCE
OU LA CAPACITE D EMPLOYER EFFICACEMENT DES SYSTEMES DE SECURITE
QUAND LA BARBE EST PORTEE, UNE RESTRICTION SUR LE PORT DE LA BARBE
POUR LES MEMBRES UTILISANT CET EQUIPEMENT POUR RAISONS
OPERATIONNELLES OU DE SECURITE PEUT ETRE MISE EN PLACE PAR UN
COMMANDANT

LORSQUE LE PORT DE LA BARBE EST AUTORISE:

A.ELLE DOIT ETRE PORTEE AVEC UNE MOUSTACHE,
B.ELLE DOIT ETRE SOIGNEUSEMENT TAILLEE, EN PARTICULIER A LA BASE DU
COU ET AUX POMMETTES,
C.ELLE NE DOIT PAS EXCEDER DEUX CENTIMETRES D EPAISSEUR.
UN MEMBRE DEVRA, DE SON PROPRE CHEF OU SUR ORDRE DE SON COMMANDANT
BT
#1040
​
R 251819Z SEP 18
FM NDHQ CMP OTTAWA
TO CANFORGEN
BT
UNCLAS
FINAL SECTION OF 2
OU D UNE PERSONNE DESIGNEE PAR SON COMMANDANT, RASER TOUTES
TENTATIVES INFRUCTUEUSES DE FAIRE POUSSER UNE BARBE
5.LES DIRECTIVES CONCERNANT LE TAILLAGE DE LA BARBE AU PARAGRAPHE 5
NE SONT PAS APPLICABLES AUX MEMBRES DES FAC QUI SONT DISPENSES DE SE
RASER A LA BASE DU COU ET AUX POMMETTES POUR DES RAISONS MEDICALES
6.CE CANFORGEN NE MODIFIE EN AUCUN CAS LES ACCOMMODEMENTS RELIGIEUX
ET SPIRITUELS DECRITS A LA SECTION 3 DE LA REF C
7.L INTENTION DE CETTE MODIFICATION A LA POLITIQUE EST DE S ASSURER
QUE LES FAC MAINTIENNENT LEURS CAPACITES OPERATIONNELLES, TOUT EN
RENFORCANT LE MORAL ORGANISATIONNEL ET LA COHESION DE L EQUIPE
8.UNE VERSION A JOUR DE LA REF C SERA PUBLIEE AU HTTP://CMP-CPM.MIL.CA/…/PUBL…/CH2-POLITIQUE-ET-APPARENCE.PDF


----------



## MJP (25 Sep 2018)

Brihard said:
			
		

> So is anyone in a position to confirm that what is posted here and on Reddit in fact matches what went out on DWAN?



Looks exactly like the message center version I received from our CR


----------



## Haggis (25 Sep 2018)

CFG 158/18 isn't yet up on the Defence Team Intranet.  It's not official until it's posted on Facebook.


----------



## MJP (25 Sep 2018)

Haggis said:
			
		

> It's not official until it's posted on a dependa's Facebook saying "yea for her DH".



FTFY


----------



## garb811 (25 Sep 2018)

So I guess all those memos asking for permission to grow a beard weren't needed after all.  

I'm sure that isn't going to stop some chains of command continuing to insist on them though.   :not-again:


----------



## Old EO Tech (25 Sep 2018)

MJP said:
			
		

> Looks exactly like the message center version I received from our CR



It is out on the CR message centre, I seen the copy from the 3CDSG Sigs CR, I'll take that over a intranet page any day.  Happy beard day!


----------



## MJP (25 Sep 2018)

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> It is out on the CR message centre, I seen the copy from the 3CDSG Sigs CR, I'll take that over a intranet page any day.  Happy beard day!


Now all we need is certain HQs to over think it like they did BOOTFORGEN


----------



## Old EO Tech (25 Sep 2018)

MJP said:
			
		

> Now all we need is certain HQs to over think it like they did BOOTFORGEN



Hopefully not, the message already gives CO's the authority to order members to shave of "unsuccessful attempts".  That statement should be suitably broad to even make certain CoC happy :-/


----------



## daftandbarmy (26 Sep 2018)

Haggis said:
			
		

> It's not official until it's posted on Facebook.



Said no military that ever won a real 'shootin' - bombin' - loot your capital city - war', ever


----------



## Poppa (26 Sep 2018)

The thing is...all of these troops that went and got a med chit; the med condition is still there. Their face didn't get better because of a CANFORGEN. So either their face heals miraculously and they get off their P-CAT which leads me to question the severity of the problem in the first place and the ethics of all parties involved. Or, they don't come off category and now we have a bunch of soldiers who have luscious beards but can't deploy etc....


----------



## vonGarvin (26 Sep 2018)

Poppa said:
			
		

> The thing is...all of these troops that went and got a med chit; the med condition is still there. Their face didn't get better because of a CANFORGEN. So either their face heals miraculously and they get off their P-CAT which leads me to question the severity of the problem in the first place and the ethics of all parties involved. Or, they don't come off category and now we have a bunch of soldiers who have luscious beards but can't deploy etc....



I personally believe that the conditions exist (largely, not solely) due to people not knowing how to shave.  Commercial razors are crap, people don't know how to condition their skin and they do crazy things like shave against the grain!

Get a brush and dish of shaving soap, some pre-shave oil, a safety razor (single blade, just like great grandfather had) and some HOT water.
1.  Shower.  Ensure face is well-scrubbed.
2.  Apply HOT water to  your face.  Hot towel would be better.
3.  Apply pre-shave oil to face.
4.  Lather up that shave brush and apply HOT foam to face. Really massage that skin and have that foam nice and thick.
5.  Shave WITH the grain.
6.  Rinse off with COLD water.
7.  Apply HOT water to face.
8.  Apply pre-shave oil to face.
9.  Lather up that shave brush and apply HOT foam to face. Really massage that skin and have that foam nice and thick.
10.  Shave AGAINST the grain.
11.  Rinse off with COLD water.
12.  Apply post shave balm.

For about 4 years now I've been doing this every day and I still marvel at how smooth the shave is.  I rarely nick myself and I no longer have any unseemly "bumps" or rashes from shaving.

Oh, the blades are dirt cheap.  I use a brand called ASTRA and I change blades every week.  I got 300 blades for under 20 dollars on Amazon.


----------



## Remius (26 Sep 2018)

6 months from now...

In other breaking news: in light of the new CAF beard policy the CANSOF dress comitee has voted unanimously to ban beards.  Thousands of reservists immediately shave.


----------



## PMedMoe (26 Sep 2018)

Poppa said:
			
		

> The thing is...all of these troops that went and got a med chit; the med condition is still there. Their face didn't get better because of a CANFORGEN. So either their face heals miraculously and they get off their P-CAT which leads me to question the severity of the problem in the first place and the ethics of all parties involved. Or, they don't come off category and now we have a bunch of soldiers who have luscious beards but can't deploy etc....


  

I don't think I ever heard of anyone with a "no shave" chit being on a PCat or not deploying...  :dunno:


----------



## Haggis (26 Sep 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> 6 months from now...
> 
> In other breaking news: in light of the new CAF beard policy the CANSOF dress comitee has voted unanimously to ban beards.  Thousands of *reservists* immediately shave.



So, you just had to push this thread towards the drain but starting that crap?  There would be more than just Reservists shaving.


----------



## Remius (26 Sep 2018)

Haggis said:
			
		

> So, you just had to push this thread towards the drain but starting that crap?  There would be more than just Reservists shaving.



Sorry, was just trying to be humorous.  It was self inflicted humour, based on my own experience as a reservist.  

My apologies if it ruffled any feathers or hackles.


----------



## Haggis (26 Sep 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> My apologies if it ruffled any *feathers* or *hackles*.



 :  There you go again!!!!   ;D


----------



## Remius (26 Sep 2018)

Haggis said:
			
		

> :  There you go again!!!!   ;D



That was my attempt at being inclusive


----------



## daftandbarmy (26 Sep 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> 6 months from now...
> 
> In other breaking news: in light of the new CAF beard policy the CANSOF dress comitee has voted unanimously to ban beards.  Thousands of reservists immediately shave.



For the win!  :rofl:


----------



## TCM621 (26 Sep 2018)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I don't think I ever heard of anyone with a "no shave" chit being on a PCat or not deploying...  :dunno:



A no shave chit would be permanent MELS and could affect deployments depending on the risk factors but I agree that it shouldn't be a big issue. I haven't run it to anyone who has been refused a deployment because of his no shave chit.


----------



## garb811 (26 Sep 2018)

I have yet to see a beard chit that banned shaving under all circumstances, there has always been a caveat allowing the member being ordered to shave for valid operational reasons otherwise they would be high risk instead of low risk.


----------



## Kat Stevens (26 Sep 2018)

Thank God! After all these years the troops can grow facial hair. Yuge win! Now they can move on to all the trivial crap, like boots, mukluks, sleeping bags, etc. Y'know, the nice to haves, but nothing on the scale of a flourishing face full of pubic hair.


----------



## cld617 (26 Sep 2018)

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> Hopefully not, the message already gives CO's the authority to order members to shave of "unsuccessful attempts".  That statement should be suitably broad to even make certain CoC happy :-/



Yet several locations have already told their people to wait out, continue shaving until further direction can be given on how they'll enforce this policy. 

 :facepalm:


----------



## Old EO Tech (27 Sep 2018)

cld617 said:
			
		

> Yet several locations have already told their people to wait out, continue shaving until further direction can be given on how they'll enforce this policy.
> 
> :facepalm:



Yes that is pretty dumb, what is there to clarify.  Well I can say at least the Comd 3 Div sent out an email today saying there will be no further direction on this, the CANFORGEN is clear and gives CO's sufficient authority.


----------



## Navy_Pete (27 Sep 2018)

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> Yes that is pretty dumb, what is there to clarify.  Well I can say at least the Comd 3 Div sent out an email today saying there will be no further direction on this, the CANFORGEN is clear and gives CO's sufficient authority.



To be fair the policy came with no warning, so there was no time to prepare specific direction at the unit level...  :facepalm::dunno:


----------



## Old EO Tech (27 Sep 2018)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> To be fair the policy came with no warning, so there was no time to prepare specific direction at the unit level...  :facepalm::dunno:



That is not the case were I am, everyone knew this was coming, to the point that the Comd 1CMBG authorized beards two weeks ago ahead of the CFG, and then repelled that action after consulting with his boss :-/   But it was well known across the CA from speaking with my peers.


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Sep 2018)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> To be fair the policy came with no warning, so there was no time to prepare specific direction at the unit level...  :facepalm::dunno:



Has your unit been living with their head in the sand? This has been rumoured for months.


----------



## daftandbarmy (27 Sep 2018)

I think that Sgt Gervais has done an excellent job of modeling the correct way to wear a beard in DEU


----------



## Navy_Pete (27 Sep 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Has your unit been living with their head in the sand? This has been rumoured for months.



....sorry, forgot the /sarcasm bit.

This has been far more than just RUMINT for months, and pretty sure the actual details were kicked around the dress committee and chief network since the start of the summer, so someone claiming now that it needs time for a unit policy is a micromanaging tool.  At most, would have expected ships (or other units with existing shaving requirements) to simply remind folks those policies still apply ahead of time, knowing this was coming down the pipes.


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Sep 2018)

Tracking now.

Absolutely. The L1s knew about this months ago, and a few weeks ago the Armed Forces Council was dominated by J1 issues, instead of J3 issues.


----------



## sidemount (27 Sep 2018)

So if someone OTs, does that mean they have to shave off their beard since they are not OFP in their new trade?


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Sep 2018)

sidemount said:
			
		

> So if someone OTs, does that mean they have to shave off their beard since they are not OFP in their new trade?



Seems so. Their OFP is now that of the new trade, not their old one.


----------



## sidemount (27 Sep 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Seems so. Their OFP is now that of the new trade, not their old one.


That's what I was going with but I have been asked the question a few times today.


----------



## dapaterson (27 Sep 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Absolutely. The L1s knew about this months ago, and a few weeks ago the Armed Forces Council was dominated by J1 issues, instead of J3 issues.



AFC deals more with the '1 side than you'd think - in fact, I'd be hard-pressed to find much of a '3 flavour to its deliberations.

AFC exists to advise the CDS on advice with regards to issues related to the administration, management and employment of the CAF, including Force Development, Force Generation and Force Employment, as well as Force Posture and Readiness.

Most of those issues have a very heavy '1 slant; capability discussions are at Defence Capability Board; resources are at Programme Management Board and the Integrated Resource Management Committee; and '3 discussions would generally occur at the CDS Ops meeting.

(Just don't get confused about whether you're attending DAC, CFDAC or CAFDAC, three similar sounding meetings with three very different mandates: Audit, Decorations and Discipline, respectively...)


----------



## ballz (28 Sep 2018)

sidemount said:
			
		

> That's what I was going with but I have been asked the question a few times today.



I'm curious to see a black and white definition of what "DP1" is in policy?


----------



## Old EO Tech (28 Sep 2018)

ballz said:
			
		

> I'm curious to see a black and white definition of what "DP1" is in policy?



Well OFP is well defined by MPC for each MOSID, so that should not be in question, though the question about what happens if you change trades is something that needs clarification.


----------



## ballz (28 Sep 2018)

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> Well OFP is well defined by MPC for each MOSID, so that should not be in question, though the question about what happens if you change trades is something that needs clarification.



That's right, but it says "UPON ATTAINMENT OF THEIR OPERATIONALLY FUNCTIONAL POINT (OFP) OR HAVING COMPLETED DEVELOPMENTAL PERIOD ONE, WHICHEVER COMES LAST" so what is "development period one?"

I have seen it referred to in a variety of ways and often, in career manager briefings, more so along a spectrum than with a hard and fast point where one goes from DP1 to DP2.


----------



## Old EO Tech (28 Sep 2018)

ballz said:
			
		

> That's right, but it says "UPON ATTAINMENT OF THEIR OPERATIONALLY FUNCTIONAL POINT (OFP) OR HAVING COMPLETED DEVELOPMENTAL PERIOD ONE, WHICHEVER COMES LAST" so what is "development period one?"
> 
> I have seen it referred to in a variety of ways and often, in career manager briefings, more so along a spectrum than with a hard and fast point where one goes from DP1 to DP2.



Well I would say logically....that you are in DP1 until the day you qualify DP2, which for most trades is a formal course..  But yes I can see room for interpretation, is this meant to say the end of DP1.0 or the entire DP1 period?


----------



## SupersonicMax (28 Sep 2018)

The way I read it is if you attained DP1/OFP once, you can wear a beard therefore OT would be allowed to wear it.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Sep 2018)

Maintaining a 2cm length seems more of a pain in the ass than shaving every day.   Seems like picking a random religion (like one of my soldiers did) is the way to go for a fluffy face.


And unless soldiers are deployed with readily access to full cbrn protective equipment AND medical counter measures (not just a gas mask and a PowerPoint brief ) the OMG CBRN THREAT argument against beards is silly.


----------



## RedcapCrusader (28 Sep 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Maintaining a 2cm length seems more of a pain in the ass than shaving every day.   Seems like picking a random religion (like one of my soldiers did) is the way to go for a fluffy face.
> 
> 
> And unless soldiers are deployed with readily access to full cbrn protective equipment AND medical counter measures (not just a gas mask and a PowerPoint brief ) the OMG CBRN THREAT argument against beards is silly.



