# All things beardy-2005 to 2018 (merged)



## Sundborg

I have currently grown a beard and have had one for a couple months now.  In doing so, I had get a cease shaving chit from my Coxswain.  Now I want to get rid of my beard for personal reasons.  My question for people who are knowledgable in this field, do I have to request to start shaving again or can I just shave it all off just like normal without asking?  All inputs would be greatly appriciated.  Thanks

Sundborg


----------



## NCRCrow

U have to talk(request) to the COXN to shave off your beard ,as your ID card must reflect what u look like--now.


----------



## Sundborg

The thing is with my situation is that I'm currently going to school at a College in St. John's and there was no change needed for my ID so on my ID I still have a hairless face.  Would that change the situation since it has nothing to do with my ID or should I still ask the Coxswain or my RPO?


----------



## NCRCrow

I would ask.....

Good luck in St.John's, stay out of Greenslieves


----------



## Neill McKay

NCRCrow said:
			
		

> U have to talk(request) to the COXN to shave off your beard ,as your ID card must reflect what u look like--now.



I understood that you no longer had to have your ID card re-done -- I don't know when that is supposed to have changed.


----------



## NCRCrow

I did not know that had changed about ID cards and beards.

I am curious.

maybe Sundborg could post his results...


----------



## Sundborg

When I was growing a beard, they never mentioned anything about having to change my ID, so maybe that rule is no longer in effect, but I don't know.  I'm going to ask my RPO on thursday as see about shaving off the beard and I'll let you guys know.  I figured that I would ask here first before I go there   But thanks for helping out guys, cheers.


----------



## NavyShooter

I believe that the rule is that if you grow a beard, and have it for more than 6 months, you then need to get your ID card changed.

Two of the AB's working for me recently had their own "growing" contest, and the loser checked in with the Cox'n to confirm before he shaved...the Cox'n said it was OK to keep, but he wanted to shave anyhow (after about a month and a half.)

Best thing to do is to check in with your RPO or Cox'n.

BTW, you're in Newfie John's on course?  NCSTTP?  Is there a Pudsey there?  If so, tell him to keep up the good work.

NavyShooter


----------



## Infanteer

Question: Why would you have to get permission to shave?


----------



## Trinity

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Question: Why would you have to get permission to shave?



Exactly.. Why not permission to shower...  or use the bathroom   ;D

(sorry.. but the thread was finished anyways!!!!)


----------



## Sundborg

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> I believe that the rule is that if you grow a beard, and have it for more than 6 months, you then need to get your ID card changed.
> 
> Two of the AB's working for me recently had their own "growing" contest, and the loser checked in with the Cox'n to confirm before he shaved...the Cox'n said it was OK to keep, but he wanted to shave anyhow (after about a month and a half.)
> 
> Best thing to do is to check in with your RPO or Cox'n.
> 
> BTW, you're in Newfie John's on course?   NCSTTP?   Is there a Pudsey there?   If so, tell him to keep up the good work.
> 
> NavyShooter



Apparently I do need to ask permission to shave.  My other buddy who grew a beard with me at the same time went and asked yesterday about it.

And yes Pudsey is in my class!  haha  He's a cool guy.  Where do you know him from?


----------



## Navalsnpr

When you join the Navy normally all members, unless they have a medical chit to cease shaving, are clean shaven.

When you decide to grow a beard, you submit a cease shaving chit through your chain of command to the Coxn. They normally will grant you 30 days to grow the beard and will decide if you can keep it or not. Not everyone can grow a full beard. After the decision, you will be required to go to the ID section and update your ID card.

If at some point in time you wish to shave it off completely and keep it off, then you should submit a chit to that effect. Some units may not require this and a quick question at the Coxn's office would clear the issue up quickly. Additionally you should have your ID updated as not to cause any problems in the future. Some people look totally different without their beard.


----------



## Navalsnpr

gravyboat said:
			
		

> IAW CFP 265 Dress instructions ID documents must be changed whenever a beard is grown or removed. In addition if you do grow a beard it must be retained for a period of one year.



Agreed, except for one thing.

Operational requirements or postings can effect the one year issue. For example, ships going to the gulf region or personnel posted to the Damage Control Schools would have to remove their beards even if the one year hasn't lapsed.


----------



## benway

Does any one know anything about the Navy's beard tradition?


----------



## Neill McKay

benway said:
			
		

> Does any one know anything about the Navy's beard tradition?



I've never heard of any especially exciting origin for it -- I'd always assumed it was strictly a practical matter: protection from the cold wind, and convenience (as shaving is much harder without a good supply of water and a floor that doesn't move under you).


----------



## Navalsnpr

Courtesy of the Maple Leaf

Growing a beard is a naval tradition that dates back at least two centuries during the days of wooden ships, when fresh water for washing and shaving was in short supply.


----------



## Seaman_Navy

Many people have a beard in the Navy reg force, or just a minority of them?


----------



## Uberman

Pioneers, at least from my memory, are / were also allowed to wear beards. They were infantry, do I'm not sure what the raison de etre is there. Oh, and gravyboat, I like the avatar pic witht the Pope and the dark jedi dude. That reminds me of a comparison pic of Stephen Harper and Spongebob Squarepants.


----------



## reccecrewman

Just to throw this out into the open, why is it that in the Army, we aren't allowed to have facial hair?  I understand that we derive many of our customs and traditions from the British Army, but can we not go out on a limb and start a few of our own?  Look around the NATO military community......... virtually all of them allow their soldiers to grow facial hair. (not moustaches) I can understand putting limits and restrictions on it, because some forms of self expression when it comes to facial hair just look plain unprofessional, but whats wrong with a well groomed goatee or giving the troops a little more slack on the sideburns?   This has always been a bit of a sore point for many guys in the Army.  Once they're on leave, within 4 days, they all have longer sideburns, goatees or beards, but we can't have them on duty.  One explanation thats been given before was your gas mask won't make a proper seal with beards or goatees.  Fine, no facial hair on operations (even though most of our European allies still let their guys do it) but thats still a weak explanation as the liklihood of us needing our NBC IPE here in Canada is virtually nil, so, why not allow a new facial hair regulation in our Army?


----------



## Gunner98

Howdy newbie check out the ongoing discussion at URL: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/33558.0.html


----------



## Lost_Warrior

In my opinion, a clean shaven soldier looks more sharp than one with patches, a beard, or a goatee.  Thats just MHO.


----------



## Michael OLeary

One significant advantage of the current regulations is that it allows limited variance before someone is clearly outside the acceptable norm.

For sake of discussion, what would you propose as being an new acceptable standard that maintains an appearance of professionalism? I would think that such items as "longer sideburns" or "goatees" might be very difficult to define and regulate.  And authorizing one specific style of "goatee" beard opens up the discussion to challenge for alternate variations, potentially leading to an endless round of debate leading to (gasp!) individuality.

Even the Navy (and Pioneers when we had them) only allowed full beards (Sailors please correct me if I am incorrect) and they must be neatly trimmed. (Notwithstanding the classic photo of the RCR Pioneers on operations with raggedy full beards.) Even this set a single standard that was understandable by all and enforceable.

While a case might be made for revisiting the regulations, the facts remain that the current standard is not outside societal norms, does allow for some variation among individuals (though perhaps not enough for the younger set, though I suspect the difference is less than it was in the 70s when ONLY servicemen has such short hair) and remains easily enforceable.


----------



## Matt_Fisher

I'm a big proponent of the goatee and monacle look...


----------



## Spr.Earl

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> I'm a big proponent of the goatee and monacle look...


What,what,what! Ponsenby you don't like a goatee or monocle.
Gad Sir I'll neverrr have you in myy Regimennnnt,you can't even spell Monocle Sir!

Sargent Major,flail that man.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

With all the other threads on this topic, do we really need to perpetuate another? If there's a solid reason to keep this one going PM me.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Just to add....the only sailors allowed beards these days are those in a non seagoing billet. On our ship and all ships are going this way its illegal to have a beard.


----------



## armymen

I will like to have picture of the standard for beard in the army
At my unit, we found a way to make money for different organism,
pay 15 $ first month, 
then 5 $ every month,
that give you the oportunity to have a beard,
but i will like to trim mine,
what is the standart ?


----------



## Yrys

I'm curious about something, armymen :

Mil Exp: 	reserve 2003-2006 (INF 2RNBR) Reg Log 2006-Now
Âge: 	21


So you went in the reserve at 15 16 ?


----------



## Nfld Sapper

From CFP 265

Beards (see Figure 2-2-2) 
(a) Subject to procedures established
by commanders of commands,
permission to wear a beard shall
only be granted to all ranks who
wear the naval uniform, wherever
serving; all ranks on strength of an
infantry pioneer platoon; adherents
of the Sikh religion (see Section 3);
and personnel, on the direction of a
medical officer, subject to medical
reassessment at intervals not
exceeding six months. Other
personnel shall shave off their
beards.
(b) Where beards are authorized, they
shall be worn with a moustache;
kept neatly trimmed, especially on
the lower neck and cheekbones;
and not exceed 2.5 cm (1 in.) in
bulk.
(c) When a beard is grown or removed,
identification documents shall be
replaced in accordance with
security regulations


----------



## blacktriangle

So whats with the vandoos and their beards?


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Just cause they are the Vandoos  ???  ;D


----------



## armymen

The NFLD Grinch said:
			
		

> From CFP 265
> 
> Beards (see Figure 2-2-2)
> (a) Subject to procedures established
> by commanders of commands,
> permission to wear a beard shall
> only be granted to all ranks who
> wear the naval uniform, wherever
> serving; all ranks on strength of an
> infantry pioneer platoon; adherents
> of the Sikh religion (see Section 3);
> and personnel, on the direction of a
> medical officer, subject to medical
> reassessment at intervals not
> exceeding six months. Other
> personnel shall shave off their
> beards.
> (b) Where beards are authorized, they
> shall be worn with a moustache;
> kept neatly trimmed, especially on
> the lower neck and cheekbones;
> and not exceed 2.5 cm (1 in.) in
> bulk.
> (c) When a beard is grown or removed,
> identification documents shall be
> replaced in accordance with
> security regulations


thanks  NFLD Grinch
If somebody have any pic of the standard like ?
im visual, lol


----------



## Nfld Sapper

armymen said:
			
		

> thanks  NFLD Grinch
> If somebody have any pic of the standard like ?
> im visual, lol



bottom of my post has the fol:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 FIGURE 2-2-2.pdf (75.94 KB - downloaded 3 times.) 

click there and you will see the picture.


----------



## axeman

yea the vandoos seem to have a lot nof skin irritation in their ranks it seems. I can see  some lack of shaving when deployed in the field when water is short but when in garrison i dont think theres any real reason for it .
modded to correct a typo


----------



## armymen

haha thanks guys


----------



## Steel Badger

Yrys said:
			
		

> I'm curious about something, armymen :
> 
> Mil Exp: 	reserve 2003-2006 (INF 2RNBR) Reg Log 2006-Now
> Âge: 	21
> 
> 
> So you went in the reserve at 15 16 ?



Not an uncommon thing Yrys....

I joined in '85 at the age of 16.


----------



## BinRat55

armymen said:
			
		

> I will like to have picture of the standard for beard in the army
> At my unit, we found a way to make money for different organism,
> pay 15 $ first month,
> then 5 $ every month,
> that give you the oportunity to have a beard,
> but i will like to trim mine,
> what is the standart ?



Curious - so what you're saying is that all I have to do to have a beard now is to pay someone? Cool. Add this to the list of 265 circumventions and wait for it - we'll all be choosing our own colors and limited to only 8 facial piercings soon enough.

How is it there are Sr NCO's out there that are completely clueless? Not to mention a soldier with over 5 years experience who has no clue what his facial hair should look like and where to find the order. I give up.


----------



## chris_log

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> Curious - so what you're saying is that all I have to do to have a beard now is to pay someone? Cool. Add this to the list of 265 circumventions and wait for it - we'll all be choosing our own colors and limited to only 8 facial piercings soon enough.
> 
> How is it there are Sr NCO's out there that are completely clueless? Not to mention a soldier with over 5 years experience who has no clue what his facial hair should look like and where to find the order. I give up.



Sounds like they're donating the money to charity (I'm assuming the poster in a Franco and organism = organisation). If it's allowed under the regs I don't see what's wrong with it. In fact, it seems like a good idea for a charity fundraiser to me. 

Beards, moustaches....same thing.


----------



## aesop081

Piper said:
			
		

> Sounds like they're donating the money to charity (I'm assuming the poster in a Franco and organism = organisation). If it's allowed under the regs I don't see what's wrong with it. In fact, it seems like a good idea for a charity fundraiser to me.
> 
> Beards, moustaches....same thing.



You will find that what you are refering to are usualy "beard growing contests" that run between specific dates and have strict rules ( like going away on TD, courses, etc...) not what the posted was describing.


----------



## chris_log

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> You will find that what you are refering to are usualy "beard growing contests" that run between specific dates and have strict rules ( like going away on TD, courses, etc...) not what the posted was describing.



I'm just going by what I can gather from what he said. I.e. he has to pay to grow a beard to support different 'organisms' (read orgs). I'm just asking BinRat55 why he seems so opposed to the idea. You ARE allowed to grow a beard, according to the regs, it's been going on for years and I haven't seen any CF members with a minimum '8 piercings' yet.


----------



## Rigger052

Sounds like a unique way to raise money for charity. Not something i could contribute to though as I have a baby face and couldn't even grow a bad moustache if I tried.  8) As long as the facial hair adheres to guidelines I personally have never seen issue with it, just as long as the member remembers that they are representing the CF and should look professional, not like an escapee from a biker convention.


----------



## BinRat55

Piper said:
			
		

> I'm just going by what I can gather from what he said. I.e. he has to pay to grow a beard to support different 'organisms' (read orgs). I'm just asking BinRat55 why he seems so opposed to the idea. You ARE allowed to grow a beard, according to the regs, it's been going on for years and I haven't seen any CF members with a minimum '8 piercings' yet.



I'm not opposed to a beard growing contest. I "attempt" to participate in one every year - it lasts about 4 weeks. HOWEVER... if you reread the original post, 15 bucks for the first month and 5 bucks a month every month thereafter does not constitute a beard growing contest. It actually contradicts the dress regs. That's what i'm opposed to.


----------



## Rigger052

True enough, but in this case such a change in the dress regs would have to require the approval of the CO or other responsible officer wouldn't it? After all the non-commissioned ranks can't just pick up and do as they please, I could see more than one Sgt Major having a fit over that one.  :threat:


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Piper said:
			
		

> I'm just going by what I can gather from what he said. I.e. he has to pay to grow a beard to support different 'organisms' (read orgs). I'm just asking BinRat55 why he seems so opposed to the idea. You ARE allowed to grow a beard, according to the regs, it's been going on for years and I haven't seen any CF members with a minimum '8 piercings' yet.



Read the regs again Piper.




			
				The NFLD Grinch said:
			
		

> From CFP 265
> 
> Beards (see Figure 2-2-2)
> (a) *Subject to procedures established
> by commanders of commands,
> permission to wear a beard shall
> only be granted to all ranks who
> wear the naval uniform, wherever
> serving; all ranks on strength of an
> infantry pioneer platoon; adherents
> of the Sikh religion (see Section 3);
> and personnel, on the direction of a
> medical officer*, subject to medical
> reassessment at intervals not
> exceeding six months. Other
> personnel shall shave off their
> beards.



IMHO the fol apply:

1. The OP is army, so therefore not entitled
2. Pioneers have not existed for some time, therefore not entitled
3. Doesn't apper to be Sikh
4. If a MO says its a medical condition, ok (can't see a whole section or platoon coming down with this)


----------



## BinRat55

The NFLD Grinch said:
			
		

> Read the regs again Piper.
> 
> 
> IMHO the fol apply:
> 
> 1. The OP is army, so therefore not entitled
> 2. Pioneers have not existed for some time, therefore not entitled
> 3. Doesn't apper to be Sikh
> 4. If a MO says its a medical condition, ok (can't see a whole section or platoon coming down with this)



I beleive you have hit the nail on the head - as well as most engineers can!! (which is MUCH better than I...)


----------



## iciphil

Hi, I'd like to know where, exactly, can I find the order-instruction-message ordering the shaving of beards for flight day?

Is it a Canlandgen, Canforgen or something else ?

I'm an infantryman eith the medical O3 shaving restriction, y'know' 'can't shave unless ordered so for operationnal reasons'. So, I'd like to check and make sure I'm not being played by a power hungry, beard hater velcro wearing Platoon 2IC.

Thanks. 

And forget about the 'check with your COC' obvious replies, if you re-read my post you'll see I checked but the source is ...let's say biased.


----------



## 392

Did you check with the UMS to see what "operational reasons" entails? Something is telling me CBRN situation, but I can't recall exactly. They should have the details based on what each of those categories actually means.

FWIW, wearing a beard in theatre eventually becomes a bit of a pain, even though it becomes almost second nature depending on where you are. The itchiness and constant feeling of "my beard feels disgusting" from the constant dust and sweat gets old fast.


----------



## vonGarvin

As I recall during my work up for my tours in Afghanistan, we were required to have fit, functional CBRN gear, including the mask.  The mask requires a person to be clean shaven.  I'm just throwing this out here, but, to my feeble mind, that appears to be a valid operational reason.


Just sayin'.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Technoviking said:
			
		

> As I recall during my work up for my tours in Afghanistan, we were required to have fit, functional CBRN gear, including the mask.  The mask requires a person to be clean shaven.  I'm just throwing this out here, but, to my feeble mind, that appears to be a valid operational reason.
> 
> 
> Just sayin'.



Actually not quite correct Technoviking. When the current CBRN mask was first released we had Pioneer Ptns and Naval pers who both readily wore beards. As was explained to me not long ago that mask was designed with facial hair included in the design process. So the often argued CBRN reason is actually null and void. Now on the Navy side of the house with a positive pressure system the facial  hair will now allow seal and that is why sailors at sea no longer have beards. 

I am over here now and the beard issue is one of great discussion. It came out for my Roto (9...Leaving soon WOO HOO) that if you have a beard on your CF ID card and/or your passport your good, otherwise it must be shaved.

Yours, 
HT


----------



## PMedMoe

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> As was explained to me not long ago that mask was designed with facial hair included in the design process. So the often argued CBRN reason is actually null and void.



Really?  Because when we were fit-tested by a civilian company prior to my tour in 2005, it was stated that even hair from the forehead under the mask could compromise the seal.


----------



## OldSolduer

iciphil said:
			
		

> Hi, I'd like to know where, exactly, can I find the order-instruction-message ordering the shaving of beards for flight day?
> 
> Is it a Canlandgen, Canforgen or something else ?
> 
> I'm an infantryman eith the medical O3 shaving restriction, y'know' 'can't shave unless ordered so for operationnal reasons'. So, I'd like to check and make sure I'm not being played by a power hungry, beard hater velcro wearing Platoon 2IC.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> And forget about the 'check with your COC' obvious replies, if you re-read my post you'll see I checked but the source is ...let's say biased.



If your MEL says no shaving except for operational reasons, then so be it.  By the tone of your message, and I quote "played by a power hungry, beard hater velcro wearing Platoon 2IC", this sounds like more of a personal thing between you two.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Actually not quite correct Technoviking. When the current CBRN mask was first released we had Pioneer Ptns and Naval pers who both readily wore beards. As was explained to me not long ago that mask was designed with facial hair included in the design process.  So the often argued CBRN reason is actually null and void. Now on the Navy side of the house with a positive pressure system the facial  hair will now allow seal and that is why sailors at sea no longer have beards.
> 
> I am over here now and the beard issue is one of great discussion. It came out for my Roto (9...Leaving soon WOO HOO) that if you have a beard on your CF ID card and/or your passport your good, otherwise it must be shaved.
> 
> Yours,
> HT



Actually TV is right. What you've been told is false.


From B-GJ-005-311/FP-020
CANADIAN FORCES NUCLEAR, BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL DEFENCE
TACTICS, TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES



> 114. Hair Removal
> 
> 1. Facial hair will drastically reduce the effectiveness of the C4 NBC Mask facepiece seal; therefore CF personnel
> will shave at least once every 24 hours during operations under NBC threat. Moreover long hair can interfere
> with donning the mask and may result in leakage around the face seal, hair will be kept short enough to ensure a
> seal.



Your Unit CBRN Operator will have this info readily available.


----------



## Halifax Tar

recceguy said:
			
		

> Actually TV is right. What you've been told is false.
> 
> 
> From B-GJ-005-311/FP-020
> CANADIAN FORCES NUCLEAR, BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL DEFENCE
> TACTICS, TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES
> 
> Your Unit CBRN Operator will have this info readily available.



I have no doubt that is what that says. So I guess we could safely say the mask was no good for a certain percentage of toops for all the years it has been around. I have a feeling that this a new(ish) reg and its simply latching onto the common trend which is against beards these days in the CF. 

FYI In 2009 I was FIT Tested, on board HMCS Toronto, with the C-4 BRN Mask and the Ultra Twin (Chemox Mask) and I passed all tests well within the allowable limits AND I had/have a full on hairy bag beard....I will produce my FIT Test card if requested...Just saying

Grow a beard and try it for your self, if your local staff will let you. I think you will be surprised.


----------



## Pusser

All this crap about not being able to get a seal with a beard is absolute nonsense.  I've worn a beard for over 20 years and have never once had trouble getting a seal with any of the C3, C4 or CHEMOX masks.  And, yes, I have had plenty of opportunities to test that fact.  It has also been suggested that stubble (which some men will develop relatively quickly after shaving) will actually hold the mask off the face because it is rigid and straight, whereas a beard (which is soft and pliable) will actually compress.

The argument against beards could also be made for hair on top of the head, but we don't make people shave their heads do we?

We could also solve this whole problem by switching to hood type masks, which seal around the neck.  such things do exist and they're easier to fit because a lesser variety of sizes is needed.   I would even go so far as to say that one size could fit all.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

I think it just gives the manufacturer an easy out in case of deficiency.........


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Pusser said:
			
		

> All this crap about not being able to get a seal with a beard is absolute nonsense.  I've worn a beard for over 20 years and have never once had trouble getting a seal with any of the C3, C4 or CHEMOX masks.  And, yes, I have had plenty of opportunities to test that fact.  It has also been suggested that stubble (which some men will develop relatively quickly after shaving) will actually hold the mask off the face because it is rigid and straight, whereas a beard (which is soft and pliable) will actually compress.
> 
> The argument against beards could also be made for hair on top of the head, but we don't make people shave their heads do we?
> 
> We could also solve this whole problem by switching to hood type masks, which seal around the neck.  such things do exist and they're easier to fit because a lesser variety of sizes is needed.   I would even go so far as to say that one size could fit all.



So, I guess the three weeks I spent at the Bug School to become a CBRN Operator are all bullshit then. All the testing and drills are just put in place to fuck with bearded personnel. Tell you what, just keep doing what your doing. I'll teach my guys the proper way to protect themselves according to the tested methods and as long as they are under my care they'll do it properly. Or I guess they can go join the Navy. 



			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I have a feeling that this a new(ish) reg and its simply latching onto the common trend which is against beards these days in the CF.



The reg about beards and masks is far from new. Its been around for the 35 years I've been serving.


----------



## OldSolduer

I'm with recceguy on this. Many years ago, the first orthodox Sikh recruit underwent NBCD trg in CFRS Cornwallis. He never had to shave nor cut his hair. We attempted several times to ensure a seal for the gas hut. Nothing worked.

The bottom line is, to the one who started this is that if you have to shave, shave. Period.
Never mind your childish rant about your "beard hating Pl 2IC". Be professional and suck it up.


----------



## Halifax Tar

All I am saying is I got/get a seal every time I have been through the gas hut or FF training in the past. You didn't answer though recceguy why is it just suddenly (last 5 years we'll say) that beards and masks are a no no ? What about all the time before while we had the C4 ? What changed ?

Like I said I am in Panjiway right now and the rule is if you have a beard on your passport or CF ID Card picture you can keep it, because it is considered changing your appearance when you shave it and that can cause issues trying pass through some airports and customs.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I think it just gives the manufacturer an easy out in case of deficiency.........



I think this may be closer to the real reason than any of us care to know...


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> All I am saying is I got/get a seal every time I have been through the gas hut or FF training in the past. You didn't answer though recceguy why is it just suddenly (last 5 years we'll say) that beards and masks are a no no ? What about all the time before while we had the C4 ? What changed ?
> 
> Like I said I am in Panjiway right now and the rule is if you have a beard on your passport or CF ID Card picture you can keep it, because it is considered changing your appearance when you shave it and that can cause issues trying pass through some airports and customs.



 I did answer it. Take a look above. The policy is far from new. Once more, I have been following said policy for 35 years and it's still the policy and we are still following it.

I also have more than a passing acquaintance with the policy re: beards and ID. It has nothing to do with masks.


----------



## Infanteer

Check with your chain of command.  IIRC, there was a Task Force policy that required the TF Surgeon to sign off on beards in theater to avoid a bunch of bearded soldiers carrying weak "no-shave" chits from Base MIRs.  At least this was the case with a few of my soldiers.


----------



## Pusser

recceguy said:
			
		

> So, I guess the three weeks I spent at the Bug School to become a CBRN Operator are all bullshit then. All the testing and drills are just put in place to frig with bearded personnel. Tell you what, just keep doing what your doing. I'll teach my guys the proper way to protect themselves according to the tested methods and as long as they are under my care they'll do it properly. Or I guess they can go join the Navy.
> 
> The reg about beards and masks is far from new. Its been around for the 35 years I've been serving.



I don't care how long the policy has been around.  It's flawed and applies a blanket approach to an individual issue.  Not everybody can get a seal with a beard, but then again, not everbody who is clean shaven can get a seal either.  My argument is that I can get a seal, so I shouldn't have to shave.  I'm not saying that this is true for everyone.

PS:  I'm no neophyte to CBRN either.


----------



## Stoker

I too have been fit tested for the C4 gas mask, fire hawk SCBA, Chemox and did so with a beard in accordance with fit testing procedures. As long as you can get a seal you're good to go.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Like I said, you Navy guys do whatever you want. 

Until you get B-GJ-005-311/FP-020 changed, we'll stick with the current official direction. It's my ass when something happens because the directive is disregarded on my watch, not that of some faceless hairy navy guy.


----------



## TN2IC

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Check with your chain of command.  IIRC, there was a Task Force policy that required the TF Surgeon to sign off on beards in theater to avoid a bunch of bearded soldiers carrying weak "no-shave" chits from Base MIRs.  At least this was the case with a few of my soldiers.



This is the correct policy. I just had the briefing last week while getting on the ground here in the sandbox.


----------



## 392

TN2IC said:
			
		

> This is the correct policy. I just had the briefing last week while getting on the ground here in the sandbox.



The problem with that blanket policy (as it was when I raised objections to it when it first surfaced on 3-08) is that *cannot apply to MELs* - they aren't "weak" shave chits, they're a medical category. One of my soldiers was on an MEL for shaving, and the amount of non-common sense flying around there WRT that MEL was ridiculous.

I understand that policy and why it is in place, but it needs to be directed at the right audience.


----------



## Big Red

So what is the CBRN threat in Afghanistan?

Why is this such an issue?


----------



## PuckChaser

You can turn that around real easily and say why is having a beard such an issue? If you have a MEL limitation/religious grounds and are allowed to have a beard, go for it. But expect a little bit of scrutiny because its not supposed to be common place.


----------



## George Wallace

Big Red said:
			
		

> So what is the CBRN threat in Afghanistan?
> 
> Why is this such an issue?



The CBRN was a "Red Herring" someone brought into the discussion.  It has nothing to do with Afghanistan, but with beards in general.  It was a "topic derailer".


----------



## OldSolduer

Thte problem is that the originator of this post doesn't like his Pl 2IC scrutinizing him. Look at the tone of his post. 

Suck it buttercup.


----------



## Big Red

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Thte problem is that the originator of this post doesn't like his Pl 2IC scrutinizing him. Look at the tone of his post.
> 
> Suck it buttercup.



He has a medical chit not to shave, yet is being made to for "operational reasons"



			
				iciphil said:
			
		

> Hi, I'd like to know where, exactly, can I find the order-instruction-message ordering the shaving of beards for flight day?
> 
> Is it a Canlandgen, Canforgen or something else ?
> 
> I'm an infantryman eith the medical O3 shaving restriction, y'know' 'can't shave unless ordered so for operationnal reasons'. So, I'd like to check and make sure I'm not being played by a power hungry, beard hater velcro wearing Platoon 2IC.



So what operational reason is there in Afghanistan to negate his no shave chit?


----------



## OldSolduer

Take note of the tone: "I'd like to check and make sure I'm not being played by a power hungry, beard hater velcro wearing Platoon 2IC"

The unprofessional and childish tone is what sets my spider senses off.

The Pl Second in Command is doing his job, as directed from higher.


----------



## Kiwi99

I agree with Jim and the others ref this.  Unless your face falls off every time you shave, then you shave.  A beard in afghanistan, even a week without shaving, is unbearable, especially during the summer months.  yes, at times you may not shave.  This is based on  water rationing, extended patrols etc. But as soon as these limitations are gone then you run a blade over your face.

I remember last year when the Vandoo BG showed up and everywhere you looked there were beards, even some of the women!  Soldiers weren't doing up helmets properly because of their beards properly because of their beards, they weren't maintaining them to CF regulations, they looked unkempt and stupid.  When the order came down from TFK HQ to shave there was outrage.  yet, the soldier shaved and low and behold, they were fine.

For some reason soldiers think that just because they are in Afghanistan they don't need to shave.  Where this mentality comes from I have no idea.  But it is a silly mentality.  Soldiers and leadership have bigger issues to worry about than shaving.  Like I said earlier, unless your face falls off every time you shave THEN SHAVE.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Big Red said:
			
		

> He has a medical chit not to shave, yet is being made to for "operational reasons"



Actually, he _claims_ to have a medical chit, and that is all we know. It's not like it was scanned and added to the post so we can see exactly what he has.

Who wrote it this particular chit? How long ago? And was it connected to specific medical or other conditions at the time?

Is it a current chit recently written  (or recently re-written) by the medical staff of the deploying unit?  Or is it a crumpled, possibly self-laminated, chit he's been carrying and leaning on for years?

The bottom line is, we don't have all the facts, either medical or otherwise, and we are working with one side of a story which is carrying it's own bias against what he's been told.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> *Actually, he claims to have a medical chit*, and that is all we know. It's not like it was scanned and added to the post so we can see exactly what he has.
> 
> Who wrote it this particular chit? How long ago? And was it connected to specific medical or other conditions at the time?
> 
> Is it a current chit recently written  (or recently re-written) by the medical staff of the deploying unit?  Or is it a crumpled, possibly self-laminated, chit he's been carrying and leaning on for years?
> 
> The bottom line is, we don't have all the facts, either medical or otherwise, and we are working with one side of a story which is carrying it's own bias against what he's been told.





			
				iciphil said:
			
		

> I'm an infantryman eith the medical *O3* shaving restriction, y'know' 'can't shave unless ordered so for operationnal reasons'.



Actually, he claims to have a "medical category".  If his claim is taken at face value (and his obvious 'attitude' is overlooked) then it is likely the documentation surrounding his medical condition is more extensive than simply a "chit" saying no shaving.  However, having a medical category (with the specific MEL he states) does not automatically grant him immunity from any future familiarity with a razor.  Whatever he does to avoid shaving is probably going to p*ss off his Pl 2IC, so if he wants to press the matter he should request that the order to shave be put in writing and copies placed in both his pers and medical records so that "he is covered medically in case there are any adverse reactions".  Now, if such a request were to trigger a re-evaluation of his medical condition, there is a possibility that the category could be made even more restrictive - to the point that he is undeployable, thus unemployable, thus releasable.


----------



## ModlrMike

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Actually, he claims to have a "medical category".  If his claim is taken at face value (and his obvious 'attitude' is overlooked) then it is likely the documentation surrounding his medical condition is more extensive than simply a "chit" saying no shaving.  However, having a medical category (with the specific MEL he states) does not automatically grant him immunity from any future familiarity with a razor.  Whatever he does to avoid shaving is probably going to p*ss off his Pl 2IC, so if he wants to press the matter he should request that the order to shave be put in writing and copies placed in both his pers and medical records so that "he is covered medically in case there are any adverse reactions".  Now, if such a request were to trigger a re-evaluation of his medical condition, there is a possibility that the category could be made even more restrictive - to the point that he is undeployable, thus unemployable, thus releasable.



Exactly, he need's to be mindful of the "law of unintended consequences".


----------



## OldSolduer

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Exactly, he need's to be mindful of the "law of unintended consequences".



Yes and acting like a prima donna doesn't help his case. I wonder...would he be so insubordinate to hs Pl 2IC face to face.....?


----------



## ModlrMike

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Yes and acting like a prima donna doesn't help his case. I wonder...would he be so insubordinate to hs Pl 2IC face to face.....?



Ah... the false sense of security blanket of internet anonymity.


----------



## Jarnhamar

The OPs attitude in his first post was crap.
People can (sometimes) get fed up with BS answers from leadership that are grounded in convenience and not fact.
There is next to zero NBC threat in Afghanistan so "shaving so you can get a seal on your mask" isn't that strong of a reason.
Wearing a beard in Afghanistan is narsty.
Shaving is only loosely enforced at the FOBs unless it changed.
Soldiers who abuse the chit system and get crap like shaving chits for the LCF and just because they can - ruin it for people with legitimate reasons. (Same way people abused the boot chit system)
Canada has a pickle up it's bum, when it comes to looking like garrison soldiers on a parade in a war zone.
_The people  most concerned about troops shaving and wearing boot bands or having their sleeve cuffs buttoned up aren't the ones being sent home with the flag over them._
The OPs attitude set the tone for this thread and it wouldn't have ended any other way than a bun fight.


----------



## OldSolduer

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> The OPs attitude in his first post was crap.Canada has a pickle up it's bum, when it comes to looking like garrison soldiers on a parade in a war zone.
> The people_ mos[i/] concerned about troops shaving and wearing boot bands or having their sleeve cuffs buttoned up aren't the ones being sent home with the flag over them.
> The OPs attitude set the tone for this thread and it wouldn't have ended any other way than a bun fight.
> _


_

I agree with the italics. I know this from experience.....I'm not concerned with how a troop looks for the most part on operations. Performance counts.

_


----------



## Kiwi99

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> _The people  most concerned about troops shaving and wearing boot bands or having their sleeve cuffs buttoned up aren't the ones being sent home with the flag over them._



I disagree with this statement.  A uniform is worn for a reason, and worn a certain way for a reason.  If a soldier cannot take that extra few minutes to blouse his pants or do up his sleeves, what other areas is he cutting corners?  Having unbloused pants in Afghanistan is more of a 'look cool' factor than anything else.  It does nothing in means of ventilation, as some say, and allows all manner of critters to get in there.  Not doing up your sleeves is again laziness.  I have served with some fine soldiers, extremely brave soldiers some of them, in numerous contacts with the enemy.  They still managed to fight hard with buttons done up and pants bloused.  It comes down to PPE and enforcing the correct wearing of it amongst your troops.  If they dont dress properly and you let it slide, then you are ineffective as a leader.  It doesnt matter if its critters, flash burns, shrapnel or a cut/scratch that becomes infected.  If you allow them to dress haphazardly then you are at fault.

To say that the only people concerned about such things are the ones who never see combat is both idiotic and immature and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding.  Anyone concerned about their soldiers welfare should care very much.

I imagine you believe that ballistic eyewear and gloves are over-rated as well.


----------



## Sprinting Thistle

Kiwi is right.  The RSM of TF 3-06 was concerned with the operational efficiency and readiness of his troops which included attention to detail such as proper field hygiene to include washing and shaving, the proper fit and wearing of PPE, proper dress.  He was known and loved as a warrior, a leader, and a friend by all ranks in the TF.  He was also killed by a suicide bomber while deploying outside the wire in a Bison loaded with med supplies, ammunition, and even a small item such as clippers for beards.


----------



## Kiwi99

I also know of a TFK Commander that did over 11,500km on those roads, attacked an ambush, got IED'd, got mortared. And his RSM was with him every time, in over 150 combat patrols! Their dress was always sorted, and they ensured that the troops were sorted too.  If not, the problems were corrected before they left.  But, according to the earlier poster, those that care about dress and PPE are those never in harms way.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> I disagree with this statement.  A uniform is worn for a reason, and worn a certain way for a reason.  If a soldier cannot take that extra few minutes to blouse his pants or do up his sleeves, what other areas is he cutting corners?  Having unbloused pants in Afghanistan is more of a 'look cool' factor than anything else.  It does nothing in means of ventilation, as some say, and allows all manner of critters to get in there.


I'm surprised you think that.  You think bloused up pants are awesome for the field of Afghanistan, that's cool. I know a lot of other guys who don't.
There is a difference between Canada and a warzone, if you want to see what I mean take a look at what's allowed to be loaded on an HSVS.



