# Dress Regulations - The Minimum Standard?



## Quote (24 Jun 2014)

Stumped a few heads last night - Does an Officer Commanding / RSM have the authority to hold their subordinates to a higher standard than the CFDI instructs? 

Might sound like a silly question, but where is the line drawn? The Coxswain demands razor sharp trouser creases, then we see a "no tattoo" policy for the unit, or a "We have a 'shaved head' policy at this squadron".  

The idea that the CFDI is a "minimum standard" seems very popular, but I haven't found any evidence to back it up. CFDI Chapters 1 & 2 indicate one should only promote a different standard if you currently happen to be the CDS. Of course, when your XO says you need a haircut, the safest course of action is to get one regardless of your personal feelings.

 May wiser heads prevail.  :2c:


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Jun 2014)

Depend on whether they're ordering you to contradict a standing CAF order (the dress instruction).

If a unit orders you to roll your sleeves up in the summer, even though the CFDI indicates that the Army has no seasonal dress, is that an unlawful command? No, roll your sleeves up.

I have a feeling that you're using this forum to air some dirty laundry, instead of taking it up through your chain of command. There's obviously 2 sides to this story, I've never heard of a "shaved head" policy, or "no tattoos".


----------



## Quote (24 Jun 2014)

Sorry to disappoint, but there's no dirty laundry here - just curious banter between OCdts, and the ever-popular "What if" scenarios. 

To quote one example: 

"The regulations say the maximum length of a male haircut should be 6 inches. Could a squadron set their own, personal maximum of 5 inches?"


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Jun 2014)

I don't see how that would be unlawful. The catchall is that the length/bulk can't prohibit the proper wearing of headdress which is written in the CFDIs. Easy to say "Your headdress is all messed up because of your hair, cut it."


----------



## Haggis (24 Jun 2014)

The answer to the question is far more grey than black and white.  For example, the CF Dress Instruction allows for beards.  However, certain occupations, including some who have traditionally worn beards, are no longer allowed to for operational safety reasons (i.e. shipboard firefighting).

W used to press our OD green combats and spit shine our boots in certain units.  The new family of combat clothing and footwear would be ruined by repeated ironings, starchings and polishings so we don't do that anymore.

Yes the CF Dress Instruction is the minimum standard.  Yes, CO's can demand a standard that is higher than minimum yet still deemed _reasonable_ and _attainable_.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Jun 2014)

Quote said:
			
		

> Sorry to disappoint, but there's no dirty laundry here - just curious banter between OCdts, and the ever-popular "What if" scenarios.
> 
> To quote one example:
> 
> "The regulations say the maximum length of a male haircut should be 6 inches. Could a squadron set their own, personal maximum of 5 inches?"



If the RSM says five, better go with four and remove any doubt. There might be a written policy for Unit Dress and Deportment, but the RSM will probably just tell you to get a haircut. After a reasonable amount of time, if he catches you again, he's going to have some quiet words with you before handing you over to the Adjt for remedial action. As a noob do you really want to start your career tussling with the RSM? It won't end well. He has the backing of the CO and visa versa.

I know you're talking hypotheticals, but as OCdts, you should be concentrating on other things. Many have shown up at their first Unit and tried the barrack room lawyer stuff and getting one up on the Superiors. I doesn't work well for their careers.

I will leave you with one piece of advice that fits here.

Choose what hill you want to die on


----------



## George Wallace (24 Jun 2014)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Yes the CF Dress Instruction is the minimum standard.



 :

Minimum standard.

Just imagine what life would be like, even outside of the military, if everyone strived only to achieve the minimum standard.  The bar would constantly have to be lowered, because soon the minimum standard, would become the "High" standard and many would not be able to achieve that.  Constantly lowering the bar will eventually have a society of slovenly slugs laying about unable to sustain themselves. 

You want to be the best; then you strive to achieve far more than the minimum standard.   Just because the CF Dress Instruction sets the minimum standard, does not mean that you have to set out to achieve such a low standard.  It really doesn't say much for you if you do.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Jun 2014)

I think you misunderstand what he's trying to say George.


----------



## Haggis (24 Jun 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> :
> 
> Minimum standard.




Maybe so, Bruce, and I agree with George completely.  Just like the FORCE test is the minimum standard for fitness the CF Dress Instruction is the minimum standard for dress and deprtment.  It should be a starting point for everyone to improve from and a bar below which corrective action is applied to those who fail to attain it consistently.


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Jun 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I will leave you with one piece of advice that fits here.
> 
> Choose what hill you want to die on



Awesome, quoted for truthiness.


----------



## brihard (24 Jun 2014)

Sounds like it's just new guys having a new guy conversation, and the OCdt has wisely asked people who can steer him straight rather than putting himself in enfilade fire and finding out the hard way. I'm sure if there was some sort of drama here it would have come out already... Chill, folks.