The 2cm in bulk thing is a little silly, but I think it's just because they don't want everyone looking like Viking-faced, Spartan helmet tattoo wearing, Pipehitters Union hat sporting, Delta Force wannabes. 

But, it's easily manageable.

Agreed on the CBRN comment though. Did a couple tours where CBRN kit and training was required, but your supporting UMS didn't have the countermeasures  :

That said, even dudes with huge beards (think Sikhs) have told me that they Vaseline the shit out of their beard and they get a perfect seal with the mask on.


----------



## dangerboy (28 Sep 2018)

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> That said, even dudes with huge beards (think Sikhs) have told me that they Vaseline the shit out of their beard and they get a perfect seal with the mask on.



They probably get a good enough seal for the gas hut where the particles are fairly big, there are a lot of nasty agents out there that are a lot smaller particle size than CS gas. Just something to consider.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (28 Sep 2018)

ballz said:
			
		

> That's right, but it says "UPON ATTAINMENT OF THEIR OPERATIONALLY FUNCTIONAL POINT (OFP) OR HAVING COMPLETED DEVELOPMENTAL PERIOD ONE, WHICHEVER COMES LAST" so what is "development period one?"
> 
> I have seen it referred to in a variety of ways and often, in career manager briefings, more so along a spectrum than with a hard and fast point where one goes from DP1 to DP2.




Programmes and Qualifications - Non-Commissioned Members  and  Programmes and qualifications - Officers may give some guidance.


----------



## mariomike (28 Sep 2018)

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> < snip > Vaseline the shit out of their beard and they get a perfect seal with the mask on.





			
				dangerboy said:
			
		

> < snip > there are a lot of nasty agents out there that are a lot smaller particle size than CS gas.



For the N95, men must be clean-shaven where the respirator seals to the face.


----------



## dangerboy (28 Sep 2018)

mariomike said:
			
		

> For the N95, men must be clean-shaven where the respirator seals to the face.



What is a N95? I have never heard of it, who in the CAF uses it?


----------



## mariomike (28 Sep 2018)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> What is a N95?



"N" means Not resistant to oil.  

95 is the percentage of particles 0.3 μm or larger in diameter that the respirator is certified to block.



			
				dangerboy said:
			
		

> , who in the CAF uses it?



I'm a former MSE Op. We were not issued it. Perhaps some other trades are?
https://www.google.com/search?biw=1280&bih=621&ei=AXSuW9igD-XjjwTJ9Z-IBw&q=%22canadian+forces%22+%22N95%22&oq=%22canadian+forces%22+%22N95%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3...33847.37703.0.38980.2.2.0.0.0.0.474.599.0j1j4-1.2.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.1.124...33i160k1.0.zTXaQegScUE

eg:

QUOTE

Royal Canadian Air Force
A-GA-135-001/AA-001 Chapter 8 Post-Occurrence Activities
Annex A – Personal Protective Equipment
1. The following PPE shall be available:
e. Disposable Industrial Dust Mask (referred to as N95 mask). When this light, comfortable industrial dust mask is properly fitted to the face it allows very little unfiltered air to be inhaled. It provides adequate protection from particulate hazards such as composite fibres, lead oxide dust, depleted uranium dust and asbestos. The N95 mask requires a formal biennial fitting which can be arranged through Base Fire Halls or their equivalents. Instructions on use will be provided at the time of fitment.
http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/flight-safety/article-template-flight-safety.page?doc=a-ga-135-001-aa-001-chapter-8-post-occurrence-activities/hnfpma84#AnnexA

END QUOTE


----------



## PMedMoe (28 Sep 2018)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> What is a N95? I have never heard of it, who in the CAF uses it?



I'd say PMed Techs for the most part.  Maybe WFE Techs too?


----------



## tomahawk6 (28 Sep 2018)

US Stars and Stripes article.

https://www.stripes.com/news/canada-hopes-beards-will-boost-morale-draw-diverse-military-recruits-1.549502 


To the envy of some U.S. troops, members of Canada’s military can now all wear beards, provided they can do better than peach fuzz but don’t go full mountain man.
The move to allow face fur, which took effect Tuesday, was made to give Canadian servicemembers more freedom in their appearances, the military said in a statement.
The new rules, which came after “extensive consultations” with the troops, are expected to boost morale and attract more recruits. They came as neighboring servicemembers to the south are pushing for more relaxed standards on facial hair.


----------



## garb811 (28 Sep 2018)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I'd say PMed Techs for the most part.  Maybe WFE Techs too?


MP have it as part of their PPE for opioid exposure, response to aircraft crashes etc.


----------



## mariomike (28 Sep 2018)

garb811 said:
			
		

> MP have it as part of their PPE for opioid exposure, response to aircraft crashes etc.



The N95 is a reasonable PPE for First Responders ( on Base, and off ), because they often do not know what they are dealing with.


----------



## ballz (28 Sep 2018)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> The way I read it is if you attained DP1/OFP once, you can wear a beard therefore OT would be allowed to wear it.



I certainly believe that is the intent, that "new recruits" must shave until they've earned their stripes so to speak, but we all know how well some people do when it comes to achieving intent... see: BOOTFORGEN schmozzle.

You just know there will be some of the more silly folks insisting people who have been in the CAF for 10-20 years and have VOT'd or CFR'd shave their beard off.


----------



## daftandbarmy (29 Sep 2018)

Now that we've dealt with the beard issue, I'm looking forward to the reintroduction of the Queue, as per the Royal Welch Fusiliers, and addition of the flash on the back of our DEUs:

"How the Flash was retained during the First World War was unravelled in 1932, when (then) Lieutenant-Colonel EO Skaife met with the King at Buckingham Palace who explained how they had retained the Flash during the last war, '...[Senior Officers] said [the Flash] was too conspicuous. I told them that the enemy would never see the Flashes on the backs of the Royal Welch.'

http://www.jonathanhware.com/royal-welch-traditions.html


----------



## dimsum (29 Sep 2018)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Now that we've dealt with the beard issue, I'm looking forward to the reintroduction of the Queue, as per the Royal Welch Fusiliers, and addition of the flash on the back of our DEUs:



And really, a man-bun is just a bad pig-tail on the top of the head.


----------



## CombatDoc (29 Sep 2018)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> What is a N95? I have never heard of it, who in the CAF uses it?


N95 masks are commonly fit-tested to health services personnel, for use should there be an outbreak of respiratory illness (eg influenza). As pointed out, others may also be issued N95 masks like MPs. The key to the N95 is that it requires fit testing through the Fire Marshal (similar to other respirator PPE).


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 Sep 2018)

ballz said:
			
		

> That's right, but it says "UPON ATTAINMENT OF THEIR OPERATIONALLY FUNCTIONAL POINT (OFP) OR HAVING COMPLETED DEVELOPMENTAL PERIOD ONE, WHICHEVER COMES LAST" so what is "development period one?"
> 
> I have seen it referred to in a variety of ways and often, in career manager briefings, more so along a spectrum than with a hard and fast point where one goes from DP1 to DP2.



The DPs and OFP should be detailed in each individual Occupation Specification, shouldn't it?  It would contain the detail the NCMGS and Officer equivalent do not specify.


----------



## mariomike (29 Sep 2018)

ArmyDoc said:
			
		

> The key to the N95 is that it requires fit testing through the Fire Marshal (similar to other respirator PPE).



If you don't mind me asking, how often is that done? 

eg: Annually. Or, more frequently if weight fluctuates or dental alterations occur.

Is there a Medical Directive as to when the N95 respirator is to be worn in the pre-hospital environment? 

eg: During active airway management.

Contact with body fluids.

Suspected communicable illness.


----------



## CombatDoc (29 Sep 2018)

I suspect that D Med Pol or FHP have put out direction on N95 use, as well as fit testing, but I don’t have them handy.


----------



## mariomike (29 Sep 2018)

ArmyDoc said:
			
		

> I suspect that D Med Pol or FHP have put out direction on N95 use, as well as fit testing, but I don’t have them handy.



It will be interesting to read what D Med Pol or FHP have to say regarding facial hair and the N95.  

N95 Respirator Use
Facial Hair
http://www.lhsc.on.ca/About_Us/LHSC/Programs_Services/FacialHairPosterRev1_1.pdf
"User must be clean shaven where the respirator seals to the skin of the face or neck."


----------



## Navy_Pete (30 Sep 2018)

mariomike said:
			
		

> It will be interesting to read what D Med Pol or FHP have to say regarding facial hair and the N95.
> 
> N95 Respirator Use
> Facial Hair
> ...



For the N95 masks, are you talking about the mouth/nose ones? There are versions that look like fancy dust masks, and others with cartridges. I have the cartridge ones with chemical filters and they don't really get a perfect seal regardless (but they do significantly cut back the fumes).


----------



## mariomike (30 Sep 2018)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> For the N95 masks, are you talking about the mouth/nose ones?



I am talking about this one, 

https://twitter.com/yorkparamedics/status/672428993073643521

https://twitter.com/DurhamParamedic/status/908069271682666496

We had to be clean shaven when reporting for duty,

https://www.google.com/search?biw=1280&bih=621&ei=_PewW5ijN5e9jwT5xJKYBg&q=n95+%22clean+shaven%22&oq=n95+%22clean+shaven%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3..35i39k1j0i30k1.7818.8307.0.9334.3.3.0.0.0.0.139.361.1j2.3.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.2.256....0.Gid_DOJxD2w

It will be interesting to read what the CAF D Med Pol or FHP Medical Directives are regarding facial hair and the N95.


----------



## ballz (30 Sep 2018)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> They probably get a good enough seal for the gas hut where the particles are fairly big, there are a lot of nasty agents out there that are a lot smaller particle size than CS gas. Just something to consider.



The gas mask thing is very interesting to me. People talk about using vaseline... well that's fine and dandy for gas huts but probably not applicable when operating in a CBRN environment.

Perhaps this will spur more thought / technology / ingenuity being put into the design of gas masks. Most people know the MND had patented a device* to allow a gas mask to work with a beard, although seeing the patent I'm not sure how well it would work. Also, considering how crappy it is to wear your CBRN kit for long periods of time, I'm not sure how feasible that device is.

At this point in time, with our current equipment, shaving still seems like the safest bet in a CBRN environment.

*It's essentially a hood that covers your face area and the gas mask can seal to the hood instead of your beard.


----------



## Gunner98 (30 Sep 2018)

http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/flight-safety/article-template-flight-safety.page?doc=a-ga-135-001-aa-001-chapter-8-post-occurrence-activities/hnfpma84

e. Disposable Industrial Dust Mask (referred to as N95 mask). When this light, comfortable industrial dust mask is properly fitted to the face it allows very little unfiltered air to be inhaled. It provides adequate protection from particulate hazards such as composite fibres, lead oxide dust, depleted uranium dust and asbestos. The N95 mask requires a formal biennial fitting which can be arranged through Base Fire Halls or their equivalents. Instructions on use will be provided at the time of fitment.

f. Reusable Half Face Piece Respirator. The half face mask provides filtering protection against particulates, many gases and vapours (depending on which filter is used). The half face mask is to be used instead of the N95 mask when the concentration of airborne contaminants is higher or if there are any concerns about the level of protection offered by the disposable industrial dust mask. The half face piece respirator is not a self contained breathing apparatus and should not be used when unknown fumes are present, ambient oxygen supply is short, or if there are substances present for which the filter was not designed. This mask requires a formal biennial fitting which can be arranged through Base Fire Halls or their equivalents. Instructions on use, storage and cleaning will be provided at the time of fitment. Due to current allotment levels, only designated FS personnel will be assigned a half face piece. Designation will be determined and subsequently tracked by the appropriate WFSO or UFSO.


----------



## mariomike (30 Sep 2018)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/flight-safety/article-template-flight-safety.page?doc=a-ga-135-001-aa-001-chapter-8-post-occurrence-activities/hnfpma84
> 
> e. Disposable Industrial Dust Mask (referred to as N95 mask). When this light, comfortable industrial dust mask is properly fitted to the face it allows very little unfiltered air to be inhaled. It provides adequate protection from particulate hazards such as composite fibres, lead oxide dust, depleted uranium dust and asbestos. The N95 mask requires a formal biennial fitting which can be arranged through Base Fire Halls or their equivalents. Instructions on use will be provided at the time of fitment.



See also, Reply #622.


----------



## FSTO (1 Oct 2018)

I was at the Als vs Riders game yesterday. It was the military appreciation game and there was a lot of people there who wear relish coloured pajamas that needed a shave!!! :tsktsk:


----------



## kratz (1 Oct 2018)

5 days since the release of the CANFORGEN and the process for local approval is in place, for Halifax.
With this well thought out message, I don't see any harm in the caution for a few days, in order to correctly implement 
the intent of the CDS.



> Subject: CFB Halifax/MARLANT Beard Policy
> 
> Ref:  A.  CANFORGEN 158/18 CMP 078/18 251819Z SEP 18
> B. A-DH-265-000/AG-001 Canadian Forces Dress Instructions, Chap 2
> ...



Funny thing is, members will continue to have to shave, in order to shape their beard and clean the areas as required by these policies.


----------



## theprivate (1 Oct 2018)

One of the navy guys I work with is re-doing his CBRN. Being navy, of course he has a beard. This monday, however, he came is with it trimmed down to less than a cm. Apparently to get fitted for a mask, you have to be clean shaven, and in order to get gassed, you have to have your beard super short.
Also, during basic we had a guy on a beard chit who did CBRN in Farnham with a trimmed beard.


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Oct 2018)




----------



## BDTyre (5 Oct 2018)

Well, a few of us showed up for training on Wednesday with a week-ish worth of growth to no backlash. In fact, most of the senior NCOs were more than happy to tell us what needs to be done to keep our fledgling beards within the regulations.


----------



## RedcapCrusader (5 Oct 2018)

Lots of RSMs are trying to make BEARDFORGEN their own and still demand people to submit memos to grow a beard, and they can't shave every third day.

The CAFCWO and the CCPO caught wind and sent out a very scathing clarifying email to all of the Sergeants-Major across the service:



> * Not required to submit a memo to their Chain of Command to cease shaving.
> * Not required to advise their Chain of Command in any way that they are going to grow a beard.
> * May cease shaving at any time, as so desired by the member.
> * May resume shaving at any time, as so desired by the member. If the member wishes to grow their beard on the weekend and show up Monday with it, then shave on Tues, the start again Wednesday, then shave on Thurs, they may do so at their own discretion.
> ...


----------



## dangerboy (5 Oct 2018)

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> Lots of RSMs are trying to make BEARDFORGEN their own and still demand people to submit memos to grow a beard, and they can't shave every third day.
> 
> The CAFCWO and the CCPO caught wind and sent out a very scathing clarifying email to all of the Sergeants-Major across the service:



Lets see how well this info gets passed down, once people recover from their heart attacks and reverse some really silly directions that have been issued. Or they will ignore this.


----------



## blacktriangle (5 Oct 2018)

I've always thought that if stuff flew in 1 CMBG, it was good enough for the rest of us.  ;D


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Oct 2018)

The CWOs/CPO1s who insist on passing on their own personal dress-related ‘command orders’ to support their pet peeves do neither themselves, nor those in the respective organizations any favours.  Also not helping this are Commanders who abrogate their own command responsibilities on such issues, and tacitly permit the ‘Chiefs’ to make up their own rules.  Best is when Chiefs support the Command Team concept, and assist by leveraging their experience and leadership in coordinative supportive of higher orders and policies.