> Not doing up your sleeves is again laziness.  I have served with some fine soldiers, extremely brave soldiers some of them, in numerous contacts with the enemy.  They still managed to fight hard with buttons done up and pants bloused.  It comes down to PPE and enforcing the correct wearing of it amongst your troops.  If they dont dress properly and you let it slide, then you are ineffective as a leader.  It doesnt matter if its critters, flash burns, shrapnel or a cut/scratch that becomes infected.  If you allow them to dress haphazardly then you are at fault.


 Critters can get down your pants when your boots aren't bloused but blousing them stops them? Because the blouse forms an airtight seal and theres no gap between the boot and the blousing? You're pants hanging over your laces doesn't odffer added protection from getting damaged? Okay.



> To say that the only people concerned about such things are the ones who never see combat is both idiotic and immature and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding.  Anyone concerned about their soldiers welfare should care very much.


I guess guys like me and Jim are right out to lunch. I remember  important points from o-groups coming down like troops will only wear gloves and/or touques on KAF *IF* they have a raincoat on too! Anyone in violation of this will be disciplined. Or dependiong on who you're with NCOs weren't allowed carrying pistols because it made them look like officers  : 
 Being at the PRT I felt like I was doing drill on the hill.




> I imagine you believe that ballistic eyewear and gloves are over-rated as well.


ya man you got me, good zinger. Who needs ballastic eye wear and gloves? I don't.  (I remember getting issued gloves and using them for a while until they noticed IEDs were shrink-wrapping the gloves to our hands, oops)
 I  also wouldn't bring my NVGs with me and I don't wear my rear plate either cause I'm not going to get shot in the back.

If you don't think that all the fun dress regs don't come down from higher than the RSM, well, okay then.


ST, I was at Y101 lines when  Girouard gave some of his speeches. (If you don't want to be here, **** you!) You're right he was concered about proper dress, and he had a few things to say about the need to enforce "stupid rules" too- I'll leave it at that.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> I also know of a TFK Commander that did over 11,500km on those roads, attacked an ambush, got IED'd, got mortared. And his RSM was with him every time, in over 150 combat patrols! Their dress was always sorted, and they ensured that the troops were sorted too.  If not, the problems were corrected before they left.  But, according to the earlier poster, those that care about dress and PPE are those never in harms way.



Since when did I say PPE?
I said shaving, boot bands and their sleeves. I'll conceed that sleeves need to be done up outside the wire, I totally agree with that.  WRT to sleeves I meant inside the FOB, at the PRT or at KAF.
Boot bands and shaving aren't PPE

My comment was directed to the types that make these rules up yet never leave the saftey of the office. NOT the soldiers who do.


----------



## vonGarvin

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> Boot bands and shaving aren't PPE


I'll let someone else comment about boot bands.  But I will note that even in WW1 and WW2, we "bloused" our trousers when we wore them, using gaitors or puttees, depending on the war.  I'm certain there was a reason other than "looking cool".

As for shaving, I would consider it "PPE" in terms of hygiene.  Soldiers who aren't shaving aren't washing (most likely).  It's a morale boost to feel clean, and it's vital, IMHO, to retain that feeling of "being human".  I get it that when it comes to water, there's only so much some times, and in those cases in which the troops find themselves in a water rationing situation may not have the water with which to wash/shave.  But then it should become an operational imperative to get water to the troops so that they can conduct basic personal hygiene, and avoiding becoming a burden.  Yes, poor hygiene can lead to poor health.


----------



## Kiwi99

Your arguments are really quite weak and you seem rather bitter.

With regards what goes on an HSVS there is a reason why we do things in Canada.  I recall some wonder kids deciding to put diesel and rations on the some truck.  That turned out really well as the Company ended up with a lot of diesel and no edible food.

Just because you are in Afghanistan doesn't mean you get to do what you want. If the order is to blouse pants and shave then you do so.  if you can provide a good enough reason why you shouldn't, then take it up the chain.  Or just disregard orders and set a fine example for your troops with regards to professionalism.

Yeah, O-Grp points about dress can sometimes be pretty stupid.  But they are in the O-Grp for a reason, more often than not because of something a soldier did to himslef because he wasn't wearing the kit properly or at all.

With regards to the rules on KAF, why not?  A huge multi national base with national and global media everywhere.  Why not instruct a standard of dress and deportment so that soldiers represented Canada in a good way?  Or we could just slum around KAF unshaven, in dirty combats, looking like bums.

Now if you can tell me one good reason why blousing pants is a silly idea, I will accept it.  Same with cuff buttons on sleeves and beards.  And anything else you deem to be a silly dress reg.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Technoviking said:
			
		

> As for shaving, I would consider it "PPE" in terms of hygiene.


Maybe. I cut my face a lot when I'm shaving. Especially if I'm rationing the use of my razor's and they get dull. Is open cuts in the poo dust  better than not shaving?


> Soldiers who aren't shaving aren't washing (most likely).


Thats like saying most soldiers who do shave have extra time on their hands.  
 I washed every day or every chance I could get, the times when I didn't shave didn't mean I was being lazy and avoided hygiene.



> It's a morale boost to feel clean, and it's vital, IMHO, to retain that feeling of "being human".


Agreed. That's why I started shaving even when it wasn't a requirement.


----------



## Kiwi99

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> Since when did I say PPE?
> I said shaving, boot bands and their sleeves. I'll conceed that sleeves need to be done up outside the wire, I totally agree with that.  WRT to sleeves I meant inside the FOB, at the PRT or at KAF.
> Boot bands and shaving aren't PPE
> 
> My comment was directed to the types that make these rules up yet never leave the saftey of the office. NOT the soldiers who do.



Even in the FOBS, at the PRT, on KAF.  You normally have ANA in your FOBS as well, we are an example to them, so set a good one.  Dress and deportment is just as important as every other aspect of soldiering.  Let them see you look like an orphan and they will want to be one too.

The PRT, when it was Canadian, WAS Canadian.  The rules apply just as much there as they do out at belanday etc.

As for the soldiers that make up these contested rules from their offices, have you approached them to count her their argument with a well thought out series of other possible options?  You would be surprised how many would listen and learn from you and implement the change.  If they don't, you tried.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> Your arguments are really quite weak and you seem rather bitter.



Not really, I don't care either way. I prefer to shave every day, even when not required. I'm balding and it looks funny, especially since I'm not a pioneer.



> With regards what goes on an HSVS there is a reason why we do things in Canada.  I recall some wonder kids deciding to put diesel and rations on the some truck.  That turned out really well as the Company ended up with a lot of diesel and no edible food.


Excellent point. What's more important, the company getting a whole bunch of diesel and nothing to eat back in Canada or troops going without food in Afghanistan.



> Just because you are in Afghanistan doesn't mean you get to do what you want. If the order is to blouse pants and shave then you do so.  if you can provide a good enough reason why you shouldn't, then take it up the chain.  Or just disregard orders and set a fine example for your troops with regards to professionalism.


Agreed. If my soldiers ***** about it I tell them to do it anyways because their soldiers and soldiers are most happy when following orders  ;D
If I really think it's that much of an issue I'll bring it up the CoC.




> Or we could just slum around KAF unshaven, in dirty combats, looking like bums.


And that we actually do soldiering instead  of like some of the groups that aren't allowed outside the wire and sit around and eat all day.
I agree it's important to look professional, on the same note having your boots unbloused doesn't mean you look like a scumbag.



> Now if you can tell me one good reason why blousing pants is a silly idea, I will accept it.  Same with cuff buttons on sleeves and beards.  And anything else you deem to be a silly dress reg.


I simply don't see a big deal about blousing your boots, I know unbloused boots make people pass out in fear or spin in circles like it's the end of discipline as we know it- not me. I don't see having your cuffs undone on a base as a big deal and I don't care one way or the other about shaving. 

Wanna talk unprofessional? The Canadian soldiers that can barely fit in their uniform and I don't just mean some heafty clerk type. Combat arms has their fair share of porkers. I'll take an unbloused boot bearded troop over someone who looks like their seams are ready to rip open any day. THATS embarassing infront of other countries.
(Now we're just talking in circles though)


An example to the ANA?  lol Sorry, it's been a pleasure but that's my cue to pull pole!


----------



## Kiwi99

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> Not really, I don't care either way. I prefer to shave every day, even when not required. I'm balding and it looks funny, especially since I'm not a pioneer.
> Excellent point. What's more important, the company getting a whole bunch of diesel and nothing to eat back in Canada or troops going without food in Afghanistan.
> Agreed. If my soldiers ***** about it I tell them to do it anyways because their soldiers and soldiers are most happy when following orders  ;D
> If I really think it's that much of an issue I'll bring it up the CoC.
> 
> And that we actually do soldiering instead  of like some of the groups that aren't allowed outside the wire and sit around and eat all day.
> I agree it's important to look professional, on the same note having your boots unbloused doesn't mean you look like a scumbag.
> I simply don't see a big deal about blousing your boots, I know unbloused boots make people pass out in fear or spin in circles like it's the end of discipline as we know it- not me. I don't see having your cuffs undone on a base as a big deal and I don't care one way or the other about shaving.
> 
> Wanna talk unprofessional? The Canadian soldiers that can barely fit in their uniform and I don't just mean some heafty clerk type. Combat arms has their fair share of porkers. I'll take an unbloused boot bearded troop over someone who looks like their seams are ready to rip open any day. THATS embarassing infront of other countries.
> (Now we're just talking in circles though)
> 
> 
> An example to the ANA?  lol Sorry, it's been a pleasure but that's my cue to pull pole!



I won't defend the people on KAF, nor the 'porkers' in our trade.  Needless to say, what they do we do not know or understand, much as what we do they have no idea about.  But to criticize them for choosing a different trade seems rather pointless to me.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Just wanted to add I'm not criticizing them for taking another trade my man. (I've always defended how vital ALL trades are)
 I'm saying it's NOT just "some clerk" or another support type as us combat arms are apt to poke fun at. I'm talking Infantry, artillery, armored, medics....everyone. 
 We were the "biggest" contingent in country and to me that's a zinger when it comes to even just looking professional.


----------



## CombatDoc

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Check with your chain of command.  IIRC, there was a Task Force policy that required the TF Surgeon to sign off on beards in theater to avoid a bunch of bearded soldiers carrying weak "no-shave" chits from Base MIRs.  At least this was the case with a few of my soldiers.


Despite multiple requests being made during Ex MG in Wainwright, there were no beard chits ("excuse barbe") issued by the TF Surg.  Unless there are extenuating medical circumstances, I think it unlikely that the 3-10 TF Surg will be signing off on beard chits in theatre.


----------



## PMedMoe

Okay, how do you blouse boots?   

Blousing the _pants_, whether by boot band or by the strings is not as important in protection against biting insects as is tucking the dust flap on the pants into the boots.  I love seeing that line of skin between the boots and the bottom of the pants and I'm sure the ticks, mosquitoes and sand flies do too.

But I digress.....


----------



## ModlrMike

I admit that I fall somewhere in the middle on this issue. I accept that when you're out in the boonies in contact with the enemy, then certain latitudes are acceptable. However when you return to camp, you should return to being a properly turned out soldier. Both states of dress are acceptable.... each in their own place and time. As a Pl WO and later SM, I never got on my troops back for coming in from the field in disarray. I gave them sufficient time to sort themselves out, and they knew the expectation. Not once did I have to square them off for looking disheveled after having enough time to clean up. I guess I was lucky.


----------



## OldSolduer

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I admit that I fall somewhere in the middle on this issue. I accept that when you're out in the boonies in contact with the enemy, then certain latitudes are acceptable. However when you return to camp, you should return to being a properly turned out soldier. Both states of dress are acceptable.... each in their own place and time. As a Pl WO and later SM, I never got on my troops back for coming in from the field in disarray. I gave them sufficient time to sort themselves out, and they knew the expectation. Not once did I have to square them off for looking disheveled after having enough time to clean up. I guess I was lucky.



That's using common sense. Stop that!! You know that you're supposed to be a nut raving lunatic.  ;D


----------



## PuckChaser

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I admit that I fall somewhere in the middle on this issue. I accept that when you're out in the boonies in contact with the enemy, then certain latitudes are acceptable. However when you return to camp, you should return to being a properly turned out soldier. Both states of dress are acceptable.... each in their own place and time. As a Pl WO and later SM, I never got on my troops back for coming in from the field in disarray. I gave them sufficient time to sort themselves out, and they knew the expectation. Not once did I have to square them off for looking disheveled after having enough time to clean up. I guess I was lucky.



I wish there were more leaders like you. We had a rule in my section, in that if you couldn't shower on a daily basis (out at a strong point, etc) you didn't have to shave. But once you came back to KAF/MSG, you had 24 hours to shower and shave. Each of the det comds made sure there was time for the members to go and do this. Never had a problem with it, even with coming back into KAF after 2 months into a pristine office space.


----------



## vonGarvin

[rant]
Call me old school on this, but we are professional soldiers, not a rabble.  Pride in personal appearance is what separates us from mercenaries.  We fight for King, Country, Regiment, etc. As such, ensuring that you have (a) functional kit and then (b) tidy up yourself (in that priority). You WILL ensure that you remain subordinate to your chain of command, to whom you have unlimited liability.  So, if you think you are "above" shaving, I'll kindly ask you to submit your resignation from Her Majesty's Canadian Armed Forces, because if you cannot obey me, a representative of Her Majesty, then you don't deserve to serve in the same uniform I am proud to wear.

So, take five minutes each day (if water is available), wash your genitals, wash your face, and remove that stubble from your chin.  Our fore-fathers did it in the face of continuous artillery and machine-gun fire, daily, and for weeks on end.  Just because you are in a COP/FOB or "OTW" for a few days doesn't cut it to me.  It's lazy, and I'll have none of that in my unit, if I have anything to say about that.


Same goes for wearing your uniform as issued and ordered.  This comes back to point (a).  I could care less if you have a chest rig, Tac Vest, Web Belt or whatever.  Just as long as your immediate chain of command is satisfied that it meets the requirements of the job, that's good. But blouse your trousers (as ordered), wear your gloves and eyewear (as ordered) and put your god-damned plates in: front AND back.  I don't care if you think you're John Wayne, Mr. T and Chuck Norris combined, I'm not sending you home in a body bag if I can avoid it.  And you'll do what your ordered to do by your chain of command.  If not, you're cut from the team.



[/rant]


----------



## Pusser

Technoviking said:
			
		

> [rant]
> So, take five minutes each day (if water is available), wash your genitals, wash your face, and remove that stubble from your chin.  _*Our fore-fathers did it *  _ in the face of continuous artillery and machine-gun fire, daily, and for weeks on end.  Just because you are in a COP/FOB or "OTW" for a few days doesn't cut it to me.  It's lazy, and I'll have none of that in my unit, if I have anything to say about that.
> [/rant]



That's not entirely true.  Soldiers not wearing beards is mostly a 20th century thing.  Beards were very common in the Victorian, including on operations in Africa and India.  Furthermore, if you look at photos of the special ops guys in the desert in WWII, you see a lot of beards.  That goes against the "beards are nasty in the desert" argument as well.  

Anyone who thinks that beards are uncomfortable under any conditions, obviously hasn't worn one for any length of time.  The only time I realize mine is there is when I touch it with my hand (which I do from time time because I don't have a ponytail to play with).  It doesn't itch and heat doesn't bother me (at least from a beard perspective), but it does provide some protection from biting cold and it's kind of cool when it freezes up.  In fact, my beard is most uncomfortable when it's not there.  The wife and kids scream because there's a strange man in the house and my chin gets cold, even in July.

On another note, what is the connection between hygiene and beards?  Do people think that beards prevent you form washing your face?  By that argument, you can't sponge bathe your genitals either!  Or does the Army  take "clean-shaven" more seriously than I thought? ;D  The beard gets washed every time I shower and/or when I wash my face when showers are not available (which is actually quite rare in the modern Navy).


----------



## Nfld Sapper

My 2 cents to the OP, you are being ordered to shave if you got problems with that got back to the MIR and get a new chit to clarify your original one....


----------



## 392

Pusser said:
			
		

> That's not entirely true.  Soldiers not wearing beards is mostly a 20th century thing.  Beards were very common in the Victorian, including on operations in Africa and India.  Furthermore, if you look at photos of the special ops guys in the desert in WWII, you see a lot of beards.  That goes against the "beards are nasty in the desert" argument as well.
> 
> Anyone who thinks that beards are uncomfortable under any conditions, obviously hasn't worn one for any length of time.



The beards aren't worn by SOF guys for much more than a "blend in with the locals" type attitude - although, I must say, it's hard to blend in a bunch of obvious white guys in beards with some seriously tanned skinned local dudes  ;D

I wore a beard for two years, and believe me - wearing a beard in the desert is not all it's cracked up to be. As a matter of fact, I'll say IT SUCKED. Itchy, nasty feeling when coated in dust, etc. While some may not mind it in KAF where water is in abundance and there's always time for a shower, it's slightly different out moving around the boonies day to day not being able to shower with any regularity. I will agree though, that if there are ablution facilities in the camp you're in, there's no excuse not to use them - including shaving. A leaguer or COP is a different story altogether...

And once again, an MEL is quite different than a sick chit. Shitty attitude or not, if the OP has an MEL, it's not the same as a "lame" beard chit. It does seem to me there is a bit of an axe to grind - but then again, it sounds to me like the Pl 2IC is doing what Pl 2ICs are supposed to - beans, bullets, and discipline...


----------



## aesop081

Capt. Happy said:
			
		

> It does seem to me there is a bit of an axe to grind



The tone sure indicated that to me. The "power hungry" bit said alot by itself.....




> - but then again, it sounds to me like the Pl 2IC is doing what Pl 2ICs are supposed to - beans, bullets, and discipline...



More and more, i see troops who interpret applying rules, questioning and "no" as power tripping and arse-covering on their NCO's part. It is sad and makes the job that much harder but its still going to get done......


----------



## dogger1936

I'm pretty well on the fence with this one as well. There was times I didnt shave for a month while I was there. Due to the fact we were told to use water for drinking to minimise it's use (i.e not so many clp's etc). When I came back to the FOB I shaved and showered and thanked god for water I could pour on my body. My hair was grown for 5 months strait as we didnt have a barber...and I wasnt going out of my way to cut it. ;D

On the other hand you go to KAF and the arty Mcpl is driving around in his CQ's truck with oakleys on and a beard with no other reason than to look SF. Make some cool facebook photo's and get mistaken as someone cool. That use to make us laugh/ piss us off. Then you see him clean shaven in Cyprus.

If you have a MEL I'm all for it. However our tour it was abused heavly by infanteer's. It was pretty easy to spot who was buddies in each companies. All gear ***** with beards.


----------



## armyvern

Oh for fuck sakes.

The OP has stated that his chit is:


			
				iciphil said:
			
		

> ...
> I'm an infantryman eith the medical O3 shaving restriction, y'know' 'can't shave unless ordered so for operationnal reasons'. So, I'd like to check and make sure I'm not being played by a power hungry, beard hater velcro wearing Platoon 2IC.
> ...






			
				Grimaldus said:
			
		

> The OPs attitude in his first post was crap.
> ...
> Canada has a pickle up it's bum, when it comes to looking like garrison soldiers on a parade in a war zone.
> _The people  most concerned about troops shaving and wearing boot bands or having their sleeve cuffs buttoned up aren't the ones being sent home with the flag over them._
> ...



There you have it ladies & gents; mystery solved. See the yellow bits??

 :brickwall:

If being in a War Zone is NOT operational when the hell are you all handing back in all that tax-free cash you made for being deployed on that Operation in that war zone?

PS: Your other comment is a nice play on emotions, but is 200% bullshit.


----------



## armyvern

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> I'm pretty well on the fence with this one as well. There was times I didnt shave for a month while I was there. Due to the fact we were told to use water for drinking to minimise it's use (i.e not so many clp's etc). ...



Yep, and requiring conservation of life-essential water for drinking would constitute a bonified operational reason to issue a temp order NOT to shave.


----------



## xo31@711ret

That's using common sense. Stop that!! You know that you're supposed to be a nut raving lunatic.   

Both Mike & me were retreads on the same TQ3 Jim; we worked a few years later in NB. He is a nut raving lunatic!    ;D


----------



## OldSolduer

xo31@711ret said:
			
		

> That's using common sense. Stop that!! You know that you're supposed to be a nut raving lunatic.
> 
> Both Mike & me were retreads on the same TQ3 Jim; we worked a few years later in NB. He is a nut raving lunatic!    ;D



Who's a nut raving lunatic?


----------



## Jarnhamar

Enforcing a rule doesn't mean you agree with them, but we enforce them anyways.



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I wish there were more leaders like you. We had a rule in my section, in that if you couldn't shower on a daily basis (out at a strong point, etc) you didn't have to shave. But once you came back to KAF/MSG, you had 24 hours to shower and shave. Each of the det comds made sure there was time for the members to go and do this. Never had a problem with it, even with coming back into KAF after 2 months into a pristine office space.




I felt bad for the guys who were back in KAF for 6 to 12 hours only and the first thing they had to do was shave.
Yea shaving on KAF was unavoidable but people put up SUCH a fight over it that it got clamped down on hardcore- to the point where it took precedence over calling home.

Long story short some people require the shave chits, LOTS of people abuse the shave chits.
The abuse leads to shaving-crusades.
Like after market chest rig crusades
Like Oakley crusades
Like patch crusades

In Bosnia we weren't allowed Oakleys, until someone pointed out the Coy 2IC wore them-then we were allowed because he said so.
We're told in Afghanistan that if we'll be "charged and sent home" if we wore (Unauthorized) patches. Long story short battle group guys (or other peons) were hounded and crucified for wearing patches yet I seen a LOT of headquarter types wearing them around.   The people who authorized patches were a closely guarded secret let me tell you..  ;D

I found that one of the biggest issues with beards was that it was a way for young guys to let everyone know they live out side the wire. It was like guys tried to use beards as a BTDT badge, right up there with guys standing in the Tim Hortons line making sure EVERYONE heard them talking about how much they hate KAF.


----------



## ModlrMike

xo31@711ret said:
			
		

> That's using common sense. Stop that!! You know that you're supposed to be a nut raving lunatic.
> 
> He is a nut raving lunatic!    ;D



Thanks, Gerry.


----------



## OldSolduer

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Thanks, Gerry.



Oh that would be you the nut raving lunatic....I thought he meant me......wait a minute....I am.......


----------



## Scott

Seriously, not shaving when you might have to wear respiratory protective equipment?

This belongs in the dumbest things heard  thread.

For the record: I've been wearing SA/SCBA as well as half and full face respirators for the last twelve years. I wear this stuff on a daily basis and work, or supervise others, in toxic environments. I am also a fit tester meaning that I test to CSA standards for facial fit with various types of masks. Facial hair, under CSA (which might be moot here, I'll let an SME weigh in on that) is verboten.


----------



## vonGarvin

Pusser said:
			
		

> That's not entirely true.  Soldiers not wearing beards is mostly a 20th century thing.  Beards were very common in the Victorian, including on operations in Africa and India.  Furthermore, if you look at photos of the special ops guys in the desert in WWII, you see a lot of beards.  That goes against the "beards are nasty in the desert" argument as well.


Your argument is less than logically valid.  If you look at pre-20th Century warfare, things were linear, and like gentlemen, we laid down our arms at night, washed, ate, etc.  Then we got back to the business again the next day.  More or less.  

Flash forward to the trenches of Flanders.  Lice, ticks, muck, scum, etc were the norm in many trenches in that ravished area.  Even under constant shellfire, our forefathers of the CEF shaved daily.  And they used puttees to keep their trousers "bloused".  They probably did so because it made sense to do so.
It's already been pointed out about a few special ops guys in the desert.  Here are some other desert soldiers:





Pretty austere looking to me.  And shaven.  But, they are all nazi scum, so, let's see who else was there:




Ah, the good guys.  Funny that, dressing professionally, clean shaven, and all.  And they still managed to beat up on the Germans.  Win/Win!


Just shut up and drag a razor across your face, shower or no shower.


----------



## mariomike

Scott said:
			
		

> Seriously, not shaving when you might have to wear respiratory protective equipment?
> 
> This belongs in the dumbest things heard  thread.
> 
> For the record: I've been wearing SA/SCBA as well as half and full face respirators for the last twelve years. I wear this stuff on a daily basis and work, or supervise others, in toxic environments. I am also a fit tester meaning that I test to CSA standards for facial fit with various types of masks. Facial hair, under CSA (which might be moot here, I'll let an SME weigh in on that) is verboten.



I have worn SCBA, as well as the N95 mask. Also an organic vapour mask. "The area where the N95 respirator seals to the face must be clean shaven."



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> Flash forward to the trenches of Flanders.  Lice, ticks, muck, scum, etc were the norm in many trenches in that ravished area.  Even under constant shellfire, our forefathers of the CEF shaved daily.



­­One reason for shaving during WWI is the fact that it was the first war to see chemical agents used on the battlefield. Soldiers had to use gas masks for the first time:
Gillette razors were mass produced and issued to soldiers for the first time.
I believe the treatment of facial burns and wounds is more effective if the victim is clean shaven.


----------



## Big Red

Technoviking said:
			
		

>



Can we compromise on shaving as long as we can wear shorts?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Big Red said:
			
		

> Can we compromise on shaving as long as we can wear shorts?



I 'heard' there was cadpat ones in the system. I've been after my RQ to order me some for a year now. No luck. I can only surmise she's seen my legs 

Maybe Vern can get me a stock number.


----------



## aesop081

recceguy said:
			
		

> I 'heard' there was cadpat ones in the system.



They do exist and our technicians are issued with them. IIRC, they were authorized for wear on the ramp during RIMPAC.


----------



## Scott

Clean shaven?


----------



## Kiwi99

There really does seem to be a lot of childish banter in this thread with ref to "...but in KAF...".  

All you type that want to complain about how easy those in KAF have it compared to you, put in your OT to one of those trades.  Otherwise STFU.  You picked your trade, they picked theirs.


----------



## Armymedic

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> All you type that want to complain about how easy those in KAF have it compared to you, put in your OT to one of those trades.  Otherwise STFU.  You picked your trade, they picked theirs.



Best post on this site....

Ever!


----------



## Foxhound

WRT the mask...

Back in my day, beards were only seen on the Pioneers (R.I.P.), certain wives, and on those poor souls who had such bad acne that shaving was nearly suicidal.  Even then, not all the Pioneers wore beards.  Unofficial SOP was that beard-wearers would tote some Vaseline® or similar and slather that all over said beard as soon as they heard "GAS GAS GAS!" or carried the mask pre-greased, to maintain the seal.

I guess that meant that if you wore a beard, you had a ready excuse for that tube of K-Y Jelly™ you had in your grenade/clean socks pouch.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Foxhound said:
			
		

> WRT the mask...
> 
> Back in my day, beards were only seen on the Pioneers (R.I.P.), certain wives, and on those poor souls who had such bad acne that shaving was nearly suicidal.  Even then, not all the Pioneers wore beards.  Unofficial SOP was that beard-wearers would tote some Vaseline® or similar and slather that all over said beard as soon as they heard "GAS GAS GAS!" or carried the mask pre-greased, to maintain the seal.
> 
> *I guess that meant that if you wore a beard, you had a ready excuse for that tube of K-Y Jelly™ you had in your grenade/clean socks pouch.*



That would certainly make life easier for the chickens!  


What? C'mon, you knew everyone was thinking the same thing ;D


----------



## Blackadder1916

Foxhound said:
			
		

> . . .  Unofficial SOP was that beard-wearers would tote some *Vaseline® or similar* and slather that all over said beard as soon as they heard "GAS GAS GAS!" or carried the mask pre-greased, to maintain the seal.
> 
> I guess that meant that if you wore a beard, you had a ready excuse for that *tube of K-Y Jelly™[/] you had in your grenade/clean socks pouch.*


*

Vaseline (petroleum jelly) would have been the preferred "jelly" to assist in achieving a mask seal for the bearded.  Being an oil based item it did not dry out as quickly as the other mentioned item, did not freeze as easily and being more viscous (i.e. thicker) provided a better seal.  Vaseline was also often used to lubricate the leather pump cup in Coleman lanterns/stoves and worked better than "K-Y" for the same reasons.  K-Y Jelly (or the brand more commonly bought by the medical folks - "Lubrafax") were water based lubricants that, initially, were developed and marketed for "medical" purposes of inserting things into persons with less (and more easily cleaned) residue - ok, there was also that problem of petroleum jelly lubricants deteriorating latex items.  Based on the proliferation of consumer advertising for "K-Y" products it would seem that anyone who is carrying a tube in his grenade pouch can claim all he wants that it is for NBCD but everyone knows that they shouldn't bend over in his presence.

Though it was (and probably still is) often used to achieve a seal when wearing a mask, it would also interfere with decomtamination drills.  You could "blot, bang and rub" all day long but as long as there was a residue of Vaseline there was an increased possibility that traces of chemical or biological agents remained attached to it.
*


----------



## Pusser

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Your argument is less than logically valid.  If you look at pre-20th Century warfare, things were linear, and like gentlemen, we laid down our arms at night, washed, ate, etc.  Then we got back to the business again the next day.  More or less.
> 
> Flash forward to the trenches of Flanders.  Lice, ticks, muck, scum, etc were the norm in many trenches in that ravished area.  Even under constant shellfire, our forefathers of the CEF shaved daily.  And they used puttees to keep their trousers "bloused".  They probably did so because it made sense to do so.
> 
> Just shut up and drag a razor across your face, shower or no shower.



In what way is my argument not valid?  My point was that Victorian era soldiers often wore beards, despite operating in hot dirty climates.  That's a fact and there is plenty of evidence to back it up.  Ticks, lice, mud, scum etc existed long before the trenches of WWI.  This too is well-documented except for a lack of photographs.  Paintings from the era tended to leave out the filthy bits, but it doesn't mean they weren't there.  Even those photographs that did come from the later years tended to be staged and prepared, giving folks a chance to clean up a bit.  Shaving and hygiene have nothing to do with each other.

As for shaving when necessary, I have done it and will do so again I'm sure.  However, I'd like there to be a valid reason and hygiene simply isn't that.


----------



## OldSolduer

Hygiene is not a reason to shave?


----------



## vonGarvin

Pusser said:
			
		

> I'd like there to be a valid reason and hygiene simply isn't that.


A luxury one is not always able to be afforded, especially when in a job with unlimited liability.  If the chain of command orders you to be clean shaven, that's good enough for me.


As for my previous, re-read what I posted.  Until WW1, most Victorian wars were "gentlemanly" more than not, and night was a time to rest, clean, etc.  A luxury not afforded.  But they also fired muskets and shit, unlike the lasers and hover tanks we have now.... :


----------



## midget-boyd91

Big Red said:
			
		

> Can we compromise on shaving as long as we can wear shorts?



Have to shave those legs then! Or wax them. Your choice really.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Pusser said:
			
		

> In what way is my argument not valid?  My point was that Victorian era soldiers often wore beards, despite operating in hot dirty climates.  That's a fact and there is plenty of evidence to back it up.  Ticks, lice, mud, scum etc existed long before the trenches of WWI.  This too is well-documented except for a lack of photographs.  Paintings from the era tended to leave out the filthy bits, but it doesn't mean they weren't there.  Even those photographs that did come from the later years tended to be staged and prepared, giving folks a chance to clean up a bit.  Shaving and hygiene have nothing to do with each other.
> 
> As for shaving when necessary, I have done it and will do so again I'm sure.  However, I'd like there to be a valid reason and hygiene simply isn't that.




There were pictures:






Colour Sergeant "Willie" McGregor of the Scots Fusilier Guards, photographed in 1856 after the Crimean War, wearing the post-war tunic but with his Crimean beard.
Source: http://www.britishbattles.com/crimean-war/sevastopol.htm 





Somehow I managed to stumble across a site with dozens of pictures taken during the Crimean War (1853-1856), over a century and a half ago. This one is typical, except: They all seem to be staring at the dog.
Source: http://sentent.blogspot.com/2009/11/crimean-war-photos.html





Sgt Alexander Campbell, 7th Fusiliers, NW Field Force, 1885
Source: 
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.goldiproductions.com/images/boer/people_col/cambell_alex.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.goldiproductions.com/angloboerwarmuseum/Boer70k_hero12_dillon2.html&usg=__zBhvmalG-2j9NCtn6LlxYcUTz7o=&h=378&w=400&sz=22&hl=en&start=0&sig2=BjJ7PQq73aLnUCX0UtBUoA&zoom=1&tbnid=kOkW4iwQZ8bM3M:&tbnh=131&tbnw=130&ei=gxPOTI7uOcGjnAfuwIjRDw&prev=/images%3Fq%3Driel%2Brebellion%2Bphotos%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26biw%3D1479%26bih%3D869%26tbs%3Disch:10,155&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=120&vpy=56&dur=160&hovh=218&hovw=231&tx=110&ty=118&oei=pRHOTO3-PMKenwfx9oHVDw&esq=9&page=1&ndsp=40&ved=1t:429,r:8,s:0&biw=1479&bih=869





Canadians on the veldt in South Africa
Source: http://www.warmuseum.ca/cwm/exhibitions/boer/boerwarhistory_e.shtml


----------



## George Wallace

Let's see, more people died of infection and poor sanitation in the American Civil War and all other wars prior to WWII and Vietnam so I don't see your argument about beards and sanitation as holding much in the way of validity there.  Prior to WW I there were no gas masks, nor a requirement for them, so again I don't see the validity of having a beard in your argument here either.


----------



## Jarnhamar

How is wearing a beard a hygiene issue? (honest question)

If someone doesn't shave how does that increase their chances of disease and scabby face?
I figure shaving in unsanitary environments would lead to a larger chance of infection than shaving every day, no?


----------



## mariomike

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> How is wearing a beard a hygiene issue? (honest question)



Beards are a hygiene issue for food handlers. They wear beard covers aka "snoods".


----------



## vonGarvin

I think that the question shouldn't be "why should I shave off my beard", but rather "Why should you keep your beard?"


----------



## Pusser

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I think that the question shouldn't be "why should I shave off my beard", but rather "Why should you keep your beard?"



For the same reason I don't shave my head - I prefer the look of having the beard and it is within the confines of the dress regulations.  If there is a bona fide operational reason to shave it off, I have no objection, but that is actually quite rare.  More often than not, there seems to be an anti-beard movement in force.  Interestingly, this is not confined to the military as there are folks in business who hold the same bias.

Being clean shaven does not make you more hygenic.  A filthy person will be filthy with or without a beard.  Food handlers are not necessarily required to wear nets or snoods on their beards.  For that matter, nose hairs can also be an issue, but we don't require food handlers to insert plugs before they enter the kitchen do we?


----------



## Michael OLeary

Pusser said:
			
		

> More often than not, there seems to be an anti-beard movement in force.



I would suggest that it is, more often than not, a "pro-regulation movement." If a beard is allowed by dress regulations (such as pioneers _[R.I.P.]_ and sailors), there's not problem.  Likewise, when a _valid and current_ medical chit produced, no issue. Or when when the member belongs to a recognized religious group that includes facial hair as a requirement, not a problem.  Its the cases on the fringes of clear entitlement that get the raised eyebrows, the questions and the expectation that _the member_ prove their "clear entitlement" to avoid further investigation and, perhaps, an order to shave.

Does this mean that some people aren't just being dicks towards their subordinates? Certainly not, but their existence also doesn't justify a free pass for those who wear beards and seek ways to just get away with it without entitlement.


----------



## Neill McKay

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> I would suggest that it is, more often than not, a "pro-regulation movement." If a beard is allowed by dress regulations (such as pioneers _[R.I.P.]_ and sailors), there's not problem.  Likewise, when a _valid and current_ medical chit produced, no issue. Or when when the member belongs to a recognized religious group that includes facial hair as a requirement, not a problem.



Perhaps the anti-beard bias lies in the fact that there are limitations on who may wear a beard in the first place, as you describe above, as opposed to purely operational limitations.

Just out of curiosity, why the RIP after pioneers?


----------



## dapaterson

The CF's challenge, of course, is that its regulations on facial hair are utterly unsupportable on any train of logic.  A single challenge to (shudder) a human rights tribunal will have the CF's leadership explaining that beards are a threat and damaging, unless you are a sailor or member of the EME branch.   Somehow, the hand of providence protects them, while anyone else with a beard is an immediate threat to the good order and discipline of the CF.  This is, of course, absurd and unsupportable.

Our sexist, archaic regulations, based on historical nonsense, are overdue for change - if a single, discreet ear stud is aceptable for a soldier who is female, where is the organizational threat if a man wears one?  If long hair in a braid is acceptable for a woman, why not for a man?  If a vehicle technician is operationally fit when wearing a beard, where is the harm in permitting the Armoured officer comanding the tank under repair to wear one too?

