Army.ca Forums

The Quartermaster's Stores => Uniforms => Topic started by: Proud Canadian on March 31, 2005, 19:02:36

Title: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Proud Canadian on March 31, 2005, 19:02:36
I just had my chit updated as I wear non-issued boots (Magnum Boots) I have my chit updated yearly. 2 Pairs are wet weather and find them better than gortex, the other 2 pair are Magmun Stealth great for high temperatures. I wear these boots as they accommodate my orthodics and wide feet I have. Could never get a proper fit with Issued boots. I use to suffer from planter fasciitis (this occurred while in the military) and the problems was solved with the Magnum brand of boots. I actually spent 4 months on light duty with planter fasciitis 2 years ago. Just recently back in December I decided to pic up a pair of the issued gortex wet wether boots. The first day I had them on I had one major slip and fall the put my back out. I am not expected to make a full recovery until around July.

My concerns are the Canforgen that came out a few months ago stating non-issued boots are not allowed in the field. I mentioned this to my MO this week and told to forget the darn Canforgen. The MO made it quite clear to me that he will authorized me to wear to issued boots as they will not accommodate my orthodics and wide feet. If he caught me with issued boot he would charge me, if I we to try and wear issued boots in the field and were to re-injure my feet he would again charge me for the wearing the issue boots. IMO the Magnum boots have superior taction over the issue boots.

So I am stuck between the my MO and the Canforgen. When my back recovers and I return to the field what the heck am I supposed to do about the boot issue. My COC was given the chit and letter from 2 MO's this week that they will not authorize issued boots at this time. When the new resoled wet wether boots become available they will be authorized as they accommodate the darn orthodics and wide feet.

Any suggestions how to deal with my concerns.

Thanks






Title: Re: non-issued boots for medical reasons
Post by: Sheep Dog AT on March 31, 2005, 20:13:55
I wouldn't worry about it.  If they want to battle of medical issues and the troops they will have a big fight on their hands.
Title: Re: non-issued boots for medical reasons
Post by: Rider Pride on March 31, 2005, 22:35:21
If you are given a chit for boots by an MO they are considered issued, and therefor are allowed to be worn as per issued boots. Thats why you are only allowed certian types when you bring in your chit.
Title: Military Boots -Non Issued
Post by: Smode on June 10, 2007, 16:13:36
Hello Everyone. I have been looking around before I post this to get my question answered but I still was not able to find the exact answer I seeked so sorry if this takes any of your time.

I have flat feed and there wide. I got fitted with a custom orthodic for my flat feet. The boots I got issued form NDHQ are 13 WIDE but there not wide enough. My foot hits the side of them and I get blisters. Now I am lookign on a lot of sites and I see a lot of US Combat boots for sale that come in really wide. I'm curious, DOes the Canadian forces allow you to buy your own boots or does it depend on the regement your in?

Also do you think its possible to request a wider pare speically fit by a Military Doctor?

THanks everyone
Title: Re: Military Boots -Non Issued
Post by: mysteriousmind on June 10, 2007, 16:33:01
Its a case some oof my buddies encountered during our present BMQ, you have to go to sick parade...to get a sheet...telling that you have a boot problem...and thenyou will be able to get a different set of boots. which by the much more comfy then the good old mark III

:) good luck
Title: Re: Military Boots -Non Issued
Post by: Smode on June 10, 2007, 16:36:00
Its a case some oof my buddies encountered during our present BMQ, you have to go to sick parade...to get a sheet...telling that you have a boot problem...and thenyou will be able to get a different set of boots. which by the much more comfy then the good old mark III

:) good luck
Oh Great, I start BMQ July 3rd. So your saying is I should give them a try, let them fully fit in then if they are hurting me talk to my CHain of Command at BMQ. Then They will help me otu and I should get a better confey set?
Title: Re: Military Boots -Non Issued
Post by: mysteriousmind on June 10, 2007, 16:41:20
What I'm saying...try your boots...put them to your feet...the first few days are hell for feet all of my section had blisters...now our boots and our feet are accustomed to each other and they are much more comfy.

Boots are made of leather and will stretch a little. If the boots after a few days are to painfull....request a visit in the morning to the sick parade. ex pain to the medical team the problem...and they will take care of you...perharps a few days with no boots, or if they realised that it will not work...they will give you the sheet telling that you need to change your boots. after show this sheet to your section commander...and they will take arrangement for you to make a visit to the clothing facilities and they will give you and other model, or they will give you instruction on what to do.

I did not live this problem personally so after that I'm not sure what it the correct procedure.