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Infanteer (5 Oct 2018)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Best is when Chiefs support the Command TeamCommander concept,



I know it's unpopular, but there is only one Commander.  Warrant Officers of all ranks advise and enforce the policies that *must* be made by the commanders.  They can't abrogate this stuff.


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Oct 2018)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I know it's unpopular, but there is only one Commander.  Warrant Officers of all ranks advise and enforce the policies that *must* be made by the commanders.  They can't abrogate this stuff.



Agree fully.  Those Sr. NCMs who get the ‘support the Commander’ bit of the relationship with their respective Commander are credits to the cadre, and worthy of being part of what could rightly be referred to as the ‘Command Team.’  My RSM never tried to influence others in any manner of ‘commanding/ordering,’ and I was quite happy to describe the CO-RSM relationship as a ‘Command Team.’  He was a pleasure to work with, and his rock-solid appreciation of ‘supported-supporting’ never allowed for any confusion of my assigned authority.  Have seen other situations where, through either laziness on the part of the CO to not ensure appropriate direction, or intentional action by the RSM to give directions to troops with the implication that it is with either the CO’s direction or permission, erode the integrity of Command and see troops bear the brunt of ill-considered or inappropriate direction. 

Regards
G2G


----------



## RedcapCrusader (5 Oct 2018)

But see, some of these further beard restrictions being pushed by SMs were coming from their CO's as well. On the other hand, some COs just let their SMs do the discipline and dress thing as they please.

Times are changing and some COs are not happy and are trying to override the CDS.


----------



## dapaterson (5 Oct 2018)

Imagine if a RSM consulted with a CO, then issued direction on behalf of the CO that said, essentially, "The CANFORGEN gave CDS direction.  Follow the order as written, and don't be a jerk about it, and you'll be fine."

Or go with multiple memos, paperwork, and endless Beard parades.


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Oct 2018)

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> But see, some of these further beard restrictions being pushed by SMs were coming from their CO's as well. On the other hand, some COs just let their SMs do the discipline and dress thing as they please.
> 
> Times are changing and some COs are not happy and are trying to override the CDS.



...and definitely not acceptable either, LM.  In my view, that is disloyal conduct, and not acceptable.  I certainly hope that those COs and/or RSM disseminating orders that run counter to the CDS' order are sorted out.

Regards
G2G


----------



## daftandbarmy (5 Oct 2018)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ...and definitely not acceptable either, LM.  In my view, that is disloyal conduct, and not acceptable.  I certainly hope that those COs and/or RSM disseminating orders that run counter to the CDS' order are sorted out.
> 
> Regards
> G2G



Meanwhile, Submariners be like


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 Oct 2018)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Imagine if a RSM consulted with a CO, then issued direction on behalf of the CO that said, essentially, "The CANFORGEN gave CDS direction.  Follow the order as written, and don't be a jerk about it, and you'll be fine."
> 
> Or go with multiple memos, paperwork, and endless Beard parades.



Buttons, bows, beards and buds, what else does a army need?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Oct 2018)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Imagine if a RSM consulted with a CO, then issued direction on behalf of the CO that said, essentially, "The CANFORGEN gave CDS direction.  Follow the order as written, and don't be a jerk about it, and you'll be fine."
> 
> Or go with multiple memos, paperwork, and endless Beard parades.



Which is part of that infamous Para 8 of 265...

CONTROL
8. Control is exercised by local commanders who may standardize the dress of subordinates on any occasion, including the wear of accoutrements and alternative or optional items, subject to overall command direction.

However for years, "command direction" from the highest gets ignored/replaced and no one is held accountable.  Then, when rank and file types ignore the CO level direction (which could mean they're adhering to CDS, etc, level direction [BOOTFORGEN comes to mind], they are held to account.  Irony...something something lead by example something something.


----------



## PuckChaser (6 Oct 2018)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Buttons, bows, beards and buds, what else does a army need?


Rucksacks, trucks, real modular fighting rigs, pistol replacement, compensation overhaul...

But at least we got weed and beards. [emoji849]


----------



## Gunner98 (6 Oct 2018)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> I've always thought that if stuff flew in 1 CMBG, it was good enough for the rest of us.  ;D



The land of gun racks and big trucks known as the Army of the West has always been an example - not always the right side of good enough!


----------



## dimsum (6 Oct 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> owever for years, "command direction" from the highest gets ignored/replaced and no one is held accountable.  *Then, when rank and file types ignore the CO level direction (which could mean they're adhering to CDS, etc, level direction [BOOTFORGEN comes to mind], they are held to account.  *Irony...something something lead by example something something.



I would like to see the first court martial of someone doing just that.  I'd even travel to be part of the peanut gallery.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Oct 2018)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I would like to see the first court martial of someone doing just that.  I'd even travel to be part of the peanut gallery.



I doubt it would make it that far;  I'd suspect the unit would want to keep punishments informal in nature or at a ST level.  I can't see a ULA saying "yes this charge makes sense" to something like someone not submitting a memo to grow a beard, when the CDS has authorized it.

My experience is that these "infractions" are handled at the unit/sub-unit level with things like extras, duties, etc or by misusing Remedial Measures.


----------



## blacktriangle (6 Oct 2018)

Honestly any command team that goes against CDS direction on something stupid like beards, should cease to be mbrs of said command team. 

I see this the same as jacking up soldiers for not shaving that just spent weeks or months getting shot at, blown up etc when they come back to the safety of a major camp. 

Sometimes I don't think the reduction in CWO is a bad thing. Thankfully for some of those out there, no one gives a frig about what I think. 


 :2c:


----------



## MJP (6 Oct 2018)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> Honestly any command team that goes against CDS direction on something stupid like beards, should cease to be mbrs of said command team.
> 
> I see this the same as jacking up soldiers for not shaving that just spent weeks or months getting shot at, blown up etc when they come back to the safety of a major camp.
> 
> ...



While I agree with you, almost every CWO posn that was cut was in the technical not command side of the house.  While some on this board will disagree, they were essentially considered to be doing Capt/Maj type staff work backed by experience or tech knowledge not held by those ranks typically.


----------



## PuckChaser (6 Oct 2018)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> I see this the same as jacking up soldiers for not shaving that just spent weeks or months getting shot at, blown up etc when they come back to the safety of a major camp.



Depends when the jacking up happened. My crew had a "fresh water" rule. If you were at a camp that had showers and running water, you shaved. As soon as ablutions were done with bottled water, shaving ceased. Once you were back to a fresh water camp, had 24 hours to shower, shave and just generally relax. If someone's being jacked up at the clearing bays on the way into KAF, that's unsat. If those dudes have been on KAF for 3 days after a mission and were just being lazy, that's a completely different circumstance. It's almost like there's some sort of common sense that's needed to applying rules.


----------



## blacktriangle (6 Oct 2018)

MJP said:
			
		

> While I agree with you, almost every CWO posn that was cut was in the technical not command side of the house.  While some on this board will disagree, they were essentially considered to be doing Capt/Maj type staff work backed by experience or tech knowledge not held by those ranks typically.



Seen. I guess I've seen some pretty poor examples at that rank despite how difficult it is to get there. Just me venting I suppose. 

I guess my real frustration is that so many of us at different levels have spent years trying to get a mission done, often without proper manning, funding, or support. And yet there are people that have the time and energy to expend on stupid crap (often at the expense of those doing operational work) - it drives me nuts. Anways, I digress.


----------



## cld617 (11 Oct 2018)

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> Lots of RSMs are trying to make BEARDFORGEN their own and still demand people to submit memos to grow a beard, and they can't shave every third day.
> 
> The CAFCWO and the CCPO caught wind and sent out a very scathing clarifying email to all of the Sergeants-Major across the service:
> 
> ...



Interesting, Cold Lake finally caught up with this. 

Except that the WCWO finished off his speech of all the direction necessary being in the CANFORGEN, with something to the effect of "people who wish to shave and regrow, shave and regrow will be dealt with individually." The ones who choose to test the limits as he put it. Nothing like being met with subtle threats from those who've already been told to take a step back on the MAKEITTHEFUCKUPFORGEN's.


----------



## trooper142 (11 Oct 2018)

cld617 said:
			
		

> Interesting, Cold Lake finally caught up with this.
> 
> Except that the WCWO finished off his speech of all the direction necessary being in the CANFORGEN, with something to the effect of "people who wish to shave and regrow, shave and regrow will be dealt with individually." The ones who choose to test the limits as he put it. Nothing like being met with subtle threats from those who've already been told to take a step back on the MAKEITTHEFUCKUPFORGEN's.



Think you could post this email on the forum? Or get a copy of it somehow?

My CoC told me I was to ask permission to grow a beard, and upon permission I had 30 days to prove I could grow a beard, if not , no further attempts would be authorized.

Obviously upon reading your post, I became curious if this direction had reached my CoC and they are simply ignoring it,hoping the troops don't know any better, or it hasn't reached them yet, an they are still being ignorant to the actual CANFORGEN.

Any help would be appreciated


----------



## runormal (11 Oct 2018)

Why pick an unnecessary fight? I agree that it is flat out ridiculous, but IMO it's not worth fighting about. They wanted an email and a memo. I asked a friend for their memo and changed their name to my name.


----------



## trooper142 (12 Oct 2018)

runormal said:
			
		

> Why pick an unnecessary fight? I agree that it is flat out ridiculous, but IMO it's not worth fighting about. They wanted an email and a memo. I asked a friend for their memo and changed their name to my name.



I don't see this as an unnecessary fight! The CoC in some locations is actively defying the will and orders of the CDS. It may seem like a small issue with beards, but it is a symptom of a wider problem imo.

If you don't push back when the CoC is being unreasonable and, in this case, actively disobeying orders from higher, that sets the stage for further incursions.

Just my  :2c:


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (12 Oct 2018)

trooper142 said:
			
		

> I don't see this as an unnecessary fight! The CoC in some locations is actively defying the will and orders of the CDS. It may seem like a small issue with beards, but it is a symptom of a wider problem imo.
> 
> If you don't push back when the CoC is being unreasonable and, in this case, actively disobeying orders from higher, that sets the stage for further incursions.
> 
> Just my  :2c:



I agree with this which is why I usually refer to CANFORGENs as CANFORSUGENs (Canadian Forces Suggestions) as people seem to just make it up anyway.  

The thing that annoys me the most about these types is they will harp on stupid petty BS like this but then actively screw over there subordinates by not actually doing there jobs, like making sure routine administration, that when delayed costs people money and time, is actioned properly.


----------



## trooper142 (12 Oct 2018)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I agree with this which is why I usually refer to CANFORGENs as CANFORSUGENs (Canadian Forces Suggestions) as people seem to just make it up anyway.
> 
> The thing that annoys me the most about these types is they will harp on stupid petty BS like this but then actively screw over there subordinates by not actually doing there jobs, like making sure routine administration that when delayed, costs people money and time, is actioned properly.



Hit the nail on the head IMO. It is a sign of weak leadership at all levels when this type of thing is allowed to fester; from the Sgt/Junior officer level all the way to the command team level for not pushing back at these contradictory orders and directives; same thing is occurring with boot reimbursement. 

 Credit to the CAFCWO for recognizing the problem children and sorting them out in short order! If only we had the email that was circulated so the troops could have some ammo when confronting their CoC. Further, if what was said about that Wing CWO is true and they are subtly threatening their troops, then shame on them; not deserving of leadership positions.

Keep the pressure up and things will continue to change for the better, don't let poor leadership bring you down; let it be an example of what not to do when you achieve a leadership position.


----------



## Lumber (12 Oct 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I'd like to see this beard email myself.



I have the email from the CFB Halifax Base Chief that states clearly:



> CAF personnel may cease shaving at any time so desired by the member; additionally there is no requirement for a formal process to cease shaving. When a CAF member so chooses to grow a beard, the beard shall be trimmed as detailed above commencing on the first day; there is no longer a period where the beard can be grown out before trimming.
> 
> For example a member may choose to grow their beard out on Monday, decide to shave it all off on Tuesday, recommence growing on Wednesday, shave it off again on Thursday and so on at their discretion.
> 
> Beards, when grown, are to present a positive appearance; therefore patchy, exaggerated and other likewise unsightly beards may be ordered removed. When so ordered, this does not preclude a CAF member from making subsequent attempts. It is the responsibility of supervisors at all levels to ensure the standards for beards listed above are adhered to, regardless of the length of time the member has elected to grow a beard.



I could copy and paste the whole email, including the signature block, but I'm not sure that's appropriate. Is it?


----------



## trooper142 (12 Oct 2018)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I have the email from the CFB Halifax Base Chief that states clearly:
> 
> I could copy and paste the whole email, including the signature block, but I'm not sure that's appropriate. Is it?



I was hoping to have the original email from the CAFCWO! Adds ammunition to a members argument if they have today defend themselves with their chain! 

We are already seeing different interpretations of this policy, regardless of clear direction from higher; and potential threats from a Wing CWO to his subordinates who decide to play by the rules exactly as stated.

But people are leaving the military because of the money, nothing to do with petty games played by people who are upset their military is changing, and they don't like it so they cling to the last bits of power they have in the hopes of stemming off the hoard of change . :


----------



## kratz (12 Oct 2018)

[quote author=Lumber]

I could copy and paste the whole email, including the signature block, but I'm not sure that's appropriate. Is it?
[/quote]

Reply # 67 of the topic has the entire email. The only part removed was the signature block.


----------



## Lumber (12 Oct 2018)

kratz said:
			
		

> Reply # 67 of the topic has the entire email. The only part removed was the signature block.



Kratz,

I saw that, but the email you posted at reply #67 was actually changed the very next day. You'll notice that the original email (the one you posted) states:



> CAF personnel desiring to cease shaving shall inform their Chain of Command of their intent to do so. This is not to seek permission, however, it is to ensure that a minimum 30 day period is followed in order for the Commanding Officer or their delegate (normally unit Coxn/CPO1/CWO) to review the beard and direct that the beard be removed if the attempt does not produce a satisfactory outcome.



Which was changed to:



> ...all members of the CAF may now grow a beard at their own volition and are not required to submit a memo to their Chain of Command to cease shaving. CAF members do not have to advise their Chain of Command in any way should they choose to grow a beard...



and



> CAF personnel may cease shaving at any time so desired by the member; additionally there is no requirement for a formal process to cease shaving.



Cheers


----------



## Navy_Pete (12 Oct 2018)

If units are running this off the rails, why don't they send out an amplifying CANFORGEN or a CAF wide email with these points?  If not following the CANFORGEN is a problem, not sure what exactly an email to the Chief chain would do.

Our unit Chief basically just said here's the order, pretty self explanatory, follow them, and ask if you have any questions. That should be a pretty easy approach, unless you are the type of leader that hides feelings of inadequacy by massively overcompensating and trying to take 'ownership' of things that you don't need to. If they really want to lead change, just grow a beard.


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Oct 2018)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> If units are running this off the rails, why don't they send out an amplifying CANFORGEN or a CAF wide email with these points?  If not following the CANFORGEN is a problem, not sure what exactly an email to the Chief chain would do.