Our dress regs are inconsistent with our modern society.  If we truly view people as equal, then it's time to eliminate occupational and gender-based differences in dress and appearance regulations (*)



(*) With the exception of letting grossly overweight men wear maternity clothes to try to hide their girth


----------



## Michael OLeary

N. McKay said:
			
		

> Just out of curiosity, why the RIP after pioneers?



Because they are no more.


----------



## OldSolduer

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Because they are no more.


Pioneers were taken out of the Infantry Orbat because bigger better minds than my pea brain said that Engineers would always be deployed with Infantry, there fore there was no need for the Pioneers.


----------



## Jarnhamar

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The CF's challenge, of course, is that its regulations on facial hair are utterly unsupportable on any train of logic.  A single challenge to (shudder) a human rights tribunal will have the CF's leadership explaining that beards are a threat and damaging, unless you are a sailor or member of the EME branch.   Somehow, the hand of providence protects them, while anyone else with a beard is an immediate threat to the good order and discipline of the CF.  This is, of course, absurd and unsupportable.
> 
> Our sexist, archaic regulations, based on historical nonsense, are overdue for change - if a single, discreet ear stud is aceptable for a soldier who is female, where is the organizational threat if a man wears one?  If long hair in a braid is acceptable for a woman, why not for a man?  If a vehicle technician is operationally fit when wearing a beard, where is the harm in permitting the Armoured officer comanding the tank under repair to wear one too?
> 
> Our dress regs are inconsistent with our modern society.  If we truly view people as equal, then it's time to eliminate occupational and gender-based differences in dress and appearance regulations (*)
> 
> 
> 
> (*) With the exception of letting grossly overweight men wear maternity clothes to try to hide their girth



 :nod:


----------



## Neill McKay

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Our sexist, archaic regulations, based on historical nonsense, are overdue for change - if a single, discreet ear stud is aceptable for a soldier who is female, where is the organizational threat if a man wears one?  If long hair in a braid is acceptable for a woman, why not for a man?



The answer would be along the lines that the CF projects an image of conservative professionalism and long hair and earrings worn by men are, still, contrary to that.  There's no doubt that they are worn in society but they remain, for the most part, very limited in conservative circles.  A good portion of Canadian society will still see a man with long hair as being somehow disorderly and/or rebellious and/or a hippie and/or any number of other things that are inconsistent with the values that the CF seeks to project.


----------



## mariomike

Pusser said:
			
		

> Food handlers are not necessarily required to wear nets or snoods on their beards.



Sanitation and Hygiene:
Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Beard covers required for meat, fish and dairy workers:
"3.8.3 Sanitary Practices
(4) Every person who enters or is in any area of a registered establishment where a meat product or an ingredient is exposed shall wear a hair covering and, if appropriate, a beard and moustache covering.":
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/meavia/man/ch3/3-8e.shtml

2010
"OTTAWA—A Toronto meat packing plant...
Most other problems spotted by inspectors were less serious, including incomplete records, a cracked conveyor belt, ceiling condensation, peeling paint, an employee not wearing his beard net and “a large chunk of pastrami” stuck in the slicer after the production line had switched over to mortadella.":
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/830221--meat-packing-plant-caught-fudging-best-before-dates

Canadian Food Inspection Agency
2.2.8 Inspection Material and Equipment
"Each inspector must have the following items and use or wear them in the appropriate situations:
Attire: 
"hair and (if applicable) beard covers without holes (not mesh/net types) in good condition":
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/protra/est/ch2e.shtml

Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs:
Beard net: A disposable beard net keeps hair from your beard out of fish products.

Employee Hygiene:
"Employees should wear proper hair restraints, such as a hairnet or beard net":
http://www.nr.gov.nl.ca/agric/fsq/Employee_Hygiene.pdf

Reference:
Marriott, N. G. 1994. Principles of Food Sanitation, Third Edition. Chaplan and Hall. New York, NY.
Canadian Food Inspection Agency

US Navy:
"Military personnel with beards for medical reasons and civilian food service personnel must completely cover their beards with a "snood" or beard bag at all times while preparing, handling and serving food or while cleaning and sanitizing food contact surfaces.":
http://www.brooksidepress.org/Products/OperationalMedicine/DATA/operationalmed/Manuals/food/manual/section7/1-55.htm



			
				Pusser said:
			
		

> Being clean shaven does not make you more hygenic.



"The United States Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps strictly ban beards on the basis of both hygiene and of the necessity of a good seal for gas masks.":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_hair_in_the_military#United_States

"U.S. Troops Question Military No-Beard Rules in Afghanistan":
"The military says it has good reasons for the beard ban for most American troops—including hygiene, soldierly discipline, and the ability to get a good seal on gas masks should troops need them.":
http://politics.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2008/11/17/us-troops-question-military-no-beard-rules-in-afghanistan.html

"The United States Army and Marine Corps banned beards on grounds of personal hygiene just before World War One but they are permitted for medical reasons, such as temporary skin irritations if needed.":
http://www.suite101.com/content/the-decline-of-beards-in-warfare-a4495


----------



## dapaterson

N. McKay said:
			
		

> The answer would be along the lines that the CF projects an image of conservative professionalism and long hair and earrings worn by men are, still, contrary to that.  There's no doubt that they are worn in society but they remain, for the most part, very limited in conservative circles.  A good portion of Canadian society will still see a man with long hair as being somehow disorderly and/or rebellious and/or a hippie and/or any number of other things that are inconsistent with the values that the CF seeks to project.



But to say "We have to look conservative" holds no legal water.  Charter guarantees of equality cut both ways - what military imperative requires men to be clean-shaven with short hair and no earrings?  We have demonstrated that all three of those elements can be accomodated within the CF without impairing operational effectiveness - so why do we maintain regulations that, at face value, are contrary to the Charter?  "We've always done it this way" is not a valid legal claim.


----------



## vonGarvin

"Equal rights" in terms of dress is utter BS IMHO.  Men cut their hair, women wear bras.  Men grow beards, women wear skirts.  Suck it up and do as we say.  I mean, for crying out loud, if you don't like it, I offer you this advice:
*GET OUT OF THE MILITARY AND MAKE ROOM FOR THOSE WHO WILL FOCUS ON THE IMPORTANT STUFF (LIKE BEING A GOOD SOLDIER/SAILOR/AIRMAN/AIRWOMAN).

 GET A SHAVE AND A HAIRCUT WHEN ORDERED TO!*

Remember, the military can order you to do things that other organisations cannot.  And we are expected to have a certain "look".  Being a volunteer force, if I hear one more person whinge about this bullshit, I'm going to have a f*cking coronary!  I mean, honest to God, people.


----------



## vonGarvin

I'll add to this.  There is no reason to wear our uniform (constitutionally) in garrison.  Rank?  Regiment?  Pffft.  Just get a T-Shirt that says "Hi, I'm Sergeant Johnson.  I'm in 2 RCHA".

For crying out loud, I mean, this is the whingiest thread: ever.  It's a beard, people, and "I want to wear it" holds no water.  I want to look like this:








But "the man" won't let me.  Big deal: I signed up for it, so now I look like this:






I CHOSE to join the CF, knowing full well how I would have to dress and make myself look.  So did you (well, the military members reading this).  Suck it up is all I can say.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Technoviking said:
			
		

> "Equal rights" in terms of dress is utter BS IMHO.  Men cut their hair, women wear bras.  Men grow beards, women wear skirts.  Suck it up and do as we say.  I mean, for crying out loud, if you don't like it, I offer you this advice:
> *GET OUT OF THE MILITARY AND MAKE ROOM FOR THOSE WHO WILL FOCUS ON THE IMPORTANT STUFF (LIKE BEING A GOOD SOLDIER/SAILOR/AIRMAN/AIRWOMAN).
> 
> GET A SHAVE AND A HAIRCUT WHEN ORDERED TO!*
> 
> Remember, the military can order you to do things that other organisations cannot.  And we are expected to have a certain "look".  Being a volunteer force, if I hear one more person whinge about this bullshit, I'm going to have a f*cking coronary!  I mean, honest to God, people.




Uhhh, OK, TV, we hear and obey, I guess, but:


----------



## Fishbone Jones

dapaterson said:
			
		

> But to say "We have to look conservative" holds no legal water.  Charter guarantees of equality cut both ways - what military imperative requires men to be clean-shaven with short hair and no earrings?  We have demonstrated that all three of those elements can be accomodated within the CF without impairing operational effectiveness - so why do we maintain regulations that, at face value, are contrary to the Charter?  "We've always done it this way" is not a valid legal claim.



*Uniform* - having the same form, appearance, manner, etc. as others of the same class; conforming to a given standard; being or looking the same in all parts; undiversified


----------



## vonGarvin

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Uhhh, OK, TV, we hear and obey, I guess, but:


(The link failed to load)


----------



## Edward Campbell

Technoviking said:
			
		

> (The link failed to load)




Can you see it now?


----------



## dapaterson

Technoviking said:
			
		

> "Equal rights" in terms of dress is utter BS IMHO.  Men cut their hair, women wear bras.  Men grow beards, women wear skirts.  Suck it up and do as we say.  I mean, for crying out loud, if you don't like it, I offer you this advice:
> *GET OUT OF THE MILITARY AND MAKE ROOM FOR THOSE WHO WILL FOCUS ON THE IMPORTANT STUFF (LIKE BEING A GOOD SOLDIER/SAILOR/AIRMAN/AIRWOMAN).
> 
> GET A SHAVE AND A HAIRCUT WHEN ORDERED TO!*
> 
> Remember, the military can order you to do things that other organisations cannot.  And we are expected to have a certain "look".  Being a volunteer force, if I hear one more person whinge about this bullshit, I'm going to have a f*cking coronary!  I mean, honest to God, people.



The proud old internet technique - "I have neither facts nor compelling argument - so I'll use bold caps in another colour to prove my point".  


Reading the non-yellow part of the text "Men grow beards" - but men are not allowed to grow beards unless they are part of some special groups - for no valid military reason.

No one has been able to demonstrate that a vehicle technician's beard impairs the Army's operational effectiveness.  So why would an Armoured officer's beard destroy the CF?  Or an AVN Tech's beard?

And if beards are open to debate, why not other aspects of dress?  Does a female infrantryman wearing stud earrings on parade impair operational effectiveness?  No?  Then why would a male RSM wearing an earring impair operational effectiveness?

Blind reverence to outdated concepts of "what a soldier should look like" based solely on "because we've never done it that way before" would have us wearing puttees, carrying the Ross Rifle and towing our Iltis behind our warhorse.  The institution evolves and changes.


Obviously, an internet forum is not the place to address these issues - nor would I counsel random acts of disobedience, as few presiding officers at summary trials would entertain motions dealing with the constitutionality of the dress manual.  But the institutional leaders will eventually get dragged kicking and screaming into the 1980s - when men wore their hair long and wore earrings.  And tied an onion to their belts.  Which was the style at the time.


----------



## GAP

I missed the onion thingy.....was it good?  ;D


----------



## George Wallace

So?  How much respect or credibility does this have as a soldier?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The proud old internet technique - "I have neither facts nor compelling argument - so I'll use bold caps in another colour to prove my point".
> 
> 
> Reading the non-yellow part of the text "Men grow beards" - but men are not allowed to grow beards unless they are part of some special groups - for no valid military reason.
> 
> No one has been able to demonstrate that a vehicle technician's beard impairs the Army's operational effectiveness.  So why would an Armoured officer's beard destroy the CF?  Or an AVN Tech's beard?
> 
> And if beards are open to debate, why not other aspects of dress?  Does a female infrantryman wearing stud earrings on parade impair operational effectiveness?  No?  Then why would a male RSM wearing an earring impair operational effectiveness?
> 
> Blind reverence to outdated concepts of "what a soldier should look like" based solely on "because we've never done it that way before" would have us wearing puttees, carrying the Ross Rifle and towing our Iltis behind our warhorse.  The institution evolves and changes.
> 
> 
> Obviously, an internet forum is not the place to address these issues - nor would I counsel random acts of disobedience, as few presiding officers at summary trials would entertain motions dealing with the constitutionality of the dress manual.  But the institutional leaders will eventually get dragged kicking and screaming into the 1980s - when men wore their hair long and wore earrings.  And tied an onion to their belts.  Which was the style at the time.



Well. I guess we can all start dressing like the Corps of Frontiersmen. No need to look 'uniform' no need for dress regs. I'm sure discipline and cohesion will be maintained and not get kicked to the gutter. Oh, wait. You can dress and do whatever the fuck you want. Might as well say piss on it. I'll do my maintenance the way I decide and the rest of my job can be done however the fuck I want also. Report to some arsehole in Ottawa? Sorry, only if I feel like it. You'll have to catch me on Wednesday afternoons, I'm taking spa days the rest of the week. :


----------



## vonGarvin

Of course I went bold, big and yellow, because you don't seem to "get it" and instead cry back to the Charter.  If our concepts seem foreign to you, then get out.  You obviously have better things to do.  Like whinge.  


Allow me to illustrate.  The Armed Forces has an order of dress.  Like it or not, it has changed and evolved, but even though longer hair, earrings on men and face tattoes would not affect our ability to fight as a force, they are not allowed, because we set certain standards, that vary by gender and in some cases by heritage, and that's fine.  I also see that some of our tradition allows for certain trades or branches to have distinctive aspects: navy with beards, highland units with kilts, etc.  It's not a human rights issue to grow your hair.  It's not an operational issue to have it cut, but when the chain of command can legally order its members to "charge that Machine Gun nest", knowing that some will die, I think that beards/no beards is a pretty lame thing to go crying to the Supreme Court about.





ER: Yes, I see it now ;D  And they were ordered to GROW beards.  And they were awesome.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Can you see it now?



And if I recall correctly, it wasn't long after the picture hit the news wire before word from Ottawa came down for them to get properly trimmed and presentable. Pioneers can wear beards, but they still have to fall within the dress regs.


----------



## PuckChaser

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Remember, the military can order you to do things that other organisations cannot.  And we are expected to have a certain "look".  Being a volunteer force, if I hear one more person whinge about this bullshit, I'm going to have a f*cking coronary!  I mean, honest to God, people.



+300 for that. Its just a damn beard. I like having a beard. My fiancee likes me having a beard. Do I have one? Nope, because I can follow the rules and don't want to whine to the MIR to get a no shave chit. Some people have medical reasons not to shave, by all means, keep your beard. Just keep it neatly trimmed and presentable.


----------



## Jarnhamar

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So?  How much respect or credibility does this have as a soldier?


----------



## Michael OLeary

I think the solution is quite simple.

(a) If you're in one of the select groups that Dress Regs allow to have beards, by all means grow one. be prepared to show that you're in one of those groups if someone asks.

(b) If you are not in one of those groups but have a legitimate reason to have a beard, such as a valid and current medical chit, put it on the counter when someone asks and don't bitch about them doing their job by asking.

(c) If you don't fit in (a) or (b) and you still want to grow a beard, man up, get a lawyer and be the guy who goes for the Constitutional challenge.

(d) If you're not in (a) or (b), and don't have the balls for (c), go away because now you're just whining.


----------



## dapaterson

I weep for an institution when the only means for it to change is through an adversarial legal process, instead of internal discussion, debate, and evolution.


If the Charter concepts of equality (admittedly with qualifiers) seem foreign to you, may I suggest that serving a military that is subordinate to that document may not be the best career choice for you.   Perhaps "Loner living in cave, living off the land, with no contact with society (but surrounded by well-painted rocks)" might suit you better, to avoid any contamination from the outside society that's bound by that same Charter.  

Yes, there are many more pressing issues confronting the CF today.  But at some point the CF institutionally will have to move.  It is eminently preferable to make such movement on your own time, in your own way - waiting for a court order to do things in short order means the institution has much less control over its destiny and will generally be more damaging that a self-directed process of change.


The internet (and chat sites like this) are like a good argument debate in the mess (like "Hockey Night in Canadafor the Leafs game?  Or RDS for the Habs game?").  All that's missing is the tap, and thus the chance to buy a drink for your argument partner midway through to keep things going.  So the best I can offer the Technoviking at this time is a virtual pint - and note that, at least, the virtual suds don't have to worry about getting caught in your beard.  >


----------



## canada94

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> I think the solution is quite simple.
> 
> (a) If you're in one of the select groups that Dress Regs allow to have beards, by all means grow one. be prepared to show that you're in one of those groups if someone asks.
> 
> (b) If you are not in one of those groups but have a legitimate reason to have a beard, such as a valid and current medical chit, put it on the counter when someone asks and don't ***** about them doing their job by asking.
> 
> (c) If you don't fit in (a) or (b) and you still want to grow a beard, man up, get a lawyer and be the guy who goes for the Constitutional challenge.
> 
> (d) If you're not in (a) or (b), and don't have the balls for (c), go away because now you're just whining.



This is arguably the greatest thing I have ever read, I just cried laughing for at least 5 minutes. 

Thank you !

mIKE


----------



## Michael OLeary

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I weep for an institution when the only means for it to change is through an adversarial legal process, instead of internal discussion, debate, and evolution.



Yup, but that's where we appear to be with some issues, at least until some agreeable GOFO (you know, those senior dudes that everyone wants to fire in that other thread) gets into a position to overthrow the Dress Policy Committee on this point.  Until then, you'd probably have a better chance trying to fix the DWAN by user-submitted memo.


----------



## dapaterson

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Until then, you'd probably have a better chance trying to fix the DWAN by user-submitted memo.



Hey!  Are you suggesting my DWAN improvement memos don't get read and actionned?


----------



## Michael OLeary

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Hey!  Are you suggesting my DWAN improvement memos don't get read and actioned?



I am quite certain that some action is taken with each and every such memo.


----------



## Jungle

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> I am quite certain that some action is taken with each and every such memo.



I am quite certain that some *one* action is taken with each and every such memo.


----------



## Neill McKay

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Yes, there are many more pressing issues confronting the CF today.  But at some point the CF institutionally will have to move.  It is eminently preferable to make such movement on your own time, in your own way - waiting for a court order to do things in short order means the institution has much less control over its destiny and will generally be more damaging that a self-directed process of change.



The argument of inevitability, if not already known as a logical fallacy, should be.  (I prefer to call it the "barbarians at the gates" argument.)

The truth of it, I would say, is that there are still enough people in Canadian society who think men wearing earrings looks bad -- and men not being allowed to wear earrings is not an unreasonable rule -- that there is no particular pressure to change that rule.  Ditto for the hippie hair.


----------



## Jarnhamar

N. McKay said:
			
		

> The argument of inevitability, if not already known as a logical fallacy, should be.  (I prefer to call it the "barbarians at the gates" argument.)
> 
> The truth of it, I would say, is that there are still enough people in Canadian society who think men wearing earrings looks bad -- and men not being allowed to wear earrings is not an unreasonable rule -- that there is no particular pressure to change that rule.  Ditto for the hippie hair.



I can throw out a few things that we allow in uniform that looks a heck of a lot worse than some dude with an earing.


----------



## OldSolduer

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> I can throw out a few things that we allow in uniform that looks a heck of a lot worse than some dude with an earing.


So can I, like the oversize ones, of both sexes.

But we're not talking about ear rings. As far as I'm concerned ear rings belong on women. If civilian males wish to wear them, fine. 
Not in our Army.


----------



## Edward Campbell

:stop:


----------



## OldSolduer

My apologies. Got derailed.


----------



## vonGarvin

Modified to stop.



And for any person wishing to buy me suds to make amends: save your effort.  I'll kindly drink elsewhere, thank you very much.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Well, there goes _another_ nice family dinner ruined.


----------



## Foxhound

@ recceguy: Zing!  ;D

Further to my last, and again back in the day...

Which were, by the way, the late 70's - early 80's.  Back then, your average guy sported acres of feather-cut, blow-dried, heavily-sprayed, (probably dyed,) curling-ironed, saloned and permed tonsorial ellegance.  To which were usually added; sideburns, (almost to the point of being muttonchops,) moustaches that reached down below the jawline, left-over hippie beards, and really stupid-looking clothes, in any combination.

Back then, the clean-cut look visually separated my tribe from the others, and that's pretty much the way we liked it.  The only ones in the unit that wanted to grow beards, were those Pioneers who were comfortable with them, and those that really, really wanted beards.  But not so they would look like Pioneers!  No, "It's the windburn from all the stand-to's we did on that last winter ex.  Broiled my face, man!"

Probably not the same thing today though.  I mean, your average guy, well, there isn't one, is there?  What's average?  Clean-shaven?  Long-hair?  Short?  Van-Dyke beard?  Mustache?  Makeup?  Facial tattoo?  Skull piercings?  Nostril piercings?  Dopey chains connecting your skull piercings to your nostril piercings?  (Buddy, I want to be YOUR hand-to-hand instructor!)

So, how about this?  We, (you  ) as a uniformed body, set a uniform standard, that is easy to follow, allowing for boys and girls, Sikhs and Satanists, and do the best with that.  Individual cases should be dealt with using a reasonable amount of common sense when it comes to sorting out the ones that really, really want a beard"have a bad infection from that sand flea that bit me here on my jaw", from the ones that actually need to be able to allow the beard to grow to be comfortable and operational in the field.  Allowances to be made for tradition,*cough* Navy *cough* of course.  ;D


----------



## dogger1936

Ihonestly have to say I agree with DApaterson, and he makes some very valid points. After training in germany we seen some wacky haircuts by some of our instructors. From EMO haircuts,mohawks etc. It did effect their teaching first as we were all...."hey that guy looks differnt!!" However their instruction was top notch once we got past that.

After a few bubbly wasser we got asking them about their dress regulations. basically they touch up their looks on their facial hair if there is a large parade however other than that they are free to do as they please.

The uniformity rules of the past were easy to enforce without anyone asking questions. Why do we all have to shave our beards? Cause everyone does. Why can't we wear earings in the mess? Cause everyone does. What we have created with our regulations is a mix of many cultures (some natives growning hair long, Metis with pony tails, Muslims with beards, women with earrings, cornroll haircuts,women with VERY unnatural hair colours disregarding the regs in other units (see em at tim hortons in passing), etc etc etc)


Basically we have created a pile of exceptions. Does having a beard make anyone less of a leader? in my mind no. Does a first nations male member with long braids of hair make him less effective than a woman soldier with long hair? I think not.

 I remember getting a safety breif from a pioneer back in the late 90's in gagetown that resembled ZZ top, fought with soldiers in Afganistan with handlebar mustaches. yet growing a modest beard, or a goatee is inapproperate and a safety hazard?

I think DAPATERSON has a great point of asking the question WHY. Luckly there are officers like him who wonders why policy is in place. I personally just enforce the policy in the dress regulations on my small amount of subordinates. I hope one day we will get away from stringent personal grooming standards. It doesnt effect anything. A white guy with a beard looks no differnt than a muslim with a beard. One is because of religion one would be due to choice. The standards are there for beards....why can't we use one rule for all?


----------



## Pusser

mariomike said:
			
		

> Sanitation and Hygiene:
> Canadian Food Inspection Agency
> Beard covers required for meat, fish and dairy workers:
> "3.8.3 Sanitary Practices
> (4) Every person who enters or is in any area of a registered establishment where a meat product or an ingredient is exposed shall wear a hair covering and, if appropriate, a beard and moustache covering.":
> http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/meavia/man/ch3/3-8e.shtml
> 
> 2010
> "OTTAWA—A Toronto meat packing plant...
> Most other problems spotted by inspectors were less serious, including incomplete records, a cracked conveyor belt, ceiling condensation, peeling paint, an employee not wearing his beard net and “a large chunk of pastrami” stuck in the slicer after the production line had switched over to mortadella.":
> http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/830221--meat-packing-plant-caught-fudging-best-before-dates
> 
> Canadian Food Inspection Agency
> 2.2.8 Inspection Material and Equipment
> "Each inspector must have the following items and use or wear them in the appropriate situations:
> Attire:
> "hair and (if applicable) beard covers without holes (not mesh/net types) in good condition":
> http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/protra/est/ch2e.shtml
> 
> Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs:
> Beard net: A disposable beard net keeps hair from your beard out of fish products.
> 
> Employee Hygiene:
> "Employees should wear proper hair restraints, such as a hairnet or beard net":
> http://www.nr.gov.nl.ca/agric/fsq/Employee_Hygiene.pdf
> 
> Reference:
> Marriott, N. G. 1994. Principles of Food Sanitation, Third Edition. Chaplan and Hall. New York, NY.
> Canadian Food Inspection Agency
> 
> US Navy:
> "Military personnel with beards for medical reasons and civilian food service personnel must completely cover their beards with a "snood" or beard bag at all times while preparing, handling and serving food or while cleaning and sanitizing food contact surfaces.":
> http://www.brooksidepress.org/Products/OperationalMedicine/DATA/operationalmed/Manuals/food/manual/section7/1-55.htm
> 
> "The United States Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps strictly ban beards on the basis of both hygiene and of the necessity of a good seal for gas masks.":
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_hair_in_the_military#United_States
> 
> "U.S. Troops Question Military No-Beard Rules in Afghanistan":
> "The military says it has good reasons for the beard ban for most American troops—including hygiene, soldierly discipline, and the ability to get a good seal on gas masks should troops need them.":
> http://politics.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2008/11/17/us-troops-question-military-no-beard-rules-in-afghanistan.html
> 
> "The United States Army and Marine Corps banned beards on grounds of personal hygiene just before World War One but they are permitted for medical reasons, such as temporary skin irritations if needed.":
> http://www.suite101.com/content/the-decline-of-beards-in-warfare-a4495



Most of the Canadian references here deal with processing plants, which I'm not talking about.  Although you will see the odd person wearing a beard net in some restaurants, it is by no means universal and I have never seen a bearded cook in the CF (and there are plenty) wearing a beard net.

Just because the guys who wrote the rules for the US Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps thinks beards are unhygenic, doesn't make it so.  The hair on your face is no more unhygenic than the hair on the top of your head.  Following the logic of some here, we should all be bathing in Neet on a regular basis.


----------



## Pusser

Technoviking said:
			
		

> "Equal rights" in terms of dress is utter BS IMHO.  Men cut their hair, women wear bras.  Men grow beards, women wear skirts.  Suck it up and do as we say.  I mean, for crying out loud, if you don't like it, I offer you this advice:
> *GET OUT OF THE MILITARY AND MAKE ROOM FOR THOSE WHO WILL FOCUS ON THE IMPORTANT STUFF (LIKE BEING A GOOD SOLDIER/SAILOR/AIRMAN/AIRWOMAN).
> 
> GET A SHAVE AND A HAIRCUT WHEN ORDERED TO!*
> 
> Remember, the military can order you to do things that other organisations cannot.  And we are expected to have a certain "look".  Being a volunteer force, if I hear one more person whinge about this bullshit, I'm going to have a f*cking coronary!  I mean, honest to God, people.



Following orders is not the issue here.  What is at issue is whether those orders ought to be given in the first place.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Pusser said:
			
		

> Following orders is not the issue here.  What is at issue is whether those orders ought to be given in the first place.



Since an order to shave is not illegal to give, not unethical to give and not immoral (as long as we're only talking about men's facial hair), then the issue is actually to establish what mechanisms are available to a CF member to officially express their opinion that they _don't like_ the order.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Pusser said:
			
		

> Following orders is not the issue here.  What is at issue is whether those orders ought to be given in the first place.





			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Since an order to shave is not illegal to give, not unethical to give and not immoral (as long as we're only talking about men's facial hair), then the issue is actually to establish what mechanisms are available to a CF member to officially express their opinion that they _don't like_ the order.


As the regulation and criteria are still on the books, if there is doubt as to the veracity of the wearer's motives and said motives can't be proven to satisfy the criteria (chit, religion, etc), the regulation wins and the order is legal and allowed, and should be given.


----------



## dapaterson

... just beware of ordering someone to remove their headdress for a prayer...


----------



## Michael OLeary

dapaterson said:
			
		

> ... just beware of ordering someone to remove their headdress for a prayer...



So you recommend that I wear a beard, get charged, court martialed and convicted, and hope to win on appeal for my "right" to .... uh, that's the part I can't figure out.  Which one of my rights is being violated again?


----------



## dapaterson

Sigh.  I left out the  

I have previously stated that I do not advise seeking a court martial to alter the regulations.  It can be a somewhat stressful process (or so I've been told).  (Besides, in reading the court martial transcript and appeal ruling it's clear that Lt(N) Scott clearly informed his chain of command well in advance and they ignored him.)


There are existing rule and regulations that we should follow.  That does not mean that we should blindly close our eyes and ears and ignore change around us that the institution of the CF needs to assess and integrate.  If we see a fault in the CF, should we pass it?


Army.Ca is an unofficial site, not associated with DND or the CF.  It's a place where people with an interest in Canada's military can discuss, debate, argue and socialize about issues facing the military.  This is a discussion/debate/argument about lumberjack commandos beards in the CF.  It's not an official CANFORGEN announcing a ZZ-Top look-alike context for CF members.  It's not anyone passing orders or asserting any military authority or stating "I am making an official statement on behalf of the CF".  It's a gang of people expressing opinions.


As to which of your rights is being violated:  it's that pesky "equality" thing - why should a land-based MARS officer or a vechicle technician be permitted to express themself with a beard (within parameters spelled out in regulation) while you are not?  What Bona Fide Operational Requirement (the test used to determine legitimacy) exists that demonstrates that a beard on your face would impair the operational effectiveness of the CF?


----------



## GAP

Is not the Netherlands allowed to wear beards? I noticed it in the pics of the articles I posted....have they always been able to, or was there a transition? If there was a transition, was it as contentious as it would seem to be in Canada?

just saying....... ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones

GAP said:
			
		

> Is not the Netherlands allowed to wear beards? I noticed it in the pics of the articles I posted....have they always been able to, or was there a transition? If there was a transition, was it as contentious as it would seem to be in Canada?
> 
> just saying....... ;D



It was a concession won by the draftee's union. Yup, you read that right.


----------



## Michael OLeary

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Sigh.  I left out the



No worries, it's not like I'm taking this seriously.   




			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> As to which of your rights is being violated:  it's that pesky "equality" thing - why should a land-based MARS officer or a vechicle technician be permitted to express themself with a beard (within parameters spelled out in regulation) while you are not?  What Bona Fide Operational Requirement (the test used to determine legitimacy) exists that demonstrates that a beard on your face would impair the operational effectiveness of the CF?



Oh, the right to equality of self expression, I know that one.   ;D


----------



## Jarnhamar

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Army.Ca is an unofficial site, not associated with DND or the CF.  It's a place where people with an interest in Canada's military can discuss, debate, argue and socialize about issues facing the military.  This is a discussion/debate/argument about lumberjack commandos beards in the CF.  It's not an official CANFORGEN announcing a ZZ-Top look-alike context for CF members.  It's not anyone passing orders or asserting any military authority or stating "I am making an official statement on behalf of the CF".  It's a gang of people expressing opinions.



IMHO it used to be this way, feels a little more official the last couple of years.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> IMHO it used to be this way, feels a little more official the last couple of years.



How so? Is it because some people decide that they would rather tow the party line instead of rise up against the establishment at every opportunity? That would be their perogative.


----------



## vonGarvin

dapaterson said:
			
		

> As to which of your rights is being violated:  it's that pesky "equality" thing - why should a land-based MARS officer or a vechicle technician be permitted to express themself with a beard (within parameters spelled out in regulation) while you are not?  What Bona Fide Operational Requirement (the test used to determine legitimacy) exists that demonstrates that a beard on your face would impair the operational effectiveness of the CF?


You know what I hear?  "Whinge, whinge, whinge".  If you want to know what operational imperative states that male infantry officers who aren't sikh or native must not have beards: there are none.  Nada, zero, zilch.  So, here's my advice to you: suck it up OR you can convert to whichever religion states that you must have a beard.  If you want to wear ear rings, put in for a sex change: it's your right!  Hell, put on a face tattoo so that you look like Darth Maul for all I care!  And tattoo some obscenities on it: it's your right!  

Someone call 911, I'm having a coronary!

Like it or not, you were not forced into service.  Neither were you forced into the army/navy/airforce.  It's your choice.  Upon entering, you were told that you would be expected to look a certain way, etc.  So, if for other than tradtional reasons, gender reasons, or cultural reasons, you will be clean shaven.  Yes, I know, "the Charter!".  So bloody what.  


Fucking entitlement my ass.  Get out if you don't like it.  And if you think it's inequality, go to divorce court sometime and sit in the back and see how differently men and women are treated.  Or check out how natives are treated under our laws.  Life ain't fair, and then it ends.  

In a world full of starving children, etc, your complaint that your rights are violated is about the lamest I've heard in quite some time.  Yes, I have seen your sig block, so this is MY opinion:

Having a certain "look" based on gender, culture or traditional trade within the CF is how we project a professional look.  And though you don't like it: looks matter.


----------



## Blackadder1916

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> . . .
> The uniformity rules of the past were easy to enforce without anyone asking questions. Why do we all have to shave our beards? Cause everyone does. Why can't we wear earings in the mess? Cause everyone does. What we have created with our regulations is a mix of many cultures (some natives growning hair long, Metis with pony tails, Muslims with beards, women with earrings, cornroll haircuts,women with VERY unnatural hair colours disregarding the regs in other units (see em at tim hortons in passing), etc etc etc)
> 
> Basically we have created a pile of exceptions. Does having a beard make anyone less of a leader? in my mind no. Does a first nations male member with long braids of hair make him less effective than a woman soldier with long hair? I think not.
> 
> I remember getting a safety breif from a pioneer back in the late 90's in gagetown that resembled ZZ top, fought with soldiers in Afganistan with handlebar mustaches. yet growing a modest beard, or a goatee is inapproperate and a safety hazard?
> 
> I think DAPATERSON has a great point of asking the question WHY. Luckly there are officers like him who wonders why policy is in place. I personally just enforce the policy in the dress regulations on my small amount of subordinates. I hope one day we will get away from stringent personal grooming standards. It doesnt effect anything. A white guy with a beard looks no differnt than a muslim with a beard. One is because of religion one would be due to choice. The standards are there for beards....why can't we use one rule for all?



Paraphrasing Will Shakespeare.

You should be women soldiers,
And yet your beards forbid me to interpret
That you are so. 
(Macbeth Act 1 Scene 3)

The turn in this discussion reminded me that I posted a comment (that followed a similar vein) in another thread a couple of years ago.  I’ve highlighted yellow those portions that would be (IMO) relevant to this ‘pogonotic’ argument.



			
				Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> The discussion in this thread has oft strayed from the topic of the opening post to a discussion about unfair application of dress regulations (particularly hairstyles) in the CF.  Perhaps the mods should split this off.
> 
> But here I go, wading into it anyway.  This is not a new discussion and in fact was probably the most common point brought up when I conducted "Diversity Training" back in the 90s.  Though women in field units were relatively common by then, turbaned Sikhs weren't and braids for soldiers of aboriginal ancestry were just being authorized.
> 
> The close cropped look affected by soldiers is not new and while there was “some” basis for its adoption (and codification in regulation) as a means of preventing disease, it is not the whole story, nor was it probably the primary reason.  Military fashion (including hairstyles) has usually been a conservative reflection of civilian styles, though often with a lag of a few years.  I found this quote from a noted costume historian, "In the perspective of costume history, it is plain that the dress of any given period is exactly suited to the actual climate of the time."
> 
> We put people into uniforms for reasons of identification and tradition.  Generally, adopting a similarly conservative hairstyle also suits that purpose.  That a short hairstyle is easier to keep clean is an added benefit, one that was also evident to civilians who adopted it.  It should be mentioned that standards of personal cleanliness in the past (whether military or civilian) were not at the level practised today, nor was it as easy to keep clean back then even if one wanted to.
> 
> I've tried to find some of the reference material I used back then when discussing this topic but it may have been trashed in a subsequent move.  In essence the point I would try to make was that we want male soldiers to look (and act) like (small c)conservative males, females to look like conservative females; if someone (either male or female) has valid, traditional religious or spiritual reasons why they should deviate from that norm, then we want them to look like a conservative practitioner of that religious or spiritual tradition.  It has often been discussed about the religious basis for Sikhs' dress and hair; the authorization of braids for Aboriginals was based on a legitimately recognized "spiritual" (religious?) tradition of long hair.  Acknowledging that the military needs more than males of white, European, Christian descent is not pandering or accommodating; it is recognizing reality.
> 
> I tried to find something on the net about the historical basis of short military hair styles that I could quote in my argument, but found nothing that particularly suited.  Here, however, are a couple of things that may give some perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> In August 1914, I was a full Lieutenant of twenty-six.  It was to take the experiences of the 1914-18 war to show me what was wrong in the Army.   My battalion mobilized at Shorncliffe.  The mobilization scheme provided, amongst other things, that all officers’ swords were to go to the armourers’ shop for sharpening. It was not clear to me why, since I had never used my sword except for saluting.  But of course I obeyed the order and my sword was made sharp for war.  The C.O. said that in war it was advisable to have short hair since it was easier to keep it clean; he had all his hair removed with the clippers by the regimental barber and looked an amazing sight; personally I had mine cut decently by a barber in Folkestone.  Being totally ignorant about the war, I asked the C.O. if it was necessary to take any money with me; he said money was useless in war as everything was provided for you.  I was somewhat uncertain about this and decided to take ten pounds with me in gold.  Later I was to find this invaluable, and *was glad I had not followed his advice about either hair or money*.
> 
> 
> 
> That was the perspective of a young Subaltern in the Royal Warwickshire Regiment by the name of Montgomery.  Wonder what became of him?
> 
> http://badgersforward.blogspot.com/2008/03/prince-harry-and-military-culture.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last fall I worked with a British Army Captain and we discussed this very issue. *According to him a British Army officer would never have a "high and tight" or shaved head because it indicates that one cannot afford a proper haircut*. He told me only a "squadie" would have such a haircut. Additionally he said the Blues and Royals have a tradition of even longer hair than the norm.
> 
> Of course extremely short hair has not always been the norm in the US Army, in fact it is a recent phenomenon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The highlighted sentence may even be a partial explanation why soldiers of past times had such atrociously bad haircuts.  It was cheaper to crop it short, (even when you had to put on a powdered wig in the fashion of the day).
Click to expand...