Good luck. Where are you doing BMQ?
Title: Re: Military Boots -Non Issued
Post by: Maverick894 on June 10, 2007, 16:49:51
I know the army is very strict on issuing "non-issued" boots.  Here in Gagetown, they won't replace my vibram soled boots even though I have a medical chit, which wasn't written here, it was in Edmonton. I spoke with a MO about this and the reasoning behind it is they will only issue "non-issued" boots to soldiers who are on T-Cat and P-Cat now.
Title: Re: Military Boots -Non Issued
Post by: Smode on June 10, 2007, 16:50:50
I know the army is very strict on issuing "non-issued" boots.  Here in Gagetown, they won't replace my vibram soled boots even though I have a medical chit, which wasn't written here, it was in Edmonton. I spoke with a MO about this and the reasoning behind it is they will only issue "non-issued" boots to soldiers who are on T-Cat and P-Cat now.
Ill be goign to Gage TOwn next year. So do you have a lot of pain?
Title: Re: Military Boots -Non Issued
Post by: Maverick894 on June 10, 2007, 16:54:18
The orthopedic surgeon I visited says I have a high arch, so I need more cushioning for my feet, because there was too much impact on my knees.
Title: Re: Military Boots -Non Issued
Post by: Smode on June 10, 2007, 16:55:56
The orthopedic surgeon I visited says I have a high arch, so I need more cushioning for my feet, because there was too much impact on my knees.
I see, I'm the complete opposite, I have No arch :). THanks a lot for your help guys. You really all helped!!  :cdn: :cdn:
Title: Re: Military Boots -Non Issued
Post by: Yeoman on June 10, 2007, 22:24:49
I know the army is very strict on issuing "non-issued" boots.  Here in Gagetown, they won't replace my vibram soled boots even though I have a medical chit, which wasn't written here, it was in Edmonton. I spoke with a MO about this and the reasoning behind it is they will only issue "non-issued" boots to soldiers who are on T-Cat and P-Cat now.

last my understanding was, chits are not covered from base to base.
at least that's what the MO at 3RCR and the bin rats at base clothing told me *shrug*
Title: Re: Military Boots -Non Issued
Post by: Big Foot on June 10, 2007, 22:37:26
Another route you could try is to talk to the MO to get a chit for non-issued boots at your own cost and maintenance. I too have custom orthotics and the Mk IIIs, even after getting them stretched at suppl, still cause me grief. They cut up the front of my ankles so I went and bought my own pair of boots and got a chit saying that I was allowed to wear my boots, just that the army wouldn't pay for them. Hope this helps.
Title: Re: Military Boots -Non Issued
Post by: 241 on June 10, 2007, 22:42:33
Before you go to the MO try this first, fill your boots with HOT water and let them sit until the leather is good and wet then dump the water out and put them on, ensure you tie them as tight as you comfortably can, wear them till they are completely dry, repeat this process 2 or 3 more time.  They will then be properly formed to your feet and you might just find that your problem is gone, if not then try the MO route
Title: Re: Military Boots -Non Issued
Post by: Smode on June 10, 2007, 22:44:28
Before you go to the MO try this first, fill your boots with HOT water and let them sit until the leather is good and wet then dump the water out and put them on, ensure you tie them as tight as you comfortably can, wear them till they are completely dry, repeat this process 2 or 3 more time.  They will then be properly formed to your feet and you might just find that your problem is gone, if not then try the MO route

A lot of people are telling me thjis but i'm not sure iF I can get my orthotics wet. I will call my doctor and ask him.

Also big foot what boots you use now?
Title: Re: Military Boots -Non Issued
Post by: 241 on June 10, 2007, 22:47:59
A lot of people are telling me thjis but i'm not sure iF I can get my orthotics wet. I will call my doctor and ask him.

Also big foot what boots you use now?

Well I certainly hope they can get wet because your feet are gonna get wet in those boots constantly through out you career, if you are worried about it though take them out until its time to put the boots on
Title: Re: Military Boots -Non Issued
Post by: Smode on June 10, 2007, 22:48:26
Well I certainly hope they can get wet because your feet are gonna get wet in those boots constantly through out you career, if you are worried about it though take them out until its time to put the boots on
Thanks :)
Title: Re: Military Boots -Non Issued
Post by: Spectrum on June 10, 2007, 22:54:28
A lot of people are telling me thjis but i'm not sure iF I can get my orthotics wet. I will call my doctor and ask him.

Also big foot what boots you use now?
Honestly just keep pressing until you get boots that work..I'm working on it as we speak, and will let you know how it turns out. Being forced to wear the mark III's without orthotics (when you need them) is a mistake and only does more damage to the soldier in the long run...trust me on that.
Title: Re: Military Boots -Non Issued
Post by: Rider Pride on June 10, 2007, 23:04:45
I spoke with a MO about this and the reasoning behind it is they will only issue "non-issued" boots to soldiers who are on T-Cat and P-Cat now.