----------



## cupper (24 Jun 2014)

One thing you have to remember is that minimum standards are just that, the minimum acceptable. Be it dress and deportment, physical fitness, academic achievement, job performance or the myriad of other things which you and your peers will be evaluated on during your careers.

But you do not reach for the bottom. You start at the bottom. You only progress if and when you strive for higher standards.

Members get recognition for achieving and maintaining high standards. But so to do members who continually do just enough to meet the minimum. Usually in the form of mediocre performance reviews, slow or no progression in their career, and even a meaningful one way conversation with the RSM or Adjt.


----------



## chrisf (25 Jun 2014)

The standard is the standard.

If you have a legitimate operational or legitimate training reason to modify it, than do so.

As far as grooming and personal appearance standards go, it's not a question of a "minimum". It provides an acceptable range to work within.

Other than that, as an aspiring leader, don't strive to make others peoples lives more miserable for your own delusional sense of grandeur.


----------



## The_Falcon (25 Jun 2014)

I am just curious how a unit would come up with a "no tattoo", and how they would legally enforce it.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (25 Jun 2014)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> I am just curious how a unit would come up with a "no tattoo", and how they would legally enforce it.



Underwear parade?  ;D


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Jun 2014)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> I am just curious how a unit would come up with a "no tattoo", and how they would legally enforce it.



It's unenforceable.


----------



## Shamrock (25 Jun 2014)

Although resolution appears to be had here, there seems to be some issue with pragmatism.

Quote, I believe your intent was to actually ask if a chain of command can impose a more restrictive standard than those set out in regulations, orders, instructions, and policies.  

The answer is a resounding maybe.

With regards to the hair, I put forward your chain of command is well within its arcs as it is enforcing a rank/position's standard established through decades of practise; the practise is thus the military nexus that makes the restriction a lawful order.  Further, it sounds as though it is being globally and not selectively enforced.  To me, this further adds to the fairness of the restriction.


----------



## SupersonicMax (25 Jun 2014)

A sig Op:  well said.


----------



## jpjohnsn (25 Jun 2014)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> Although resolution appears to be had here, there seems to be some issue with pragmatism.
> 
> Quote, I believe your intent was to actually ask if a chain of command can impose a more restrictive standard than those set out in regulations, orders, instructions, and policies.
> 
> ...


So, first thing Monday morning a Cree soldier transferring into this hypothetical unit shows up with braids.  The RSM's response, in light of the global enforcement is...?


----------



## Shamrock (25 Jun 2014)

jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> So, first thing Monday morning a Cree soldier transferring into this hypothetical unit shows up with braids.  The RSM's response, in light of the global enforcement is...?



Be aware of dress regulations and prescribed accommodation and apply standards with due diligence.


----------



## George Wallace (25 Jun 2014)

jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> So, first thing Monday morning a Cree soldier transferring into this hypothetical unit shows up with braids.  The RSM's response, in light of the global enforcement is...?



Now this is looking like someone asking questions after NOT HAVING READ the CAF Regulations.


----------



## Journeyman (25 Jun 2014)

1.  The poster's inclusion of the terms "OCdt" and "Squadron" suggests an RMC discussion, where military fashion (and circumventing tip-toeing around regulations) _may_ be a topic of high interest.

2.  For enforcing tattoo policies, one need only look south of the border to the new  US Army policy, which includes:

- no ink on neck, head, below the wrist.
- no visible band tattoos more than 2" wide, and only one; No sleeves or legs.
- Each visible tattoo below the elbow or knee must be smaller than the size of the wearer's extended hand; no more than four allowed.
-  Soldiers who currently violate these revisions can be grandfathered in as long as commanders validate their current tattoos. Also, each year, commanders much check each Soldier for new tattoos that might be prohibited. The checks will be done when Soldiers are in their physical fitness uniform and do not include tattoos that might be hidden by the shorts or T-shirts.

As near as I can tell, the immediate response is for the troops to rush out and get more ink before the Regs go into effect so that they're "grandfathered"  (no one group of people, military or civilian, has a cornered market on trying to "beat the system"     )





			
				jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> So, first thing Monday morning a Cree soldier transferring into this hypothetical unit......


   :not-again:


----------



## The_Falcon (25 Jun 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> 1.  The poster's inclusion of the terms "OCdt" and "Squadron" suggests an RMC discussion, where military fashion (and circumventing tip-toeing around regulations) _may_ be a topic of high interest.
> 
> 2.  For enforcing tattoo policies, one need only look south of the border to the new  US Army policy, which includes:
> 
> ...



Under that situation though, it is the ENTIRE US Army that is being affected.  In the OP's (hypothetical?) scenario, how would a unit be able to mandate and enforce a no tattoo policy, when they are perfectly acceptable in the rest of the CAF?