Because that would admit to the entire CAF that unit commanders are disregarding D&G from the CDS. Its all politics. Don't want to prove to us lowly NCOs what we already believe to be true.


----------



## QV (12 Oct 2018)

The inability for some to understand and follow this simple order is indicative of deeper issues.


----------



## Lumber (12 Oct 2018)

I do feel like the CANFORGEN leaves room for interpretation.

I just re-read the CANFORGEN and the base chief's email, and the only thing the CANFORGEN says that is actually material regarding the actual "beard" is:



> - EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, THE WEARING OF A BEARD IS AUTHORIZED FOR ALL CAF MEMBERS UPON ATTAINMENT OF THEIR OPERATIONALLY FUNCTIONAL POINT (OFP) OR HAVING COMPLETED DEVELOPMENTAL PERIOD ONE, WHICHEVER COMES LAST.



and



> a. IT SHALL BE WORN WITH A MOUSTACHE,
> b. IT SHALL BE NEATLY TRIMMED, ESPECIALLY ON THE LOWER NECK AND CHEEKBONES,
> c. IT SHALL NOT EXCEED TWO CENTIMETERS IN BULK. A MEMBER WILL, ON THEIR OWN ACCORD OR UPON DIRECTION FROM THEIR COMMANDING OFFICER OR THEIR CO S DESIGNATE, SHAVE OFF UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPTS TO GROW A BEARD.



But some of the "direction" coming from the base chief just doesn't seem to be supported by what little is written in the CANFORGEN, namely:

The email from the base chief states that acceptable styles of beard include short stubble, medium stubble, long stubble, and full beard. However, no where in the CANFORGEN does it say that short, medium or long "stubble" is an acceptable definition of a "beard", which means that someone at some point made that assumption.

Further, the existing dress regs don't say anything about needing permission from the chain of command, a memo, and needing a beard suitability assessment after 30 days, yet we all accepted that that was the accepted practice, did we not? Why now has that rule been removed? It doesn't say anything about this in the CANFORGEN, it just says "everyone is authorized", so someone at some point had to make that assumption. I mean, there are a lot of things that we are authorized to do, but still have steps to follow before doing them.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (12 Oct 2018)

Lets also be clear the Unit/Formation CWOs have no authority to issue direction on their own. They generally do not have any subordinates. They are advisors.

The authority to Command belongs to Commanding Officers/Commanders, at all levels.

Therefore, if CANFORGENs are being ignored/misinterpreted, lets lay the blme where it belongs- with officers who are not doing their job properly.


----------



## dimsum (12 Oct 2018)

I feel this is apt for some reason:

https://youtu.be/N16YkjFVAyE?t=160


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Oct 2018)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Lets also be clear the Unit/Formation CWOs have no authority to issue direction on their own. They generally do not have any subordinates. They are advisors.
> 
> The authority to Command belongs to Commanding Officers/Commanders, at all levels.
> 
> Therefore, if CANFORGENs are being ignored/misinterpreted, lets lay the blme where it belongs- with officers who are not doing their job properly.



Correct. My Commanding Officers delegated dress matters to me and I could say yes/no to certain housekeeping points. I could not go off on my own without his say so.


----------



## runormal (12 Oct 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Say I'm your chain of command. What if I just don't support your memo? Or if you grow your beard and after 30 days I say nope don't like it shave it off and don't attempt again.
> 
> Are you going to be okay with that, especially if your peers are allowed to grow theirs?
> 
> ...



I guess a large part of this is that i'm a reservist. It's not impacting my general day to day life, which is probably causing a bit of disconnect to the actual issue that some personel are facing. My hope, is that by the time my 30 day window "ticks" that my COC has "un-fucked" themselves. I will be *quite* pissed in 30 days that they come to me and say "Cpl XXX" shave that beard off, CLEAN SHAVEN for rememberance day ;D". 

For me, it took 30 seconds to send my memo up the COC, so it's a "whatever" issue. Hopefully, by then the dust will have settled and that'll be that. It's less work for me to send up a memo, then it is to argue with my COC.

Is it is a complete waste of my time? - 100%
Is it going to achieve anything? - No
Is it a failure of leadership - Absoutely.. 

I don't really have anything else to add and  I don't disagree with trooper142 or Humphrey Bogart.


----------



## daftandbarmy (12 Oct 2018)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> If units are running this off the rails, why don't they send out an amplifying CANFORGEN or a CAF wide email with these points?  If not following the CANFORGEN is a problem, not sure what exactly an email to the Chief chain would do



I think that a couple of thousand 'redress of grievance' submissions, within a month or so, would do a much better job of sending a message up the chain


----------



## NEM3sis (12 Oct 2018)

Would be nice if RSMs were to share the info contained in that email.
We had a town hall with Group command last week and group Chief was clear that you either grow a beard or you don't and that the only acceptable beard is as per current dress manual policy.

I can't grow a beard but my face would be very thankful if I could shave every other day instead of just shaving skin everyday.

And I am not gonna risk shaving every other day if I don't get a thumbs up thru official channels...I don't think quoting army.ca to my RSM would end up working in my favor.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (12 Oct 2018)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> If units are running this off the rails, why don't they send out an amplifying CANFORGEN or a CAF wide email with these points?  If not following the CANFORGEN is a problem, not sure what exactly an email to the Chief chain would do.
> 
> Our unit Chief basically just said here's the order, pretty self explanatory, follow them, and ask if you have any questions. That should be a pretty easy approach, unless you are the type of leader that hides feelings of inadequacy by massively overcompensating and trying to take 'ownership' of things that you don't need to. If they really want to lead change, just grow a beard.



The irony is that the best way to nip other systemic issues like Op HONOUR, Harassment, Veterans Issues, etc is to deal with small issues like this.  If Commanding Officers can't even be trusted to let a man grow a freaking beard, how can we be trusted to deal with bigger issues?

I can grow a full beard in a matter of weeks and I've done it multiple times since I've been in.  Give me eight weeks and I can look like a Boer Commando (my Dutch ancestors would be proud)  It has had zero impact on my ability to do my job and I can shave it if required at a moments notice.

People who want to grow big beards will come to realize they are also huge a pain in the butt to maintain.  For one thing, they itch like crazy at times and those beard hairs tingle like crazy with the slightest breeze.  Secondly, eating is a pain in the butt as food often gets all over your lovely face coiff!  Nothing worse than eating one of the many liquid rations we have and having your beard smell like omelette and salsa for a week straight!

Do the Boer Commandos proud and grow a big beard though!  General Cronje will smile upon you!


----------



## PPCLI Guy (12 Oct 2018)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> The irony is that the best way to nip other systemic issues like Op HONOUR, Harassment, Veterans Issues, etc is to deal with small issues like this.  If Commanding Officers can't even be trusted to let a man grow a freaking beard, how can we be trusted to deal with bigger issues?



Yup!


----------



## daftandbarmy (12 Oct 2018)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> The irony is that the best way to nip other systemic issues like Op HONOUR, Harassment, Veterans Issues, etc is to deal with small issues like this.  If Commanding Officers can't even be trusted to let a *man *grow a freaking beard, how can we be trusted to deal with bigger issues?



So, have you got something against (people who identify as) women growing beards?  :tsktsk:


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (12 Oct 2018)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> So, have you got something against (people who identify as) women growing beards?  :tsktsk:



You are right, my GBA+ training should have taught me that beardforgen is a gender neutral initiative  :nod:


----------



## blacktriangle (12 Oct 2018)

Something I've always wondered. Where does all this crap start? 

Direction comes down, where (or with whom) does it start to go wrong usually? Many of you posting in this thread are officers, and several are senior officers and maybe even a GOFO or two. What gives? 

Pretty sure it's not a Capt or Lt(N) calling the shots. So is it really coming from Commanders/COs or is it starting with the CWO and no one is stopping them when things get out of hand?

An honest question from a humble broom pusher...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Oct 2018)

trooper142 said:
			
		

> I was hoping to have the original email from the CAFCWO! Adds ammunition to a members argument if they have today defend themselves with their chain!



But, like recognized/discussed earlier in the thread, the CAFCWO is not the Commander who signed off.  While he/she is the CAFCWO, they do not outrank a Officer Commanding a Command, nor a Commanding Officer.  That 'clarification' needs to come from the actual authority, which not to diminish NCOs, Snr NCOs, Warrant Officers and Petty Officers, but we never are the Commander who decides on policy.  My Wing Dress Instructions are signed by the Wing Commander, not the Wing CWO.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Oct 2018)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I do feel like the CANFORGEN leaves room for interpretation.
> 
> I just re-read the CANFORGEN and the base chief's email, and the only thing the CANFORGEN says that is actually material regarding the actual "beard" is:
> 
> ...



But, the CANFORGEN does say "up to 2cm in length", and that a mbr can cease and/or start shaving again at any time.  Base on that, I can have facial hair anywhere between "clean shaven" and "2cm in length" and tided up on the cheeks and neck.  How much direction to we need to define "clean shaven to 2cm long"?  

If I get a take off time of 0800, and a land time of 1600...do I also need to be told "to be clear you will be flying at 0900, 1000, 1100, 1200, 1300, 1400 and 1500hrs", or can common sense dictate that 'from 0800 to 1600' includes those hours as well?


----------



## trooper142 (13 Oct 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> But, like recognized/discussed earlier in the thread, the CAFCWO is not the Commander who signed off.  While he/she is the CAFCWO, they do not outrank a Officer Commanding a Command, nor a Commanding Officer.  That 'clarification' needs to come from the actual authority, which not to diminish NCOs, Snr NCOs, Warrant Officers and Petty Officers, but we never are the Commander who decides on policy.  My Wing Dress Instructions are signed by the Wing Commander, not the Wing CWO.




Just my  :2c:, but one would think if he made it to the level of CAFCWO, he might understand that decisions on policy come from the officer side of the house. Equally so, one could argue the email was sent out with the blessing of the CDS, who ultimately decided on this change in policy.

I don't know about you, but if I made a decision that was pretty clear and I hear of my subordinates actively disobeying said order, i would be making sure it's clarified in short order.

I can only imagine, and I am guessing here, that the CDS delegates this to the CAFCWO, but maybe I'm wrong?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Oct 2018)

trooper142 said:
			
		

> Just my  :2c:, but one would think if he made it to the level of CAFCWO, he might understand that decisions on policy come from the officer side of the house. Equally so, one could argue the email was sent out with the blessing of the CDS, who ultimately decided on this change in policy.



I've underlined what I think is the important part.



> I don't know about you, but if I made a decision that was pretty clear and I hear of my subordinates actively disobeying said order, i would be making sure it's clarified in short order.



Correct.  However, if you were a Troop Leader, and your Patrol Commanders were not following your direction, would you direct your Junior Crew Commanders to rectify the situation?  

There is a CWO/CPO "net" (I'll refrain from calling it CofC).  Yes, the CAFCWO is the top of that ladder.  Yes, the CWO/CPOs in Senior Appointments are 'subordinate' to the CAFCWO, but the CAFCWO isn't their Commander;  the RCAF CWO is the NCM Advisor to his/her Commander, the RCAF Commander - not the CAF CWO.  This shouldn't really be a new thing to anyone in the CAF;  Tp Ldr's have Tp WOs to advise/assist them, OCs have SSMs to advise/assist them, COs have RSMs to advise/assist them.  If the OC goes down on the 2 way range, who is the next in line for Command?  I think the SSM is fairly far down the line for taking over command of the Sqn.

From earlier in the thread, a few posts starting with G2G and Infanteer that highlight the Commander/CWO-CPO relation and difference in Command/enforcement.

https://army.ca/forums/threads/129147/post-1550449.html#msg1550449


----------



## meni0n (13 Oct 2018)

Just had parade night yesterday and the SSM came out to clarify the unit's position on the beards. Their direction is to put in a memo which would have a starting date and 30 days after the starting date a beard "committee" would inspect the beard to make sure it's good. He said it's basically to stop people from shaving and restarting their beards.

I am very certain that's really against what the CANFORGEN stated. The only thing I see in the CANFORGEN for length of beard is that it should be under 2cm and I can start growing one without the need to write a memo. Next move, I'll start off writing to the chain to ask them to clarify their position and then if it still stands, either start coming in with a beard or put in a grievance I guess to stop them from making up arbitrary policy.


----------



## Remius (13 Oct 2018)

meni0n said:
			
		

> Just had parade night yesterday and the SSM came out to clarify the unit's position on the beards. Their direction is to put in a memo which would have a starting date and 30 days after the starting date a beard "committee" would inspect the beard to make sure it's good. He said it's basically to stop people from shaving and restarting their beards.
> 
> I am very certain that's really against what the CANFORGEN stated. The only thing I see in the CANFORGEN for length of beard is that it should be under 2cm and I can start growing one without the need to write a memo. Next move, I'll start off writing to the chain to ask them to clarify their position and then if it still stands, either start coming in with a beard or put in a grievance I guess to stop them from making up arbitrary policy.



Keep it simple.  People can choose to grow a beard.  It becomes obvious when people do.  Immediate COC can monitor success rate or not.  Grooming standards just like haircuts and moustaches are enforced.  Only our RSM has been given authority as delegated by the CO to order someone to remove and start over.  

Our unit is keeping it simple.  We have better things to do.


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Oct 2018)

If anyone has DWAN access, go to the ACMIS page for the dress committee. It has some excellent backgrounders on many Army dress decisions, but more specifically a glorious briefing note in favour of allowing beards. The MWO that prepared it is an absolute wordsmith.


----------



## dimsum (13 Oct 2018)

meni0n said:
			
		

> He said it's basically to stop people from shaving and restarting their beards.
> 
> I am very certain that's really against what the CANFORGEN stated.



It is.  Our unit CWO said the opposite - people can shave and restart according to the CANFORGEN.


----------



## Sub_Guy (13 Oct 2018)

Do we need to shave everyday?  That’s what most people want to know.  

Why can’t they just say “you don’t need to shave everyday”?

This shave and restart stuff is nonsense.


----------



## runormal (13 Oct 2018)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Do we need to shave everyday?  That’s what most people want to know.
> 
> Why can’t they just say “you don’t need to shave everyday”?
> 
> This shave and restart stuff is nonsense.



As far as I understand the policy, you need to clean up the neck and cheeks every day, even if you have the beard or are in the process of growing it.  So doesn't that itself close the loophole around anyone saying that "they are now growing a beard", even if they have no intention of doing so?.


----------



## ballz (13 Oct 2018)

standingdown said:
			
		

> Something I've always wondered. Where does all this crap start?



It starts where accountability stops...



			
				standingdown said:
			
		

> So is it really coming from Commanders/COs or is it starting with the CWO and no one is stopping them when things get out of hand?



Each place will be different. In some places it will be a unit CO or higher level Commander, in others it will be a CWO or MWO who is not being corrected. In either case, it's the fault of the officer.


----------



## Quirky (13 Oct 2018)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Do we need to shave everyday?  That’s what most people want to know.
> 
> Why can’t they just say “you don’t need to shave everyday”?
> 
> This shave and restart stuff is nonsense.



No it is, the canforgen doesn’t specify a minimal growth length. You can restart your beard anytime you want, even if that means shaving every other day. We were instructed to follow the canforgen and current beard regs, meaning you must shave your neck and cheek bones everyday. The rest is up to you. I have no intention to grow a beard but it’s nice to know that I can go between days on really cold, dry days. This doesn’t affect my ability to do my job, people who object to stubble are just dinosaurs who are the exact reason why the CF can’t recruit/retain people.