I see that they will take the time to fix you after you are broken.

As far as boot chits goes, there is no comprehensive instruction that is stardard through the CF. Edmonton med chit stndard seems to have a more liberal standard then elsewhere. Petawawa bought against regs to give the troops deploying decent boots. This one in Gagetown is news to me and truely a case of let them eat cake. Or otherwise said, let them be in pain.

There are certian units who will buy you boots, but until you are in those units, knowing that will not help you much.
Title: LPO'd boots
Post by: Dimsum on April 16, 2009, 23:53:32
Quick question:

If your boots are LPO'd, how often are you allowed to "exchange" them and are you allowed to draw other types of boots (ie. CWWB)?
Title: Re: LPO'd boots
Post by: George Wallace on April 17, 2009, 00:10:31
Quick question:

If your boots are LPO'd, how often are you allowed to "exchange" them and are you allowed to draw other types of boots (ie. CWWB)?

Not a quick answer; but why were your boots LPO'd?

If you have a Medical Chit for custom boots, then those are what you get, not the boots (ie. CWWB) that your "feet don't like".

If you are in a Trade that reqrs Safety Boots, depending on your "entitlement", you may be issued CWWB and GP and whatever other boot there may be as well as LPO boots.

I don't know your situation, and even a Sup Tech would need to know, in order to give you a correct answer.
Title: Re: LPO'd boots
Post by: Dimsum on April 17, 2009, 00:27:05
The issue was that my feet (more correctly, ankles/calves) were too narrow for the TCB/GPB boots.  That being said, I never had a chit; Supply simply printed a form and off I went to the store.
Title: Re: LPO'd boots
Post by: Loachman on April 17, 2009, 00:41:19
If your boots are LPO'd, how often are you allowed to "exchange" them and are you allowed to draw other types of boots (ie. CWWB)?

I had two pairs of Magnum boots purchased for me for this deployment. My feet didn't like the issue hot weather boots - they did not fit to my satisfaction. There was no medical issue and no medical chit involved.

One boot failed after a few weeks here - one of the locking eyelets at the bend of the ankle pulled out. I had to get a form signed by the Supply Officer verifying that the boots were a special issue and so annotated on my clothing docs, then I purchased a new pair at the PX, and turned the form and receipt into the NSE Orderly Room attached to a claim.

In Canada, I presume that one returns the boots to Clothing Stores and they will either purchase another pair of the same boots or send one to the local dealer to try on whatever brands are available.

All of my other boots are regular issue. The a** f**ce Cold Wet Weather Boots did not work for me either, so I returned those and was issued the Army equivalent instead. I have not worn them yet, other than trying them on. They fit better, but if they do not work then I'll be back to Mk IIIs or my black Magnums (purchased myself) and Gore-Tex socks when it's wet out.
Title: Re: LPO'd boots
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on April 17, 2009, 22:27:02
This thread has been cleaned up.

Lets try and do this the right way so I can enjoy my Friday night on my favourite site.

Bruce
Title: Re: LPO'd boots
Post by: BinRat55 on April 23, 2009, 14:20:12
Quick question:

If your boots are LPO'd, how often are you allowed to "exchange" them and are you allowed to draw other types of boots (ie. CWWB)?

We have to supply you footwear that works. If you have a foot that Clothing Stores cannot get into a boot (remember, we have over 70 different sizes now) then we are required to purchase you footwear. Some bases / wings do it differently, but the bottom line is it is our final word that says whether or not the boots purchased will be the ones you are wearing. This is key - once it has been determined that you cannot fit our issued boot, your clothing docs are annotated for all supply techs to see with something like "Member requires special order boots" - this means that if you attempt to get a pair of issued boots after you have been bought boots, you will be spoken to. This however, does not eliminate the possibility that you will NEVER fit any of our boots. Circumstances change as does foot problems and boot manufacturers.

You are entitled to exchange your boots - no matter what type they are - at any time. They must be worn, damaged (not willfully) or on a loss report (I won't get into that).

So, you can only have what you are entitled to on your docs at any given time. As far as purchasing footwear youself, the only thing I can comment on is that the boots you purchase have not been approved for wear through the supply system and therefore may not meet specific requirements as laid out in A-LM-007
Title: Re: LPO'd boots
Post by: Eye In The Sky on April 23, 2009, 14:44:23
I'll add a question or two.