The appearance of soldiers (and sailors and the johnny-come-lately airmen) is very much a reflection of society (i.e. a  community standard).  If you compare the pictures of those bearded soldiers in the Crimea or South Africa with contemporary photos of political leaders (or 'ordinary' citizens) you'll probably see a similarity in facial hair; likewise for the wars of the 20th century.  There may be some safety or hygiene aspect to restrictions on beards (or long hair) but if it could be quantified it would probably amount to no more than 15% of the justification.  Faintly recalling some statistics from one of the NBCD courses (operator? officer?) I attended years ago, some studies indicated that there was an 5% to 15% increased chance of a bearded person not achieving a seal with a mask.

I also had experiences similar to you:


> . . .  After training in germany we seen some wacky haircuts by some of our instructors. From EMO haircuts,mohawks etc. It did effect their teaching first as we were all...."hey that guy looks differnt!!" However their instruction was top notch once we got past that.
> 
> After a few bubbly wasser we got asking them about their dress regulations. basically they touch up their looks on their facial hair if there is a large parade however other than that they are free to do as they please.



But those European "hippie" soldiers and likewise hirsute members of the IDF were conscripts and/or mandatory reservists.  I don't recall meeting one "professional" soldier of any of those military forces who did not maintain grooming standards similar to ours.  What one was allowed (either by regulation or custom) was considerably different between those who made a career in their militaries and those who were there primarily because the law demanded it.


----------



## Pusser

Thanks Blackadder1916 for an interesting read. :nod:  I have often made similar arguments in mess discussions (although without specific references).  I 've always thought it was interesting how military uniform fashions have usually followed civilian fashion (albeit a tad more gaudily adorned), right up until about 1960.  It seems that at about that time, military uniforms in Canada came to a screeching halt in maintaining semblance to civilian fashion.  After that we seemed to almost rebel against civilian fashion.  I remember when I joined and wider-legged, unpleated pants were fashionable, but we in the CF wore taper-legged pleated trousers.  However, just as civilian fashion came back around to tapered legs and pleats (fashion being cyclical), the CF immediately switched (or so it seemed) to wider legs without pleats! :  What can you do?

When I worked with the British Army in the late 90s, I noticed how their hair was always a bit longer than ours (i.e. beyond that point at which the coxswain would be having a stern conversation with you) and it was explained that this was to help soldiers blend in with the local society a bit more.  The IRA threat was still very real then and British Army personnel did not wear uniforms in public and those going on bus trips were always told to wear "civvy tops" when on board so as to not look like soldiers.  Although this concept was completely defeated when we boarded what one of my British Army colleagues described as a "big red British Army blow-me-up bus!" :  Even today, British Army officers tend to wear their hair longer than the soldiers do.


----------



## iciphil

Hi, I'm the original poster.

I realize the tone of the message was biased and for that I apologize. Furthermore, it sent the conversation in directions that I did not intend to.

My point is, being responsible, how do I make sure such a call is legit? ie: Because when there's a doubt about gun drill, I check the gun's BGL. But how in hell do I validate such an order ? Where do I look too? Canforgens, Landforgens? something else?

Just trying to find the source and be sure it is a legitimate order.  Of course i'll obey my superior, but it is my duty if I so want to find the source, and either defend myself through proper means, or just shut up and don't bother.

I'm in theatre now so, all's good for me.

thanks, 10 pages is quite something.


----------



## vonGarvin

iciphil said:
			
		

> Hi, I'm the original poster.
> 
> I realize the tone of the message was biased and for that I apologize. Furthermore, it sent the conversation in directions that I did not intend to.
> 
> My point is, being responsible, how do I make sure such a call is legit? ie: Because when there's a doubt about gun drill, I check the gun's BGL. But how in hell do I validate such an order ? Where do I look too? Canforgens, Landforgens? something else?
> 
> Just trying to find the source and be sure it is a legitimate order.  Of course i'll obey my superior, but it is my duty if I so want to find the source, and either defend myself through proper means, or just shut up and don't bother.
> 
> I'm in theatre now so, all's good for me.
> 
> thanks, 10 pages is quite something.


First of all, take care over there!  And thank you for your service!  As for how to validate an order... I'm not sure.  I'm certain we'll get back to you.

In the mean time, watch your acs, and give 'em Hell!


----------



## TN2IC

Technoviking said:
			
		

> In the mean time, watch your acs, and give 'em Hell!



Good hunting... I"ll be watching my arcs too.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Don't forget to blouse your pants!


----------



## LoKe

I'm in the Navy, currently posted to Kingston, and I'm required to submit a memo in order to keep the beard I've had for two years.   Does anyone happen to have a copy of such a memo they could let me use?  Or point me in the right direction (as far as supporting references and justification)?

I would really appreciate the help!


----------



## LoKe

The ref is A-AD-265-000/AG-001, under Section 2, under paragraph 5. a (3) (a), how do you write that in as a reference?

Would this be proper?

Ref:  a.  A-AD-265-000/AG-001, page 2-2-3, para 3a


----------



## Michael OLeary

Ref A: A-AD-265-000/AG-001 Canadian Forces Dress Instructions

In your text, you can mention that _"Ref A, page 2-2-3, para 3a states ....."_


----------



## LoKe

Thank you very much!


----------



## armyvern

Let's see ...

You're posted to Kingston, wear a Navy uniform ... and are being required to submit a memo to keep your beard??

Exactly what Unit are you with?? As a guy wearing a Naval uniform, you do not have to request permission to have a beard everywhere you serve/every posting to new Unit. That would be like telling women they need new memos for long hair every time they switch jobs/units. You only need to request if you are clean shaven and are going back to having a beard.

From the CFDIs:

(Ch 6, Sec 2)



> (3) Beards (see Figure 2-2-2) (3) Barbe (voir figure 2-2-2)
> (a) Subject to procedures established
> by commanders of commands,
> permission to wear a beard shall
> only be granted to all ranks who
> wear the naval uniform, wherever
> serving; all ranks on strength of an
> infantry pioneer platoon; adherents
> of the Sikh religion (see Section 3);
> and personnel, on the direction of a
> medical officer, subject to medical
> reassessment at intervals not
> exceeding six months. Other
> personnel shall shave off their
> beards.
> (a) Conformément à la procédure
> établie par les commandants et les
> commandements, la permission de
> porter la barbe n’est accordée
> qu’aux militaires portant l’uniforme
> de la marine, et ce, peu importe
> l’endroit où ils servent; qu’aux
> militaires faisant partie d’un peloton
> de pionniers de l’infanterie; qu’aux
> adeptes de la religion sikh (voir
> section 3); qu’au personnel ayant
> reçu des directives d’un médecin
> militaire en vue d’un réévaluation
> médicale dans au plus six mois.
> Tous les autres militaires doivent
> être rasés.
> (b) Where beards are authorized, they
> shall be worn with a moustache;
> kept neatly trimmed, especially on
> the lower neck and cheekbones;
> and not exceed 2.5 cm (1 in.) in
> bulk.
> (b) Lorsque le port de la barbe est
> autorisé, elle doit être
> accompagnée de la moustache,
> être bien taillée, particulièrement à
> la base du cou et sur les joues, et
> ne pas avoir plus de 2.5 cm (1 po)
> d’épaisseur.
> (c) When a beard is grown or removed,
> identification documents shall be
> replaced in accordance with
> security regulations


----------



## LoKe

My original memo seems to have gone missing, and I've since been loaded on course and a memo is required.


----------



## armyvern

LoKe said:
			
		

> My original memo seems to have gone missing, and I've since been loaded on course and a memo is required.



Do you or do you not already have a beard?

If you do, print a copy of the ref and show it to your Section Comd; you do not require a memo as a naval uniform wearing pers to keep a beard that you already have.


----------



## LoKe

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Do you or do you not already have a beard?
> 
> If you do, print a copy of the ref and show it to your Section Comd; you do not require a memo as a naval uniform wearing pers to keep a beard that you already have.


I do have it currently, but I have no proof that I was ever allowed to have the beard.  Maybe I'm confused but the refs seem to indicate I at least need permission, and my staff requires that I have a memo.


----------



## armyvern

LoKe said:
			
		

> I do have it currently, but I have no proof that I was ever allowed to have the beard.  Maybe I'm confused but the refs seem to indicate I at least need permission, and my staff requires that I have a memo.



You're Navy!! Personnel wearing the Naval uniform are allowed to wear beards ... unless shipboard (due to FF apparatus) or other operational requirement.

I will also guarantee you that your instructors are well aware of that factoid.


----------



## Michael OLeary

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> m
> You're Navy!! Personnel wearing the Naval uniform are allowed to wear beards ... unless shipboard (due to FF apparatus) or other operational requirement.
> 
> I will also guarantee you that your instructors are well aware of that factoid.



You're right Vern, but he's probably caught by some generic "everyone on the course with a beard needs a memo", whether the justification is a quote from the Dress Manual or an attached chit from their unit MO (for the med excuses),


----------



## Ex Lorne

Just to throw this out there...

CFSU(Ottawa) Home > Standing Orders state...

http://www.cfsuo.forces.gc.ca/so-op/soc-opc-03-eng.asp

Beards: Navy personnel who wish to grow full beards shall request permission in writing to discontinue shaving from their Commanding Officer/Commandant. In arriving at a decision, the Commanding Officer/Commandant shall take into account the ability of the individual to grow a beard, in addition to other service requirements. When permission has been granted, the member shall:
be issued with written authority to discontinue shaving;
not appear in public in uniform until the Commanding Officer/Commandant has approved the beard. When traveling between residence and place of duty, member shall be in civilian clothes regardless of the method of travel;
within 30 days of permission being granted to discontinue shaving, appear before his Commanding Officer or delegated authority for an assessment of acceptability of the beard for wear with CF uniform in public; if the beard is unsatisfactory, permission to discontinue shaving shall be rescinded; and
retain the beard for a minimum of 12 months and get a new military identification.


----------



## armyvern

Ex Lorne said:
			
		

> Just to throw this out there...
> 
> CFSU(Ottawa) Home > Standing Orders state...
> 
> http://www.cfsuo.forces.gc.ca/so-op/soc-opc-03-eng.asp
> 
> Beards: Navy personnel who wish to grow full beards shall request permission in writing to discontinue shaving from their Commanding Officer/Commandant. In arriving at a decision, the Commanding Officer/Commandant shall take into account the ability of the individual to grow a beard, in addition to other service requirements. When permission has been granted, the member shall:
> be issued with written authority to discontinue shaving;
> not appear in public in uniform until the Commanding Officer/Commandant has approved the beard. When traveling between residence and place of duty, member shall be in civilian clothes regardless of the method of travel;
> within 30 days of permission being granted to discontinue shaving, appear before his Commanding Officer or delegated authority for an assessment of acceptability of the beard for wear with CF uniform in public; if the beard is unsatisfactory, permission to discontinue shaving shall be rescinded; and
> retain the beard for a minimum of 12 months and get a new military identification.



Yes. For Naval pers wishing to grow a beard (ie: those who wish to DISCONTINUE shaving) ...

He is Navy and already HAS the beard. His new Unit is requesting a memo ... not required.


----------



## OldSolduer

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> You're right Vern, but he's probably caught by some generic "everyone on the course with a beard needs a memo", whether the justification is a quote from the Dress Manual or an attached chit from their unit MO (for the med excuses),



And common sense be damned!!


----------



## Michael OLeary

If it was common we wouldn't spend so much time talking about it.


----------



## PuckChaser

He's going to CFSCE, its a quagmire of wierd rules sometimes.


----------



## dapaterson

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> He's going to CFSCE, its a quagmire of weird rules sometimes.




Fixed that for you.

(Though the whole "quagmire of weird rules" can be applied to the whole of Kingston, it seems...)


----------



## OldSolduer

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> If it was common we wouldn't spend so much time talking about it.



You, sir, are correct! 



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> He's going to CFSCE, its a quagmire of wierd rules sometimes.



Signals Corp, weird rules....sounds like the entire CF somedays!!


----------



## Occam

By no means am I actually advocating that you do this, but I would continue sending them back to the Dress Manual until they get it through their skulls that you submit a request to cease shaving, not to request to continue to cease shaving.  Somewhere along the line, common sense has gotten a swift kick in the 'nads.  You probably showed up for course after a day or two of travel.  Unless you're Cro-Magnon man, you didn't grow the beard while in transit, and you probably didn't get your ID card changed without having to produce your memo.  Your staff needs to find something productive to do without creating additional administrative workload.

If my days in uniform weren't numbered, I'd grow a beard myself and get myself loaded on a course down at CFSCE so that I could watch a few heads explode from the migraines that I'd cause.  I wish to hell that someone would strangle the living crap out of the stupidity that seems to be infecting several organizations.


----------



## ModlrMike

LoKe said:
			
		

> I do have it currently, but I have no proof that I was ever allowed to have the beard.  Maybe I'm confused but the refs seem to indicate I at least need permission, and my staff requires that I have a memo.



Is your initial request not on your Pers file or even UER? Notwithstanding rather than tie yourself up in knots, submit the memo with the reference provided here, and carry on. Something simple and succinct, no more that one or two sentences. Attach the reference to your memo.

Sometimes it's easier to cave into stupidity than fight it. The unfortunate outcome is that the stupidity persists. As someone wiser than me said:

"Never argue with a fool, someone watching might not be able to tell the difference between you."

That being said, I agree that you shouldn't have to go through this.


----------



## Sig_Des

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> He's going to CFSCE, its a quagmire of wierd rules sometimes.



Or to quote a General I once heard "a conundrum of ***kery"


----------



## Occam

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Is your initial request not on your Pers file or even UER? Notwithstanding rather than tie yourself up in knots, submit the memo with the reference provided here, and carry on. Something simple and succinct, no more that one or two sentences. Attach the reference to your memo.
> 
> Sometimes it's easier to cave into stupidity than fight it. The unfortunate outcome is that the stupidity persists.



This is definitely the easiest, and probably best course of action.  Personally, I'm not one to make things easy for those who fail to learn from their mistakes and employ common sense whenever possible.  >


----------



## Gunner98

Sample shaving request from a Naval School is attached that may assist you.


----------



## LoKe

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> Sample shaving request from a Naval School is attached that may assist you.


Thanks for that!


----------



## ModlrMike

Occam said:
			
		

> Personally, I'm not one to make things easy for those who fail to learn from their mistakes and employ common sense whenever possible.  >




Normally, neither am I. It comes down to three words though:

cost benefit ratio


----------



## BernDawg

Are you sporting a beard on your ID?  If so, I would imagine it's case closed. If not then I see where the request for authorization is coming from. Either way good luck. I always disliked the "on this course" mentality experienced at some institutions.


----------



## Ex Lorne

BernDawg said:
			
		

> Are you sporting a beard on your ID?  If so, I would imagine it's case closed. If not then I see where the request for authorization is coming from. Either way good luck. I always disliked the "on this course" mentality experienced at some institutions.



That is a good point... if your ID card has a beard, the you should be good to go!  But of course if it doesn't, well then i can see where your staff is coming from.

as they say.... "It is what it is"!


----------



## LoKe

I appreciate all the assistance, but the matter is closed.  My memo was returned to me today, denied on the basis that I'm a QL3 student.


----------



## Occam

LoKe said:
			
		

> I appreciate all the assistance, but the matter is closed.  My memo was returned to me today, denied on the basis that I'm a QL3 student.



Denied by whom?

That's odd, I don't recall seeing anything in CFP 265 about QL3 students not being allowed to wear beards.  A lot of things about the C&E trades are starting to make sense now that I've seen some of the stuff coming out of CFSCE.


----------



## LoKe

I'm not even really sure.  The memo stopped half way up the chain.  The QL3 course director put a minute on the memo not recommending approval, and it was given back to me.


----------



## Occam

Now that's interesting.  Whoever your QL3 course director is likely doesn't have authority to grant or deny your request, so they shouldn't be intercepting your correspondence addressed to the CO/Commandant and firing it back at you.  What rank is this course director?


----------



## OldSolduer

LoKe said:
			
		

> I'm not even really sure.  The memo stopped half way up the chain.  The QL3 course director put a minute on the memo not recommending approval, and it was given back to me.



That's BS - it should have been forwarded to the Commandant, or the RSM. NOT the course director.


----------



## LoKe

I'm going to try and deal with this properly on my own end and see what recourse there is, rather than dropping names and ranks and make this a bigger issue than it is.  The biggest confusion that I have is that the memo is dressed to the Tp WO.  I see two minutes on the memo, one recommending from an instructor, and one not recommending from the course director.  I thought there had to be a minute from the Tp WO denying it outright.

I'll redress it to the school commandant and see what happens.  I doubt it'll even make it back up the chain.


----------



## Occam

The Tp WO does NOT have the authority to grant or deny permission to cease shaving.  Only the CO/Commandant (as the case may be) has the authority to grant or deny the request.  Now, it's entirely possible that the CO/Commandant of CFCSE may have delegated this authority, but I'll bet you my next paycheque that he didn't delegate it to the WO level.  I'm guessing the course director is below the Tp WO?

CFSCE Standing Orders should have a "Dress" section which I'm sure deals with the procedures for cease shaving requests, and your memo should have been addressed to whoever can grant that request.  The memo will hit various personnel on the way up, and they can only recommend or not recommend, but they can't block the correspondence.


----------



## LoKe

I was told from my staff to dress it up to the Tp WO when I asked.  I'll redress it to the proper authority and find out what the result is.


----------



## Occam

LoKe said:
			
		

> I was told from my staff to dress it up to the Tp WO when I asked.  I'll redress it to the proper authority and find out what the result is.



I'm betting your staff was too lazy to look it up.  I'll look at the CFSCE Standing Orders for you tomorrow and post back here what I find out.  Then you'll have a reference to back yourself up.


----------



## LoKe

Thanks, I appreciate any assistance that could help me handle this in a proper way.


----------



## ModlrMike

LoKe said:
			
		

> I'm not even really sure.  The memo stopped half way up the chain.  The QL3 course director put a minute on the memo not recommending approval, and it was given back to me.



Inappropriate! Dress is the purview of the CO as advised by the RSM or equivalent. Neither your Troop WO nor Course Director have the authority to issue such an edict, and both should know that. At first, I thought this was simply a pro-forma exercise, now I see it's plain ignorance of the rules, and failure of the supervisor to educate themselves.

If your instructors continue to direct you to shave, a Redress of Grievance will get their attention. I defy them to stop that before it gets to the CO.


----------



## Kat Stevens

WTF is a "Course Director"?


----------



## aesop081

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> WTF is a "Course Director"?



"Course NCO"


----------



## OldSolduer

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> "Course NCO"




Fancy Schmancy title for the Admin NCO.


----------



## Occam

Well, that was an exercise in frustration.

All I could find was:



> CFSCE Standing Orders - http://cfsce.kingston.mil.ca/files/SOP's/STANDING%20ORDERS.doc (DWAN link)
> 310.	DRESS
> 
> 310.1	The dress of all military personnel at CFSCE shall be in accordance with Canadian Forces Dress Regulations and shall be of high standard.  Authorised orders of dress and permissible seasonal variations are contained in CFSCE Routine Orders.



All of the CFSCE SOPS are "under revision" and not published.

Only the most recent edition of CFSCE Weekly Routine Orders and CFSCE Routine Orders (why they have two, I have no idea) are published to the DWAN, and there are no dress issues addressed in them.

Now, a casual survey of other units in all three elements show a smattering of approving authorities from the CO down to the Regulating Chief (in that case, at CFNES would be a PO1/CPO2 in charge of student administration).  CFNOS requires the Div Cdr's approval, which is at the LCdr level.  MARCORDS say CO/Commandant.  That's pretty meaningless info to this discussion, but there it is.

Regardless, the memo you submitted, if it was submitted to the Tp WO, should have been delivered to the Tp WO with minutes attached by those below him/her in the CoC.  Only then should it be returned to you after the Tp WO has approved or denied the request.  That's basic military correspondence 101, and doesn't matter where you are or what unit you're in.

Sorry I couldn't be of more help.  If CFSCE has an established policy for requesting to cease shaving, they've done a pretty poor job of publishing it to the masses.

In general, I find locating Army policies akin to pulling out my fingernails with my Leatherman.


----------



## PMedMoe

Occam said:
			
		

> In general, I find locating Army policies akin to pulling out my fingernails with my Leatherman.



But more painful.


----------



## CountDC

Too bad you are not able to produce a copy of your original approval - have you checked div notes? Contacted the Ship/unit where it was approved (if done properly they will have a copy on file).  Then it would be a matter of them trying to show where they have the authority to rescind the approval.  Neither an ID card or already having a beard is proof that it was approved.  Wouldn't be the first time a sailor grew it without approval and managed to get an ID renewed.

I question the TP WO having the authority to deny the request.  I believe it should be only the CO to deny or approve it and I don't understand why they would deny it when you already have it.  Now if it was a request to grow one I could see the issue while on course.

I think you may be caught in the old "why should he be treated dif" situation where they will try to block you at every turn. 

If you are up to it I would encourage you to redress it all the way up.  May not help you but could save some other sailors a hassle down the road.  The wearing of beards is a point of pride for the navy and I am sure the forced shaving of a sailor will get some attention.

Good luck.


----------



## OldSolduer

LoKe said:
			
		

> I appreciate all the assistance, but the matter is closed.  My memo was returned to me today, denied on the basis that I'm a QL3 student.



What trade  are you taking QL3 for?


----------



## Occam

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> What trade  are you taking QL3 for?



Secret Squirrel = Comm Rsch.


----------



## LoKe

Well, I'm just going to drop the issue. I appreciate all the assistance, but the school doesn't recognize it the way most seem to. Apparently the course direcotr put his minutes on it because it wasn't dressed up properly, and informed me that the RSM has given his input on the matter and it will be denied if I put it up again. 

I've caught enough shit for the issue already. I'll just wait until I'm posted and have it handled properly.


----------



## Robert0288

Sucks but good luck on your QL3.  You mod1 or 2?


----------



## Occam

About all I can add is that not long ago, I was asked if I wanted to volunteer for a tasking to teach at CFSCE.  I thought about it briefly, but said no.  In retrospect, am I ever glad I turned it down.  If they can't manage a cease shaving chit without resorting to skull**ckery like that, I'd hate to see how CFSCE deals with personnel on a grander scale.


----------



## 211RadOp

I talked with an MWO from CFSCE about this tonight on the ball diamond.  We think your Course Director is expelling bovine fecal matter.  He was very surprised that the memo did not go to your course WO as that is were it was addressed to.  His suggestion is to talk to your SSM if you want to push this or to have the clerk at your home unit pull up your original memo and fax/e-mail it to you.


----------



## ModlrMike

Why is this not going to the CO? I can understand your NCOs sending your memo back to you for correction or amplification, but it is not their place to decide issues of dress, but to implement them. The CO on advice of the SM makes the rules, the rest of us follow them.


----------



## ballz

I would also like to see you piss in somebody's cornflakes... I have nothing to add really except for an additional supportive shove ;D


----------



## medicineman

Occam said:
			
		

> About all I can add is that not long ago, I was asked if I wanted to volunteer for a tasking to teach at CFSCE.  I thought about it briefly, but said no.  In retrospect, am I ever glad I turned it down.  If they can't manage a cease shaving chit without resorting to skull**ckery like that, I'd hate to see how CFSCE deals with personnel on a grander scale.



I saw lots of issues like that when I was in Kngston...had a guy get sent to sick parade because he was a non-smoker stuck in a room with 3 smokers (when they could smoke in their rooms).  The Sqn Clerk was too lazy to make a room change, so told him he needed a chit from us to change rooms - I wrote him one.  20 minutes later I got hauled into the Clinic WO's office because I wrote "This isn't a medical issue, it's your's so do your f*&king job".  Apparently Cpl Med A's aren't supposed say that to Sgt Clerks, even if it's true.  I could go on, but I think the point is made about CFSCE.

This young MCpl has to learn his place though by the sound of things...resubmit the memo .

MM


----------



## LoKe

I received clarification on the issue today.  My course director told me that since I dressed it to the Tp WO, and not higher, than it was delegated down to him to have my memo denied.  This was decided by the RSM, and I was told I could redress my memo but it would be denied by the RSM himself.  Rather than waste anyone's time or effort doing something that would lead to the same result, I've decided to cease my efforts.  Once I'm qualified and posted I'll be sure to submit another memo and keep a copy this time.


----------



## Occam

LoKe said:
			
		

> I received clarification on the issue today.  My course director told me that since I dressed it to the Tp WO, and not higher, than it was delegated down to him to have my memo denied.  This was decided by the RSM, and I was told I could redress my memo but it would be denied by the RSM himself.  Rather than waste anyone's time or effort doing something that would lead to the same result, I've decided to cease my efforts.  Once I'm qualified and posted I'll be sure to submit another memo and keep a copy this time.



Now this is going way beyond plain silliness.  If I understand correctly, and I hope I am, your course director (who I presume is a MCpl/Sgt) told you that since you addressed it to the wrong person (the Tp WO), and not to someone who actually has the authority to grant the request, then somehow the RSM has gotten involved and directed the Tp WO to deny the request, even though the Tp WO doesn't have the authority to grant or deny it in the first place?  That this is all being caused because it was wrongly addressed in the first place?  But according to your earlier post, your course staff was who told you to address the memo to your Tp WO? 



			
				LoKe said:
			
		

> I was told from my staff to dress it up to the Tp WO when I asked.  I'll redress it to the proper authority and find out what the result is.



WTF? 

If everything is as you've presented it, then I'm floored.  I'm just floored.


----------



## LoKe

I'm floored too, but if I push the matter any further it'll only make my situation worse than it has already become.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Occam said:
			
		

> Now this is going way beyond plain silliness.  If I understand correctly, and I hope I am, your course director (who I presume is a MCpl/Sgt) told you that since you addressed it to the wrong person (the Tp WO), and not to someone who actually has the authority to grant the request, then somehow the RSM has gotten involved and directed the Tp WO to deny the request, even though the Tp WO doesn't have the authority to grant or deny it in the first place?  That this is all being caused because it was wrongly addressed in the first place?  But according to your earlier post, your course staff was who told you to address the memo to your Tp WO?
> 
> WTF?
> 
> If everything is as you've presented it, then I'm floored.  I'm just floored.



Ahhh...Catch-22.


----------



## OldSolduer

LoKe said:
			
		

> I'm floored too, but if I push the matter any further it'll only make my situation worse than it has already become.



I quite agree. Pick your battles wisely. If you won this one, the call would go out that you are a shyte disturber and that would do you no good.


----------



## Gunner98

Did/does the course have Joining Instructions?  Is there a Course Senior binder?  School Routine Orders?

Let's cut to the chase - this thread began two weeks ago.   Your request has gone up the chain and was denied.  Are you clean shaven or do you still have beard?  How long is your course?  How long do want to stay on the instructor's problem child radar?  It is hot and humid, why not opt for a clean shaven low profile until the course is done. 

At this point are you still sporting a beard, still want to challenge the system and want to jeopardize your QL3 qualification and perhaps your future in the military - take the risk, ask to speak to the RSM then tell him to charge you and let the CO or Delegated Officer decide.  

I would sooner be a grayman than a problem child.


----------



## ModlrMike

LoKe said:
			
		

> ...I was told I could redress my memo but it would be denied by the RSM himself.




The RSM doesn't have the authority to deny a grievance addressed to the CO.

Given the amount of canine copulating this issue has resulted in, I suggest you comply and move on. Once you get to your unit, you'll be on much firmer ground. I still have to ask what your ID card picture looks like; that should have settle the question.


----------



## Occam

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> Did/does the course have Joining Instructions?  Is there a Course Senior binder?  School Routine Orders?
> 
> Let's cut to the chase - this thread began two weeks ago.   Your request has gone up the chain and was denied.  Are you clean shaven or do you still have beard?  How long is your course?  How long do want to stay on the instructor's problem child radar?  It is hot and humid, why not opt for a clean shaven low profile until the course is done.
> 
> At this point are you still sporting a beard, still want to challenge the system and want to jeopardize your QL3 qualification and perhaps your future in the military - take the risk, ask to speak to the RSM then tell him to charge you and let the CO or Delegated Officer decide.
> 
> I would sooner be a grayman than a problem child.



This is the type of response that gets my goat.

If the issue were a gray area of policy, I would agree with you.

However, it's not a gray area.  He's in a Naval uniform, not posted to a sea-going unit (beards are verboten at sea now), and has requested to cease shaving as he was directed by his course staff.  He has complied with every directive and criterion for having a beard.  I'll assume the beard looks presentable, and that this isn't a case of being directed to shave because he looks like a vagrant.  It's not like he's asking for gender reassignment surgery, he's requesting to cease shaving.  Every other unit in the CF has an established policy for dealing with this, but CFSCE wants to march to the beat of its own drummer.

Nobody should be chastised nor marked as a shyte disturber for following established procedure.  Someone in his chain of command needs to go to bat for him, but it appears that people are going out of their way to put roadblocks up.  That's poor leadership, period.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

So he requested to cease shaving and was denied, as he is on course. The course has decided no beards. I wasn't aware that everyone who is in the navy is 'entitled' to grow a beard, under any circumstance or at any time they wished, save for sea duty apparently, just because they are sea element. He requested, he was denied by his superiors. He can try again after course, with his new CoC.


----------



## ModlrMike

recceguy said:
			
		

> So he requested to cease shaving and was denied, as he is on course. The course has decided no beards. I wasn't aware that everyone who is in the navy is 'entitled' to grow a beard, under any circumstance or at any time they wished, save for sea duty apparently, just because they are sea element. He requested, he was denied by his superiors. He can try again after course, with his new CoC.



The point is not so much that he was denied; that's a quite reasonable outcome. The issue is he was denied by those not in authority to do so. A much different kettle of fish.


----------



## aesop081

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> The point is not so much that he was denied; that's a quite reasonable outcome. The issue is he was denied by those not in authority to do so. A much different kettle of fish.



Could the CO not have delegated that authority down to the RSM ?


----------



## Gunner98

Occam said:
			
		

> This is the type of response that gets my goat.
> 
> If the issue were a gray area of policy, I would agree with you.
> 
> However, it's not a gray area.  He's in a Naval uniform, not posted to a sea-going unit (beards are verboten at sea now), and has requested to cease shaving as he was directed by his course staff.  He has complied with every directive and criterion for having a beard.  I'll assume the beard looks presentable, and that this isn't a case of being directed to shave because he looks like a vagrant.  It's not like he's asking for gender reassignment surgery, he's requesting to cease shaving.  Every other unit in the CF has an established policy for dealing with this, but CFSCE wants to march to the beat of its own drummer.
> 
> Nobody should be chastised nor marked as a shyte disturber for following established procedure.  Someone in his chain of command needs to go to bat for him, but it appears that people are going out of their way to put roadblocks up.  That's poor leadership, period.



I think that gathering advice through an online anonymous forum to counter a chain of command's decision is risky.  We have met the original intent of the poster - "Memo assistance", it was not "Could you please help me sort out my School".

This is not helpful - "Every other unit in the CF has an established policy for dealing with this.."  Are you sure 'every' is the appropriate word choice, have you personally checked every unit?  This individual has not yet completed his QL3 training.  He is on a purple trades training (i.e., all three elements are represented).  In my experience (more than 10 years at Recruit and Combat Arms schools) it is easier to maintain a single standard for male grooming. 

Next we will be advising that he can wear a black undershirt despite his staff telling him otherwise.  I think we have to remember that School settings are often different from units.


----------



## NEM3sis

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> I think that gathering advice through an online anonymous forum to counter a chain of command's decision is risky.  We have met the original intent of the poster - "Memo assistance", it was not "Could you please help me sort out my School".
> 
> This is not helpful - "Every other unit in the CF has an established policy for dealing with this.."  Are you sure 'every' is the appropriate word choice, have you personally checked every unit?  This individual has not yet completed his QL3 training.  He is on a purple trades training (i.e., all three elements are represented).  In my experience (more than 10 years at Recruit and Combat Arms schools) it is easier to maintain a single standard for male grooming.
> 
> Next we will be advising that he can wear a black undershirt despite his staff telling him otherwise.  I think we have to remember that School settings are often different from units.



black undershirt is already a go since we have to wear our NCD
I am on my QL5, same trade, same building.
all the Navy personnel on my course are from the same (field) unit where our dress of the day is Cadpat, we resquested thru a memo to be allowed to wear our unit dress of the day as we are attache-posted to CFSCE unlike QL3's...request was denied by our course director (PO2) the day he was wearing CADPAT...go figure


----------



## Occam

NEM3sis said:
			
		

> black undershirt is already a go since we have to wear our NCD
> I am on my QL5, same trade, same building.
> all the Navy personnel on my course are from the same (field) unit where our dress of the day is Cadpat, we resquested thru a memo to be allowed to wear our unit dress of the day as we are attache-posted to CFSCE unlike QL3's...request was denied by our course director (PO2) the day he was wearing CADPAT...go figure



I know I'm going to regret asking this question, but here goes:

Does the PO2 course director (or any of the other "Naval" attired members of the staff) sport a beard?


----------



## NEM3sis

actually now that you mention it the new QL5 course director, another PO2 (posting season eh) does have a beard


----------



## Occam

NEM3sis said:
			
		

> actually now that you mention it the new QL5 course director, another PO2 (posting season eh) does have a beard



Why yes...yes, I do indeed regret asking the question.


----------



## LoKe

Occam said:
			
		

> Why yes...yes, I do indeed regret asking the question.


I think now you understand my frustration a little more.


----------



## LoKe

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> Did/does the course have Joining Instructions?  Is there a Course Senior binder?  School Routine Orders?


Yes, yes, no.


			
				Simian Turner said:
			
		

> Let's cut to the chase - this thread began two weeks ago.   Your request has gone up the chain and was denied.  Are you clean shaven or do you still have beard?  How long is your course?  How long do want to stay on the instructor's problem child radar?  It is hot and humid, why not opt for a clean shaven low profile until the course is done.


Clean shaven now.  I had the beard for nearly two months of the course, then was told to submit a memo, and while waiting I was told to shave until a conclusion was reached.  Course is four months.  I've dropped the issue in order to prevent any more drama.



			
				Simian Turner said:
			
		

> At this point are you still sporting a beard, still want to challenge the system and want to jeopardize your QL3 qualification and perhaps your future in the military - take the risk, ask to speak to the RSM then tell him to charge you and let the CO or Delegated Officer decide.


I'm clean shaven now.  I know I won't win this battle so there's no sense in wasting anyone's time and making me "that guy" at this point.  



			
				Simian Turner said:
			
		

> I would sooner be a grayman than a problem child.


I never made a very good grayman, but I'm usually reasonable when choosing my battles.  I pushed this issue a bit and they pushed back hard.  I'll continue to discuss the situation in this thread if there are other questions, but the issue, in my mind, is dropped.


----------



## LoKe

Also, I feel compelled to explain my perspective on the situation (merely the beard itself).  Two years ago I was ordered by a staff member (while on PAT pl) to go to the MIR due to excessive skin irritation caused by shaving.  There I was given a chit in order to cease shaving.  When I was later attached posted to 21EW Regt, I was authorized to cease shaving on the basis that I was in the Navy.  This was the best route, to me, as it would simplify my situation in the sense that I would no longer have to go to the MIR to have my chit renewed (I was on a temporary chit twice).  Now that the memo has been denied at the school, I can't go back to the MIR and get a new chit for the same reason, as it would blatantly appear as if I were subverting their orders and authority.

That's mainly the reason I even pushed the issue in the first place.

*EDIT*: I believe I answered this question before, but it was asked again.  My ID does not show me wearing a beard.  This is a shortcoming on my part, as I didn't properly read the regs and I misinterpreted the requirement.  But as mentioned before, even if I did have it on my ID, it would not represent authority to wear it.