----------



## cld617 (14 Oct 2018)

Quirky said:
			
		

> This doesn’t affect my ability to do my job, people who object to stubble are just dinosaurs who are the exact reason why the CF can’t recruit/retain people.



"something something discipline, or lack thereof if the troops don't shave." - Undisciplined CO/RSM/CWO ignoring direction from higher authority


----------



## Lumber (14 Oct 2018)

runormal said:
			
		

> As far as I understand the policy, you need to clean up the neck and cheeks every day, even if you have the beard or are in the process of growing it.  So doesn't that itself close the loophole around anyone saying that "they are now growing a beard", even if they have no intention of doing so?.



That's funny because when I was growing an actual beard under the old policy, I didn't shave the neck and cheeks everyday.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (14 Oct 2018)

Lumber said:
			
		

> That's funny because when I was growing an actual beard under the old policy, I didn't shave the neck and cheeks everyday.



The policy is clear so your CoC ought to have made you follow it. It's the same as the guys who had shave chits but never trimmed so they were out of standard.


----------



## Good2Golf (14 Oct 2018)

ballz said:
			
		

> It starts where accountability stops...
> ...
> Each place will be different. In some places it will be a unit CO or higher level Commander, in others it will be a CWO or MWO who is not being corrected. In either case, it's the fault of the officer.



This. :nod:


Regards
G2G


----------



## BrewsKampbell (14 Oct 2018)

Lumber said:
			
		

> That's funny because when I was growing an actual beard under the old policy, I didn't shave the neck and cheeks everyday.



Once a week, maybe twice I'll clean it up.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Oct 2018)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> The policy is clear so your CoC ought to have made you follow it. It's the same as the guys who had shave chits but never trimmed so they were out of standard.



Direction where I hang my hat was those with medical chits were not permitted to shave the neck and cheeks because they were on a no shave chit.


----------



## Pusser (15 Oct 2018)

Quirky said:
			
		

> No it is, the canforgen doesn’t specify a minimal growth length. You can restart your beard anytime you want, even if that means shaving every other day. We were instructed to follow the canforgen and current beard regs, meaning you must shave your neck and cheek bones everyday. The rest is up to you. I have no intention to grow a beard but it’s nice to know that I can go between days on really cold, dry days. This doesn’t affect my ability to do my job, people who object to stubble are just dinosaurs who are the exact reason why the CF can’t recruit/retain people.



Wow!  What a weasel approach.  The intent of the new policy is to allow everyone the opportunity to grow a beard if they so choose, not provide an excuse to neglect personal grooming if you don't feel like it today.  If you want to grow a beard, then grow a beard, but don't game the system.  There's no excuse for looking scruffy.

Right now the rules are fairly relaxed, but I'll bet that if folks are going to be stupid about this, more detailed instructions will follow.


----------



## cld617 (15 Oct 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> There's no excuse for looking scruffy.



By what metric are you using to determine scruffy, what density of facial hair is required before it's a beard?


----------



## RedcapCrusader (15 Oct 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Wow!  What a weasel approach.  The intent of the new policy is to allow everyone the opportunity to grow a beard if they so choose, not provide an excuse to neglect personal grooming if you don't feel like it today.  If you want to grow a beard, then grow a beard, but don't game the system.  There's no excuse for looking scruffy.
> 
> Right now the rules are fairly relaxed, but I'll bet that if folks are going to be stupid about this, more detailed instructions will follow.



I guess you haven't been following along have you?

The CDS and the CAFCWO, CCPO had to send out clarification clearly stating that the CANFORGEN permits people to shave every second day if they choose. 

CoC's across the country were reading the CANFORGEN and making it much more restrictive (probably out of old dinosaur hate for anything modern) and the CDS was not having it.

So no, I don't think more restrictive rules are going to come out because they had the chance and didn't, in fact the clarifying statement relaxed the rules.

Just because you don't like it, and don't like scruffy people, doesn't mean everyone else has to suffer too.


----------



## NEM3sis (15 Oct 2018)

But the clarification only been sent to RSMs who are the one applying/enforcing the policy.
if they choose not to disseminate the message to exercise control, that clarification is null.
So a message Force-wide, not to a select-few who then decide if they want to share the knowledge or not, expressing that clarification would be nice.


----------



## meni0n (15 Oct 2018)

I was going to say it would be nice to have that clarification because the unit I'm at thinking it's ok to have members put in memos before growing beards and have beard committees


----------



## daftandbarmy (15 Oct 2018)

meni0n said:
			
		

> I was going to say it would be nice to have that clarification because the unit I'm at thinking it's ok to have members put in memos before growing beards and have *beard committees
> *



You, Sir, have won the internet for the day. Thank you for that.  :rofl:


----------



## dapaterson (15 Oct 2018)

So, regimental beard committee at D+30, squadron at D+15, troop at D+7, and section at D+2 means you better be able to grow a beard within 48 hours...


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Oct 2018)

Are members who grow beards for religious reasons held to the same beard grooming standards as everyone else?  ie 2 cm, clean neck etc..


----------



## PMedMoe (15 Oct 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Are members who grow beards for religious reasons held to the same beard grooming standards as everyone else?  ie 2 cm, clean neck etc..



They weren't before the CANFORGEN. Why would they be now?


----------



## Blackadder1916 (15 Oct 2018)

So, as I sit here stroking my graying, mandatory post-retirement beard in contemplation, I'm left wondering "what is a beard?".  Damn near everything else in the military has an official definition, but other than the drawing of what should be the limits of a beard in dress instructions there are no other definitions.  When does being "unshaven" become a beard?  I have my idea of the delineation, but, like Potter Stewart in Jacobellis v. Ohio, it is very much "I know it when I see it".  "Scruffy" is not a beard; it is an attitude that does not project the vision of discipline expected in a military force.  Stubble is not a beard; it is a fashion choice oft associated with pastel suits, sports cars and Miami nightlife, not to mention Italian (or other Mediterranean European) gigolos on beaches in banana hammocks.

Yes, I may be a dinosaur in the minds of those who think they should be able to do as they please as long as they think "it doesn't affect their job".  However, I expect a certain level of consistency in dress and deportment of members of the CAF.  I have no problems with any and all in uniform growing a beard (if they have the hormonal fortitude to do so), I once had a good start on full facial hair (I already had the pornstar 'stache) while working with 3VP's pioneer platoon about 4 decades ago.  And I also remember similar angst (though far from the horror portrayed here) in the 1970s when the creeping length of sideburns sent RSMs into spasm.  The CANFORGEN was poorly written; what I assume was to be a change to dress instruction to no longer limit beards to Navy types and infantry pioneers (if such an animal still exists) as long as operational requirements (and that being the "only" restriction) were met, instead now seems to be an accepted policy of soldiers can do whatever the fuck they want with regards facial hair.


----------



## meni0n (15 Oct 2018)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> You, Sir, have won the internet for the day. Thank you for that.  :rofl:



I wish I was joking but that's what the SSM said. After 30 days of growing your beard, a beard committee will inspect it to see if it's a successful attempt or not. I wonder if there is a course the beard committee members have to take. Beard Officianados DP1 ?


----------



## dapaterson (15 Oct 2018)

PER points.  "Successfully disqualified 17 beards during the reporting period."


----------



## vonGarvin (15 Oct 2018)

Is this the beard committee?


----------



## meni0n (15 Oct 2018)

I imagine it would more like that...

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/es.starwars/images/3/34/Sal%C3%B3n_del_Alto_Consejo_Jedi.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20061126175649


----------



## Blackadder1916 (15 Oct 2018)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rtsw9lKe9k


----------



## PuckChaser (15 Oct 2018)

I'm confused at where people are reading that the lower neck and cheekbones have to be clean shaven every day?



> 4.WHERE THE WEARING OF A BEARD IS AUTHORIZED:
> 
> A. IT SHALL BE WORN WITH A MOUSTACHE,
> 
> ...



4.B. says neatly trimmed, not clean shaven. That means no hipster neck-beards, but does not mean you have to have it clean shaven every day.


----------



## QV (15 Oct 2018)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> So, as I sit here stroking my graying, mandatory post-retirement beard in contemplation, I'm left wondering "what is a beard?".  Damn near everything else in the military has an official definition, but other than the drawing of what should be the limits of a beard in dress instructions there are no other definitions.  When does being "unshaven" become a beard?  I have my idea of the delineation, but, like Potter Stewart in Jacobellis v. Ohio, it is very much "I know it when I see it".  "Scruffy" is not a beard; it is an attitude that does not project the vision of discipline expected in a military force.  Stubble is not a beard; it is a fashion choice oft associated with pastel suits, sports cars and Miami nightlife, not to mention Italian (or other Mediterranean European) gigolos on beaches in banana hammocks.
> 
> Yes, I may be a dinosaur in the minds of those who think they should be able to do as they please as long as they think "it doesn't affect their job".  However, I expect a certain level of consistency in dress and deportment of members of the CAF.  I have no problems with any and all in uniform growing a beard (if they have the hormonal fortitude to do so), I once had a good start on full facial hair (I already had the pornstar 'stache) while working with 3VP's pioneer platoon about 4 decades ago.  And I also remember similar angst (though far from the horror portrayed here) in the 1970s when the creeping length of sideburns sent RSMs into spasm.  The CANFORGEN was poorly written; what I assume was to be a change to dress instruction to no longer limit beards to Navy types and infantry pioneers (if such an animal still exists) as long as operational requirements (and that being the "only" restriction) were met, instead now seems to be an accepted policy of soldiers can do whatever the frig they want with regards facial hair.



The view on this is definitely going to be varied.  I suppose you could you look at this with similar discontent as those not entirely thrilled with the waxed handle bar moustache standard which was popular with soldiers in the 19th century through to WWI (according to Wikipedia) and still sported to this day by some.


----------



## runormal (15 Oct 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'm confused at where people are reading that the lower neck and cheekbones have to be clean shaven every day?
> 
> 4.B. says neatly trimmed, not clean shaven. That means no hipster neck-beards, but does not mean you have to have it clean shaven every day.



I guess, I assumed that neatly trimmed meant that the beard itself would be neatly trimmed/styled. In my opinion, this would require one to keep the cheeks/cheeks shaven. Otherwise, it wouldn't look neat.


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Oct 2018)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> They weren't before the CANFORGEN. Why would they be now?



One standard to hold everyone to.


----------



## PMedMoe (16 Oct 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> One standard to hold everyone to.



Before the CANFORGEN, they were not held at the same standard due to *religion*.  Don't see why that would change.

Should the indigenous males allowed to have long hair get it cut now too??


----------



## PuckChaser (16 Oct 2018)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Before the CANFORGEN, they were not held at the same standard due to *religion*.  Don't see why that would change.
> 
> Should the indigenous males allowed to have long hair get it cut now too??


No, but everyone else should be allowed to have it if they want. It clearly doesn't have any negative impacts operationally or with discipline, or no one would be allowed to have long hair.


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Oct 2018)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Before the CANFORGEN, they were not held at the same standard due to *religion*.  Don't see why that would change.
> 
> Should the indigenous males allowed to have long hair get it cut now too??



I was thinking the opposite. I'm not suggesting people who grow beards for religious reasons cut their beards in accordance with the dress regs rather people who want to grow a beard can do so in the same manner as someone who claims growing a (non-trimmed) beard brings them closer to Jesus or Xenu (or in my case the God-Emperor of mankind).

"Should indigenous males cut their hair?"  Nope. Why not just let all guys grow long hair? I hear it might improve recruiting. 


Serious question, if a biological woman with long hair identifies as a male does he have to cut his hair according to male dress regs?


----------



## Lumber (16 Oct 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Serious question, if a biological woman with long hair identifies as a male does he have to cut his hair according to male dress regs?



Yes.


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Oct 2018)

Fairs fair.

 :nod:


----------



## Lumber (16 Oct 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Fairs fair.
> 
> :nod:



Ask straight forward questions: get straightforward answers!  :cowboy:


----------



## PuckChaser (16 Oct 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Serious question, if a biological woman with long hair identifies as a male does he have to cut his hair according to male dress regs?



What if that biological woman identifies as non-binary? Our grooming standards (written in the 80s) don't cover that.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Oct 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> "Should indigenous males cut their hair?"  Nope. Why not just let all guys grow long hair? I hear it might improve recruiting.



I did an Ex in Norway earlier this year.  

The guard manning the entrance to the base had a ponytail down his back, a goatee, maybe an earring in too.  He was also very sharp, professional and wore his uniform with pride.  His weapon was clean, his kit was clean, and his military bearing was spot on.  He had one of the best formed berets on I've seen in years and he looked like he could sleep-walk thru our FORCE test.

The ops staff, briefers, etc we worked included females with nose piercings, Officers with long hair and facial hair.  They all knew their shyte and I was impressed with their collective professionalism.  

I think they're focusing on the right things over there...


----------



## Lumber (16 Oct 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> What if that biological woman identifies as non-binary? Our grooming standards (written in the 80s) don't cover that.



Female standards.


----------



## PuckChaser (16 Oct 2018)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Female standards.



Because they're more broad in hair length and jewelry requirement?


----------



## Lumber (16 Oct 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Because they're more broad in hair length and jewelry requirement?



No, because there is no option for "non-binary" in any official capacity within the CAF, and as this person continues to identify as biologically female, then we would apply those standards to _her_. If she wanted to follow the male standards, then she would have to self identify as a _male_, and accept everything that goes with it. If she wants a third option, well tfb (right now).

But yea, also, it would be a lot easier to express herself as non-binary under the female standards than the male standards.


----------



## PuckChaser (16 Oct 2018)

There's the problem. How does "Transphobic CAF rules force non-binary person to dress as a woman" look for a CBC headline?

We've dug ourselves into a hole where one person's freedom of expression/religion is more important than another's.


----------



## dimsum (16 Oct 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I did an Ex in Norway earlier this year.
> 
> The guard manning the entrance to the base had a ponytail down his back, a goatee, maybe an earring in too.  He was also very sharp, professional and wore his uniform with pride.  His weapon was clean, his kit was clean, and his military bearing was spot on.  He had one of the best formed berets on I've seen in years and he looked like he could sleep-walk thru our FORCE test.
> 
> ...



Well, they can claim all of that is consistent with their Viking tradition and culture   

I am interested to see what HAIRFORGEN will spell out, and the inevitable extra restrictions placed on it by local authorities based on what we're already seeing from BEARDFORGEN.


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Oct 2018)

So a female soldier could effectively grow a beard, shave their head and wear a deu skirt.


----------



## cld617 (16 Oct 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I think they're focusing on the right things over there...