----------



## Bioroots (23 Aug 2014)

Don't forget a lot of the dress manual say.  At the rsm discretion


----------



## Jammer (23 Aug 2014)

On the subject of tattoos:
If you enroll with tattoos already outside the CFDIs...(it does happen), no problem.
If you get a tattoo that goes against the current CFDI, you can be disciplined.


----------



## Haggis (23 Aug 2014)

Bioroots said:
			
		

> Don't forget a lot of the dress manual say.  At the rsm discretion



 :facepalm:  Seriously?  Have you even read the CAF Dress Instruction?  *Nowhere* does that phrase appear therein.


----------



## Jammer (23 Aug 2014)

Bioroots said:
			
		

> Don't forget a lot of the dress manual say.  At the rsm discretion


Seriously?

Go away...now.


----------



## OldSolduer (23 Aug 2014)

Bioroots said:
			
		

> Don't forget a lot of the dress manual say.  At the rsm discretion



I'm an RSM. I have no discretion when it comes to the Dress Manual. It's gospel.

Now go on listening silence for a while......you're out of your arcs on this one.


----------



## Bioroots (24 Aug 2014)

Jammer said:
			
		

> Seriously?
> 
> Go away...now.


 So your telling me that when we where told to have tapered hair in the back because the Rsm did not want square there lying to us, and none of the SNCO never said one thing about it. Never look it up my self just went on what i was told by the COC.


----------



## Shamrock (24 Aug 2014)

Bioroots said:
			
		

> So your telling me that when we where told to have tapered hair in the back because the Rsm did not want square there lying to us, and none of the SNCO never said one thing about it. Never look it up my self just went on what i was told by the COC.



I take your comment above as your having failed to adhere to QR&O 5.01.

I understand your leadership has failed you, but this is not "their fault."


----------



## Bioroots (24 Aug 2014)

You are right and i have learn my lesson and will provided ref to and further post I make ref regulation.


----------



## MSEng314 (24 Aug 2014)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I'm an RSM. I have no discretion when it comes to the Dress Manual. It's gospel.



/endThread


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Aug 2014)

Bioroots said:
			
		

> So your telling me that when we where told to have tapered hair in the back because the Rsm did not want square there lying to us, and none of the SNCO never said one thing about it. Never look it up my self just went on what i was told by the COC.



*'Hair shall be taper trimmed at the back, sides, and above the ears to blend with the hair-style; be no more than 15 cm (6 in.) in length and sufficiently short that, when the hair is groomed and headdress is removed, no hair shall touch the ears or fall below the top of the eyebrows; be no more than 4 cm(1-1/2 in.) in bulk at the top of the head, gradually decreasing to blend with the taper-trimmed sides and back; and be kept free from the neck to a distance of 2.5 cm (1 in.) above the shirt collar. Taper trimmed square back styles and shaving of all the hair on the head are permitted.'*

So, saying that the hair had to be taper trimmed wasn't wrong after all. Your S\NCO's weren't shirking their duty and the RSM wasn't making things up as he went along.

You have to read the WHOLE reg(s) not just the part you think applies to you. Not knowing the full conversation, or seeing, hearing, reading what your RSM said only gives us half the story. Your side.

And just from the above your track record, of being in error, is already established.


----------



## jpjohnsn (24 Aug 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> *'Hair shall be taper trimmed at the back, sides, and above the ears to blend with the hair-style; be no more than 15 cm (6 in.) in length and sufficiently short that, when the hair is groomed and headdress is removed, no hair shall touch the ears or fall below the top of the eyebrows; be no more than 4 cm(1-1/2 in.) in bulk at the top of the head, gradually decreasing to blend with the taper-trimmed sides and back; and be kept free from the neck to a distance of 2.5 cm (1 in.) above the shirt collar. Taper trimmed square back styles and shaving of all the hair on the head are permitted.'*
> 
> So, saying that the hair had to be taper trimmed wasn't wrong after all. Your S\NCO's weren't shirking their duty and the RSM wasn't making things up as he went along.
> 
> ...


At the risk of putting words in their mouth, I suspect that the poster was talking about the part I highlight in your quote of the dress regs and not a true square cut style.  Both rounded and square back taper styles are authorized but. like braids on females, not everyone is on board with that.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Aug 2014)

jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> At the risk of putting words in their mouth, I suspect that the poster was talking about the part I highlight in your quote of the dress regs and not a true square cut style.  Both rounded and square back taper styles are authorized but. like braids on females, not everyone is on board with that.



As I said, we really don't have any way of knowing what was truly said.


----------



## Bioroots (25 Aug 2014)

jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> At the risk of putting words in their mouth, I suspect that the poster was talking about the part I highlight in your quote of the dress regs and not a true square cut style.  Both rounded and square back taper styles are authorized but. like braids on females, not everyone is on board with that.



That what I was talking about.


----------