----------



## Cansky

LoKe said:
			
		

> Also, I feel compelled to explain my perspective on the situation (merely the beard itself).  Two years ago I was ordered by a staff member (while on PAT pl) to go to the MIR due to *excessive skin irritation caused by shaving*.  There I was given a chit in order to cease shaving.  When I was later attached posted to 21EW Regt, I was authorized to cease shaving on the basis that I was in the Navy.  This was the best route, to me, as it would simplify my situation in the sense that I would no longer have to go to the MIR to have my chit renewed (I was on a temporary chit twice).  Now that the memo has been denied at the school, I can't go back to the MIR and get a new chit for the same reason, as it would blatantly appear as if I were subverting their orders and authority.
> 
> That's mainly the reason I even pushed the issue in the first place.
> 
> *EDIT*: I believe I answered this question before, but it was asked again.  My ID does not show me wearing a beard.  This is a shortcoming on my part, as I didn't properly read the regs and I misinterpreted the requirement.  But as mentioned before, even if I did have it on my ID, it would not represent authority to wear it.



If that is the case and you do have a true issue with shaving you can get a permanent category to reflect the shaving issue regardless of what element you are.  I have placed a few pers in my time on restrictions for no shaving that is reflected on their medical docs that don't require renewing chits every 30 days.  I would suggest that when your done your course, either do the memo due to navy uniform in which if not reflected in your pers file or you having a copy this issue could arise again.  Or see the MIR get a dermatologist referral and get a permanent category reflecting the issue.


----------



## PuckChaser

Was the medical issue listed on your memo? If it was, you're not subverting anyone by going to the MIR again, you informed them of the issue.


----------



## Occam

Occam said:
			
		

> About all I can add is that not long ago, I was asked if I wanted to volunteer for a tasking to teach at CFSCE.  I thought about it briefly, but said no.  In retrospect, am I ever glad I turned it down.



I got asked again this morning if I was interested in another instructor tasking at CFSCE, this time from November to March.  I'm pretty sure the A/BSM heard my snort clear across the building, and one floor down.   ;D



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Was the medical issue listed on your memo? If it was, you're not subverting anyone by going to the MIR again, you informed them of the issue.



What he said.  End the silliness once and for all and be done with them.


----------



## Sig_Des

Occam said:
			
		

> I got asked again this morning if I was interested in another instructor tasking at CFSCE, this time from November to March.  I'm pretty sure the A/BSM heard my snort clear across the building, and one floor down.



Didn't want to try to change it from  inside? ;D

There's a reason some of us call it the CF School of C**k Enforcement


----------



## johndamelio39

Short and sweet post here,  can anybody copy/paste the standards for facial hair from the dress and deportment literature.

Thanks much.


----------



## dangerboy

Check out this thread http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/100832/post-1044801.html#msg1044801,  it should help you out.


----------



## Occam

Or, you can go right to the source - CF Dress Instructions at http://cs.uwindsor.ca/~fitzpatr/A-DH-265-000.pdf

In other news:  Why, oh why must the dimwits who control content on the DND website insist on breaking the frigging links to an unclassified, uncontrolled publication like CFP 265?  Must we really resort to someone being kind enough to host the 265 on a private server in order for it to be accessible via the internet?  Christ, we're not going to lose the war on terror because the bad guys find out that the Full Windsor is the only approved tie knot...

/rant off


----------



## George Wallace

Occam said:
			
		

> Or, you can go right to the source - CF Dress Instructions at http://cs.uwindsor.ca/~fitzpatr/A-DH-265-000.pdf
> 
> In other news:  Why, oh why must the dimwits who control content on the DND website insist on breaking the frigging links to an unclassified, uncontrolled publication like CFP 265?  Must we really resort to someone being kind enough to host the 265 on a private server in order for it to be accessible via the internet?  Christ, we're not going to lose the war on terror because the bad guys find out that the Full Windsor is the only approved tie knot...
> 
> /rant off



I think it is like your DWAN password; you have to create a new one every three months.  Same goes for their http addresses.   ;D


----------



## Pusser

Occam said:
			
		

> Christ, we're not going to lose the war on terror because the bad guys find out that the Full Windsor is the only approved tie knot...



SECURITY BREACH!!!!!  anic:  (a four-in-hand is OK too...)


----------



## TN2IC

Occam said:
			
		

> that the Full Windsor is the only approved tie knot...



The RCR are f*** now with no direction.  :surrender:


----------



## PPCLI Guy

There are rules for facial hair?


----------



## aesop081

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> There are rules for facial hair?



I'm as shocked as you are.    ;D


----------



## JMesh

Occam said:
			
		

> Why, oh why must the dimwits who control content on the DND website insist on breaking the frigging links to an unclassified, uncontrolled publication like CFP 265?



Maybe they're trying to promote change (of the address) for that right bubble on the PER?  >

I sympathize completely with your frustration. As a Cl A CIC Officer, I don't have DWAN access, so I rely on CadetNet (often outdated) and public links to get this sort of information. IMO, unclassified, uncontrolled pubs should be hosted on a site (along with pertinent orders such as some CANFORGENS and command equivalents) and the links not constantly changed so that those of us who don't have DWAN access can competently conduct ourselves within the standards and regulations. Some things end up on here, but not everything, and lots of it would be helpful.


----------



## TN2IC

JMesh said:
			
		

> As a Cl A CIC Officer, I don't have DWAN access, so I rely on CadetNet (often outdated) and public links to get this sort of information.



rly: Sorry Comrade, you don't need to know. Go back to Moscow.


----------



## medicineman

Anyone else wondering why this is in the "Enrollment Medical" forum??

MM


----------



## johndamelio39

My bad I am new to the forum so unsure of where to post. The link to the dress pam was perfect, I have a no shave chit and just needed to know some specifications regarding length. 

Thanks much.
Cheers

/Thread


----------



## Bluechip

Hi, used google and the search on the site extensively to find an answer to my issue. No such luck. Not sure where to post this topic, doesn't fit under recruitment and not under admin...

Anyways, my issue..

Im an Ammo Tech, and I recently had the Dr send my request for Permanent beard chit to Ottawa. Would having a beard chit stop me from applying to CSOR, CJIRU, or changing trades to CMB Eng, or INF?

Ottawa has not yet sent anything back (only been a month) is it possible to have them cancel the request?


----------



## PuckChaser

If you have a medical reason for having a chit, why would you want it removed? As long as they don't change your O rating, you should still qualify for the other trades. Friends I've seen that have them are just on PCat and retained as their O rating was not changed and they only need to shave for operational reasons.


----------



## aesop081

Bluechip said:
			
		

> is it possible to have them cancel the request?



Has the medical condition that has lead to a "permanent beard" chit changed ?

If yes, you need to go to the MIR and be re-evaluated.

If, no, then you get to continue sporting a beard and deal with all that comes with it, if anything.


----------



## Bluechip

The issue is very dry skin, irritated by the shaving, lived with it for 2 years. The beard chit is definitely nice, but not an absolute necessity. If I had to go back to dry skin, in order to get what I wanted. It would be a very easy decision.


----------



## PuckChaser

As long as you meet the medical requirements for the trades you want, shouldn't be an issue. Seen lots of Infantry types with beards.  AFAIK as long as you are allowed to shave to meet operational requirements then you're good to go everywhere. CJIRU may require you to shave a lot, however, they're going to be in hazmat suits all the time and you'd definitely want a good seal.


----------



## Cyrius007

HI,

I'm trying to figure out who and when we can have a beard. Everything I find is the navy on deployment and medical reason. 

The thing is, I saw at least 2 captains with beard in my locality (they did not seam to have any skin problem, but I'm not a doctor  ) and they are army, not navy. Also, I see plenty of officers with beards on pictures, am I missing something?

Thanks


----------



## Teager

Chances are they have a medical chit to have the beard. They are required to keep it neat and trimmed. Are the pictures you are looking at of soldiers oversease? How old are the pictures you are looking at?


----------



## 421_434_226

Possibly part of a pioneer type group like these gentlemen


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Gizmo 421 said:
			
		

> Possibly part of a pioneer type group like these gentlemen



There is no more pioneers. Can't use that excuse.


----------



## 421_434_226

recceguy said:
			
		

> There is no more pioneers. Can't use that excuse.



Damn there goes my future plans,   I will admit that when I was posted to 1 RCR in '88 the first parade I saw with guys in aprons with axes I really did not know what the hell was going on.


----------



## Occam

Cyrius007 said:
			
		

> The thing is, I saw at least 2 captains with beard in my locality (they did not seam to have any skin problem, but I'm not a doctor  )



That's kind of the idea.  Ceasing shaving makes the skin condition go away.


----------



## Cansky

Occam said:
			
		

> That's kind of the idea.  Ceasing shaving makes the skin condition go away.



Not in all skin conditions, the beard may just hide it.  Like in psoriasis


----------



## The_Falcon

Could be a few reasons, medical, relgiousa, naval, secret squirelly stuff.  Some members of the QOR (and probably other units), will grow beards for parades when they don historical pioneer kit.


----------



## Shepard

(My apologies if this question has already been addressed.)

Greetings,

I have a few questions regarding facial hair, the first, how large can you grow a moustache? I know that on the QR&Os it says that it has to be neatly groomed and may not exceed the corners of the mouth, but I've seen people with a huge mass of moustach a few times, so I just wanted to confirm on that one.

Also, (I know this is a silly question, but my curiosity got the better of me) are eyebrows allowed to be waxed, in a sort of fancysmashy handlebar style?



Thank you for taking the time to read this, and have a good one.


----------



## Transporter

Shepard said:
			
		

> Please, do not derail this thread.
> 
> "(My apologies if this question has already been addressed.)
> 
> Greetings,
> 
> I have a few questions regarding facial hair, the first, how large can you grow a moustache? I know that on the QR&Os it says that it has to be neatly groomed and may not exceed the corners of the mouth, but I've seen people with a huge mass of moustach a few times, so I just wanted to confirm on that one.
> 
> Also, (I know this is a silly question, but my curiosity got the better of me) are eyebrows allowed to be waxed, in a sort of fancysmashy handlebar style?
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for taking the time to read this, and have a good one."



You said "eyebrows" but did you mean wax your mustache for a handlebar style perhaps?


----------



## Shepard

Yes, it used to be some sort of style back in the day. I've seen pictures of WW1 soldiers, most likely high-ranking officers who used to give their eyebrows a little curve, I wanted to know if it is still done today.

Judging from the reaction I got, I highly doubt it. But QR&Os say nothing about it.


----------



## dapaterson

QR&Os say nothing about moustaches either.

The Dress Regulations do have information, but they are not found in the QR&Os.


----------



## Remius

Shepard said:
			
		

> Yes, it used to be some sort of style back in the day. I've seen pictures of WW1 soldiers, most likely high-ranking officers who used to give their eyebrows a little curve, I wanted to know if it is still done today.
> 
> Judging from the reaction I got, I highly doubt it. But QR&Os say nothing about it.



I'll take your word for it but I have never seen or heard of this.  And I've never seen or heard of handlebar eyebrows in this day and age either.  I've seen the moustaches though.

Don't take it personally.  I doubt anyone was insulting anyone from ww1.  Just that a lot of stuff done in the past is pretty ridiculous by today's standards.


----------



## Transporter

I've seen a few handlebar mustaches in the CF, but that was quite a few years ago. 

Why do you keep talking about eyebrows? Translation issue?


----------



## Shepard

dapaterson said:
			
		

> QR&Os say nothing about moustaches either.
> 
> The Dress Regulations do have information, but they are not found in the QR&Os.



I don't want to sound like as if I am questioning your knowledge, because you know a heck of a lot more than I do, however, aren't The Dress Regulations found in the QR&Os? 

"QR&Os: Volume I - Chapter 17 - Table of Contents
Dress And Appearance"

http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/qro-orf/vol-01/tc-tm-017-eng.asp

Just want to try to learn a little more, thank you!


----------



## Old Sweat

The moustache beyond the corners of the mouth thing dates back to the late sixties or early seventies when some folks affected ones that drooped down like Fu Manchus. The wording was unfortunate, but the intention never was to ban handlebar moustaches. Mine, which I still have, stretched past the corner of my mouth horizontally and it has been accepted as legit for decades.


----------



## dapaterson

Shepard said:
			
		

> I don't want to sound like as if I am questioning your knowledge, because you know a heck of a lot more than I do, however, aren't The Dress Regulations found in the QR&Os?
> 
> "QR&Os: Volume I - Chapter 17 - Table of Contents
> Dress And Appearance"
> 
> http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/qro-orf/vol-01/tc-tm-017-eng.asp
> 
> Just want to try to learn a little more, thank you!





> 17.03 - BEARDS AND MOUSTACHES
> 
> The wearing of beards and moustaches is subject to any restrictions ordered by the Chief of the Defence Staff.
> 
> (C)


----------



## ModlrMike

Shepard said:
			
		

> I don't want to sound like as if I am questioning your knowledge, because you know a heck of a lot more than I do, however, aren't The Dress Regulations found in the QR&Os?
> 
> "QR&Os: Volume I - Chapter 17 - Table of Contents
> Dress And Appearance"
> 
> http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/qro-orf/vol-01/tc-tm-017-eng.asp
> 
> Just want to try to learn a little more, thank you!



The Canadian Forces Dress Instruction is the document you're interested in.


----------



## Tibbson

CF Dress Instructions:  www.2672paratus.ca/documents/CFDressInstr2011.pdf


----------



## bgray

During basic they may be a little stricter (depends on your staff and whoever is hanging around the school, sr NCM/officer wise).

Once you are out of basic, rules are more relaxed. I have buddies with full beards, handlebar mustaches, and old school long hair on their heads (shaved neatly around the sides and back).

Tech. you should be able to rock your mustache during basic. Bring wax though; it has to be properly groomed.


----------



## trustnoone73

Shepard said:
			
		

> Also, (I know this is a silly question, but my curiosity got the better of me) are eyebrows allowed to be waxed, in a sort of fancysmashy handlebar style?



As far as avoiding the grey man label on day one, handlebar eyebrows would be right up there with black eyes, neck tattoos, nail polish as a male and having the course WO collect you from cells.


----------



## Luke93

I don't know about the eyebrow style in discussion. But it's not such a strange question, I know much more recently about 3-5 yrs back it was popular to shave lines at the eyebrow corners. I'd say something like that would be considered "faddish", wouldn't it?


----------



## kratz

Luke93 said:
			
		

> I don't know about the eyebrow style in discussion. But it's not such a strange question, I know much more recently about 3-5 yrs back it was popular to shave lines at the eyebrow corners. I'd say something like that would be considered "faddish", wouldn't it?



Buddy, go to silent and read vice posting.

Unless you know CFP 265 and your Coxswain, any answer your provide is misleading.


----------



## mrbill

During your bmq, you will be expected to be clean shaven EVERY morning. This will be very important especially during inspections at 7am. Your instructors will look for this.


----------



## TCM621

Shepard said:
			
		

> I don't want to sound like as if I am questioning your knowledge, because you know a heck of a lot more than I do, however, aren't The Dress Regulations found in the QR&Os?
> 
> "QR&Os: Volume I - Chapter 17 - Table of Contents
> Dress And Appearance"
> 
> http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/qro-orf/vol-01/tc-tm-017-eng.asp
> 
> Just want to try to learn a little more, thank you!


Basically the QR&O states you must maintain a professional military appearance and the dress instructions explain what constitutes that appearance.


----------



## Vell

I thought I would just tag along my facial hair question to this existing thread:

How strict are they at BMQ/BMOQ for older men who are prone to get the annoying 5'oclock shadow (especially when humidity is high). Are you required to shave more than once in a day in this case or is facial hair really only checked during mornings?

On a related note, what method do most people at BMQ shave with? Disposable carts and canned cream/gel? Electric? Double edged razor and shaving soap/cream with brush? Straight razor and shaving soap/cream with brush? Are any of these methods not allowed / not recommended?

I am a DE, cream and brush shaver myself (electric for fast emergency dry shaves).


----------



## stealthylizard

Just make sure you shave every morning in that case.  Most people shaved with a razor like a Gillette Mach 3, and canned shaving cream/gel.  Regardless of your method of shaving, have something like this for your kit lay-out.  You probably will not get away with being allowed to use an electric razor.


----------



## NavyHopeful

Vell said:
			
		

> I thought I would just tag along my facial hair question to this existing thread:
> 
> How strict are they at BMQ/BMOQ for older men who are prone to get the annoying 5'oclock shadow (especially when humidity is high). Are you required to shave more than once in a day in this case or is facial hair really only checked during mornings?
> 
> On a related note, what method do most people at BMQ shave with? Disposable carts and canned cream/gel? Electric? Double edged razor and shaving soap/cream with brush? Straight razor and shaving soap/cream with brush? Are any of these methods not allowed / not recommended?
> 
> I am a DE, cream and brush shaver myself (electric for fast emergency dry shaves).



Personally, I used a Fusion ProGlide at BMQ.  No Cream, just hot water, and quick strokes.  As for now, I use the ProGlide for parade days and special occasions, but on ship, I just buzz the ol' electric on the mug to get the majority.  The staff will want to see like a mach 3 or some sort of a cart razor with the can of cream in the layout.  Electrics are not permitted during BMQ.  Sucks, but there it is.



			
				kratz said:
			
		

> Buddy, go to silent and read vice posting.
> 
> Unless you know CFP 265 and your Coxswain, any answer your provide is misleading.



True, as always.  If you have questions, your Swain is basically the guiding light.  Not sure if you should have something or not, ask the Swain.  And in my experiences (and having a few awesome Coxn's) they are more than happy to answer your questions before they become an issue, thereby saving you a pile of poop.

As for the original poster's question about waxing eyebrows... Well, I personally would wait until you are out of BMQ.  You are going to have enough to worry about on course that waxing your freaking eyebrows will NOT be high on the priorty list anyways.

Hope that helps.

Cheers

Rev


----------



## Vell

NavyHopeful said:
			
		

> ... The staff will want to see like a mach 3 or some sort of a cart razor with the can of cream in the layout.  Electrics are not permitted during BMQ.  Sucks, but there it is.



Will I be expected to actually shave with said 'display' set of cart and can of cream or can I just put it out as decoration and keep my real shave set somewhere else (DE razor, brush and cream... and no electric for those emergency quick dry shaves, darn).

If I don't have to use the set on display for my kit, I would likely just get some dollar store disposables and no-name foam. While I see no reason to ever use the terrible canned gels and foams (unless I am told I have to), commercial cart razors like Mach 3s can be good for faster shaves when time is really tight, so I may opt for them over cheap disposables.


----------



## NavyHopeful

The staff wants to see that you are using the toiletries in the layout.  That said, I know a few guys who'd use the razor once or twice, and keep the clean-but-used blade as an "inspection" blade, while rolling through other cartridges.  And I tried the whole dollar-store trick...  Honestly, spend the money and save your face.  If you are shaving every day, do you really want some 10-cent piece of crap dragging across your face?

As for the shaving cream can trick...  You can use the cream if you'd like, but I'd make sure you rinse the nozzle out good, and make sure it's dry.  Those stupid cans rust so easily, and if they see rust anywhere in your layout, they will loose their minds!!!  You will NOT have a good time!!!  Also, if you DO use the bar and brush, they will still have you keep the cream or foam can in your layout.  Everyone the same, right?  I only know of one guy who got away with not having the can in his locker, and it was because he was allergic to one of the propellants in the shaving cream.  So he was allowed to have a bar of shaving soap and a brush in his layout, but had to carry his chit with hiim EVERYWHERE...  It was kind of amusing to see him pulling his chit out every inspection...

Last trick for toiletries...  use the bar of soap a few times so it looks like it's been used (wash your hands with it or something, but wear it down a bit) and only use shampoo or hair and body wash in the shower.  Kinda wierd, but it'll save you time as well.  I was able to cut my shower time in half after PT by using shampoo as a body wash, or by using an all-in-one hair and body wash.  You don't have to swap products.  You just dump a handfull and start scrubbing.  But be forewarned...  You will DEFINITELY want your bar of soap in the field.  It is by far easier to use.  As is the quick water-only shave.  But in a pinch, you can use your bar of soap to shave your face.  It isn't awesome, but it'll do the trick.

Hope that helps, and if you have any more questions, feel free to ask.

Cheers.

Rev


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Vell said:
			
		

> Will I be expected to actually shave with said 'display' set of cart and can of cream or can I just put it out as decoration and keep my real shave set somewhere else (DE razor, brush and cream... and no electric for those emergency quick dry shaves, darn).
> 
> If I don't have to use the set on display for my kit, I would likely just get some dollar store disposables and no-name foam. While I see no reason to ever use the terrible canned gels and foams (unless I am told I have to), commercial cart razors like Mach 3s can be good for faster shaves when time is really tight, so I may opt for them over cheap disposables.



My 25 years experience tell me you are worrying too much about something that isn't really that important in the big scheme of things. Make sure you are in shape and ready mentally.

 :2c:


----------



## NavyHopeful

:goodpost:

Agreed.


----------



## porlier

Hi everyone,   Im looking for info or a sample memo.  I just graduated in August.  I would like to start growing my beard, but have been told I need to submit a memo with all the proper references.    Any help and or direction would be greatly appreciated!   Cheers.


----------



## porlier

Hi everyone,   Im looking for info on references or a sample memo.  I just graduated in August from basic.  I would like to start growing my beard, but have been told I need to submit a memo with all the proper references.    Any help and or direction would be greatly appreciated!   Cheers.


----------



## ModlrMike

You'll need to fill in a few details as it affects the answer you're likely to get:

Are you Army, Air, or Navy?
Are you Reg or Res?


----------



## ModlrMike

Check your other post on the subject.

BTW, we consider it bad manners to post the same question in different areas.

Anyway, your unit should have a "Request Form" that you would need to complete. This should be attached to your memo. Your references are the dress manual, and whatever COTM or other unit instruction there is on the subject. Your supervisor should help you find those, the Cox'n is usually the authority on the subject. Page 18 of the document below should give you a starting point for your memo format. The foregoing notwithstanding, most units won't allow one to grow a beard prior to completion of basic trades training.

Staff Work Guide 4.0


----------



## porlier

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> You'll need to fill in a few details as it affects the answer you're likely to get:
> 
> Are you Army, Air, or Navy?
> Are you Reg or Res?



Hi there, im actually Navy, but in health care and currently posted in Petawawa.   So I have not seen any other navy personnel around to ask for advice


----------



## porlier

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Check your other post on the subject.
> 
> BTW, we consider it bad manners to post the same question in different areas.
> 
> Anyway, your unit should have a "Request Form" that you would need to complete. This should be attached to your memo. Your references are the dress manual, and whatever COTM or other unit instruction there is on the subject. Your supervisor should help you find those, the Cox'n is usually the authority on the subject. Page 18 of the document below should give you a starting point for your memo format. The foregoing notwithstanding, most units won't allow one to grow a beard prior to completion of basic trades training.
> 
> Hi thanks for info, and sorry about manner, was unaware.  My main problem is that I am posted at CFB Petawawa currently at 2 Fd Amb doing healthcare training(purple trade).  So there are not any other navy personnel I can go to for advice and my main reason for posting here.
> :-\
> Staff Work Guide 4.0


----------



## porlier

Hello Loke,

Im have to write a memo also, was wondering if you had any luck?


----------



## ModlrMike

porlier said:
			
		

> Hi there, im actually Navy, but in health care and currently posted in Petawawa.   So I have not seen any other navy personnel around to ask for advice



So that probably means 2 Fd Amb. I'm pretty sure the RSM will have a policy. Ignore my comments on the Request Form... you won't see one in Pet.


----------



## PMedMoe

porlier said:
			
		

> Hello Loke,
> 
> Im have to write a memo also, was wondering if you had any luck?



You were given some good info here.  Do you expect someone else to write the memo for you?  I find it hard to believe there's no other Navy types at 2 Fd Amb...or anyone to whom you could go to for assistance.

Whatever you do, get someone to proofread for you.


----------



## BinRat55

Isn't that the way? These young soldiers now-a-days are looking to have things handed to them. I am all for proformas, but I am a firm beleiver that you need to know HOW and WHY things are done before you start taking shortcuts. 

As well, supervisors need to be a little more proactive when it comes to PD. My guess? Porlier's boss said to do a little research on how to write a memo. Now he wants someone to do it for him.

Am I close?


----------



## Lumber

Doesn't this count as him researching how to write a memo? Sure, it may not be the best avenue, but he's trying.


----------



## BinRat55

No, not really. Maybe I have taken it out of context, but a member has to write a memo on growing a beard. He goes on to a website not affiliated in any way with the CAF, and finds someone who also had to write a memo about growing a beard (4 years ago) and says "Any luck?"

How about a half hearted attempt at researching proper references contained WITHIN DND? What about looking into "Military Writing and Correspondence" on the DWAN and trying it out for himself? Make an attempt for God's sake - don't ask for someone else's work.

Sheesh.


----------



## PMedMoe

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> How about a half hearted attempt at researching proper references contained WITHIN DND? What about looking into "Military Writing and Correspondence" on the DWAN and trying it out for himself? Make an attempt for God's sake - don't ask for someone else's work.
> 
> Sheesh.



 :goodpost:


Like the Staff Writing link posted on his other thread??  Yep.


----------



## BinRat55

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Like the Staff Writing link posted on his other thread??  Yep.



Good link. I like this one too - http://lfdts.kingston.mil.ca/wr_templates_e.asp


----------



## Lumber

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> How about a half hearted attempt at researching proper references contained WITHIN DND? What about looking into "Military Writing and Correspondence" on the DWAN and trying it out for himself? Make an attempt for God's sake - don't ask for someone else's work.



The first memo I ever wrote was copied and pasted from the common-drive, then modified to fit my specific subject. From that point on, every memo and minute sheet I've ever written has just been a modification of a previous one.

Also, just to piss some of you guys off  ;D, here's a memo for him to use:


Memorandum

1000-1 (General)

     Sep 15

CO

PERMISSION TO GROW BEARD

Refs: A-AD-265-000/AG-001 (CFP 265) – Canadian Forces Dress Instructions

1.	IAW ref, I am requesting permission to grow a beard.

2.	As a member of the RCN, having a beard would be a way of displaying the history, tradition and pride of the institution. In particular, with so few      
             RCN members at CFB Petawawa, it would be a way for me to remind others of the comradery and teamwork amongst the three branches.

3.	Unless permitted to grow a beard during active-duty, my intention would be to grow a beard during my next leave period, which is scheduled from 
              XXXX-XXXX. Upon my return from leave, I will have my beard inspected by the CSM to confirm its compliance with the ref.

4.	For your consideration, Sir.





I.M. Lazy
OS
Med Tech


----------



## BinRat55

What happens when said member becomes someone's supervisor and has to explain why there is a space where the date should be? 

"Ummm... because the guy who wrote the original memo I used 5 years ago never knew the exact date?"

Why is the word "General" in brackets after the bunch of numbers at the top (which is incorrect I might add)?

"Ummm... because a general will eventually read this? Don't even ASK me what the numbers are for - the original memo I copied off had them, so now whenever I write a memo about ANYTHING I just use those same numbers..."

When you feed mistakes, you breed mistakes. It's called degenerative fade. Laziness causes people to pass on one mistake after another instead of teaching. In your example there is no indication of a classification, your formatting within the paras is incorrect, your file # is wrong... you make no indication to anyone nor do you explain the ramifications of addressing a memo to the CO...


----------



## Lumber

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> What happens when said member becomes someone's supervisor and has to explain why there is a space where the date should be?
> 
> "Ummm... because the guy who wrote the original memo I used 5 years ago never knew the exact date?"
> 
> Why is the word "General" in brackets after the bunch of numbers at the top (which is incorrect I might add)?
> 
> "Ummm... because a general will eventually read this? Don't even ASK me what the numbers are for - the original memo I copied off had them, so now whenever I write a memo about ANYTHING I just use those same numbers..."
> 
> When you feed mistakes, you breed mistakes. It's called degenerative fade. Laziness causes people to pass on one mistake after another instead of teaching. In your example there is no indication of a classification, your formatting within the paras is incorrect, your file # is wrong... you make no indication to anyone nor do you explain the ramifications of addressing a memo to the CO...



AHEM....



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> Also, _just to piss some of you guys off   _ ;D, here's a memo for him to use:



SUCCESS!

Also, it's hard formatting on milnet, it doesn't need a classification if it's unclass, and I put "1000-1 (General)" because I don't want to list my actual UIC or position on here . But if you care so much it would be "6435-1000-1 (Adj)" for example.

Further, he can use that memo as a starting point and take it to his supervisor, who can make the corrections and explain to him anything wrong with it, such as explainign why there is a space before the month.

I'm not sure what you mean about "_ramifications of addressing a memo to the CO". What ramifications? 95% of memos and 100% of request forms must go to the CO. It's SOP. So, why would there be ramifications?_


----------



## BinRat55

Lumber said:
			
		

> AHEM....
> 
> SUCCESS!
> 
> Also, it's hard formatting on milnet, it doesn't need a classification if it's unclass, and I put "1000-1 (General)" because I don't want to list my actual UIC or position on here . But if you care so much it would be "6435-1000-1 (Adj)" for example.
> 
> Further, he can use that memo as a starting point and take it to his supervisor, who can make the corrections and explain to him anything wrong with it, such as explainign why there is a space before the month.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean about "_ramifications of addressing a memo to the CO". What ramifications? 95% of memos and 100% of request forms must go to the CO. It's SOP. So, why would there be ramifications?
> _


_

Ok, so yes - you win.

I will assume that 6435-1000-1 (Adj) was a typo on your part, as it is NOT a file number in the CF. How about 5250-3 (Pers) maybe? And before you launch into me for poo-pooing your file number, I do recognize it - it's just not a "personnel memorandum" file number. We aren't reconfiguring the Pacific Fleet here Admiral!
By "ramifications", I misspoke. I kinda meant what actually "CO" meant. No - not 100% of requests need to go to the CO. Some go to the OC, some go to the Adj, some go to the Log O...

My whole point is when someone just "gives" format to new people, things get lost - like the right way do do something... You handed over a memo, albeit well crafted and poorly formatted (not by any error of yours) and OP would "assume" you knew everything, used it not thinking / knowing anything was incorrect..._


----------



## Blackadder1916

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> . . .  And before you launch into me for poo-pooing your file number . . .



Baahh!  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeF1JO7Ki8E


----------



## BinRat55

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Baahh!  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeF1JO7Ki8E



ROTFLMAO!!!

Was that Mr. Bean?


----------



## 211RadOp

Yes that is Rowan Atkinson.


----------



## porlier

Lumber said:
			
		

> The first memo I ever wrote was copied and pasted from the common-drive, then modified to fit my specific subject. From that point on, every memo and minute sheet I've ever written has just been a modification of a previous one.
> 
> Also, just to piss some of you guys off  ;D, here's a memo for him to use:
> 
> 
> Memorandum
> 
> 1000-1 (General)
> 
> Sep 15
> 
> CO
> 
> PERMISSION TO GROW BEARD
> 
> Refs: A-AD-265-000/AG-001 (CFP 265) – Canadian Forces Dress Instructions
> 
> 1.	IAW ref, I am requesting permission to grow a beard.
> 
> 2.	As a member of the RCN, having a beard would be a way of displaying the history, tradition and pride of the institution. In particular, with so few
> RCN members at CFB Petawawa, it would be a way for me to remind others of the comradery and teamwork amongst the three branches.
> 
> 3.	Unless permitted to grow a beard during active-duty, my intention would be to grow a beard during my next leave period, which is scheduled from
> XXXX-XXXX. Upon my return from leave, I will have my beard inspected by the CSM to confirm its compliance with the ref.
> 
> 4.	For your consideration, Sir.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I.M. Lazy
> OS
> Med Tech



Thank you Lumber for taking the time to help me with a memo example, really what I was looking for as I am totally new to the military life/straight out of bmoq.   As for the others who seem to be angered or annoyed at my request,  I guess I should apologize?  Im only on base twice a week, and was only given access to a dwan account yesterday....  needless to say I am still an amateur when it comes to navigating and finding the information on my own.  Practice makes perfect, and eventually I should catch on.      All the best to everyone, and I continue to welcome any positive advice and or criticism, but try to be nice eh?


----------



## PuckChaser

You're new, its fine. But you should go to your immediate supervisor for assistance with memos like this. Good way to earn PER points by showing your interest in learning proper military writing skills.


----------



## BinRat55

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You're new, its fine. But you should go to your immediate supervisor for assistance with memos like this. Good way to earn PER points by showing your interest in learning proper military writing skills.



My point exactly... 

Just out of curiosity, why are you only "on base twice a week"? Are you reserve?


----------



## porlier

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> My point exactly...
> 
> Just out of curiosity, why are you only "on base twice a week"? Are you reserve?



I did ask my immediate supervisor and his answer was to go find answers on dwan yesterday after I received access, and try I did but with limited success.  Unfortunately everyone in the unit is/and has been very busy since I arrived....., so not much time to help the FNG      I have been advised to speak with an rsm which I plan on doing when back on base next week.  I am regular, but on a distance learning program in healthcare for 9 months.(paid to study, cant complain)  They have me go in twice a week for "job shadowing" which so far has meant photocopying.. lol.


----------



## DAA

maritimer15 said:
			
		

> I did ask my immediate supervisor and his answer was to go find answers on dwan yesterday after I received access,



There you go, now we have it.  Seems that our new officers are treated even worse than our new NCMs.

Hell, some days, even I can't find answers on the DWAN.     :facepalm:


----------



## Lumber

DAA said:
			
		

> There you go, now we have it.  Seems that our new officers are treated even worse than our new NCMs.
> 
> Hell, some days, even I can't find answers on the DWAN.     :facepalm:



Just use the search function! It never leads you astray...


----------



## Blackadder1916

maritimer15 said:
			
		

> . . .  as I am totally new to the military life/straight out of bmoq.  . . .



"Back in the day" (when the earth was cooling) HCAs were expected to spring fully formed and ready to go from the womb.  They, even as lowly subalterns, were the ones who were supposed to be the experts of all things administration - otherwise what reason were they there.  Of course, back then, most of us either came from the ranks or reclassified from another officer MOC (usually cbt arms) - some of us both.  Regardless of your short time in the military, you must have been exposed to at least the basics of staff duties.  What are they teaching on officers' basic courses?




			
				maritimer15 said:
			
		

> . . . I have been advised to speak with an rsm which I plan on doing when back on base next week. . . .



While there may be a plethora of Regimental Sergeants Major within the boundaries of Petawawa, individuals do not usually seek out just any odd one as he passes by.  If you are posted to a unit and you have need of advice of someone of that rank, experience and position then you seek it from "the" RSM (and always in capitals) of that unit.  However, as a subaltern (okay, "sub-lieutenant", since you are so Navy that you immediately need to grow fuzz on your face) you should be seeking your advice from the Adjutant (or Senior Subaltern if there is an officer who seemingly fills that role).  It's not that the RSM can't, won't or shouldn't help you.  It's just that new subbies shouldn't be providing fodder for him to make jokes about how thick new junior officers are.  He already knows, just don't make it easy for him.


----------



## Lumber

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> It's just that new subbies shouldn't be providing fodder for him to make jokes about how thick new junior officers are.  He already knows, just don't make it easy for him.



Thinks must work a little differently in the Army/AF. While I wouldn't go to coxn for advice on staff work (as their are a plethora of subbies and Lt(N)s around to help you with that) we were always encouraged to seek out the Coxn for advice on other matters, such as morale, discipline, dress, etc. As a SLt (since we don't arrive on ship as A/SLts anymore) if I had a question that I thought the Coxn knew the answer to, I'd go right to him. I always approached the Coxn with the respect his experience deserves, and I think they appreicated my acknowledgement of their expertise.

Also, plain and simple, no Officer of any rank (even an OCdt/NCdt) should be affraid to approach the Coxn, RSM, CSM, etc.


----------



## ModlrMike

Lumber said:
			
		

> Also, plain and simple, no Officer of any rank (even an OCdt/NCdt) should be affraid to approach the Coxn, RSM, CSM, etc.



You're right, for the most part. I wouldn't seek their counsel on something that was a personal issue for me such as this.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Lumber said:
			
		

> Thinks must work a little differently in the Army/AF.  . . .



Somewhat, and then there is that 1959 amalgam of the RCAMC and medical elements of the RCN and RCAF, the CFMS Medical Branch RCMS.  Depending on when, where, who and the phases of the moon you could get a mix of all three.  We were the original purple suiters - even before unification.  In eras now long past the development of inexperienced junior officers could be hit or miss - that is why I noted before that most HCAs (and I'm assuming the subbie is an HCA) were usually former NCOs, WOs or officers from another MOC; they brought their military experience with them to the branch.  I cringe at the thought of how newly minted RCMS officers are getting that important experience, especially since porlier maritimer15 indicates his next few months will mainly be spent studying a distance learning package at home.  However, since the young sub-lieutenant is at 2 Fd Amb, I would suggest that he embrace things in an "Army" way.  That is not to say that he shouldn't ask questions, even of the RSM, but really, it's not the RSM's job to coach junior officers in minor staff duties.  And while the RSM will be the CO's primary advisor relating to matters of dress and deportment, he should not be directly making decisions relating to an officer's request such as this, or at the least he should not be seen to be doing so - the RSM is not in this officer's chain of command.



			
				maritimer15 said:
			
		

> I did ask my immediate supervisor and his answer was to go find answers on dwan yesterday after I received access, and try I did but with limited success. . . . . . They have me go in twice a week for "job shadowing" which so far has meant photocopying.. lol.