New policy, much achieve incentive levels on the FORCE test to be allowed to follow new policies in BEARD/HAIRFORGEN


----------



## Blackadder1916 (16 Oct 2018)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Eye In The Sky said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No. it is consistent with the treatment of conscripts in the military service of a liberal, progressive Western European country.  Many will assume that because one is a conscript (subject to mandatory military service) that they don't want to be in uniform or that they don't care about good soldiering.  My limited experience decades ago in defending the West from the Commie hordes was that most of the conscripts I came into contact with were good soldiers.  In the Norgies case, while all citizens (male and female) between the ages of 19 to 44 are subject, they are selective in whom they take.  Of the more than 60,000 who are eligible in a class group (and must go thru the first selection, in essence filling out a form) around 15% eventually report for military training (with a reported 84% of that number saying they would have volunteered if it was an option).  When nearly half of your full-time military changes each 12 to 16 months, it is fair to say the military service model is not geared to "career" soldiers but to civilians (or citizen soldiers) who look at their time in the Forsvaret as an interruption to their lives (or more likely as a brief, rewarding life experience).  Making that interlude as convenient as possible is (and was with other NATO conscript countries even 20, 30 or more years ago) a common policy.  As much as we may say that members of the CF are "citizen soldiers", the recruitment and retention model is focused on career soldiers.


----------



## PMedMoe (16 Oct 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> So a female soldier could effectively grow a beard, shave their head and wear a deu skirt.



I was always under the impression that females couldn't shave their heads. 
:dunno:

That being said, I guess if one wanted (and was able) to, she could.


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Oct 2018)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Well, they can claim all of that is consistent with their Viking tradition and culture
> 
> 
> 
> No. it is consistent with the treatment of conscripts in the military service of a liberal, progressive Western European country.  Many will assume that because one is a conscript (subject to mandatory military service) that they don't want to be in uniform or that they don't care about good soldiering.  My limited experience decades ago in defending the West from the Commie hordes was that most of the conscripts I came into contact with were good soldiers.  In the Norgies case, while all citizens (male and female) between the ages of 19 to 44 are subject, they are selective in whom they take.  Of the more than 60,000 who are eligible in a class group (and must go thru the first selection, in essence filling out a form) around 15% eventually report for military training (with a reported 84% of that number saying they would have volunteered if it was an option).  When nearly half of your full-time military changes each 12 to 16 months, it is fair to say the military service model is not geared to "career" soldiers but to civilians (or citizen soldiers) who look at their time in the Forsvaret as an interruption to their lives (or more likely as a brief, rewarding life experience).  Making that interlude as convenient as possible is (and was with other NATO conscript countries even 20, 30 or more years ago) a common policy.  As much as we may say that members of the CF are "citizen soldiers", the recruitment and retention model is focused on career soldiers.



They also have a Union, like some other Continental, conscripted, armies.


----------



## dimsum (16 Oct 2018)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I was always under the impression that females couldn't shave their heads.
> :dunno:
> 
> That being said, I guess if one wanted (and was able) to, she could.



Maybe not down to the skin with a razor (may have started that way?) but I've worked with at least one who had a 0 or 1 guard all over and maintained it for at least a year.  She was posted out so I'm not sure if she still rocks it shaved but it wouldn't surprise me.


----------



## dangerboy (16 Oct 2018)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I was always under the impression that females couldn't shave their heads.
> :dunno:
> 
> That being said, I guess if one wanted (and was able) to, she could.



All the dress manual says is " Shaving of all of the hair on the head is permitted." As it does not specifically state that it is for a specific gender then it means everyone can shave their head if they wish.


----------



## PMedMoe (16 Oct 2018)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> All the dress manual says is " Shaving of all of the hair on the head is permitted." As it does not specifically state that it is for a specific gender then it means everyone can shave their head if they wish.



Well. There you go.


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Oct 2018)

An example of a gender neutral approach


----------



## TCM621 (17 Oct 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I did an Ex in Norway earlier this year.
> 
> The guard manning the entrance to the base had a ponytail down his back, a goatee, maybe an earring in too.  He was also very sharp, professional ... he looked like he could sleep-walk thru our FORCE test.
> 
> I think they're focusing on the right things over there...



That has a lot to do with it. If you are a 25 year old with a huge gut that hangs over your pants and you waddle when you walk, no about of grooming will make you look "military".


----------



## Quirky (17 Oct 2018)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> That has a lot to do with it. If you are a 25 year old with a huge gut that hangs over your pants and you waddle when you walk, no about of grooming will make you look "military".



I find fat troops far more unprofessional and undisciplined than those who choose not to shave everyday. 

If you are going to argue that if your appearance via stubble and long hair looks un-soldier like, then I’ll say being a fat wobbly slob is at the same or worse level.


----------



## CountDC (17 Oct 2018)

what I see is people reading only the canforgen and using their own wanted interpretation of it.  The only change this has made to the dress regs is that everyone is now allowed to grow a beard.  Guess the army finally gave up trying to make the navy be like them and decided to join the dark side.  The change is to the CANFORGEN Ref C Section 2, 5a(3)(a).

A part that everyone seems to miss is:

(d) When a beard is grown or removed, identification documents shall be replaced in accordance with security regulations.


----------



## Old EO Tech (17 Oct 2018)

CountDC said:
			
		

> what I see is people reading only the canforgen and using their own wanted interpretation of it.  The only change this has made to the dress regs is that everyone is now allowed to grow a beard.  Guess the army finally gave up trying to make the navy be like them and decided to join the dark side.  The change is to the CANFORGEN Ref C Section 2, 5a(3)(a).
> 
> A part that everyone seems to miss is:
> 
> (d) When a beard is grown or removed, identification documents shall be replaced in accordance with security regulations.



Yes and the "security regulations"  say that beards are NOT a major change in appearance and no new ID is required.


----------



## ballz (18 Oct 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> If anyone has DWAN access, go to the ACMIS page for the dress committee. It has some excellent backgrounders on many Army dress decisions, but more specifically a glorious briefing note in favour of allowing beards. The MWO that prepared it is an absolute wordsmith.



Can you post the ACIMS link?


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Oct 2018)

ballz said:
			
		

> Can you post the ACIMS link?



Apologies for the long link, but goes right to the CADCC. Specific briefing note is "Beards in the CAF", ID# 3765.

http://acims.mil.ca/org/ArmyG1/Documents/Forms/Army%20Doc%20Set%20-%20Without%20Permissions/docsethomepage.aspx?ID=3505&FolderCTID=0x0120D5200004193D444ABED64094791871D739679000F91D39995F17964C9D224F17CC605284&List=0d60e937-b473-4d6c-bf64-3fc16f54dbf5&RootFolder=%2Forg%2FArmyG1%2FDocuments%2FCADCC


----------



## hattrick72 (24 Oct 2018)

I spent some time in the dress manual 2017 version and it doesn't mention shaving within a 24 hour period. Where is that regulation? I could have swore I saw a paragraph stating you had to be clean shaven every day. Wasn't in chapter 17 of the QR&O either.


----------



## Sub_Guy (7 Jan 2019)

Regarding the OFP bit.  Is it your initial OFP?  

Not that I am gunning for the ZZ Top look, but I am on my 3rd trade, under this policy would I have been expected to shave off my (theoretical) glorious beard with every OT?  

Just something that came up in conversation the other day.

Does anyone have any insight as to why they decided on DP1/OFP?  Seriously what's the thought process in making someone wait until they reach their OFP.  Seems unnecessary.


----------



## JesseWZ (8 Jan 2019)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Regarding the OFP bit.  Is it your initial OFP?
> 
> Does anyone have any insight as to why they decided on DP1/OFP?  Seriously what's the thought process in making someone wait until they reach their OFP.  Seems unnecessary.



I gotta wonder if they are still stressing the uniformity in all things through BMQ, SQ (and Navy/AF equivalents and trades training) and you get to earn your freedom (with facial hair) by passing your QL3/DP1?


----------



## RedcapCrusader (8 Jan 2019)

JesseWZ said:
			
		

> I gotta wonder if they are still stressing the uniformity in all things through BMQ, SQ (and Navy/AF equivalents and trades training) and you get to earn your freedom (with facial hair) by passing your QL3/DP1?



They are.

Recruits are not permitted beards at CFLRS, Schools, Training Coys etc. As the CANFORGEN states, you must meet OFP in your trade to wear a beard.

Also, the NAVORD on Beards has not changed or been rescinded. So whatever restrictions or requirements that  utimposed, Navy pers must adhere.



			
				Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Regarding the OFP bit.  Is it your initial OFP?
> 
> Not that I am gunning for the ZZ Top look, but I am on my 3rd trade, under this policy would I have been expected to shave off my (theoretical) glorious beard with every OT?
> 
> ...



Technically if you OT, you no longer meet OFP in your new trade therefore, no beard for you.

Whether or not your School staff or new unit enforces that for remusters is another can of worms.

Personally, I have witnessed remusters given slack on that (pending they were already OFP and wearing a beard of course).


----------



## Sub_Guy (8 Jan 2019)

JesseWZ said:
			
		

> I gotta wonder if they are still stressing the uniformity in all things through BMQ, SQ (and Navy/AF equivalents and trades training) and you get to earn your freedom (with facial hair) by passing your QL3/DP1?



Unless you have a religious reason to wear a beard. 

Some trades don’t reach OFP for years, seems silly to restrict it to that.  Not that I’m growing a beard, I’d look like the wolf man.  I’m just trying to understand the thought process behind the OFP decision.


----------



## Lumber (8 Jan 2019)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Some trades don’t reach OFP for years, seems silly to restrict it to that.  Not that I’m growing a beard, I’d look like the wolf man.  I’m just trying to understand the thought process behind the OFP decision.



Yea, like NWO (MARS). We don't reach OFP until we are NOPQ qualified, which I reached approximately 7 years into my career (you could reach it in 3 years if you are a DEO or CEOTP officer). I assure you, all of us started sporting beards after our initial naval phase training (MARS II, which is the first course you do after Basic. It's essentially our first intro to "what is the navy"?).


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Jan 2019)

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> Also, the NAVORD on Beards has not changed or been rescinded. So whatever restrictions or requirements that  utimposed, Navy pers must adhere.



I love when the CDS issues direction that those GOFO/Senior Officers subordinate to him feel cool about ignoring.  It sets the example for all subordinate to them to use when asked 'why aren't you following this order/policy?

 ;D


----------



## Navy_Pete (9 Jan 2019)

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> Also, the NAVORD on Beards has not changed or been rescinded. So whatever restrictions or requirements that  utimposed, Navy pers must adhere.



Don't have DWAN access, but off the top of my head, the NAVFORGEN basically said, if you are at a sea going unit (or otherwise may have to wear the air pack for fire fighting) you need to be clean shaven.

CANFORGEN basically says everyone in the CAF can now grow beards to the old Navy standard (barring specific operational requirements), so there isn't any conflict.  The RCN has put down a single standard for the operational units, so pretty straightforward.  Otherwise every single ship/navy unit would have their own set of rules, and that would be kind of dumb, as well as confusing as you jump between ships.

People will argue about the validity of the logic, but even if some people get a seal with a beard, some won't be able to. Being clean shaven will never interfere with the seal, so it's erring on the side of caution. Best case, your seal fails, and you are able to safely get out of the area. Smoke spreads really quickly though, so it may take you a while, and smoke inhalation sucks.  Now you've left the rest of your team sitting around waiting for a replacement, giving the fire time to grow, and generally putting everyone at greater risk.  Worse case you run out of air in the fire zone, become a lesson to others, and have your wingers risking their lives to save you.

Fires happen on ships all the time, have been involved with a half dozen myself, and there are tonnes of near misses. The entire surface fleet is currently about 25 years old, (with some older), so even with the pretty active safety program, the failure rates leading to fires is only going to go up, so there is very good operational reasons to keep people clean shaven and trained to respond to fires. My  :2c: (based on actual fire science, performance of the BAs with beards, and first hand experience with multiple fires on ships).


----------



## cld617 (9 Jan 2019)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Fires happen on ships all the time, have been involved with a half dozen myself, and there are tonnes of near misses. The entire surface fleet is currently about 25 years old, (with some older), so even with the pretty active safety program, the failure rates leading to fires is only going to go up, so there is very good operational reasons to keep people clean shaven and trained to respond to fires. My  :2c: (based on actual fire science, performance of the BAs with beards, and first hand experience with multiple fires on ships).



If the air med folks have approved CF18 pilots for wearing beards, there really isn't a safety argument to be made for not allowing beards with firefighting gear.


----------



## dimsum (9 Jan 2019)

cld617 said:
			
		

> If the air med folks have approved CF18 pilots for wearing beards, there really isn't a safety argument to be made for not allowing beards with firefighting gear.



That's now extended to all aircrew, past the OFP yadayada.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (9 Jan 2019)

Are there any/many differences between say, the MB1 smoke mask we have on the Aurora fleet to the 'air pack' or other smoke masks in the RCN?


----------



## Halifax Tar (9 Jan 2019)

cld617 said:
			
		

> If the air med folks have approved CF18 pilots for wearing beards, there really isn't a safety argument to be made for not allowing beards with firefighting gear.



Thats interesting.  Sounds like a town hall question to me.


----------



## SupersonicMax (9 Jan 2019)

cld617 said:
			
		

> If the air med folks have approved CF18 pilots for wearing beards, there really isn't a safety argument to be made for not allowing beards with firefighting gear.



Our masks are individually fitted.  Is it the same for firefighting gear?


----------



## Navy_Pete (9 Jan 2019)

cld617 said:
			
		

> If the air med folks have approved CF18 pilots for wearing beards, there really isn't a safety argument to be made for not allowing beards with firefighting gear.



CF18 pilots aren't operating in a superheated toxic atmosphere, nor are they sweating their ass off carrying around a bunch of gear while climbing up and down ladders.  That's apples and oranges, and really not relevant.  You also are grabbing a generic off the shelf mask and hope you fit a medium.  Otherwise unless you get a prepositioned small or large you are SOL.

They did an informal trial when the air packs showed up with beards; they ran a few groups through and the ones that could get a seal lost it when they started moving around and sweating. They blew through their air packs in 10 minutes in the trainer; that is completely useless, and long enough to get into a spot where you don't have enough time to get to safety.  You run out of air, you either take off your mask or suffocate, and good luck if you are stuck in a fire zone full of smoke at that point.  It's compartmentalized enough that anything other than the big machinery spaces fill up really quick, so there won't be much of an air pocket left (if any).

Can some people maybe keep a beard trimmed short and keep a good seal?  Sure.  Can everyone do that reliably?  Nope.

Risk is real, and includes death (for the bearded numpty, as well as the people that have to get his ass out of there).  What is the upside to overruling a very real safety concern?

The last time the Navy got in a real shooting match was Korea, but we have fires all the time in peacetime at all levels of operational readiness.  I like having an option to have a beard, but wouldn't think of being anything but clean shaven if I was on a ship (for both my own safety and for the rest of the team).  Seems like a pretty common sense restriction to me, but you do you I guess.


----------



## Sub_Guy (9 Jan 2019)

Can I assume beards are permitted onboard naval vessels for religious reasons?

If so, are these individuals treated as liabilities?  

I get the impression the RCN feels that everyone with a beard is a liability in a firefighting situation.


----------



## Lumber (10 Jan 2019)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Can I assume beards are permitted onboard naval vessels for religious reasons?
> 
> If so, are these individuals treated as liabilities?
> 
> I get the impression the RCN feels that everyone with a beard is a liability in a firefighting situation.



Funny... I don't actually know the asnwer to this question. I don't recall ever having sailed without someone wearing a bear for religious reasons, but that could be because they we're always clean shaven while I was on ship with them. That being said, at least from the Wardroom side of things, I don't think I have ever sailed or served with  Sikh naval officer.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Jan 2019)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Don't have DWAN access, but off the top of my head, the NAVFORGEN basically said, if you are at a sea going unit (or otherwise may have to wear the air pack for fire fighting) you need to be clean shaven.
> 
> CANFORGEN basically says everyone in the CAF can now grow beards to the old Navy standard (barring specific operational requirements), so there isn't any conflict.  The RCN has put down a single standard for the operational units, so pretty straightforward.  Otherwise every single ship/navy unit would have their own set of rules, and that would be kind of dumb, as well as confusing as you jump between ships.
> 
> ...



Great info for those of us who've never sailed, thanks!


----------



## Furniture (10 Jan 2019)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I get the impression the RCN feels that everyone with a beard is a liability in a firefighting situation.



The RCN has through experience and testing learned their lessons, and takes safety very seriously. 

During the PRO fire we could barely keep up with the demand for bottles, if we burned through more bottles so LS Bloggins could sport a cool beard showing him as special individual things may have turned out differently.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (10 Jan 2019)

IIRC, PRO was down to 4 bottles of air at one point. It was that close.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (10 Jan 2019)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> The last time the Navy got in a real shooting match was Korea, but we have fires all the time in peacetime at all levels of operational readiness.  I like having an option to have a beard, but wouldn't think of being anything but clean shaven if I was on a ship (for both my own safety and for the rest of the team).  Seems like a pretty common sense restriction to me, but you do you I guess.



That is quite true, but we also learn from other people's mistake - so to speak.

Many of the fire fighting methods we use, smoke containment system, onboard emergency processes and fitted equipment were radically upgraded and changed first after the KOOTENAY explosion of 1969, and even further after the RN's "lessons learned" of the Falkland war.

And Navy Pete is also correct that we regularly have fires onboard and with all the stuff ship's carry that can generate toxic by-products, not having a proper fit on your mask is pretty dangerous. Look at what happened onboard HMCS CHICOUTIMI in terms of death and serious injuries due to smoke inhalation - probably just because onboard first responders or personnel requiring to take some immediate action could not don their air mask quite fast enough.


----------



## Pusser (10 Jan 2019)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Can I assume beards are permitted onboard naval vessels for religious reasons?
> 
> If so, are these individuals treated as liabilities?
> 
> I get the impression the RCN feels that everyone with a beard is a liability in a firefighting situation.



NAVORD 5250-2 states the following:

4.3 Religious Accommodation

While posted to a sea going billet, if a member retains or
grows their beard in respect of their religious belief, they
must be able to achieve and maintain a fit testing seal.
The current policy reflecting accommodation of beards in
the RCN is as follows:

a. The member shall modify the beard up to the
extent required to safely function using the current
mask, repeating testing as required; and

b. If a seal cannot be achieved, the CO, when
circumstances warrant (i.e. low tempo), shall
manage the Watch and Station Bill to best satisfy
the members’ accommodation as well as the unit’s
needs.

In other words, people wearing beards for religious reasons are given the opportunity to trim or modify it in order to get a seal.  If that doesn't work, the CO has to try to adjust their duties to reduce risk!  I'm a pretty liberal guy and I generally have no issues with religious accommodation, but that last bit is over the top, especially since the requirement to grow a beard in most religions is actually open to interpretation.  I also don't see why everyone isn't given the opportunity to try to get a seal.  Right now, policy says I can't even take the test unless I'm clean shaven.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Jan 2019)

Does this NAVORD extend to MH AirDet mbrs?  I've noticed the ones deployed recently with the VDQ are all clean shaven.  By choice, or by order?


----------



## Furniture (10 Jan 2019)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Does this NAVORD extend to MH AirDet mbrs?  I've noticed the ones deployed recently with the VDQ are all clean shaven.  By choice, or by order?



My understanding is it applies to anyone onboard the ship that may be involved in FF activities, so that would include the Air Det.


----------



## Navy_Pete (10 Jan 2019)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Does this NAVORD extend to MH AirDet mbrs?  I've noticed the ones deployed recently with the VDQ are all clean shaven.  By choice, or by order?



It applies to anyone posted to the units.

The air det is all part of the damage control team, and any of them can be part of a FF team.  Because they are all up in the hangar, sometimes they are the easiest to send.  Normally you use the FFs first, but once in a while in training we have a team of pilots show up which can be fun.

Doing stuff like that, landing garbage with the rest of the crew etc are all key to being part of the ship's company, and normally there is a bunch of work at the HOD/chief level when they roll in to integrate both sides so its not an 'us vs them'.  When they roll in they make up a significant portion of the crew, and can be really poisonous to morale if there is different standards (especially as you normally lose sailors to make room, so they show up as people have picked up a higher work load).  The difference of the operational effectiveness of an AC that integrates with the ship and OPSCHED vice one that doesn't is significant, and not really something I understood until I was one of the ones working on getting them to integrate.


----------



## Lumber (10 Jan 2019)

Pusser said:
			
		

> NAVORD 5250-2 states the following:
> 
> 4.3 Religious Accommodation
> In other words, people wearing beards for religious reasons are given the opportunity to trim or modify it in order to get a seal.  If that doesn't work, the CO has to try to adjust their duties to reduce risk!  I'm a pretty liberal guy and I generally have no issues with religious accommodation, but that last bit is over the top, especially since the requirement to grow a beard in most religions is actually open to interpretation.  I also don't see why everyone isn't given the opportunity to try to get a seal.  Right now, policy says I can't even take the test unless I'm clean shaven.




Yea that doesn't sit well with me, especially as a non-religious guy. I can agree with religious accommodation to basic dress and deportment, because our "traditions" of dress and deportment are just made up human inventions (just like their religion). Safety should NOT be compromised for this.


----------



## Furniture (10 Jan 2019)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Yea that doesn't sit well with me, especially as a non-religious guy. I can agree with religious accommodation to basic dress and deportment, because our "traditions" of dress and deportment and made up human inventions (just like their religion). Safety should NOT be compromised for this.



The other side of it is, there are pers on a ship that will never put a SCBA on outside of training. When I was on PRO during the fire I never once put on bunker gear and an SCBA because my job was accounting for and supervising the civilians onboard. That fire burned a long time, and most crew cycled through but there were still people like me that though trained and capable never did engage in FF activities. It is a reasonable accommodation for a deeply held religious belief, and should be manageable with little effort.


----------



## MARS (10 Jan 2019)

Furniture said:
			
		

> It is a reasonable accommodation for a deeply held religious belief, and should be manageable with little effort.



Agree with your post, Furniture.

I've had to risk manage a sailor with a heart condition, who was still fit to sail but not to participate in DC.

Someone else who has a soft tissue injury while underway, also not fit for DC/bunker gear.

And several sailors, concurrently, who were not even NETP-qualified.  That one concerned me enough that, when told I was required to request a waiver from higher IOT sail with these folks who were AP'd to me, I decided not to seek the waiver, to make a point.  Low and behold, on getting wind of that, higher faked to the left and sent me a message waiving the requirement I hadn't asked to have waived.

So, another dude who can't get into bunker gear?  For a CO, its just another day that ends in Y.  At least that dude can likely do a whole bunch of other FF/DC jobs that don't require him to get dressed up, so it is likely one of the easier things I had to risk manage on any given day.


----------



## Lumber (10 Jan 2019)

MARS said:
			
		

> Agree with your post, Furniture.
> 
> I've had to risk manage a sailor with a heart condition, who was still fit to sail but not to participate in DC.
> 
> ...



Agree 100%, but those are medical and training issues of jo fault of the members. Just from my personal point of view, religion is a personal choice.


----------



## Pusser (11 Jan 2019)

To add to the mix, here's a case in the US Army, where a soldier was granted a religious accommodation to wear a beard due to his practice of Heathenism (Norse Gods):

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2018/04/25/this-soldier-just-got-authorization-to-wear-a-beard-because-of-his-norse-pagan-faith/


----------



## garb811 (11 Jan 2019)

Pusser said:
			
		

> To add to the mix, here's a case in the US Army, where a soldier was granted a religious accommodation to wear a beard due to his practice of Heathenism (Norse Gods):
> 
> https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2018/04/25/this-soldier-just-got-authorization-to-wear-a-beard-because-of-his-norse-pagan-faith/


You didn't have to go to the US Army to find an instance of someone asking for religious accommodation as Norse Pagan, there are more than a few in the CAF.


----------



## Pusser (11 Jan 2019)

garb811 said:
			
		

> You didn't have to go to the US Army to find an instance of someone asking for religious accommodation as Norse Pagan, there are more than a few in the CAF.



But have they asked for and been granted permission to grow beards?  I'm think more about the fact that beards are currently prohibited at sea by the RCN, except for religious accommodation.  Are there any heathens posted to ships who are seeking or have been granted permission to wear a beard?


----------



## garb811 (11 Jan 2019)

Pusser said:
			
		

> But have they asked for and been granted permission to grow beards?  I'm think more about the fact that beards are currently prohibited at sea by the RCN, except for religious accommodation.  Are there any heathens posted to ships who are seeking or have been granted permission to wear a beard?


Can't speak to if there is anyone in the Navy but part of the accommodation as Norse Pagan entails beards and hair as that is an integral part of the religious belief.


----------



## BDTyre (22 Oct 2019)

I heard a rumour that beards will now be policed and the 2cm bulk will be enforced, even amongst the Pioneers in Gagetown and that the threat is to rescind BEARDFORGEN if people can't follow the rules. I've heard this from two sources, one of whom is back East. Anyone have any insight into this?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Oct 2019)

Rescinded by who?  

Here's an idea;  follow the regs (everyone) and there's no issue.  Who would have thought !!!!    ;D


----------



## BDTyre (22 Oct 2019)

I'm assuming the CDS. Again, this is just rumour but I know of at least one person who is currently in Gagetown and has been told to clean their beard up. Mind you, it was quite massive...so it may just have been intended as motivation to make sure people don't look like they're fighting in the Crimean War.


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Oct 2019)

CanadianTire said:
			
		

> I'm assuming the CDS. Again, this is just rumour but I know of at least one person who is currently in Gagetown and has been told to clean their beard up. Mind you, it was quite massive...so it may just have been intended as motivation to make sure people don't look like they're fighting in the Crimean War.



It was the CWO of the army or something. Esentially a ridiculous hollow threat.


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Oct 2019)

If so, the ASM needs to be quiet. 

There are times when the seniors amongst the non-commissioned ranks over-appreciate the appropriateness of their attempt at pseudo-command. 

Regards
G2G


----------



## Old EO Tech (22 Oct 2019)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> If so, the ASM needs to be quiet.
> 
> There are times when the seniors amongst the non-commissioned ranks over-appreciate the appropriateness of their attempt at pseudo-command.
> 
> ...



Or could it be that the ASM and the CCA actually chat once in a while and the ASM is enforcing the command direction of the CCA? ....hmmm


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Oct 2019)

That's the first thing that came to mind. 

I can't see a CWO deciding he doesn't like a CANFORGEN and rescinding it on his own.


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Oct 2019)

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> Or could it be that the ASM and the CCA actually chat once in a while and the ASM is enforcing the command direction of the CCA? ....hmmm



If that’s the case, then it’s LGen Eyre giving the direction, or the ASM clearly and explicitly supporting the CCA’s direction.  Not a personalized ASM’s thing.  Did CCA give such direction?


----------



## Old EO Tech (22 Oct 2019)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> If that’s the case, then it’s LGen Eyre giving the direction, or the ASM clearly and explicitly supporting the CCA’s direction.  Not a personalized ASM’s thing.



I don't think anyone said the ASM was off in left field making decisions all on his own, just because we don't see the inner workings of a senior command team doesn't mean its not happening.  In my experience, CWO at any level of command are given the delegated authority by their CO/Comd to enforce dress policy, it's still the commanders policy and direction, but he expects the CWO to deliver it, and any ramifications of people not following the Comd direction


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Oct 2019)

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> I don't think anyone said the ASM was off in left field making decisions all on his own, just because we don't see the inner workings of a senior command team doesn't mean its not happening.  In my experience, CWO at any level of command are given the delegated authority by their CO/Comd to enforce dress policy, it's still the commanders policy and direction, but he expects the CWO to deliver it, and any ramifications of people not following the Comd direction



Pretending that some CWOs don’t take liberties with they partship of the Command Team Relationship is naive. It happens and/or has happened from unit right up to CAF to varying degrees. JH notes he thought it was the ASM or someone at similar level.  JH didn’t not say “the ASM noted that CCA is frustrated that CA members are not respecting the requirements of BEARDFORGEN, and may have to take additional action if required...”


----------



## Old EO Tech (22 Oct 2019)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Pretending that some CWOs don’t take liberties with they partship of the Command Team Relationship is naive. It happens and/or has happened from unit right up to CAF to varying degrees. JH notes he thought it was the ASM or someone at similar level.  JH didn’t not say “the ASM noted that CCA is frustrated that CA members are not respecting the requirements of BEARDFORGEN, and may have to take additional action if required...”



Well I'm not going to speculate on personalities that may or may not have done that in the past.  But neither does a CWO have to say he's speaking for his Comd, for that to be a fact. I would find it considerably condescending to ask the ASM if he talked with his boss before issuing this direction...and I'm positive that if you did that it would not be without consequences.


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Oct 2019)

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> Well I'm not going to speculate on personalities that may or may not have done that in the past.  But neither does a CWO have to say he's speaking for his Comd, for that to be a fact. I would find it considerably condescending to ask the ASM if he talked with his boss before issuing this direction...and I'm positive that if you did that it would not be without consequences.



If I had not heard from CCA of such concerns yet heard the ASM speaking in first person about rescinding beard wearing rights, I would have no issue whatsoever discretely having a discussion with the ASM about it.  If the/an ASM felt such engagement to be condescending, and that he attempted to influence ‘consequences’ that would only serve to reinforce my earlier point of some CWOs in the past taking liberties with the Command Team relationship.  I do not accept your innuendo that one should not (if even appropriately and discretely) query the nature of such commentary by members of senior leadership.  I was fortunate to have had the pleasure and privilege of having the support of one of the finest pan-service CWO/RSMs in the business, but I wouldn’t, for a second, professionally tolerate bravado and inappropriate transfer of command (vice coordination) prerogative by a member, professional as they may otherwise be, that has not been charged with and entrusted to executing command authority. 

Regards
G2G


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Oct 2019)

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> I don't think anyone said the ASM was off in left field making decisions all on his own, just because we don't see the inner workings of a senior command team doesn't mean its not happening.  In my experience, CWO at any level of command are given the delegated authority by their CO/Comd to enforce dress policy, it's still the commanders policy and direction, but he expects the CWO to deliver it, and any ramifications of people not following the Comd direction



First point...every NCM above the rank of Pte/Avr/OS is delegated authority to enforce dress and all other reg's and policy via the QR & Os.  It's an expectation of duty; the issue is many are NOT doing it these days.


Maybe it is time to refer to the BEARDFORGEN....(caps are from a cut/paste from Pg 1 of this thread, not mine).  Can the CCA take away what the CDS authorizes?  