And here I find the DS solution; his "immediate supervisor" (I'm hoping he means an officer) told him what do.  If I had been the "supervisor" in this instance (and I have been in similar scenarios - on both sides) I would have done the exact thing, told him to look it up, only in my day I probably would have said look it up in the CFP 121.  That's how he gets experience in minor staff duties, by finding the official references, preparing the correspondence and then having the "supervisor" (gleefully waiting with the red pencil) review his work.  Of course, being the SOB that I am, once I saw the topic of the request I'd probably tell him to prepare a service paper on the wearing of beards in the CF.  There is probably more to him being told to go away and find the format elsewhere, because, really, asking permission to grow a beard is an insignificant matter.  It is, however, an excellent learning opportunity for a young officer.  If it was a private (or OS) asking the question, I wouldn't make such a deal about it.  Oh, and since he has that job of the lowest of the lowest officer - i/c photocopying - he could probably do what most have done in centuries past, ask a clerk, there's usually one or two close by the photocopier.

And since he is seemingly in need of assistance of how he should conduct himself, here are some nuggets courtesy of Michael O'Leary.

The Senior Subaltern; guidance for young officers
The Young Officer and Staff Duties


----------



## BinRat55

Truly laughable. Here it is - a YO walks into an office, not quite knowing what to do or how to go about it, displays confusion and next thing you know, there are 4 Sr NCOs in an argument over it!

Welcome to the Regt.

RSM - let's go for cheese doodles.

On a serious note - this young officer will someday be an OC - maybe even a CO. Definitely an AO or an Adj. I'll bet he will know the parts of a memo! Remember - lead by example!


----------



## MARS

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> ...since you are so Navy that you immediately need to grow fuzz on your face)...



 :rofl:

that was awesome!


----------



## markymark500

Hi, I am currently a serving member who has PCAT medical restrictions for shaving. I am going on a leadership course soon and and want to make sure my beard is within the CF regs. Does anyone know where you can find the actual CF beard standands? I have searched throuh the QRNO's and have only found very vauge information. Thanks!


----------



## dangerboy

You are going on a leadership course and have never heard of the CF Dress Manual?  That will have all your answers.


----------



## mariomike

CANADIAN FORCES DRESS INSTRUCTIONS
http://www.2672paratus.ca/documents/CFDressInstr2011.pdf


----------



## 57Chevy

markymark500 said:
			
		

> I have searched throuh the QRNO's and have only found very vauge information.




QR&O's
17.03 - BEARDS AND MOUSTACHES

The wearing of beards and moustaches is subject to any restrictions ordered by the Chief of the Defence Staff.




Facial hair in the military
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Canada

The Canadian Forces permits moustaches, provided they be neatly trimmed and do not pass beyond the corners of the mouth. Generally speaking, beards are not permitted to CF personnel with the following exceptions:
•Members wearing the naval uniform ashore (tradition); seagoing personnel must now shave daily.
•Members of an infantry pioneer platoon (tradition)
•Members who must maintain a beard due to religious requirements (Muslims, Sikhs or orthodox Jews, for example)
•Members with a medical condition which precludes shaving

These exceptions notwithstanding, in no case is a beard permitted without a moustache, and only full beards may be worn (not goatees, van dykes, etc.).

Personnel with beards may still be required to modify or shave off the beard, as environmental or tactical circumstances dictate (e.g., to facilitate the wearing of a gas mask).

Beards are also allowed to be worn by personnel conducting OPFOR duties.


----------



## Tibbson

markymark500 said:
			
		

> Hi, I am currently a serving member who has PCAT medical restrictions for shaving. I am going on a leadership course soon and and want to make sure my beard is within the CF regs. Does anyone know where you can find the actual CF beard standands? I have searched throuh the QRNO's and have only found very vauge information. Thanks!



And a good way to make extra points on a leadership course is to know that it is QR&Os, not QRNOs.  

Its like an officer I used to work for (actually, he worked for me....I just didn't tell him that) used to talk about PPNS rather then PP&S.  Used to give us a chuckle each time he said it.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

My bunkmate on CLC was a Herbie who called them the "Q and ROs".   ;D


----------



## Poacher434

It'd be funny to see a MCpl teach a BMQ without knowing what the CF Dress manual is


----------



## AbdullahD

57Chevy said:
			
		

> QR&O's
> 17.03 - BEARDS AND MOUSTACHES
> 
> The wearing of beards and moustaches is subject to any restrictions ordered by the Chief of the Defence Staff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Facial hair in the military
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Canada
> 
> The Canadian Forces permits moustaches, provided they be neatly trimmed and do not pass beyond the corners of the mouth. Generally speaking, beards are not permitted to CF personnel with the following exceptions:
> •Members wearing the naval uniform ashore (tradition); seagoing personnel must now shave daily.
> •Members of an infantry pioneer platoon (tradition)
> •Members who must maintain a beard due to religious requirements (Muslims, Sikhs or orthodox Jews, for example)
> •Members with a medical condition which precludes shaving
> 
> These exceptions notwithstanding, in no case is a beard permitted without a moustache, and only full beards may be worn (not goatees, van dykes, etc.).
> 
> Personnel with beards may still be required to modify or shave off the beard, as environmental or tactical circumstances dictate (e.g., to facilitate the wearing of a gas mask).
> 
> Beards are also allowed to be worn by personnel conducting OPFOR duties.



Is it possible to be linked to this manual? I looked at the dress regulations under the beard heading which only specified for Sikhs and under the religious heading it only showed for hijabs. The manual that Mariomike linked seems to be from 2011... so am I missing something like an idiot or is it a separate manual?

as a side note a recruiter I talked to personally, said I would only have to declare I was Muslim to keep my beard. Is it possible to view the QRNO (hehe) I have been copy pasting or screensotting a lot of this stuff for my Muslim buddies who are interested in joining. 

Thanks
Abdullah


----------



## George Wallace

AbdullahD said:
			
		

> Is it possible to be linked to this manual? I looked at the dress regulations under the beard heading which only specified for Sikhs and under the religious heading it only showed for hijabs. The manual that Mariomike linked seems to be from 2011... so am I missing something like an idiot or is it a separate manual?
> 
> as a side note a recruiter I talked to personally, said I would only have to declare I was Muslim to keep my beard. Is it possible to view the QRNO (hehe) I have been copy pasting or screensotting a lot of this stuff for my Muslim buddies who are interested in joining.
> 
> Thanks
> Abdullah



GOOGLE IS YOUR FRIEND.  Just Google the above "QR&O's 17.03 - BEARDS AND MOUSTACHES" and you get this:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-queens-regulations-orders-vol-01/ch-17.page

Just a note:  I have known many Muslims in the CAF and they have been 'clean shaven'.  Read our posts on the disadvantages of wearing beards and gas masks and you will understand.  If having to shave is such a big deal, then perhaps joining the CAF MAY NOT be a suitable choice to make.


----------



## dapaterson

The proper reference.


----------



## AbdullahD

George Wallace said:
			
		

> GOOGLE IS YOUR FRIEND.  Just Google the above "QR&O's 17.03 - BEARDS AND MOUSTACHES" and you get this:
> 
> http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-queens-regulations-orders-vol-01/ch-17.page
> 
> Just a note:  I have known many Muslims in the CAF and they have been 'clean shaven'.  Read our posts on the disadvantages of wearing beards and gas masks and you will understand.  If having to shave is such a big deal, then perhaps joining the CAF MAY NOT be a suitable choice to make.



Thanks. I should have not been lazy and I should have thought to use google. Especially on this site lol.

The CAF position on beards as it stands now I have 0 issue at all. I will shave it for operational purposes if I need to, I have no qualms with that at all. All I am doing is checking things off the list to show other people that you can practice Islam 100% and be in the forces. I have talked to a recruiter and what he told me was enough, the other thread were we talked about exemptions was workable. But having something in writing for the larger Muslim population means a lot to a lot of people.

I know many many Muslims who wish they could fight daesh who are Canadian citizens and a lot of what I do here is gather info to show  them that joining the CAF is A way to do it. I dont mean to rock the boat, I should have been less lazy... but to be honest I had just woken up and my wife was letting me sleep in  So lazy I was 

Abdullah

p.s I have reviewed the link (thanks again) and the only place I can find a religious allowance for Muslim members to have beards is on wikipedia. It is in neither of the two manuals, at least that ive seen. Now thank god I am happy with the gaurantees that exist, I'm just now curious to where the wikipedia info came from. They dont link a reference that I saw at least. I dont expect anyone to help me, It's just some enjoyable digging. It is just my mood of the day.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Beards are allowed for religious accommodation. Just like for the Sikhs. Quit worrying and parsing the directives. If the wearing of facial hair becomes an operational problem, your chain of command will provide you with the options.


----------



## Loachman

The first CF Muslim that I knew was a Sigoid in 2 Air Reserve Wing Downsview in the early 1990s. He had a beard even back then.

Supposedly, the Minister of National Defence developed a mask that could be worn over a beard, but I have seen no details about that.


----------



## PuckChaser

Here's a gizmodo link with some details:

http://indefinitelywild.gizmodo.com/canada-s-badass-new-defense-minister-patented-this-gas-1741012986


----------



## Loachman

Thanks. I wonder how much testing it received.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Loachman said:
			
		

> Thanks. I wonder how much testing it received.



Probably getting lots now.


----------



## Pusser

I've been wearing a beard for almost 30 years.  I've never had a problem getting a seal with either a standard gas mask or any other breathing apparatus.


----------



## dimsum

> The old adage is true: Ask (and ask and ask and ask) and you shall receive.
> 
> The Army is in the midst of a study to determine whether it can safely allow soldiers to wear beards, multiple officials have confirmed to Army Times.
> 
> Soldiers have been discussing the idea behind closed doors and in open forums for years, but the push to research the possibilities and make a decision really picked up earlier this year, according to the Army G-1 uniform policy sergeant major.
> 
> “It’s more driven from the religious accommodations group,” said Sgt. Maj. Anthony Moore, referring to a working group that made the recommendations that informed the Army’s authorization of beards for Sikh men in uniform.
> 
> “Soldiers would ask here and there, but it’s gained traction since the Army directive for religious accommodations,” he said in a Feb. 28 phone interview.
> 
> When the working group convened last year to talk beards and turbans, officials expanded the conversation to include hijabs and dreadlocks, Sergeant Major of the Army Dan Dailey told Army Times earlier this year. Those accommodations were all later authorized in a new directive.
> 
> “They said, okay, if we’re going to do religious accommodations, we have to be inclusive,” Dailey said in a January interview.
> 
> That discussion led to the idea of allowing beards in general.
> 
> “I’m not opposed to having a beard,” Dailey said. “I’ve socialized this with several people, including [Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley] — how do we do that to maintain standards? I think that we have to continue that study.”
> 
> Once the study is complete, the results will be discussed by Dailey’s senior enlisted counsel and briefed to the chief of staff of the Army.
> 
> If leadership decides to go forward, an update to AR 670-1 would eventually have to be signed off by the secretary of the Army.
> 
> “Authorizing the wear of beards in the Army, in addition to approved religious accommodations policy, is a topic that soldiers have inquired about recently across the force,” Dailey said March 2 in a follow-up statement. “As of now, there are no plans to change the policy. Army leaders and researchers are currently reviewing the wear of beards by soldiers in the Army. Any potential change in policy will be made with careful consideration to the professionalism, standards, discipline, readiness and safety of all of our soldiers.”
> 
> _More at link.
> _



https://www.armytimes.com/articles/the-army-could-let-soldiers-grow-beards-no-seriously?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=EBB+03.06.2017&utm_term=Editorial+-+Early+Bird+Brief


----------



## Pusser

I'm all for it.  This daily execution of young fresh facial hair is a travesty!  It's cut down in its prime before it has a chance to grow and flourish.


----------



## daftandbarmy

While we're at it, we should reintroduce the 'queue'. Traditional amongst elite fighters

Like Steve Sehgal  ;D


----------



## Underway

Sikhs wear beards in the Army.  Pioneers used to have amazing beards.  And many soldiers in Afghanistan grew beards so that they could get along better with the locals (esp the CIMIC men).  The current Cdn defence minister invented (or trialed) a gas mask to fit over a beard.  

Also goatees should be allowed at the very least.   A nicely trimmed goatee seem perfectly acceptable if you are allowing the fashion crime of the curly moustache to exist in uniform.


----------



## AbdullahD

I think this is for the US Army not Canadian.


----------



## Lightguns

Underway said:
			
		

> Sikhs wear beards in the Army.  Pioneers used to have amazing beards.  And many soldiers in Afghanistan grew beards so that they could get along better with the locals (esp the CIMIC men).  The current Cdn defence minister invented (or trialed) a gas mask to fit over a beard.
> 
> Also goatees should be allowed at the very least.   A nicely trimmed goatee seem perfectly acceptable if you are allowing the fashion crime of the curly moustache to exist in uniform.



What length? What style?  How far out should the goatee be?  Can it be long or short beard?  Ask the fremale soldiers about collar length hair and they can tell you some stories about subjectivity.


----------



## dapaterson

Ask female soldiers about DEU shoes... make combat boots look positively uniform.


----------



## mariomike

AbdullahD said:
			
		

> I think this is for the US Army not Canadian.



The shaving and ( female-male ) haircuts look ok to me. Just my personal opinion.


----------



## OldSolduer

Underway said:
			
		

> Sikhs wear beards in the Army.  Pioneers used to have amazing beards.  And many soldiers in Afghanistan grew beards so that they could get along better with the locals (esp the CIMIC men).  The current Cdn defence minister invented (or trialed) a gas mask to fit over a beard.
> 
> Also goatees should be allowed at the very least.   A nicely trimmed goatee seem perfectly acceptable if you are allowing the fashion crime of the curly moustache to exist in uniform.



Yeah sure lets also grown long hair because someone else did it. And beards....because its cool. 

Sikhs have a religious reason to wear beards. Moustaches have been allowed for ever.

Because the US Army does it is a great reason that we should do it.


----------



## dapaterson

Looking at it from another angle, why does the CAF have a prohibition on beards?  Why is it forbidden - unless you're in the non-seagoing Navy, or a Pioneer, or any number of other exclusions?

"Because we've always done it that way" is a rationale for living in caves, afraid of fire.


----------



## Halifax Tar

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Looking at it from another angle, why does the CAF have a prohibition on beards?  Why is it forbidden - unless you're in the non-seagoing Navy, or a Pioneer, or any number of other exclusions?
> 
> "Because we've always done it that way" is a rationale for living in caves, afraid of fire.



I may be incorrect but don't our current standards for hair stem from our experiences in the trenches of WW1 where abolutions were scarce ?  Because, I know it seems that previous to WW1 long hair and facial hair was common and accepted, from what pictures I have seen.


----------



## Pusser

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I may be incorrect but don't our current standards for hair stem from our experiences in the trenches of WW1 where abolitions were scarce ?  Because, I know it seems that previous to WW1 long hair and facial hair was common and accepted, from what pictures I have seen.



I suspect that is likely part of the reasoning (lice ran rampant through the trenches and the less hair one had the easier life was).  However, it is also worth noting that military "fashion" in both clothing and hairstyle largely followed civilian fashion for centuries (albeit often more elaborate or flashy and frequently somewhat behind).  For the most part though, we seemed to have stopped following civilian fashion sometime in the 1920s...


----------



## mariomike

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Looking at it from another angle, why does the CAF have a prohibition on beards?  Why is it forbidden - unless you're in the non-seagoing Navy, or a Pioneer, or any number of other exclusions?



Perhaps the discussion should ( or does ) involve public aka taxpayer support for facial hair? 

Taxpayers encourage our representatives to vote on a strong pay and benefit packages for our military and civil uniform services. 
A considerable amount of energy and effort is spent to maintain a positive image in the community. What seems as positive to some, may not be seen that way by others.

See also,

Studying public perceptions of police grooming standards
Summary: The response of the police administrators to the challenges of the grooming standards by arguing that more liberal standards would erode public respect for the police is given. The results of the study show the public's opposition on the grooming standards and the reasons for that opposition. 
https://myessays100.wordpress.com/2016/04/16/us-police-grooming-standards/

This is US police. But, may, or may not, have some relevance to the US Army.

Facial hair in the military
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_hair_in_the_military#United_States


----------



## OldSolduer

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Looking at it from another angle, why does the CAF have a prohibition on beards?  Why is it forbidden - unless you're in the non-seagoing Navy, or a Pioneer, or any number of other exclusions?
> 
> "Because we've always done it that way" is a rationale for living in caves, afraid of fire.



I think as a taxpayer and civilian now, military personnel should present a good image in uniform. Beards will be opening a can of worms: some will push the envelope when it comes to length etc. 
On the military side I have CBRN concerns.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Maybe we can get them to hire some Combat Engineers or Pioneers as consultants on the issue.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> ... Beards will be opening a can of worms: some will push the envelope when it comes to length etc. ...


If hair length can be controlled, beard length can be controlled.


			
				Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> On the military side I have CBRN concerns.


This has me wondering more than the potential "look," which can be policed.


----------



## Loachman

Underway said:
			
		

> the fashion crime of the curly moustache



Just because _you_ can't grow one...


----------



## ballz

I understand why we must have a "conservative" appearance in the military and I am okay with that, all professions tend to breed some form of professional decorum into their people... but what exactly is a "conservative" look is always changing and the machine is quite unable to adapt until something fails and then they react (it is quite sad, really).

There was a time when people shaved every day, no matter what, because you "looked like a bum" if you didn't. That is not the case today, the CAF just hasn't caught on yet. A wise dude named Chris Haueter correctly observed once that "the new and the old are always at war, in any art, be it music, drawing, martial arts, whatever it is..." And in the military the "old" runs the place and the "new" has very little influence. This is to our detriment in many many ways, but that's a whole other conversation to have.

In any case, I don't think today's taxpayers consider having a beard or a goatee an "unprofessional" representation of themselves. I also don't think the taxpayers on the whole would think that a man having earrings would be unprofessional either, but I am sure the military will wait for some crisis to be manufactured instead of being a capable, thinking machine and changing the dress regs before someone successfully makes a spectacle of the CAF and it's sexist dress regulations.

Anywho, I'll be a civie soon and I can be happy to no longer waste oxygen worrying about this kind of petty stuff. :nod:


----------



## Halifax Tar

:goodpost:


----------



## mariomike

ballz said:
			
		

> In any case, I don't think today's taxpayers consider having a beard or a goatee an "unprofessional" representation of themselves. I also don't think the taxpayers on the whole would think that a man having earrings would be unprofessional either, but I am sure the military will wait for some crisis to be manufactured instead of being a capable, thinking machine and changing the dress regs before someone successfully makes a spectacle of the CAF and it's sexist dress regulations.



I am convinced that taxpayers do not support relaxed grooming standards for their uniformed services. 

This study concerns police officers, but I believe it is also relevant to the uniformed services,

"Strict grooming standards have been deemed by many police agencies as necessary to ensure safety, discipline, and uniformity; to promote an esprit de corps; and to foster public respect for police. Some police associations have sought to challenge grooming regulations on the grounds that they infringe on officers’ rights and on the assumption that they are outdated. The United States Supreme Court has acknowledged that grooming standards and other restrictions infringe on an officer’s freedom of choice in personal matters. The Court ruled that a police department need only have a rational basis to constitutionally restrict an officer’s freedom of choice in this area. This study was designed to assess current public attitudes toward police officer grooming. Questionnaires were mailed to 7 randomly selected groups of 200 citizens in British Columbia, Canada. Each questionnaire was accompanied by a computer-manipulated photo of a police officer exhibiting one of six selected grooming standards, such as a shaved head, goatee, pierced ear, full beard, shaved head with goatee, and no distinguishing grooming feature. Respondents were asked to rate the pictured officer in terms of eight qualities: knowledge of the law, reliability, being objective, trustworthiness, concern for the public, hardworking, courtesy, and fairness. The results indicate that the general public does not support relaxed grooming standards and suggest that there are several negative consequences of officers being allowed to deviate from conservative grooming standards. Respondents believed that relaxing standards would erode confidence in the police, especially in terms of respect, trust, and pride. Grooming policies should remain in place until more conclusive evidence suggests otherwise."
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=203446

Why is this important? It is the people in our community who encourage our representatives to vote on a strong pay and benefit package for our uniformed services.


----------



## RocketRichard

Loachman said:
			
		

> Just because _you_ can't grow one...


Civilians and military generally love the handlebar stache'. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Eaglelord17

The main reason beards were done away with in WWI was the fact there was gas attacks. It also wasn't until after WWI that shaving became a popular thing in society, mainly a hold over from when men came back from the trenches and kept it up.

If the argument against beards is because of CBRN then make it so that when you have to carry a gas mask on you 24/7 you have to shave (or firefighting or what have you). If it is because it doesn't look 'professional' then google 'professional' on images and you will notice that quite a few of the individuals in the photos have beards.

Personally I am more concerned with having a universal standard than anything else. I don't care if your male, female or something other than those two, we all do the same job, and I expect the same treatment as anyone else.


----------



## dapaterson

So, does that mean that men should be allowed to wear earrings?


----------



## SupersonicMax

These pet-peeves that in the end don't matter really annoy me..  If we spent half the time worrying about important stuff rather that things that don't matter in the end and don't affect the end result (overly concerned about dress, missing an empty line between the last paragraph of a meme and a signature block, etc), and worked on matters of importance (promoting and accepting innovation, caring for our subbordinates, supporting the operatinal units, etc), we could accomplish so much more day-to-day and we could cultivate a motovational atmosphere at work... But we are very much to our detriment a process-driveb organization rather than a result-based organization.


----------



## ballz

dapaterson said:
			
		

> So, does that mean that men should be allowed to wear earrings?



Yes and that's exactly the kind of spectacle the military is incapable of avoiding. Here we are on this Op HONOUR tirade, making people take "gender-based analysis" training, and we have dress regs that go directly against it and somebody will undoubtedly, eventually, make a public spectacle of it the longer it stays that way.



			
				SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> These pet-peeves that in the end don't matter really annoy me..  If we spent half the time worrying about important stuff rather that things that don't matter in the end and don't affect the end result (overly concerned about dress, missing an empty line between the last paragraph of a meme and a signature block, etc), and worked on matters of importance (promoting and accepting innovation, caring for our subbordinates, supporting the operatinal units, etc), we could accomplish so much more day-to-day and we could cultivate a motovational atmosphere at work... But we are very much to our detriment a process-driveb organization rather than a result-based organization.



Yup. You know how other professions manage to maintain the public's trust with a more relaxed grooming standard? Professional competence. If only we could get some more of that, maybe we could stop worrying about hair cuts so much.


----------



## SupersonicMax

dapaterson said:
			
		

> So, does that mean that men should be allowed to wear earrings?



Why not?  I think anybody with a semblance of a brain recognizes that how someone dresses has nothing to do with competence.  In fact, I have seen many well groomes individuals dressed in nice expensive suits with shiny shoes I wouldn't trust looking after a goldfish.

I have also met many people that Chiefs would yell at do a job second to none.  As long as people are effective and don't put themselve and others in danger in the exercise of their job, I don't care how shiny their boots are or how many loose threads are left on their seams.


----------



## the 48th regulator

dapaterson said:
			
		

> So, does that mean that men should be allowed to wear earrings?



If women are allowed, then yes.

dileas

tess


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

As i have said before, this whole hair length/grooming thing has been changing all the time and is society driven at any given time - to an extent. In particular, i think in the CAF, the standard have tended to be dictated by the Army.

Before unification, the Navy had much less strict view of haircuts than the Army. Let's face it, Sailors used to have long hair and wear them in agony tail way before "man buns" were in modern fashion. Where do you think that the "blue collar" of the sailor uniform comes from? It waste protect the gun shirt from the stains of the greasy hair (usually tarred  - hence the nickname jolly jack tar). Here is a video from the late 70's 80's. it's US Navy (the Final Countdown - but the LSO's are actual US Navy) but you can see at 58 seconds in that the hairdo of that era were much longer than they are now.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SwgU42XSpw

All I am saying is the "neat' current haircuts are not something that is required by any special needs of the service, nor would the population at large be shocked by longer hairdos and beards, so long as they are reasonable and clean. Those that think so are deluding themselves on which aspects the population cares about.


----------



## armyvern

Lightguns said:
			
		

> ... Ask the fremale soldiers about collar length hair and they can tell you some stories about subjectivity.



Not really; as per, when it reaches the bottom of your collar, it goes up or gets cut.  Pretty simple rule actually and the women know the rule ... many of their male supervisors do not judging by the amount of females I have to correct with braids half way to their ass getting passed by while their male supervisor shits on the male next to her for his not being high and tight enough.

When it does reach the bottom of their collar and is still not quite long enough to put up into a bun, they can avoid cutting by submitting a memo to their RSM/Chief to request a 60 days "Transition Period" whereby they can wear it still down but only for 60 days max to grow it out ... and, if it becomes long enough to bun/braid within that 60 day period, the time ends on that earlier day.  Even with the braid, your hair can be 4 or5 inches longer than your collar, but not reach your collar-bottom when it's braided so it's still OK to wear down (as long as it does not extend past the collar-bottom).

In DEUs = hair goes up. Full stop. No braids hanging down.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Writing a memo to grow hair to comply with regulation....  waste of time isn't it?


----------



## armyvern

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Writing a memo to grow hair to comply with regulation....  waste of time isn't it?



She'd be writing the memo to gain approval to wear her hair for max 60 days in a manner that is NOT in compliance with the dress regs.  Just like a beard chit.  We do have rules and regs. 


A max 60 day period to allow her to wear it longer than her collar-bottom as it isn't quite long enough to braid/bun yet.  Depends on hair type - not all women need the 60day transition period.  My hair is extremely curly, by the time it actually reached my collar bottom and had to be put up, it was nice and long and braidable.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Writing a memo is still silly.  Why not inform your supervisor verbally?  Do officers have to go through the Chief too?  What about the CO.  Would she have to go through the CO?  

Added bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy is inneficient.


----------



## Halifax Tar

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Writing a memo is still silly.  Why not inform your supervisor verbally?  Do officers have to go through the Chief too?  What about the CO.  Would she have to go through the CO?
> 
> Added bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy is inneficient.



Not that I agree with it but it is my understanding that the reason for gaining CoC approval is so that member X has back up when someone of higher rank goes to jack them up for being out of dress or not meeting the standards.  Its a form of excusal, I think. 

As for higher ranks, well everyone has a CoC, no matter the rank; and I can only hope those at senior levels follow the same protocols as is expected of those under them.  You know, leadership and all that stuff


----------



## mariomike

ballz said:
			
		

> You know how other professions manage to maintain the public's trust with a more relaxed grooming standard? Professional competence.



"Other professions" have more relaxed grooming standards not because their employers liked the idea, but because their unions took it to arbitration. 

Ref: Borough of Scarborough and International Association of Fire Fighters (1972), in which the arbitrator made the statement quoted in many subsequent grooming standard arbitrations that “there is no absolute right in an employer to create an employee in his own image."

The issue in this case was sideburns. It was quoted in an arbitration by another union 40 years later regarding tattoos and piercings.

The opinion of the employer was,

"The general appearance of the fire fighters to the taxpayer and general public is extremely important as dress and personal grooming reflects well-disciplined, well-trained capable people, employees of the Borough of Scarborough, who provide a fire protection function equally as good as their appearance projects."


----------



## armyvern

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Writing a memo is still silly.  Why not inform your supervisor verbally?  Do officers have to go through the Chief too?  What about the CO.  Would she have to go through the CO?
> 
> Added bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy is inneficient.



Well, officers go to the Adjt now don't they.  I'm certain that you already knew that though.  Nice trolling though.

"For the sake of bureaucracy" is what allows one to pull out the memo (or the beard chit) when one gets picked up for not being in accordance with the dress regs.  

Better to have that chit/memo for those sorts of things to deal with the "doubters" immediately than to have even more inefficiency caused by receiving a few phones calls every day for 60 days, or for months while a troop has a beard, gets picked up for it and no chit to show the "doubter" that he is good to go.

And, there's no issue with the doubters querying said individuals either - it's their jobs after all to enforce standards and policy.

But then, you knew all that already too.   :


----------



## SupersonicMax

So, because a memo was written, everybody that could potentially jack a person up knows?  Not likely.  The effect of telling a supervisor is the same.

As far as COs writing memos for haircuts...  I wouldn't expect a CO to write a memo to the Unit chief or the Adjudant to ask for permission to grow hair.  Nor would I expect any officers to do so.  The adjudant is a Captain in a Squadron, just like most other officers.

If you receive multiple phone calls for people growing their hair from over-zealous people doubting someone's integrity, your unit has some serious issues unrelated to dress.

Treat people like adults.  You could be surprised how most will act like adults and go the extra mile.


----------



## armyvern

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> So, because a memo was written, everybody that could potentially jack a person up knows?  Not likely.  The effect of telling a supervisor is the same.
> 
> As far as COs writing memos for haircuts...  I wouldn't expect a CO to write a memo to the Unit chief or the Adjudant to ask for permission to grow hair.  Nor would I expect any officers to do so.  The adjudant is a Captain in a Squadron, just like most other officers.
> 
> If you receive multiple phone calls for people growing their hair from over-zealous people doubting someone's integrity, your unit has some serious issues unrelated to dress.
> 
> Treat people like adults.  You could be surprised how most will act like adults and go the extra mile.



The memo is written exactly so that "those that would potentially jack a person up" are afforded the opportunity to know immediately upon presentation of the memo that troop is actually good-to-go.  But, you knew that already.

I didn't say shit about the CO - you did.  COs don't need to grant themselves permission.  The Adjt and the RSM, by virtue of their position and delegation in matters of dress from the CO, action these memos on behalf of the CO. But then, you knew that already too.

Has nothing to do with a Unit's or an individuals "integrity" - it has to do with someone -ANY member of the CAF, for whatever reasons, having their ass immediately covered when they are going to be "not in compliance with rules or policy".  It's why people carry beard chits, boot chits, hair chits, medical chits, excused PT chits, modified PT chits etc etc.  But then, you knew all that already too because you're supposedly an adult with TI.  

It's CAF-wide so you can get over your holier than thou bullshit any day now.  I guarantee you that people in possession of any number of chits etc are in your Unit with chits right now.  And, phone calls and queries DO happen even in the sacrosanct realm of the RCAF (experience talking here).  But, you know that too.

Let's just get away from issuing these chits for anything, at any time ... one day when you're CDS Max make that your task.  :


----------



## SupersonicMax

All the "chits" you mentionned are medical in nature.  Except growing hair.  You keep living in your world if shiny boots and neat hair.  I'll keep pushing my people up and running an efficient organization.  And trusting my people do the right thing.


----------



## QV

Isnt the CAF dress committee composed of a bunch of CWO?  Are there any other ranks on that?  

For the majority of CaF people that is like having your grandpa or grandmother dress you everyday.  

Dress regulations is something that can easily be improved/modernized.  But I suppose I will grow a pointy stash and wax it to a sharp upward angle... because that looks stellar.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Without taking side here, SSM, you are not quite correct. 

First of all, the "beard" chit can be considered a "hair" one from your classification - so I won't comment other than say: try and not shave for a week without one in your pocket and see what happens  .

Second: the modified PT chits can be issued for reasons other than medical. I know because for the first five years of my career, I was the holder of a modified chit issued not by the medical personnel but by the PERI upon request from my University coach. I was competing in class A fencing at the national level (just below National team, with potential to compete internationally for Canada), and some exercises could work the wrong muscle groups. So I had a special set of exercises and was excused certain other ones - including push-ups - which pi**ed off quite a few instructors even if my own exercises were more stringent.


----------



## Remius

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> You keep living in your world if shiny boots and neat hair.  I'll keep pushing my people up and running an efficient organization.  And trusting my people do the right thing.



Um, why can't it be both?


----------



## Remius

QV said:
			
		

> Isnt the CAF dress committee composed of a bunch of CWO?  Are there any other ranks on that?
> 
> For the majority of CaF people that is like having your grandpa or grandmother dress you everyday.



Yeah, because sometimes kids actually need to be told how to dress otherwise they end doing stupid things eventually like showing up at job interviews in ripped jeans or think that yoga pants are formal wear. Grandma and grandpa are normally right.  It just takes the kids a very long time to realise it.


----------



## OldSolduer

Remius said:
			
		

> Yeah, because sometimes kids actually need to be told how to dress otherwise they end doing stupid things eventually like showing up at job interviews in ripped jeans or think that yoga pants are formal wear. Grandma and grandpa are normally right.  It just takes the kids a very long time to realise it.



Good points. We can have both....the good organization and proper dress and deportment.
OK here is the bottom line:

Corporals and privates don't get a say in dress policy. Not many people do get a say.

The purview of unit dress is the COs decision with input from his RSM. Beard growing is not within the CO's arcs.

For all of you that think its OK to grow a beard because you look cool, think again. I'm sure there are a few people more qualified than I that are concerned about CBRN and beards. If the seal isn't formed then casualties in a CBRN environment will ensue.

If you can't tell by now, I think even discussing it at NDHQ level is a waste of time and frickin retarded.


----------



## ballz

mariomike said:
			
		

> "Other professions" have more relaxed grooming standards not because their employers liked the idea, but because their unions took it to arbitration.



I think you are getting a bit too specific there... there are plenty of professions that don't have unions that also have a grooming standard more relaxed then ours. Lawyers, accounting, etc etc etc. They are more relaxed because the *employers* are practical people that care more about professional competence and certainly don't care enough about looks to employ people solely for the purpose of inspecting how people look. They have dress codes / expectations and the like as well, and the direct supervisors are responsible for everything in their organization. Perhaps we could adopt a similar system instead of employing people to add no more value than to inspect haircuts and jack people up for holding their coffee the wrong way while they walk from their car to the office.

You know what erodes the public's trust in the accounting profession? Things like the Enron scandal. The KPMG tax evasion scheme. Certainly not their haircuts.

For police, things like the Don Dunphy Inquiry, the High River gun grab, tazing a man to death in an airport, the ongoing sexual harassment scandal that the RCMP is facing, etc.

For the CAF, the Somalia Affair, the numerous soldiers dying of suicide after releasing from the CAF, the suicides of RMC cadets, and members in the training system including at CFLRS, the Sexual Misconduct fiasco we've found ourselves in, etc.

While the professional bodies of the accounting world spend their time worrying about how they can create better accounting standards that are more accurate and less prone to manipulation, or how they can instill sound ethics and values so these scandals don't happen, we worry about dress / bells / whistles and spend all of our time arguing about haircuts and beards. We've got bigger fish to fry.


----------



## Loachman

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> All the "chits" you mentionned are medical in nature.  Except growing hair.



I had one for boots due to fitting problems, not medical reasons.

One presumes that members authorized beards for religious reasons would have non-medical chits explaining those religious reasons.

Regardless, these chits exist, as has been explained, largely to protect individual members when interrogated about their hair, beards, and funny boots etcetera.


----------



## Loachman

ballz said:
			
		

> I think you are getting a bit too specific there... there are plenty of professions that don't have unions that also have a grooming standard more relaxed then ours.



How many of those professions wear uniforms and require the same high levels of individual and group discipline in order to ethically and precisely apply violence and destruction, or the deterrent threat thereof, in order to enforce national aims?



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> For the CAF, the Somalia Affair, the numerous soldiers dying of suicide after releasing from the CAF, the suicides of RMC cadets, and members in the training system including at CFLRS, the Sexual Misconduct fiasco we've found ourselves in, etc.



Those do not seem, in my experience, to affect public opinion of us as sloppy personnel would. It is those in public in uniform that have the most effect on public opinion, as they have direct contact with the public. Appearances count when making impressions. Appearance factors will vary with viewers, obviously, but lines have to be drawn somewhere. Long hair for men, beards, chunky costume jewellery, gaudy make-up for women, brightly/unnaturally-coloured hair, brightly/unnaturally-coloured beards, huge earrings for women, earrings for men, those big dumb whatever-they-are-called, loopy, ring-like earlobe-inserts for men or women, gaudy make-up for men, tongue-splittings, facial piercings, facial tattoos, facial brandings, eyeball tattoos - tell me which should or should not be acceptable/considered professional/non-professional? Tell me where, along that sequence, the line should be inserted (feel free to re-arrange the sequence if that helps)?

Edited to add: plastic surgery to make ear tips look Vulcan/elfin.


----------



## Remius

ballz said:
			
		

> While the professional bodies of the accounting world spend their time worrying about how they can create better accounting standards that are more accurate and less prone to manipulation, or how they can instill sound ethics and values so these scandals don't happen, we worry about dress / bells / whistles and spend all of our time arguing about haircuts and beards. We've got bigger fish to fry.



Indeed.  So why enforce things like saluting the war memorial.  Bigger fish to fry.  Or mixing kit?  Bigger fish to fry.  Or how about the troop walking in around downtown Ottawa without headdress on.  Bigger fish to fry.

You know what?  People are paid big bucks to fry those bigger fish.  They count on people like us to make sure the smaller fish get fried so they don't have to.  We are a professional military organisation.  That means sometimes you have rules for operations and the field and other times you have rules for garrison and sometimes those rules cross over to each other.  We don't get to pick the rules that suit us or the ones we agree with. If they change fine, if they don't, we enforce them.   

We're not accountants.  We're the CAF.


----------



## ballz

Loachman said:
			
		

> Those do not seem, in my experience, to affect public opinion of us as sloppy personnel would.



Well, we'll just never agree on that one then. When I talk to people, they really aren't interested in talking about how great we all look in uniform, or how much better dressed we are compared to "x,y,z" profession. They sure do bring up the latest topics in the news, however.



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> Appearance factors will vary with viewers, obviously, but lines have to be drawn somewhere.



Indeed, as was alluded to in my original post.



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> Somewhere slightly different from where we are today in garrison, and vastly different from where we are today in the field.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what?  People are paid big bucks to fry those bigger fish.  They count on people like us to make sure the smaller fish get fried so they don't have to.  We are a professional military organisation.  That means sometimes you have rules for operations and the field and other times you have rules for garrison and sometimes those rules cross over to each other.  We don't get to pick the rules that suit us or the ones we agree with. If they change fine, if they don't, we enforce them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did this argument about " whether or not people who are paid to do "x" should do "x" " come from? You seem to be arguing about something that wasn't even being debated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're not accountants.  We're the CAF.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, I forgot the #1 rule of the CAF debate club, the ultimate trump card.
> 
> Rule #1 - We are infallible, they've been telling me this for years... Therefore we are too superior to learn anything about anything from another organizations.
Click to expand...


----------



## OldSolduer

Remius said:
			
		

> Indeed.  So why enforce things like saluting the war memorial.  Bigger fish to fry.  Or mixing kit?  Bigger fish to fry.  Or how about the troop walking in around downtown Ottawa without headdress on.  Bigger fish to fry.
> 
> You know what?  People are paid big bucks to fry those bigger fish.  They count on people like us to make sure the smaller fish get fried so they don't have to.  We are a professional military organisation.  That means sometimes you have rules for operations and the field and other times you have rules for garrison and sometimes those rules cross over to each other.  We don't get to pick the rules that suit us or the ones we agree with. If they change fine, if they don't, we enforce them.
> 
> We're not accountants.  We're the CAF.



That's why NCOs are promoted.....to look after the 5 Ds so officers can concentrate of planning, etc. 
We all learn in basic training why we f$cking shave. Two reasons - three if you count hygiene. First is a neat clean MILITARY appearance, second is so your REPIRATOR will seal correctly. Ask the RCN folks how many on board ship have beards.

This idea of "let's grow beards" is a result of a few memes celebrating beards on the net. It's a fad that will pass. 

So if you want to grow a beard, and have no medical or religious reason to do so.......


----------



## Loachman

I stopped shaving one day and got kicked out of the CF the very next day.


----------



## ballz

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> So if you want to grow a beard, and have no medical or religious reason to do so.......



No problemo, just don't act surprised when people leave and then hold studies, working groups, and town halls where Colonels and CWOs sit around and ponder why we can't retain good people. rancing:


----------



## Remius

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> This idea of "let's grow beards" is a result of a few memes celebrating beards on the net. It's a fad that will pass.



This statement right here is why people want beards.  Or they see SOF guys sporting beards.  I made a joke to a friend of mine from that world who was clean shaven, asking if he was shaving now because everyone else started growing beards in the CAF.   [


----------



## Remius

ballz said:
			
		

> No problemo, just don't act surprised when people leave and then hold studies, working groups, and town halls where Colonels and CWOs sit around and ponder why we can't retain good people. rancing:



Because they'll figure out that they quit because the military made them shave and cut their hair? Yeah, my response is maybe they should have researched what exactly they were joining...

If someone quits over that they never should have joined.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I will only put one comment out here and then retire:

If a neat, clean, military appearance is what counts in public, then please explain to me why we dress like bunch of slobs by wearing on a daily basis and out in public the sloppiest uniform we have: The friggin CADPAT or NCD?

op:

And Hamish: We used to be able to have a beard on board warships, so long as we could demonstrate that we could get a seal without assistance of any product (such as cheating with vaseline). The main reason it was removed was complaints of unfair treatment by those whose beard did not permit seal being told to shave, so we decided that's it no beards onboard ship. During a shore posting: have them as much as you want. 

Funny as it may seem - even though we do carry our gas masks with us onboard ship - they are not the big worry. When under NBC attack, we stay inside the ship in what is known as Citadel condition. It is a centralized whole ship air filtration system that provides positive pressure so any leakage is out instead of in. The main reason for checking on status of beards was the fire fighting breathing apparatus - Chemox - they could not work if no proper seal as they relied on a close loop rebreathing process - and if you introduced any gasoline vapour (such as from vaseline ) in the close loop, you could actually cause the container of chemicals to explode.


----------



## ballz

Remius said:
			
		

> Because they'll figure out that they quit because the military made them shave and cut their hair? Yeah, my response is maybe they should have researched what exactly they were joining...
> 
> If someone quits over that they never should have joined.



Because they worked for a bunch of dinosaurs that were out of touch with the rank and file and incapable of adapting to change until failure gives them no other choice, who's only answer to any of their legit gripes whether it's dress and deportment or whether its why our training fucking sucks is, "This is the CAF. This is what it is, this is what is always has been and always will be. If you don't like it, you should get out."

Who would want to work for those kind of people?


----------



## Remius

ballz said:
			
		

> Because they worked for a bunch of dinosaurs that were out of touch with the rank and file and incapable of adapting to change until failure gives them no other choice, who's only answer to any of their legit gripes whether it's dress and deportment or whether its why our training ******* sucks is, "This is the CAF. This is what it is, this is what is always has been and always will be. If you don't like it, you should get out."
> 
> Who would want to work for those kind of people?



When the rules change I'll follow them and enforce them.  Some people refuse to for personal reasons.  That's wrong.  It's that simple.  Troops like to have their mobile devices out in class or on the firing point or wherever.  Does this mean I'm out of touch by telling them to put it away or maybe, just maybe they are out of touch with what they should be doing?  The organisation has changed the rules before and will do it again, but as a leader its my job to make sure the rules in place are followed.  I don't ignore the guy with a nose piercing who shows up or the guy who shaves his girlfriend's name into his hair.  So when the Navy TDO here shows up to work in Combats I will tell her that she is out of dress, not "it's ok, as long as you are comfortable".  And yes I will tell whoever to get his hands out of his pockets or stop leaning against whatever wall they think they are holding up etc etc.


----------



## OldSolduer

ballz said:
			
		

> No problemo, just don't act surprised when people leave and then hold studies, working groups, and town halls where Colonels and CWOs sit around and ponder why we can't retain good people. rancing:



This is a red herring and you know it. If soldiers get out because "the Army won't let me grow a beard" that's a pretty immature attitude.

Ok I'll be blunt here to those of you who don't get it:

You as subordinates of the CDS don't get a vote at the table. Period. If you're told to shave, shave. If you have medical or religious reasons so be it.
There is no "dinosaur" mentality when it comes to using the kit your issued properly and that includes shaving to properly employ  the respirator.

OGBD thank you for your input.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> ... You as subordinates of the CDS don't get a vote at the table. Period. If you're told to shave, shave ...


That's understood in a top-down organization like the military, but some of the responsibility also lies with the system & leaders to explain exactly why.  This is for SURE part of the answer on beards ...


			
				Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> There is no "dinosaur" mentality when it comes to using the kit your issued properly and that includes shaving to properly employ  the respirator.


... but I'm guessing (based on what I read around here and what I see/hear about the cohort providing the latest gang o' service members) more and more people are asking about this and other things:  Is there a solid, operational reason to do this?  Or is it _*only*_, "because I said so" or "because it's been done a million years this way"?  If the latter is the _*only*_ reason someone gives for anything, as someone way smarter than me said earlier ...


			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> "Because we've always done it that way" is a rationale for living in caves, afraid of fire.


----------



## Pusser

ballz said:
			
		

> I think you are getting a bit too specific there... there are plenty of professions that don't have unions that also have a grooming standard more relaxed then ours. Lawyers, accounting, etc etc etc. They are more relaxed because the *employers* are practical people that care more about professional competence and certainly don't care enough about looks to employ people solely for the purpose of inspecting how people look. They have dress codes / expectations and the like as well, and the direct supervisors are responsible for everything in their organization. Perhaps we could adopt a similar system instead of employing people to add no more value than to inspect haircuts and jack people up for holding their coffee the wrong way while they walk from their car to the office.
> 
> You know what erodes the public's trust in the accounting profession? Things like the Enron scandal. The KPMG tax evasion scheme. Certainly not their haircuts.
> 
> For police, things like the Don Dunphy Inquiry, the High River gun grab, tazing a man to death in an airport, the ongoing sexual harassment scandal that the RCMP is facing, etc.
> 
> For the CAF, the Somalia Affair, the numerous soldiers dying of suicide after releasing from the CAF, the suicides of RMC cadets, and members in the training system including at CFLRS, the Sexual Misconduct fiasco we've found ourselves in, etc.
> 
> While the professional bodies of the accounting world spend their time worrying about how they can create better accounting standards that are more accurate and less prone to manipulation, or how they can instill sound ethics and values so these scandals don't happen, we worry about dress / bells / whistles and spend all of our time arguing about haircuts and beards. We've got bigger fish to fry.



I don't think you're quite correct here.  It may depend on the firm, but most of the professions are pretty conservative.  If you want to work in a boutique law firm defending tree huggers for protesting, then you can probably get away with meeting your clients in jeans and a tie-died T-shirt.  However, if you want to succeed in an upscale Bay Street firm, then you probably don't want to show up wearing an off the rack suit you got on special at Moores.  Furthermore, all lawyers have to wear robes and collars in court and yes, that dress standard is enforced.  QCs tend to wear silk robes, because it's expected, not because they have to.  Similar standards also apply to other professions and not because their colleagues are telling them, but because their clients expect it.  I was once referred to a civilian medical specialist and after the first appointment I reported back to the Base Hospital that I would not see them again because I felt they were unprofessional (granted, based more on the condition of their office than their clothing) and, therefore, I doubted their competence.

We wear uniforms in the military in order to avoid shooting the wrong guys by mistake, but the reasons for our tradition of spit and polish has more to do with health.  Leaders in centuries past may not have known why forcing their soldiers to meticulously clean and polish their kit and maintain grooming standards made for healthier, more effective troops, they just knew it did.  Even today, if you have a soldier who can't master keeping his uniform clean and can't seem to shave and get his hair cut, how effective is he at other more important tasks?


----------



## Remius

It isn't only for operational reasons.  image is a big one. 

The CAF has said "This is what we want our soldiers to look like in this organisation"  The rules are prescribed and written down.  If they change them to allow beards, or ties become optional in DEUs then so be it. 

My issue isn't with someone wanting to wear a beard, it is the ones that just let people do it without the rules to back them up, just because.  I don't disagree with beards per se, I disagree with just letting people do want they want when it goes against the regulations in place.


----------



## Pusser

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> That's why NCOs are promoted.....to look after the 5 Ds so officers can concentrate of planning, etc.
> We all learn in basic training why we f$cking shave. Two reasons - three if you count hygiene. First is a neat clean MILITARY appearance, second is so your REPIRATOR will seal correctly. Ask the RCN folks how many on board ship have beards.
> 
> This idea of "let's grow beards" is a result of a few memes celebrating beards on the net. It's a fad that will pass.
> 
> So if you want to grow a beard, and have no medical or religious reason to do so.......



I've worn a beard for over 30 years (almost my entire career), many of them serving in ships.  I've never had trouble attaining a seal with either a gas mask or the Chemox breathing apparatus.  I thought it was a travesty when the RCN changed its policy as I thought it was unnecessary.  If you can pass the test and get a seal, then I see no reason to not allow someone to wear a beard.  The trouble is that now, they won't even let you take the test unless you are clean shaven.  Oddly, this does not extend to CBRN training...


----------



## ballz

Remius said:
			
		

> When the rules change I'll follow them and enforce them.  Some people refuse to for personal reasons.  That's wrong.  It's that simple.  Troops like to have their mobile devices out in class or on the firing point or wherever.  Does this mean I'm out of touch by telling them to put it away or maybe, just maybe they are out of touch with what they should be doing?  The organisation has changed the rules before and will do it again, but as a leader its my job to make sure the rules in place are followed.  I don't ignore the guy with a nose piercing who shows up or the guy who shaves his girlfriend's name into his hair.  So when the Navy TDO here shows up to work in Combats I will tell her that she is out of dress, not "it's ok, as long as you are comfortable".  And yes I will tell whoever to get his hands out of his pockets or stop leaning against whatever wall they think they are holding up etc etc.





			
				Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Ok I'll be blunt here to those of you who don't get it:
> 
> You as subordinates of the CDS don't get a vote at the table. Period. If you're told to shave, shave. If you have medical or religious reasons so be it.
> There is no "dinosaur" mentality when it comes to using the kit your issued properly and that includes shaving to properly employ  the respirator.



Wow, I see you managed to write an entire paragraph about an argument that isn't actually occurring... No one here is saying troops shouldn't do what they're told, no one here is saying SNCOs and WOs shouldn't enforce the rules that exist, no one here is saying that if troops choose to not follow the rules they should just be let off the hook. No one here is saying that we should be able to make the rules.

We are discussing the rules that DO exist, why, and if they are outdated and need change... welcome to the conversation that is actually occurring. We are allowed to discuss this, we don't need the CDS's permission.



			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> more and more people are asking about this and other things:  Is there a solid, operational reason to do this?  Or is it _*only*_, "because I said so" or "because it's been done a million years this way"?  If the latter is the _*only*_ reason someone gives for anything, as someone way smarter than me said earlier ...



The gas mask argument is a bit of a fallback, IMO. We have members with beards that are able to operate in a CBRN environment. They are "accommodated" for by saying "yes you can have a beard, but only if you shave for operational requirements." This can be done for anyone.

Secondly, we don't even keep our gas mask on our leg for most of our training, so how can anyone try to argue that shaving each morning in a swamp of all places is related to being able to put on a gas mask for CBRN purposes when you don't even have it with you.



			
				Pusser said:
			
		

> I don't think you're quite correct here.  It may depend on the firm, but most of the professions are pretty conservative.  If you want to work in a boutique law firm defending tree huggers for protesting, then you can probably get away with meeting your clients in jeans and a tie-died T-shirt.  However, if you want to succeed in an upscale Bay Street firm, then you probably don't want to show up wearing an off the rack suit you got on special at Moores.  Furthermore, all lawyers have to wear robes and collars in court and yes, that dress standard is enforced.  QCs tend to wear silk robes, because it's expected, not because they have to.  Similar standards also apply to other professions and not because their colleagues are telling them, but because their clients expect it.  I was once referred to a civilian medical specialist and after the first appointment I reported back to the Base Hospital that I would not see them again because I felt they were unprofessional (granted, based more on the condition of their office than their clothing) and, therefore, I doubted their competence.
> 
> We wear uniforms in the military in order to avoid shooting the wrong guys by mistake, but the reasons for our tradition of spit and polish has more to do with health.  Leaders in centuries past may not have known why forcing their soldiers to meticulously clean and polish their kit and maintain grooming standards made for healthier, more effective troops, they just knew it did.  Even today, if you have a soldier who can't master keeping his uniform clean and can't seem to shave and get his hair cut, how effective is he at other more important tasks?



I think you would have to go back and look at my posts as a whole to see what I am getting at. I was not saying that lawyers / accountants / other professions don't have standards, in fact I acknowledged that they do on two occasions.

However, they seem capable of being practical, and no, I don't think they lose clients because someone has a beard or because a male has earrings.


----------



## ballz

Remius said:
			
		

> My issue isn't with someone wanting to wear a beard, it is the ones that just let people do it without the rules to back them up, just because.  I don't disagree with beards per se, I disagree with just letting people do want they want when it goes against the regulations in place.



I'm sorry, but I really don't understand where this is coming from. I don't see anyone advocating for this.


----------



## Loachman

Pusser said:
			
		

> We wear uniforms in the military in order to avoid shooting the wrong guys by mistake



And also Not to be Seen - but I cannot link to the Monty Python sketch on Youtube from here.



			
				Pusser said:
			
		

> Leaders in centuries past may not have known why forcing their soldiers to meticulously clean and polish their kit and maintain grooming standards made for healthier, more effective troops, they just knew it did.  Even today, if you have a soldier who can't master keeping his uniform clean and can't seem to shave and get his hair cut, how effective is he at other more important tasks?



"The 'eathen in 'is blindness bows down to wood and stone.
'E don't obey no orders, unless they is 'is own.
'E keeps 'is sidearms awful,
'E leaves 'em all about,
And then up comes the Regiment, and pokes the 'eathen out."

The British Army, in Rudyard Kipling's day, knew, and was almost unbeatable.

Disciplined, and well-trained, armies tend to beat those with less discipline and training.

Appearance is an outward display of discipline and training.

A uniformly-clad-and-equipped (with allowances for crew-served weapons, etcetera) force always looks more imposing than a rabble, numbers being equal, and has a psychological edge as a result. This has been understood for millennia.

Spartans and Romans did not have to worry about outlandish freaky hair colours and most of the other things that I listed, but did make the effort to distinguish themselves from barbarians.


----------



## George Wallace

Monty Python - How Not to Be Seen


----------



## Flavus101

Loachman said:
			
		

> I stopped shaving one day and got kicked out of the CF the very next day.



Fastest release process ever...

I think that SSM and Ballz are so up in arms because it appears that there is a hell of a lot more time and energy devoted to ensuring the good ol grooming standards and shiny bits of dress kit than working on items and projects that will allow us to complete our job better.

Perhaps finding a ruck that doesn't have a 20 lbs (slight exaggeration) base weight, boots that work, pistol mags that feed correctly, and many more that I and you all know too well.

In my view there must be certain regulations in place regarding dress. I think that being clean shaven and practicing basic hygiene are decent regulations.


----------



## Halifax Tar

I've had a beard for all but 2 years of my 18 year career.  I have also participated in the gas hut numerous times and nary had an issue obtaining a seal.  

Pusser, now the RCAF FFs are leaving the fleet, perhaps some common sense can return along with beards.


----------



## Jarnhamar

CAF soldiers weren't required to shave while outside the wire in Afghanistan and nothing exploded. The only explosions were when soldiers fighting outside the wire would land in KAF for a couple days (or in some cases hours) to refit and the first stop they made wasn't shaving. It was such a huge deal.

Outside the wire I tried the no shaving thing and didn't like it so I shaved every day. One of the more silly reasons I heard for forcing people to shave was to "not look special forces". This from the same organization that banned soldiers from wearing pistols on camp so they didn't "look like officers" (except for pretty clerks, they were the exception).

It's true CAF members can successfully go through the gas huts when we're employing CS gas however CS gas isn't the biggest threat the gas mask protects us against and the particles are bigger than some of the nastier stuff out there. The QFIT would be a better test. Even then if I was operating in a CBRN environment (beyond some tear gas)  I would question someones sanity for risking having a beard.

IMO if you allow something due to religious reasons it should be an option for everyone. Don't discriminate because of beliefs.


----------



## Loachman

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> It's true CAF members can successfully go through the gas huts when we're employing CS gas however CS gas isn't the biggest threat the gas mask protects us against and the particles are bigger than some of the nastier stuff out there. The QFIT would be a better test. Even then if I was operating in a CBRN environment (beyond some tear gas)  I would question someones sanity for risking having a beard.



I learned that many years ago. Even freshly clean-shaven, a significant number of people will become casualties as most masks do not fit as well as people think, and the gas hut is not an adequate indicator of fit.



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> IMO if you allow something due to religious reasons it should be an option for everyone. Don't discriminate because of beliefs.



And turbans.


----------



## Quiet~One

Hi,

Long time lurker.  Mods, I have read the appropriate starter's pages etc.

So, in my mind, there are a few things going on here.  One guys opinion, but have at:

1.  We are a large organization, and we can do many things well, sometimes simultaneously.  That includes defence planning, procurement... you name it.  It also includes maintaining dress regulations for hair.

2.  This is about managing change.  Times change, we change, I change etc.  Social norms and standards change.  Over time, I'd say beards have gained more acceptance in civil society.   It is not inappropriate to say dress regulations can change and be adjusted to fit societal norms.  Moustaches in the British Army in the Great War.  "Burnsides" in the U.S. Union Army etc.  I don't think we can safely say they weren't martial in appearance.  Or ill-disciplined, or not a dangerous foe.

3.  Subset of para 2.  I'd suggest this is larger than beards.  If we can manage small things, it's easier to manage big things.  Also, having seen the political environment we operate in; it behooves us to seize the initiative, and manage change ourselves, lest it be foisted upon us.  We can manage a silly thing like beards easily.  But what happens if we don't and a ridiculous Human Rights Complaint gains traction and beards are suddenly allowed.  Full stop.  Then we react.  Normally in a poor knee-jerk manner. 

Managing for operational reasons is easy.  Shave.  Or die, cause casualties, cause your team to undergo needless stress.  CBRN should not be fooled around with.  In garrison right now.  Shave.  But we can manage that part.  Hopefully well.  

It is easy to say it is on the member, they know what they joined, but in all my experience, we are hemorrhaging soldiers, sailors and fliers.  This is an easy thing to change, and it might be a little thing, but maybe its the final straw for some soldier? 

Our manning issues are complex, but doesn't that just mean a complex solution?  Beards may very well be a small part of that.

Day to day, dress regulations are an easy thing to work with.  It is black and white and its there.  I don't think any organization in the CAF worth its salt will stop if we don't have to shave in garrison.  If it causes that much consternation, maybe we should reconsider who is there and do we really want them in charge?   Buttons and bows are just that.  Small.  Easy.  But annoying.  Let us reduce the annoyance and get on with the bigger problems we face.


----------



## Underway

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> It's true CAF members can successfully go through the gas huts when we're employing CS gas however CS gas isn't the biggest threat the gas mask protects us against and the particles are bigger than some of the nastier stuff out there. The QFIT would be a better test. Even then if I was operating in a CBRN environment (beyond some tear gas)  I would question someones sanity for risking having a beard.



As you say CS gas has large particles and can be filtered out by the combination of moisture (sweat) and beard along the neckline of a standard mask.  If you use a different type of irritant with smaller particles you can really have a good time watching the bearded folks who swear they can get a seal suffer.  

CBRN equipment and masks exist that work with beards as well, so really if you wanted to allow beards the CBRN thing is a non-issue.

As a matter of fact we have a guy closely related to our military who knows a few things about this exact issue of beards and CBRN.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> CAF soldiers weren't required to shave while outside the wire in Afghanistan and nothing exploded. The only explosions were when soldiers fighting outside the wire would land in KAF for a couple days (or in some cases hours) to refit and the first stop they made wasn't shaving. It was such a huge deal.
> 
> Outside the wire I tried the no shaving thing and didn't like it so I shaved every day. One of the more silly reasons I heard for forcing people to shave was to "not look special forces". This from the same organization that banned soldiers from wearing pistols on camp so they didn't "look like officers" (except for pretty clerks, they were the exception).
> 
> It's true CAF members can successfully go through the gas huts when we're employing CS gas however CS gas isn't the biggest threat the gas mask protects us against and the particles are bigger than some of the nastier stuff out there. The QFIT would be a better test. Even then if I was operating in a CBRN environment (beyond some tear gas)  I would question someones sanity for risking having a beard.
> 
> IMO if you allow something due to religious reasons it should be an option for everyone. Don't discriminate because of beliefs.



This is what MOPP states are for in orders.  If there's a CBRN threat and there's a requirement to carry MOPP gear, by all means shave.  That's a command decision, driven by intelligence.


----------



## Loachman

Underway said:
			
		

> As a matter of fact we have a guy closely related to our military who knows a few things about this exact issue of beards and CBRN.



Thanks. While having read articles in the press, I'd not previously seen any detailed information. One wonders, though, if a prototype has actually been produced, and, if so, how it has performed.

I'd prefer to have a good facial seal as my primary defence, but that is easy to say as I do not share Mr Sajjan's faith.


----------



## Old EO Tech

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> This is what MOPP states are for in orders.  If there's a CBRN threat and there's a requirement to carry MOPP gear, by all means shave.  That's a command decision, driven by intelligence.



I agree totally, and IMHO the CBRN reasoning is a red herring...the lack of beards in the Army is nothing more than adherence to an archaic idea that we can only tell if our soldiers are washing if we make them shave....which is a low level leadership issue and nothing more.  Not to mention that its a 1% issue with the few soldiers that need to be prodded to stay clean, and we should not be punishing the majority to solve a minority problem.

My 2 cents


----------



## QV

The current dress regs and grooming standards are archaic and embarrassing.  Our uniforms look like sloppy tents.  Boots?  These are easy fixes to improve morale.  When people look good they feel good and they perform better.  

All of that can be done while easily maintaining discipline and op effectiveness.  In fact, with increased pride comes increased discipline and performance.  

And these are relatively cheap fixes to improve the overall state of things in the CAF.  But, people in the positions that matter get lost in the weeds... it's not just about a damn beard.


----------



## Underway

Loachman said:
			
		

> Thanks. While having read articles in the press, I'd not previously seen any detailed information. One wonders, though, if a prototype has actually been produced, and, if so, how it has performed.
> 
> I'd prefer to have a good facial seal as my primary defence, but that is easy to say as I do not share Mr Sajjan's faith.



No idea, though I'm positive not the only product out there.  I've seen full hoods and bag type devices as well.  DRDC has (had?) a world renown reputation in CBRN research and defense and probably have looked at a number of options.  It's one of those random specialties that we have picked up over the years (surely Mr. Minister you aren't going to cut funding for *defense against* chemical weapons, what would the UN think?).


----------



## Journeyman

Quiet~One said:
			
		

> ... we can do many things well, sometimes simultaneously.  That includes defence planning, procurement...


  rly:

"You only get one chance to make a first impression."  

  
You're not some community college kid from Manitoba trying to find online dates er, _expert_  too, are you?


----------



## mariomike

ballz said:
			
		

> ... there are plenty of professions that don't have unions that also have a grooming standard more relaxed then ours.



Some non-union employers may have higher standards than others. Funeral Directors, for example.

Professional competence is an absolute and appropriate expectation. 
But, for certain professions, the military for example, it is not the only expectation. 
I believe this is explained to applicant's before they join.

See also,

All things beard-y (regs, memos, Army/Navy) - merged  
https://army.ca/forums/threads/29581.350
15 pages.


----------



## observor 69

Quiet~One said:
			
		

> Hi,
> 
> Long time lurker.  Mods, I have read the appropriate starter's pages etc.
> 
> So, in my mind, there are a few things going on here.  One guys opinion, but have at:
> 
> 
> It is easy to say it is on the member, they know what they joined, but in all my experience, we are hemorrhaging soldiers, sailors and fliers airman.  This is an easy thing to change, and it might be a little thing, but maybe its the final straw for some soldier?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airman
An airman is a member of the air component of a nation's armed service.

Just my pet peeve. Good post.

Cheers


----------



## blacktriangle

Beards unprofessional? What is professional then? Being 300lbs? Being so weak and tiny that you can't hold your rifle properly? NCOs and Officers that look so old and worn out, you'd think they should have been CRA a decade ago? How about fixing these issues? Pathetic.


----------



## ballz

mariomike said:
			
		

> Some non-union employers may have higher standards than others. Funeral Directors, for example.
> 
> Professional competence is an absolute and appropriate expectation.
> But, for certain professions, the military for example, it is not the only expectation.
> I believe this is explained to applicant's before they join.
> 
> See also,
> 
> All things beard-y (regs, memos, Army/Navy) - merged
> https://army.ca/forums/threads/29581.350
> 15 pages.



I think you are trying to have an argument with me about whether or not the military needs to have grooming standards, which is not an argument that I was ever having.

There is nothing unprofessional about having a beard. Just because a bunch of people that grew up in an era when being "clean shaven" was the trendy thing say that a beard is unprofessional doesn't make it so.

Those same people also say that a mustache waxed and curled in the most God awful way is a professional look. They are wrong. By today's fashion trends, those people actually look unprofessional.

And that's all this comes down to, fashion trends. Which leads me back to my original point... we are absolute joke for spending so much time worrying about fashion trends and comparatively almost no time worrying about some pretty important stuff.


----------



## kratz

If the CAF will begin to accept current fashion trends...next up man buns, and
we you will all be issued crocs for the parade square.   :rofl:


----------



## dapaterson

Man buns are the sole reason I can use to justify the death penalty.


----------



## ballz

kratz said:
			
		

> If the CAF will begin to accept current fashion trends...next up man buns, and
> we you will all be issued crocs for the parade square.   :rofl:



All jokes aside, I never thought about man buns when I was talking about how the CAF is going to get pwned by someone who wants to make a public spectacle regarding the gender stereotypes that are strongly strongly reinforced by the CAF (all the while making people do "gender based analysis" courses and having an Op HONOUR crusade)...

but that is something to be weary of!


----------



## Jarnhamar

So if I,  as a physical male, decide to self identify as a female can I grow a beard since the dress policy doesn't discuss "women" growing beards? 
 ???


----------



## Scott

Pusser said:
			
		

> If you can pass the test and get a seal, then I see no reason to not allow someone to wear a beard.  The trouble is that now, they won't even let you take the test unless you are clean shaven.  Oddly, this does not extend to CBRN training...



So, again, I'll explain why you're wrong*

1) there is a possibility that a leak created on the face to face piece seal could create a venturi effect and actually draw toxins in to the face piece. This would be a sustained leak, like one that could in theory be caused by an air gap created by your beard. Your beard would make movement of the face piece during periods of exertion much easier - and trust me, face pieces move on everyone under periods of exertion.
2) beard hair wrecks the sealing surface of the face piece. This is even more prevalent since most SCBA started getting CBRN designation and had to use different materials. Stubble and beard hair is like a wire brush. I have seen this.

Just because you got a successful fit test with your beard is irrelevant. It should not have been done. Besides which, I would suspect that you probably influenced the test by over tightening the face piece to reflect a good result with your beard. I can pass the test with any size mask if I reef on the straps, I can pass just by holding the mask to my face. 

*all as a general rule of thumb - another reason why a blanket policy is a good idea. And all given in a bit more detail than the actual directives would.

Far as what the military does, I don't care - just to be clear. But when you could have to wear some form of respiratory equipment as a part of your job, well, you come in to my wheelhouse as a SME.

Jarnhammer, give 'er, grow the beard once you identify as female, just don't wear SCBA


----------



## mariomike

ballz said:
			
		

> I think you are trying to have an argument with me about whether or not the military needs to have grooming standards, which is not an argument that I was ever having.



Not at all, Ballz. This 4-page thread is nothing new. These haircut and shaving discussions have been going on for a long time. 

CF Hair Regulations (males, females, cultural, & colouring) 
17 pages.

All things beard-y
15 pages.

The Shaving Superthread
25 pages.

etc...



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> Just because a bunch of people that grew up in an era when being "clean shaven" was the trendy thing say that a beard is unprofessional doesn't make it so.



Long hair and sideburns, earrings for men, tattoos and piercings, beards. 

In a non-union workplace - such as the CAF - my understanding ( not an SME ) is that the employer can usually impose whatever dress or appearance code they wish, _subject to any human rights issues that could arise._



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> Those same people also say that a mustache waxed and curled in the most God awful way is a professional look.



Not me. That's for sure!  ( Not that there's anything wrong with them, of course.   )



			
				Scott said:
			
		

> Far as what the military does, I don't care - just to be clear. But when you could have to wear some form of respiratory equipment as a part of your job, well, you come in to my wheelhouse as a SME.



I don't know what the US Army does either. 

But, our SOP is, "All personnel who may be required to use the N95 or C4 mask must be free of facial hair that will interfere with the seal of the respirator contact surfaces to the users face."

We had to carry our fit-test approved N95 masks while on duty at all times.
We also had SCBA and CBRNE squads.

I am not a Fit Tester or SME. For reference, 

Respirator fit test with facial hair
https://www.google.ca/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=rZ_CWNONCOiM8QemzIHYCA&gws_rd=ssl#q=respirator+fit+test+%22facial+hair%22&*


----------



## SupersonicMax

Quiet~One said:
			
		

> 1.  We are a large organization, and we can do many things well, sometimes simultaneously.  That includes defence planning, procurement... you name it.  It also includes maintaining dress regulations for hair.



 :rofl:

Oh, you're serious...



			
				Quiet~One said:
			
		

> 3.  Subset of para 2.  I'd suggest this is larger than beards.  If we can manage small things, it's easier to manage big things.  Also, having seen the political environment we operate in; it behooves us to seize the initiative, and manage change ourselves, lest it be foisted upon us.  We can manage a silly thing like beards easily.  But what happens if we don't and a ridiculous Human Rights Complaint gains traction and beards are suddenly allowed.  Full stop.  Then we react.  Normally in a poor knee-jerk manner.



The thing is that we can't get these small, relatively unimportant things get in the way of bigger picture issues that have a real impact on people and the organization.  We tend to focus on the small stuff because it's easier than tackling the bigger issues.  And most will just leave it to the "system" to fix things.  Guess what: we all are "the system".


----------



## tomahawk6

I dont believe you will see the Army allowing beards throughout the force.Exceptions for religious and special operations requirements.


----------



## Quiet~One

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> :rofl:
> 
> Oh, you're serious...
> 
> The thing is that we can't get these small, relatively unimportant things get in the way of bigger picture issues that have a real impact on people and the organization.  We tend to focus on the small stuff because it's easier than tackling the bigger issues.  And most will just leave it to the "system" to fix things.  Guess what: we all are "the system".



Fair enough.  It is poor phrasing; but I think the point still stands - and I agree with you wholeheartedly.  Making the small stuff a big issue is a very easy way for the CAF to deflect from the major issues we face.  Looking at our "Buttons and Bows" mentality, at no point should a senior staff officer be worried about gorgets, beards, and what not.  It is far easier to look at these things, present the illusion of productive and effective work than it is to worry and come up with solid plans for the CAF to reduce the legal architecture, stove-piping and empire building that is getting in the way of major concerns like vehicles, ships, personnel, planes to allow us to actually purchase new and better equipment or adjust our organizational structure to handle a rapidly changing operational environment.

I guess what I'm getting at is - if we can't prove to our political masters - we can handle little things and manage those effectively, we will not be trusted with making smart, effective decisions regarding big things.


----------



## mariomike

Quiet~One said:
			
		

> Looking at our "Buttons and Bows" mentality, at no point should a senior staff officer be worried about gorgets, beards, and what not.



I accepted the shaving rule without question when I was in the PRes. But, that was a long time ago.

To soldiers of today, does being clean shaven matter as much as it did back then?

eg:

Artillery Soldier ( Just for example, as I believe you are an Artillery Officer. Could be any job. )
What They Do

Artillery Soldiers are responsible for surveillance, target acquisition, and indirect fire to engage the enemy. 

The primary responsibilities of Artillery Soldiers are to:
• Position, operate and maintain Field Guns and Air Defence weapon systems.
• Provide fire-support advice to the Infantry and Armour units
• Use and maintain personal weapons and section-level weapons up to and including machine-guns and anti-tank weapons
• Operate technically advanced command-post computers, laser range-finders and fire-control computers
• Operate and maintain surveillance and target acquisition equipment, LAV III, Forward Observation Post Vehicle equipment, air defense weapons and radar systems

Working Environment 
Artillery Soldiers normally work outdoors, where they experience the unique challenges that come with extended periods outside.

In a job like that, or any other job in the CAF, competence is an absolute and appropriate expectation. But, should it be the only expectation?

ie: As long as they can "close with and destroy the enemy, by day or by night, in all weather conditions, and terrain" does being clean shaven matter, one way or the other?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

How good of a seal does a soldier get on the gas mask with a beard as compared to without?  That's the first question that pops into my mind.  Or a sailor with their FF gear/oxygen systems?  Same for aircrew.

*Uniformity in dress/look* considerations aside, the effect it has on a soldier/sailor/airman or airwoman WRT them becoming a casualty in a CRBN environment, fire, *insert SHTF situation* should be the real consideration.  

There is a new beard growing/permission SOP out for the RCAF...can't recall all the details but it has basically been tasked to the SCWO/UWO level for assessment/decision.  It may have been a CANAIRGEN?