3.EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, THE WEARING OF A BEARD IS AUTHORIZED FOR ALL CAF MEMBERS UPON ATTAINMENT OF THEIR OPERATIONALLY FUNCTIONAL POINT (OFP) OR HAVING COMPLETED DEVELOPMENTAL PERIOD ONE, WHICHEVER COMES LAST. HOWEVER, COMMANDERS OF COMMANDS, TASK FORCE COMMANDERS AND COMMANDING OFFICERS RETAIN THE RIGHT TO ORDER RESTRICTIONS ON THE WEARING OF A BEARD TO MEET SAFETY AND OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS.  THIS INCLUDES RESTRICTIONS PERTAINING TO OPERATIONS AND TRAINING WHERE, IN A CHEMICAL BIOLOGICAL RADIOLOGICAL NUCLEAR (CBRN) ENVIRONMENT OR CBRN TRAINING ENVIRONMENT, A BEARD CAN BE ORDERED TO BE REMOVED TO ENSURE FORCE PROTECTION ON OPERATIONS OR TRAINING. SUCH RESTRICTIONS WILL BE AS TEMPORARY AS FEASIBLE (E.G. AS LONG AS THE ENTIRE DURATION OF AN OPERATIONAL TOUR IN A CBRN ENVIRONMENT OR AS SHORT AS A SINGLE TRAINING DAY FOR CBRN OPERATIONS). WHERE CURRENT CAF EQUIPMENT CAPABILITIES CANNOT ENSURE FORCE PROTECTION OR THE ABILITY TO EFFECTIVELY EMPLOY SAFETY SYSTEMS WHILE WEARING A BEARD, BEARD RESTRICTIONS FOR MEMBERS USING THAT EQUIPMENT FOR OPERATIONAL OR SAFETY REASONS MAY BE PUT IN PLACE BY A COMMANDING OFFICER

Seems like the real solution is to deal with the offenders, which is actually within their (anyone's) left/right of arcs.  Lazy leadership = punishing everyone.


----------



## TCM621 (24 Oct 2019)

I like my beard, all 0.25 cms of it but they need to be policed. I saw a Capt, with a scraggly beard, long boarding through the base the other day and my first thought was we were being invaded by hipsters. For 90% of the terrible beards I see, 5 minutes of grooming twice a week would make all the difference.


----------



## kev994 (24 Oct 2019)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> First point...every NCM above the rank of Pte/Avr/OS is delegated authority to enforce dress and all other reg's and policy via the QR & Os.  It's an expectation of duty; the issue is many are NOT doing it these days.
> 
> 
> Maybe it is time to refer to the BEARDFORGEN....(caps are from a cut/paste from Pg 1 of this thread, not mine).  Can the CCA take away what the CDS authorizes?
> ...


I’m not sure what you are getting at, it says those pers can order you to shave it for safety reasons and only so long as that safety concern persists, it doesn’t say anything about deciding they don’t like the policy.


----------



## CountDC (24 Oct 2019)

If you have not questioned him about the beard then how do you know there isn't a reason for it? Some of those long shaggy beards are policed and exist for a reason, I have known 2 that were approved for valid reasons.  One was an MWO and the other was a Capt, I was present when the RSM addressed the Capt about his beard. 

It is right that everyone should be aware and questioning when something doesn't seem right.  Understand that some may not be comfortable with addressing the matter when the person is a higher rank but that shouldn't stop them from bringing it to the attention of others that could address it.  A sideways method that can be used is a question - Sir, is that beard the new standard?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Oct 2019)

kev994 said:
			
		

> I’m not sure what you are getting at, it says those pers can order you to shave it for safety reasons and only so long as that safety concern persists, it doesn’t say anything about deciding they don’t like the policy.



That _is _my point.   :nod:


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Oct 2019)

CountDC said:
			
		

> If you have not questioned him about the beard then how do you know there isn't a reason for it? Some of those long shaggy beards are policed and exist for a reason, I have known 2 that were approved for valid reasons.  One was an MWO and the other was a Capt, I was present when the RSM addressed the Capt about his beard.



IMO...that is the Adjt's (or equiv) job....


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (24 Oct 2019)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> IMO...that is the Adjt's (or equiv) job....



Seems there are many folks who don't know what or who their arcs are these days.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Oct 2019)

Agreed.



			
				CountDC said:
			
		

> I have known 2 that were approved for valid reasons.  One was an MWO and the other was a Capt, I was present when the RSM addressed the Capt about his beard.



And then there is this aspect...I'm not seeing a 'necessary for the preservation of discipline' aspect, personally.  

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/policies-standards/queens-regulations-orders/vol-1-administration/ch-19-conduct-discipline.html#cha-019-13


----------



## international4455 (1 Feb 2020)

Can a practicing muslim keep his beard in the caf ? and even through training ? will a person be forced to shave it ?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (1 Feb 2020)

The current policy is the person would have to shave it until they're trained in the military occupation.  There is no religious accommodations for Muslims regarding beards.

Having said that, I know of one member who is awaiting training (ie - not trained yet) who had an accommodation approved for a religious reason (practicing a Norse faith, or something along that line).  The mbr requested permission to keep his beard, it was reviewed and approved by the CofC.  It has to be reviewed periodically (12 months IIRC) to ensure mbr is still practicing that faith/religion.


----------



## Jumper194 (15 Mar 2021)

PuckChaser said:


> If anyone has DWAN access, go to the ACMIS page for the dress committee. It has some excellent backgrounders on many Army dress decisions, but more specifically a glorious briefing note in favour of allowing beards. The MWO that prepared it is an absolute wordsmith.


Thank you. That was my Briefing note, it was originally sent in in 2015, and 9 months later it came back stating the font was wrong and had to be re-submitted. Took almost 2 years before it would be accepted.


----------



## Sgt_Bloggins (27 May 2021)

Reviving an old article but as the CANFORGEN implies, you must reach OFP to be able to have a beard. What about OT's we start seeing through the system now, does this still apply to them, and are they still allowed to grow a beard since they reached OFP in their previous trade. Or now that they have OT'd they must shave until they pass their new trade's DP 1?

- I do notice previous mentions of this from 2019, I'm just wondering if anyone has a recent experience. Imagine it's really left up to the staff/school on where to draw the line?


----------



## Kilted (27 May 2021)

Sgt_Bloggins said:


> Reviving an old article but as the CANFORGEN implies, you must reach OFP to be able to have a beard. What about OT's we start seeing through the system now, does this still apply to them, and are they still allowed to grow a beard since they reached OFP in their previous trade. Or now that they have OT'd they must shave until they pass their new trade's DP 1?
> 
> - I do notice previous mentions of this from 2019, I'm just wondering if anyone has a recent experience. Imagine it's really left up to the staff/school on where to draw the line?


The rank after the transfer might affect their decision as well.  The higher rank you are, the more likely you will be fine.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 May 2021)

Sgt_Bloggins said:


> What about OT's we start seeing through the system now, does this still apply to them, and are they still allowed to grow a beard since they reached OFP in their previous trade. Or now that they have OT'd they must shave until they pass their new trade's DP 1?


 I can only speak to my experience when I was a BTL NCO at a Sqn (over a year ago now since I handed over the duty), but OTs give up their OFP status and revert to 'QL0' in their new trade (this is, or was at least, clearly indicated on their VOT Offer and Instructions messages).  

I had 20+ BTL (PAT) NCMs, mixed direct entry and VOTs - the only one who was permitted a beard was the one with a religious accommodation that was auth by the CofC.  Officer PATs were under the same rules, however.

The relaxation to the policy where I was at the time was with 'Wings grade' members who were awaiting training for prolong periods;  my local CofC approved a "permitted, if initial occ trg is completed successfully" and mbr's were simply waiting to get on to and complete OTU.

But this was a year ago and one specific location so....


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 May 2021)

Kilted said:


> The rank after the transfer might affect their decision as well. The higher rank you are, the more likely you will be fine.



Unit, as well.  A Capt who VOTs might have a better chance of making it under the limbo bar than a NCO who relinquished a higher rank (most if not all VOT NCMs revert to Cpl/S2).  Then they end up working/reporting to a BTL NCO or WO/PO1 who knows and possibly cares about the difference....


----------



## kev994 (27 May 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Unit, as well.  A Capt who VOTs might have a better chance of making it under the limbo bar than a NCO who relinquished a higher rank (most if not all VOT NCMs revert to Cpl/S2).  Then they end up working/reporting to a BTL NCO or WO/PO1 who knows and possibly cares about the difference....


Yeah, we had a couple 2Lts asking the chief about it when the message first came out. If they hadn’t asked nobody would have bothered/ cared about researching it.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 May 2021)

Personally...I don't get the "OFP" piece and not sure where it comes from.  Basic?  Sure, I can see that.  After Basic?


----------



## Kilted (27 May 2021)

I don't know why you shouldn't be allowed to keep the beard, you're not someone new off a street and probably don't hold the rank of private. I know in most cases when you VOT you continue to wear your old capbadge untill you are trades qualified, or else you would potentially see Clp's and higher wearing cornflakes.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 May 2021)

Kilted said:


> you continue to wear your old capbadge untill you are trades qualified



I think that has changed completely now;  of your VOT game, you are part of your new trade with your new QL (DP) level.

I agree on the beard part;  I'd like to see if removed at the 'BMQ/BMOQ" quald level....


----------



## Ostrozac (28 May 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I think that has changed completely now;  of your VOT game, you are part of your new trade with your new QL (DP) level.


That is indeed the case. If you were qualified in your former trade, you will wear your new trade badge, even while unqualified. After all, members that OT into another environment are issued their new DEU immediately, and the mere thought of former combat arms members wearing infantry/armour/artillery badges on their new RCAF wedges and RCN peaked caps would cause various heads to explode. 

Personally, I think that beards should follow a similar pattern. Once you reach OFP in any trade, you should be able to keep the beard for the remainder of your career.


----------



## dimsum (28 May 2021)

Ostrozac said:


> the mere thought of former combat arms members wearing infantry/armour/artillery badges on their new RCAF wedges and RCN peaked caps would cause various heads to explode.


That would be awesome to see.  I saw many double-takes with Balmorals, etc with flight suits on door gunners, so why not?    



Ostrozac said:


> Personally, I think that beards should follow a similar pattern. Once you reach OFP in any trade, you should be able to keep the beard for the remainder of your career.


Sounds like a submission to the CAF Clothing and Dress Committee!


----------



## Ostrozac (28 May 2021)

dimsum said:


> That would be awesome to see.  I saw many double-takes with Balmorals, etc with flight suits on door gunners, so why not?


Flights suits are a little different -- it's operational clothing, and we've had a long history of Army DEU members serving as Flight Attendants (and Kiowa Observers back in the day). To my mind it's no different than Army DEU members posted to ships wearing NCDs or RCN members in brigades wearing CADPAT to the field. Flight suits with army hats are a long established practice that in theory shouldn't have been surprising to people, but in practice was a little shocking because of the glorious millinery of some of our reserve units that provided door gunners.


----------



## dimsum (28 May 2021)

Ostrozac said:


> glorious millinery of some of our reserve units


I need to use "millinery" in a sentence now.


----------



## dapaterson (28 May 2021)

How about a single standard for hair, makeup, jewellery... So men with braids and earrings are fine, women wearing pants are fine, non-binary people wearing skirts or pants on alternate days are fine...


----------



## dangerboy (28 May 2021)

dapaterson said:


> How about a single standard for hair, makeup, jewellery... So men with braids and earrings are fine, women wearing pants are fine, non-binary people wearing skirts or pants on alternate days are fine...



I can see the CAF eventually going that route, just maybe not as fast as we should. As society changes so must the CAF.


----------



## dapaterson (28 May 2021)

I just want to be a fly on the wall in a room full of CWOs if that's ever announced...


----------



## CountDC (28 May 2021)

delete - just realized I had gone back too far and was looking at an old post.   oops.


----------



## OldSolduer (28 May 2021)

Ostrozac said:


> Thatthe mere thought of former combat arms members wearing infantry/armour/artillery badges on their new RCAF wedges and RCN peaked caps would cause various heads to explode.


I'd pay to see that. Its so much more fun now I'm retired and watching people twist in the wind and get their knickers tied up in knots over beards, boots and various buttons and bows.


----------



## SupersonicMax (28 May 2021)

I still don't understand why the CAF cares so much about those aspects of life....  There are so many more important things to worry about than dress.  But I guess dress is an easy thing to enforce, as opposed to the other, harder things like you know, moral fortitude.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 May 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> I still don't understand why the CAF cares so much about those aspects of life....  There are so many more important things to worry about than dress.  But I guess dress is an easy thing to enforce, as opposed to the other, harder things like you know, moral fortitude.


They need something to draw attention away from the moral killing, sexual shenanigans of our most senior leadership. Nothing will crush the lower echelons more than Rules for Thee, but Not for Me.


----------



## Loachman (28 May 2021)

None of the senior people who've been me-tooed of late have sported beards.

Coincidence, or...?


----------



## Pelorus (28 May 2021)

I also get the impression that in many cases the CAF doesn't really seem to understand how to effectively employ senior NCMs once they are moved on past their unit Cox'n/RSM tour.

In the absence of real work to fill one's day, convening meetings between the gaggle of Base/Formation chiefs to come up with an outerwear policy so asinine that someone developed a flow chart to solve it seems like one way to produce the illusion of productivity:


----------



## kev994 (28 May 2021)

boot12 said:


> I also get the impression that in many cases the CAF doesn't really seem to understand how to effectively employ senior NCMs once they are moved on past their unit Cox'n/RSM tour.
> 
> In the absence of real work to fill one's day, convening meetings between the gaggle of Base/Formation chiefs to come up with an outerwear policy so asinine that someone developed a flow chart to solve it seems like one way to produce the illusion of productivity:
> 
> View attachment 65300


The made up rule doesn’t apply to the ICE Jacket???!!! I’ve been bitter about nothing! Retention issues solved.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 May 2021)

I've ignored every single rendition of the "glove-toque flow chart" because, as much as I respect CWO-CPO1s...I also understand they don't authorize dress policy.  Advise, enforce?  Certainly...

I use this example sometimes to demonstrate dress importance;  the RNoAF guards at Andøya main gate.  Pony tail with a braid, down past the middle of his back.  Beard, also long and "braided" or whatever the proper term is for "not all lose and blowin' in the wind".  I think he had ear ring(s) in as well.

His chest rig was squared away.  Weapons was spotless.  His beret was shaped well and squared away.  Uniform was clean, boots were shone.  He was fit, he was professional, he was confident and composed.

I remember thinking "they're getting it right".


----------



## Loachman (11 Jun 2021)

No axe stuck in belt?


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Jun 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> I still don't understand why the CAF cares so much about those aspects of life....  There are so many more important things to worry about than dress.  But I guess dress is an easy thing to enforce, as opposed to the other, harder things like you know, moral fortitude.


I see your point however the reason


Loachman said:


> No axe stuck in belt?


I have a hatchet that I could use like that.


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Jun 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I've ignored every single rendition of the "glove-toque flow chart" because, as much as I respect CWO-CPO1s...I also understand they don't authorize dress policy.  Advise, enforce?  Certainly...
> 
> I use this example sometimes to demonstrate dress importance;  the RNoAF guards at Andøya main gate.  Pony tail with a braid, down past the middle of his back.  Beard, also long and "braided" or whatever the proper term is for "not all lose and blowin' in the wind".  I think he had ear ring(s) in as well.
> 
> ...


Chances are he was inspected - maybe not formally - by his section commander prior to going on duty. And add that this particular soldier is proud of what he does.


----------