----------



## mariomike

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> How good of a seal does a soldier get on the gas mask with a beard as compared to without?  That's the first question that pops into my mind.  Or a sailor with their FF gear/oxygen systems?  Same for aircrew.



I believe Scott is an SME,



			
				Scott said:
			
		

> Your best chance with RPE is ALWAYS when you're clean shaven. If that offends your personal sense of fashion and style, too bad. You always default to manufacturer's instructions - and I have yet to see one that doesn't mention being clean shaven.


----------



## daftandbarmy

It is surely the end of days...

I'm pretty sure that this slippery slope into chaos all started when they stopped issuing us black boots that we had to polish to a high sheen, and uniforms we had to iron ourselves with sharp creases, you know, like real soldiers (or Army Cadets).

And mess tins... what about the mess tins?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

That he is...but the CAF would likely have studies and reports from testing at DRDC or something to base their decisions on.

CFP 265 states:

HAIR
4. Hair on the head shall be neatly groomed and conservatively styled. The length, bulk or style of hair shall
not detract from a positive military appearance or preclude the proper wear of military headdress. (Bulk is the
distance that the mass of hair extends from the skin, when groomed, as opposed to the length of hair.) In
particular, style and colour shall not present a bizarre, exaggerated, or unusual appearance. Unusual colours,
such as green, bright red, orange, purple, etc., are not permitted. Hair must be secured or styled back to reveal
the face, and any accessories used to secure or control hair styles shall be as unobtrusive as possible. Hair
ornaments shall not be worn, except women’s conservative barrettes which blend with the hair colour. Shaving of
all of the hair on the head is permitted. The personal manner of wearing hair within these general style limits,
including moustaches, beards and braids, shall be modified to the degree necessary to accommodate operational
or occupational equipment, such as gas, oxygen and scuba masks, hard, combat and flying helmets, etc., where
a member’s safety or mission is put in jeopardy.


Beards (see Figure 2-2-2)
(a) Subject to procedures established by commanders of commands, permission to wear a beard
shall only be granted to all ranks who wear the naval uniform, wherever serving; all ranks on
strength of an infantry pioneer platoon; adherents of the Sikh religion (see Section 3); and
personnel, on the direction of a medical officer, subject to medical reassessment at intervals not
exceeding six months. Other personnel shall shave off their beards.
(b) Where beards are authorized, they shall be worn with a moustache; kept neatly trimmed,
especially on the lower neck and cheekbones; and not exceed 2.5 cm in bulk.
(c) When a beard is grown or removed, identification documents shall be replaced in accordance
with security regulations

Some of our SOF folks are in the crap close to areas where there is a CBRN threat, and some of them are sporting beards.  They are our high speed/low drags folks, so if they can perform with beards, should the low speed/high drag side of the CAF be that concerned about beards?   :dunno:








I do know the new RCAF beard policy sort of went against some of the stuff in 265.   

If my MO/Flt Sgn gives me a no shave chit...I'm not exactly sure what authority my CofC has to say "nope, we don't care" or that my SCWO has to approve it.    ???


----------



## ballz

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Beards (see Figure 2-2-2)
> (a) Subject to procedures established by commanders of commands, permission to wear a beard
> shall only be granted to all ranks who wear the naval uniform, wherever serving; all ranks on
> strength of an infantry pioneer platoon; adherents of the Sikh religion (see Section 3); and
> personnel, on the direction of a medical officer, subject to medical reassessment at intervals not
> exceeding six months. Other personnel shall shave off their beards.
> (b) Where beards are authorized, they shall be worn with a moustache; kept neatly trimmed,
> especially on the lower neck and cheekbones; and not exceed 2.5 cm in bulk.
> (c) When a beard is grown or removed, identification documents shall be replaced in accordance
> with security regulations
> 
> I do know the new RCAF beard policy sort of went against some of the stuff in 265.



The pub on beards needs a bit of an update, because there are CANFORGENs that extend "beard wearing privileges" to any member who requests religious accommodation, and explicitly state (as per the Supreme Court ruling) that it doesn't need to be a "mandatory" part of someone's faith, they just need to have a "sincerely held belief" with regards to their beard. Being a Sikh no longer has anything to do with it,  really there is just kind of standing policy for Sikhs.

This policy is extremely easy to abuse* and we have had plenty of troops in my unit go the way of abusing it. The troops trying to use a loophole in policy to do something they otherwise would not be allowed to do is a very real display of poor professionalism and poor discipline, IMO, and is a symptom of something much worse (I, perhaps optimistically, think/hope that it is limited to my Unit). While I wish there was some sort of standing policy allowing people to keep a full beard until required to shave for operational purposes, I certainly wouldn't be unprofessional enough to abuse a policy just to obtain that. I'll respect the policy until it changes... or until October when I'm a civie and no longer have to, whichever comes first ;D

*For example, I, as an atheist, can request religious/spiritual accommodation to wear a beard based on that fact that I sincerely believe the Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, and that facial hair is a characteristic that nature has naturally selected, and wearing a beard allows me to live my life more in line with my spiritual beliefs.... and I would most definitely be successful in being granted this accommodation, and was confirmed by the numerous sources of authority on the subject when I was unfortunate enough to deal with 30 "beard requests" all at once.



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> How good of a seal does a soldier get on the gas mask with a beard as compared to without?  That's the first question that pops into my mind.  Or a sailor with their FF gear/oxygen systems?  Same for aircrew.
> 
> *Uniformity in dress/look* considerations aside, the effect it has on a soldier/sailor/airman or airwoman WRT them becoming a casualty in a CRBN environment, fire, *insert SHTF situation* should be the real consideration.



In the civilian world, I worked in environments where you had to be clean shaven. This was for OH&S reasons because we were working in a place where a H2S gas leak was legitimate safety concern. I worked on that job site for maybe 3-4 weeks and while I was there, I had to shave every day.

In the military, I see no reason that Commanders aren't capable of dealing with a CBRN threat in the same manner. As was said earlier, we have CBRN dress states for a reason. It's hard to make a rational argument that you have to shave every day "in case you need to put on a gas mask" when your gas mask is 24 hours behind you in an MSVS. Obviously the squirrels are capable of making this judgement call, it's not a difficult one, I can't see why we can't be capable of the same decision-making skill.

Ditto for other "respirator" type employment.


----------



## PuckChaser

The beard provisions are being updated in CFP265, it was a line item on the National Defense Dress Committee minutes. Basically, people who had medical reasons to not shave were being required to shave their neck IAW CFP265. They're also speaking with the Chaplaincy as a few members of the CAF who are Christians have applied to have beards as part of their faith, and they've never crossed that bridge before.

The whole beard thing is ridiculous, and some CoCs are just dumb when it comes to applying the regulations. I've been on a Roto that the TF RSM required no-shave chits to specifically outline which areas couldn't be shaved, and the member had to shave everywhere else. Absolutely ludicrous.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Yup, its odd when you think that Assault Pioneers were _required_ to grow beards.  

For RCAF types...does it matter, really, if the AC OP in the tower working PAR is clean shaven?  I'm not an AC OP but...my initial thought is no.  

CP-140, Herc, etc crew?  Yup...I'd rather the person fighting the fire has the best seal possible on their smoke mask;  that way they are less likely to become a casualty and make a bad situation worse.  Same for the Aviox in a non-contaminated situation.  There are times an a/c can't decent to 10k immediately.  Not such a big deal if a PAX goes hypoxic, sort of a big deal if a crewmember does.  However, I've seen folks get legit no shave chits in an operational theatre...should they be grounded if they can't shave?  

I remember an article in the Sentinel during Gulf War 1 about the sailors on the ships heading over having to shave their beards because of the CBRN threat.  What is the deal now...going to sea = clean shaven?


----------



## Navy_Pete

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I remember an article in the Sentinel during Gulf War 1 about the sailors on the ships heading over having to shave their beards because of the CBRN threat.  What is the deal now...going to sea = clean shaven?



Yes, anyone getting sea pay basically has to be clean shaven.

They did some testing and found that pers with beards where blowing through the air in their SCBAs in 10-15 minutes due to leaks around the masks when they were actually moving around and working.  That's too short of a time to be effective, and also means if you are part of a four person attack team that the whole team would have to pull back.

WIth a proper seal you can last 45 minutes of air without much of a big hassle, so it's a big difference.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Yes, anyone getting sea pay basically has to be clean shaven.
> 
> They did some testing and found that pers with beards where blowing through the air in their SCBAs in 10-15 minutes due to leaks around the masks when they were actually moving around and working.  That's too short of a time to be effective, and also means if you are part of a four person attack team that the whole team would have to pull back.
> 
> WIth a proper seal you can last 45 minutes of air without much of a big hassle, so it's a big difference.



For an operational reason this makes complete sense.


----------



## Jarnhamar

[quote author=PuckChaser] I've been on a Roto that the TF RSM required no-shave chits to specifically outline which areas couldn't be shaved, and the member had to shave everywhere else. Absolutely ludicrous.
[/quote]

I would get lightning bolt designs.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I would get lightning bolt designs.



If you're looking for some cool ideas:

















Spider-beard is cool but the tennis ball head look is hard to compete with...


----------



## OldSolduer

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The beard provisions are being updated in CFP265, it was a line item on the National Defense Dress Committee minutes. Basically, people who had medical reasons to not shave were being required to shave their neck IAW CFP265. They're also speaking with the Chaplaincy as a few members of the CAF who are Christians have applied to have beards as part of their faith, and they've never crossed that bridge before.
> 
> The whole beard thing is ridiculous, and some CoCs are just dumb when it comes to applying the regulations. I've been on a Roto that the TF RSM required no-shave chits to specifically outline which areas couldn't be shaved, and the member had to shave everywhere else. Absolutely ludicrous.



I'm withdrawing from this conversation. It's clear to me that shaving is required for CBRN reasons and the RCN  and RCAF have their reasons as well.

It is unfortunate that some want to be guided by what is currently popular and not what is required.


----------



## George Wallace

Perhaps a lock is now required.

We have had the same points repeatedly made as to why we must shave.

We have had the same points being made why we must be fashionable.

The discussion is now on its third or fourth turn around the circle.

Please re-read the past few pages to refine your arguments.   [

Temp Lock On


----------



## 44nic4444

I was looking at joining the army reserves as an infantry soldier. Ive been growing a beard for like a year and I love it. Saying that due to the fact im I world be joining the reserves would I have to shave my beard? I know its a semi-meaningless thing but I was just wondering.


----------



## Cwes

In the military you're allowed a beard with proper medical authority.

That being said; a beard can have adverse effects on your deployability for safety reasons. ie, gas masks won't seal.

I do not know how a medical chit is procured in the reserves, as I have only been in the reg force. I suggest inquiring to the recruiters with with; "I don't often shave because of iritability. How would I go about obtaining a medical chit?"


----------



## Jarnhamar

Pick a religion. 

Submit a memo stating you feel your beard  helps you connect with said religion. 

That easy. 

(bonus points for picking an obscure religion and  not one of the gimmies)


----------



## mariomike

Cwes said:
			
		

> a beard can have adverse effects on your deployability for safety reasons. ie, gas masks won't seal.



Discussion of that,
https://www.google.ca/search?rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-CA%3AIE-Address&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&dcr=0&ei=mAn_WeylNKuwjwTg0JDYBA&q=site%3Aarmy.ca+seal+beard&oq=site%3Aarmy.ca+seal+beard&gs_l=psy-ab.12...768762.779829.0.783433.11.11.0.0.0.0.127.781.10j1.11.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.cfTht8fwAUU



			
				Cwes said:
			
		

> I suggest inquiring to the recruiters with with; "I don't often shave because of iritability. How would I go about obtaining a medical chit?"



There was no mention of a medical condition ( or religious concern ),



			
				44nic4444 said:
			
		

> Ive been growing a beard for like a year and I love it.
> 
> I know its a semi-meaningless thing but I was just wondering.



As always, Recruiting is your most trusted source of information.


----------



## NavalMoose

This may be crazy talk but how about you concentrate on what you can contribute to the organization instead of what, like, they can do for you?


----------



## mariomike

44nic4444 said:
			
		

> Saying that due to the fact im I world be joining the reserves would I have to shave my beard?





			
				NavalMoose said:
			
		

> This may be crazy talk but how about you concentrate on what you can contribute to the organization instead of what, like, they can do for you?



It does not read to me that he is asking any favours. Just a question about joining the Reserves.


----------



## jackuphill2

I have heard the COC of units talking about Ottawa letting the CAF grow beards. Has anyone heard any information regarding this?


----------



## Halifax Tar

jackuphill2 said:
			
		

> I have heard the COC of units talking about Ottawa letting the CAF grow beards. Has anyone heard any information regarding this?



I have heard this as well.  This will still preclude those of use who are required to maintain the ability to fire fighting systems.


----------



## Pusser

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I have heard this as well.  This will still preclude those of use who are required to maintain the ability to fire fighting systems.



Funny how several of our allies don't seem to have this problem...


----------



## Jarnhamar

Not only will beards make us succeptable to nation wide cbrn attacks but also lead to the collapse of dress and deportment standards.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I have heard this as well.  This will still preclude those of use who are required to maintain the ability to don fire fighting systems.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

God forbid!

Our enemies are chomping at the bit now: All these years they've been wanting to gas Canadians from coast to coast, or cause radiation generating events in our large cities, but were held back by the certain knowledge that, other than a few seamen, the CAF was beardless!

And all these dastardly members of the RCN who actually have a beard - legally -while still serving: Slobs and rascals, all! Incapable of dressing properly as required by our standards, and equally incapable of deporting themselves properly, I tell you!

Sorry Jarnhamar, I can't tell if you were serious or being sarcastic.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I was on Roto 7 from Valcartier.  Many of the guys had their heads shaven but full beards.  I remember overhearing a couple of PPCLI officers in the Mess Tent at Wainwright one supper.  They were scowling and wondering why the hell all these guys could shave their heads but not their face.  I just smiled and kept my tongue.


----------



## dimsum

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Not only will beards make us succeptable to nation wide cbrn attacks but also lead to the collapse of dress and deportment standards.



Why did I read that in SgtMaj Sixta's voice?


----------



## Jarnhamar

[quote author=Oldgateboatdriver]

Our enemies are chomping at the bit now: All these years they've been wanting to gas Canadians from coast to coast, or cause radiation generating events in our large cities, but were held back by the certain knowledge that, other than a few seamen, the CAF was beardless![/quote]
Right?! And now our last line of defense is breached.



> Sorry Jarnhamar, I can't tell if you were serious or being sarcastic.


That was a big ol' sardonic torpedo   


The canforgen on beards is already ambiguous enough that anyone can essentially, easily, grow one. The only obstacle being being chains of command with their disproving  "Oh ya?!" long memories.


----------



## dapaterson

What's next?  Men being permitted the same earring standards as women?


----------



## Jarnhamar

dapaterson said:
			
		

> What's next?  Men being permitted the same earring standards as women?



Different standards of dress for men and women isn't inclusive or very 2018 if you ask me. When will the CAF reflect society gender-neutral standards? I'd look smashing in a DEU skirt, beard, earrings and shoulder length hair  :nod:


----------



## dapaterson

Sounds like a CANSOF Highland Regiment to me...


----------



## jollyjacktar

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Different standards of dress for men and women isn't inclusive or very 2018 if you ask me. When will the CAF reflect society gender-neutral standards? I'd look smashing in a DEU skirt, beard, earrings and shoulder length hair  :nod:



You should see the bra and crotchless panties I'm wearing right this minute.   :nod:


----------



## Kat Stevens

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> You should see the bra and crotchless panties I'm wearing right this minute.   :nod:



No, no we shouldn’t .


----------



## CountDC

and 300 points to Kat.   ;D


----------



## Loachman

Media images of a certain ex-colonel...


----------



## jollyjacktar

I'm not feeling the love here.


----------



## garb811

OK folks, back on track pls.

Garb


----------



## McG

dapaterson said:
			
		

> What's next?  Men being permitted the same earring standards as women?


Well the word l have heard, from the same CWOs’ net as delivered the beards permissible as if this summer message, is that man buns and braids will be allowed for everybody at the same time as the beards are authorized.

I am speculating that we will move to gender neutral dress regs.  You will be able to get those earrings, grow your goatee, and order that nice DEU skirt from the LogisticsUnicorps site.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

MCG said:
			
		

> Well the word l have heard, from the same CWOs’ net as delivered the beards permissible as if this summer message, is that man buns and braids will be allowed for everybody at the same time as the beards are authorized.
> 
> I am speculating that we will move to gender neutral dress regs.  You will be able to get those earrings, grow your goatee, and order that nice DEU skirt from the LogisticsUnicorps site.



Honestly, the cat is out of the bag already so we may as well go all the way.


----------



## PuckChaser

I always wondered what dress regs I had to follow if I identified as a gender that wasn't male or female. Just wanted to find the right RSM to ask to see his/her head explode...


----------



## Jarnhamar

So I'll be able to grow a beard this summer?


----------



## ballz

MCG said:
			
		

> Well the word l have heard, from the same CWOs’ net as delivered the beards permissible as if this summer message, is that man buns and braids will be allowed for everybody at the same time as the beards are authorized.



Wait, when are beards being authorized? rancing:


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

When the new dress regs come out shortly.


----------



## Nuggs

Kinda funny, I just had an SSM come and see me and inform me that Naval personnel weren't allowed to have beards.

I referred him to dress regs.


----------



## Old EO Tech

Sabaton said:
			
		

> i found the reference for these change you guys should read  the dress and ceremonial meeting the minutes are available on the dwan its under history and heritage chief of military pers   check the 2017 november minutes
> 
> cheers



All it says basically is "Beard policy change....MTF"   I for one can't wait, we have had these WW2/Korea era archaic policies that if your soldiers aren't shaving, how do you know they are staying clean in the field?  Which is totally a leadership issue that you don't need to punish everyone for.  And since I live in PPCLI-land I'm not worried about my Div Comd(who is Armoured and barely cuts his hair :-/) putting caveats on the policy, so I should be throwing away my razors on day 2 of the CANFORGEN


----------



## Navy_Pete

Had a beard for the winter, which was great insulation for the -40 days.  Wouldn't want to keep it for the summer as I always found it itchy, but don't really see why the RCN is the only one allowed to do it.  Still shaved the throat and few other ares, plus some regular trimming and grooming, so it's not like you need to go full hipster pioneer.

Would rock the goatee if that's allowed though; suits my ugly mug and will probably have the fringe benefit of really annoying the same people that don't like officers wearing berets.  I think if I had a goatee and was wearing a beret (instead of the peak cap) their heads might actually explode!


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> we have had these WW2/Korea era archaic policies that if your soldiers aren't shaving, how do you know they are staying clean in the field?



Anyone who is curious if it's possible, tell them to google "CSOR soldier Op IMPACT" or "CANSOF IRAQ"...sustained op in the desert and they didn't fall to pieces.  Imagine, treating adults like adults.

Beards for aircrew are not authorized, I know a few guys who have beard chits and they have to be clean shaven for flying days.  One of my ROTOs, the Tactical Navigator (TacNav) had a reaction to something in the water or air in Kuwait.  He was given a shaving chit and flew every mission that roto without shaving at all.  He wasn't the only one who did their stint there with a roto beard while flying.

* all pictures from Google.


----------



## Quirky

Pusser said:
			
		

> If you've never been to a mess dinner, you've missed out on one of the coolest things about military service and have had a life less lived.



I could go without watching people get drunk, loud and act like complete idiots in front of all their peers, coworkers and superiors all in the name of "tradition". If an outsider came in to observe, they would get the idea that the military is nothing more than a bunch of alcoholics. 


In other news...


----------



## IceBlue

I do not see that CANFORGEN on the site


----------



## brihard

Got a summary for us?


----------



## MJP

Brihard said:
			
		

> Got a summary for us?



It was a joke/photoshop posted to Reddit.  https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadianForces/comments/8dwbp4/i_guess_we_can_stop_shaving_this_weekend_new/


----------



## IceBlue

MJP said:
			
		

> It was a joke/photoshop posted to Reddit.  https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadianForces/comments/8dwbp4/i_guess_we_can_stop_shaving_this_weekend_new/





Horrible people!  ;D


----------



## brihard

Tricksy friggin Hobbitses. Well played.


----------



## walrath

Not Funny.


----------



## IceBlue

walrath said:
			
		

> Not Funny.




It's actually hilarious, shows how gullible we are.


----------



## Journeyman

Big Spoon said:
			
		

> It's actually hilarious, shows how gullible we are.


"we" ?


----------



## Remius

I know a few beardos that were spinning about this lol. 

When this finally comes to pass it will be interesting to see how it will inevitably get misinterpreted.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Remius said:
			
		

> I know a few beardos that were spinning about this lol.
> 
> When this finally comes to pass it will be interesting to see how it will inevitably get misinterpreted.



I imagine we shall see the word "should" used a lot in the message and changes to the DM; and that always fun caveat that this is direction BUT COs always have discretion.


----------



## walrath

Big Spoon said:
			
		

> It's actually hilarious, shows how gullible we are.



Or how badly I do not want to have to shave everyday anymore.


----------



## IceBlue

walrath said:
			
		

> Or how badly I do not want to have to shave everyday anymore.



For me it will depend on what they come out with, I hate shaving everyday but the red (and a little grey caused by subordinates) of the sides of my beard give away the fact that I'm not as blond (or young) as my hair makes me look. With a goatee it doesn't really show anything.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I imagine we shall see the word "should" used a lot in the message and changes to the DM; and that always fun caveat that this is direction BUT COs always have discretion.



 :nod:

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. See also Chapter 2, Section 1, paragraph 44.


----------



## Jarnhamar

1.Decide to grow a beard 
2.Tell your Chain of command you want to grow a beard for religious reasons.
3.Pick a religion. 
4.Grow a beard.
5.selfies


----------



## blacktriangle

Never understood the institutional obsession with policing beards and boots.  :boring:


----------



## jollyjacktar

If l become a Pastafarian, can l wear a colander as my headress?


----------



## blacktriangle

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> If l become a Pastafarian, can l wear a colander as my headress?



Yes, but god help you if you're caught wearing a non-issued one without a valid medical chit.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Spectrum said:
			
		

> Yes, but god help you if you're caught wearing a non-issued one without a valid medical chit.



Bloody hell,  l can only imagine what Logistik and the dress committee would do to it.  But then, Pastafarian dress is Pirate themed, which would be cool.


----------



## coyote489

So word around the street is the CANFORGEN for beards is hot off the press and good to go. Can anyone confirm or deny these claims? My poor face needs to know!!!! I don’t wanna show up on shift my next set with a beard and get destroyed by the CoC...

Thanks in advance.


----------



## PuckChaser

coyote489 said:
			
		

> I don’t wanna show up on shift my next set with a beard and get destroyed by the CoC...



So shave until you get to work and hear it, or see the full text posted here.

As for status, friend of mine went to Ottawa for a full day of briefings from CMP. During those briefs, they touched on the updated dress regs. Allegedly the draft CANFORGEN (or BEARDFORGEN) has been sent to and approved by all element CWOs, and is waiting the final ticks in the box. We're basically on short final at this point. Apparently the rule will just extend the RCN rule and standard for beards to all elements.


----------



## coyote489

Yah obviously. I’m not the one to jump the gun like that. Just a tad excited about this one is all....


----------



## OldSolduer

Spectrum said:
			
		

> Never understood the institutional obsession with policing beards and boots.  :boring:



Discipline. 

Care for yourself and your kit.


----------



## Eisensapper

My understanding is 1 CMBG is letting the troops grow beards, not sure if or when everyone else is going to catch up.


----------



## kratz

Eisensapper said:
			
		

> My understanding is 1 CMBG is letting the troops grow beards, not sure if or when everyone else is going to catch up.



Until a CANFORGEN is released, this is contrary to the CAF Dress Instructions.


----------



## BrewsKampbell

What came down was to submit a memo stating your intention to grow a beard. So does that mean once the memo is submitted you're good to stop shaving? That's the question.


----------



## TQMS

TrunkMonkey315 said:
			
		

> What came down was to submit a memo stating your intention to grow a beard. So does that mean once the memo is submitted you're good to stop shaving? That's the question.



Maybe from your CoC. Clearly individual units are putting their own spin on what came down from higher.


----------



## Old EO Tech

kratz said:
			
		

> Until a CANFORGEN is released, this is contrary to the CAF Dress Instructions.



I'm pretty sure the Bde Comd had the consent of the Div Comd, I would assume because the CANFORGEN is not long in coming, I had heard it was to drop today, that obviously didn't happen, but I doubt it's far away.


----------



## Old EO Tech

TrunkMonkey315 said:
			
		

> What came down was to submit a memo stating your intention to grow a beard. So does that mean once the memo is submitted you're good to stop shaving? That's the question.



I would hope we avoid the entire writing a memo for this...I don't think any CO wants to be flooded with 100's of memos...


----------



## BrewsKampbell

Guys showed up today unshaven, were sent home to shave until their memo is approved.

Unit experiences may differ.


----------



## Halifax Tar

The Army needs to adopt the request form.  Much easier and much more practical for mundane things like cease shaving.


----------



## MJP

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> The Army needs to adopt the request form.  Much easier and much more practical for mundane things like cease shaving.



Or not use any forms and allow leaders to...well lead.  

"Hey Sgt, I am going to grow a beard"  
"Right on brah" and then thinks I'll monitor it but he is an adult and until he proves otherwise it is all good.


----------



## Navy_Pete

More importantly, when can we adopt a goatee and man bun? ;D


----------



## Old EO Tech

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> More importantly, when can we adopt a goatee and man bun? ;D



I asked the CFSU(O) CWO when I was in Ottawa last if Goatee's are on the table as they are with the RCMP, he said no that's a dead issue :-/


----------



## armyvern

Soon.


----------



## RocketRichard

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> I asked the CFSU(O) CWO when I was in Ottawa last if Goatee's are on the table as they are with the RCMP, he said no that's a dead issue :-/


Concur. IMHO that should be a HARD NO!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dimsum

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> I asked the CFSU(O) CWO when I was in Ottawa last if Goatee's are on the table as they are with the RCMP, he said no that's a dead issue :-/



So...soul patches then?   Neat and doesn't affect the gas mask seal.

8)


----------



## BDTyre

I just heard a nasty rumour that BEARDFORGEN has been reversed because the air force didn't buy in. This came to me through two sources commenting on a mutual friend's Facebook post. Does anyone know if there is any truth to this? Apparently the news just came down today.


----------



## hambley92

CanadianTire said:
			
		

> I just heard a nasty rumour that BEARDFORGEN has been reversed because the air force didn't buy in. This came to me through two sources commenting on a mutual friend's Facebook post. Does anyone know if there is any truth to this? Apparently the news just came down today.



This makes me happy that I am Navy, though I feel for my colleagues who wear a different DEU and anxiously await BEARDFORGEN.


----------



## Halifax Tar

LogOLife said:
			
		

> This makes me happy that I am Navy, though I feel for my colleagues who wear a different DEU and anxiously await BEARDFORGEN.



RCN cant have a beard at sea... Although more scuttlebutt says that may be changing too...


----------



## hambley92

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> RCN cant have a beard at sea... Although more scuttlebutt says that may be changing too...



Better than not at all. Plus there aren't many seagoing billets for me in Ottawa right now anyway


----------



## sidemount

CanadianTire said:
			
		

> I just heard a nasty rumour that BEARDFORGEN has been reversed because the air force didn't buy in. This came to me through two sources commenting on a mutual friend's Facebook post. Does anyone know if there is any truth to this? Apparently the news just came down today.


Bah don't you dare start that rumour....I've been watching CANFORGENs like mad waiting for beardforgen.

You just killed what morale I had left lol.




Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk


----------



## BDTyre

sidemount said:
			
		

> Bah don't you dare start that rumour....I've been watching CANFORGENs like mad waiting for beardforgen.
> 
> You just killed what moral I had left lol.
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk



My heart sank when I saw the post...


----------



## Old EO Tech

sidemount said:
			
		

> Bah don't you dare start that rumour....I've been watching CANFORGENs like mad waiting for beardforgen.
> 
> You just killed what moral I had left lol.
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk



If the RCAF doesn't want in so be it, make it a CANARMYGEN/CANFORGEN.  The RCN already has regs for beards...


----------



## sidemount

That would be nice...and it makes sense....so it can't possibly happen.

Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Well, the BOOTFORGEN didn't apply to the Air Ops capbadge types for the most part, and it went forward.  I know more than 1 member of the aircrew world who only shave when they have to fly, and I've flown with aircrew who flew with beards for specific reasons.  Going off recent history of policy decisions, the WEEDFORGEN also was restrictive to aircrew specifically in the RCAF, yet the brush that applied to us didn't get used on 'everyone', so if there is common sense in policy for things like weed, I'm hopeful it will also be the case with beards.  Just because I don't get to pick my own combat boots, can't partake in legal use of cannabis and have to be clean shaven for flying (specifically related to mask/face seal concerns using emergency oxygen systems) doesn't mean it also makes sense to place the same restrictions on all;  BOOTFORGEN and WEEDFORGEN are examples of 'restrictions for some doesn't equal restrictions for all'.

I can't speak for the RCAF Comd/CWO but there are air ops folks out there with beards now...


----------



## OldSolduer

I’m having a chuckle - beards and bongs all in the same week. 😆


----------



## Old EO Tech

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> I’m having a chuckle - beards and bongs all in the same week. 😆



Not yet, but I certainly hope in the next two days the beardforgen drops....


----------



## daftandbarmy

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> Not yet, but I certainly hope in the next two days the beardforgen drops....



Is there any subliminal messaging in the fact that DOPEGEN came out before FUZZFACEGEN?


----------



## Ostrozac

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Is there any subliminal messaging in the fact that DOPEGEN came out before FUZZFACEGEN?



The Weed Standing Orders were driven by an external timeline imposed by Parliament. Lacking that imposed timeline, the CF would probably still be continuing its lengthy internal debate on the matter of military marijuana, as we now appear to be doing on military facial hair, continuing a debate that has roots back to before the Amish shaved their moustaches.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Sleeveforgen: rolling your sleeves inwards is retarded.


----------



## sidemount

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> I’m having a chuckle - beards and bongs all in the same week. [emoji38]


Don't forget boots(although not in the same week).
All things I have not expected to see prior to retirement

Sent from my S8, excuse the typos


----------



## Pusser

sidemount said:
			
		

> You just killed what moral I had left lol.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk



I'm assuming that it was your smart phone that took away your morals?


----------



## OldSolduer

sidemount said:
			
		

> Don't forget boots(although not in the same week).
> All things I have not expected to see prior to retirement
> 
> Sent from my S8, excuse the typos



You guys have had a rough time. I know the feeling.


----------



## sidemount

Pusser said:
			
		

> I'm assuming that it was your smart phone that took away your morals?


It is quite possible.

However, I can't blame the smart phone for grammar mistakes. That one is on me.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Interesting story WRT to the "aircrew can't wear beards" and whether the RCAF is for/against beards for all mbr's posted to RCAF units...

https://army.ca/forums/threads/128951/post-1548283.html#msg1548283


----------



## mariomike

Regarding the topic of this discussion, "Air Canada pilots get permission to wear beards".

Air Canada pilots are members of a union/association.
https://www.acpa.ca/

Grooming decisions ( hair, beards, tattoos etc. ) , can be traced back to the 1972 arbitration regarding the Toronto firefighter with ( very short ) sideburns. 

Wearing a respirator was part of his job.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ( OLRB ) arbitrator ruled, "as long as the employee performs the job or work for which he has been hired, the employer has no authority to impose his personal views of appearance or dress upon the employee."
http://www.scarboroughfirefighters.org/notice_files/Side%20Burns_up-Scarborough__Borough__and_I.A.F.F.__Local_626.pdf

More liberal grooming standards may seem a positive step forward by some.

But, may not be seen the same way by some taxpayers ( and possibly some airline passengers / customers. )

Reference,

QUOTE

1) Studying public perceptions of police grooming standards
https://myessays100.wordpress.com/2016/04/16/us-police-grooming-standards/
Summary: The response of the police administrators to the challenges of the grooming standards by arguing that more liberal standards would erode public respect for the police is given. The results of the study show the public's opposition on the grooming standards and the reasons for that opposition.

2) "Research suggests that grooming and appearance features (e.g., facial hair, visible tattoos, dishevelled clothing) can negatively impact opinions of professionalism and trustworthiness," says an internal document.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rcmp-man-bun-tattoo-survey-1.4612725
Goatees say "untrustworthy." So do soul patches.
Appearance can affect how a jury assesses an officer's testimony in court, for instance.

END QUOTE


----------



## Ostrozac

Considering that the Indian Air Force have allowed beards for years, including for pilots of supersonic fighters, and their pilots are still breathing, I thought it was pretty clear that Air Canada's beard restriction was always more of a fashion/tradition thing than an actual flight safety issue. But now there is actual SFU research that backs up the experience of India. 

Hey, I'm all for uniforms and clothing restrictions in the workplace, but there's a difference between professional appearance requirements, which is a fashion issue, and operational requirements, which is a safety issue. Air Canada has for years been calling something a safety requirement, when it was really a fashion requirement, and that simply wasn't right.

The NHL probably has it right. Helmets on the ice are a workplace safety requirement that is imposed by the league. Wearing jacket and tie to the game is a fashion requirement which is explicitly written into the collective bargaining agreement.


----------



## mariomike

OP: "Air Canada pilots get permission to wear beards"

I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it, an employer can legally choose not to hire based on her/his personal views of appearance. That is not a violation of the Human Rights Act or Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This applies whether it is a union or non-union workplace.

The only exceptions would be ethnic, tribal custom or religion.

Where the prospective employment is not to be in a public place this may be less important.

The situation becomes more complicated after an employee has been hired.

Here the employers rights differ greatly depending on whether it is a union or non-union workplace.

Air Canada is a union workplace.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Considering that the Indian Air Force have allowed beards for years, including for pilots of supersonic fighters, and their pilots are still breathing, I thought it was pretty clear that Air Canada's beard restriction was always more of a fashion/tradition thing than an actual flight safety issue. But now there is actual SFU research that backs up the experience of India.



I don't know for any certainty if the RCAF requirement is derived from research or _*lack*_ of research.  But it is encouraging that the CAF has asked for their data. 

With the variety of emerg breathing equipment that our fleets have (example, there are 4 different ones / mask types on the Aurora alone between the flight deck and Tactical tube systems including our fire fighting kits), I doubt they would be able to say "beards are okay" for aircrew/flight crew as the study above was limited to 2 systems used by Air Canada.  It might be the start of a process and policy review/change.

It's not just about fashion either, from my perspective.  We had a guy on crew during an IMPACT roto who developed a skin reaction to 'something' and he wasn't able to shave for the roto.  The kit has to work properly and immediately, so knowing you're good if you are in the situation this guy was in (no choice) would be peace of mind as well.


----------



## dimsum

In a roundabout way, this would affect the RCN's beard policy as well.  If RCAF folks who use positive pressure breathing apparatus can wear beards, *and* RCN folks on shore postings can wear beards already, why not RCN folks at sea wearing positive pressure (Drager) systems?


----------



## Pelorus

Anecdotally, the desire for beards in seagoing units in the RCN is strong, especially when you come alongside as part of a 5-6 ship NATO Task Group and realize that you're the only participating navy which bans them. Many members lament that the Fleet Diving Units allows beards, which is an organization built around full face masks; I can't speak to the physiological difference between smoke and water. 

Having spoke to the odd person who remembers the initial beard ban, the original decision seems to have been rooted in a cultural desire to remove beards, justified by "safety" concerns.  Having not done the research I cannot say how much merit this argument holds.

Interestingly, in a recent Hands Fall In, a local Fleet Commander indicated that the ban on beards seems to be finally under review for its scientific merits (or lack thereof), likely as part of the greater "BEARDFORGEN" rumour that has been circulating.


----------



## Navy_Pete

They did some testing with the drager masks and beards when we first got them (before they rolled out to the ships).  Some people were okay, others couldn't hold a seal and had their bottle run out in 10 minutes. I guess once they got moving around and started sweating a lot they where problematic.

They couldn't really come up with a decent standard that would have let people have beards but be confident people would be able to maintain a seal.  Not sure what other Navies do but there is a better reason than the dress committee gods didn't like it.

I've had that happen to me a few times clean shaven, so might be more of a general issue with mask fit.  The medium fits my face, but is a bit loose around the chin, so even tightened down it can slide around a bit.


----------



## mariomike

"Lengthy posts and fully quoted articles are posted here. Link to these large posts in the regular boards."

Air Canada pilots get permission to wear beards
https://milnet.ca/forums/threads/128951.0.html


----------



## Halifax Tar

The beard issue for the RCN is being reevaluated.  We expect some changes in the not so distant future.


----------



## Jarnhamar

New rules. To grow a beard members must donate to the ever-devouring United way.


----------