I was ordered to the foot clinic following a Pt II medical a few years back, and given orthodics.  My orthodics don't fit into (then) the Army WWB or Cmbt Boots.  At the time, I was told I was entitled to 2 pair of special order/LPO boots only.   

This is what baffles me.  If I didn't need special boots, I would have 2 x combat boots and 2 x WWBs (4 pair).  But, what I ended up with was 1 pair of Magnum Sleaths, and 1 x pair of Bates M-9 Assault Boots (2 pair).  The Magnums suck in the winter, and the Bates are ovens in the summer...so I end up wearing the same boots day after day. 

Did an OT in 2007, change to Air DEU.  Now, I have my Magnums x 1, Bates x 1  plus 2 pair of the AF CEMS TCBs and CWWBs, neither of which I can wear with my orthotics.  So now I have 4 pair I can't wear, and only 1 pair of *temperate* and 1 pair of *cold/wet weather* boots.

What is the entitlement for LPO boots?  Shouldn't it be 4 pair, the same as I get if I could wear TCBs and CWWBs?  (FWIW, those suck too IMO).  Also, I was told I was only able to get new boots every 2 years, even if they were worn out/damaged.  (that was from the LS who was working the Special Footwear section at FLog a few years ago).

I still wish I received a footwear allowance and could buy from an approved list (that would hopefully have 10" Matterhorn field boots on it ffs).
Title: Re: LPO'd boots
Post by: PMedMoe on April 23, 2009, 15:45:35
Despite the fact that there is "over 70 different sizes now", most people will only have a "size range" of two to four sizes.  I tried on three different pairs of the CWWB (all at the smaller end of the size scale) and none of them fit.  Too narrow, too wide, too short, too long and no sizes in between those measurements.  Does that mean I'm entitled to LPO boots? 

I do have two pairs of the old combat boots, however, just because a boot is on someone's foot, it doesn't mean it fits.  Mine are actually a little large, however, they don't rub or pinch my feet and when I do a BFT, I just add an extra insole and wear two layers of socks (polypro and wool).  To save myself the hassle (and the headache) I think I'll just try to make these two (and my Magnums) last for the next four years.
Title: Re: LPO'd boots
Post by: ArmyVern on April 23, 2009, 20:12:31
The issue was that my feet (more correctly, ankles/calves) were too narrow for the TCB/GPB boots.  That being said, I never had a chit; Supply simply printed a form and off I went to the store.

And that answers the pertinent questions - you don`t fit into stocked footwear - it`s a sizing issue, not a medical issue. Two years. BUT, if the boots you were purchased need exchanging before that two years period is up, then you bring them in and exchange them sooner than that. Mind you, even with your current footwear - if they are still in good condition with no significant issues after two years - don`t be expecting an exchange (a purchase) of new boots to occur.
Title: BOOT REGULATIONS
Post by: CANUKDOWNDER on August 28, 2009, 19:57:17
hey, anyone out there know where in any of the CF manuals,orders etc that it states that you must wear the issue boots? i have been looking for this for sometime now and cant find anything. is there some manual that has a discription of the boots to be worn? any help would be good. i want to end this debate at work and make every ones life easier.
cheers
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS
Post by: muskrat89 on August 28, 2009, 22:12:10
There are literally dozens of threads on this site that address your question.

Utilize the Search function, and you'll find all kinds of stuff.


Army.ca Staff
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS
Post by: MCG on August 28, 2009, 23:11:32
hey, anyone out there know where in any of the CF manuals,orders etc that it states that you must wear the issue boots?
It's funny how there is always a line of people looking for the published order that states they have to wear the issued boots.  You never come across anyone asking about the order for any other specific item.  "Where is the CF instruction that says I have to wear the issued combat pants? you know - because I think I'd be happier in my Levis jeans."
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS
Post by: Greymatters on August 31, 2009, 00:15:49
I always thought that it didnt matter what the Manual said - it was what the Man (RSM) said that counted!

Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS
Post by: CANUKDOWNDER on August 31, 2009, 01:12:22
Well MCG do you wear the issue running shoes you were given? i doubt it, (not trying to sound like a dick)they are horrible pieces of junk. now the reason not to wear those is the same as purchasing your own footwear that you are in day in and out. if you are in crappy boots they will affect your feet in turn your ankles then knees, hips, back and so on. footwear is a very important piece of kit, and if you so chose to spend your own money on a pair of boots that are better for you, and they are all black and meet specs whats the problem? I was just trying to find a little help in finding this out. i have gone through the CF dress instruction manual and there is no mention of this, or one i could not find.
thanks  :salute:
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS
Post by: Nerf herder on August 31, 2009, 01:19:24
Well MCG do you wear the issue running shoes you were given? i doubt it, (not trying to sound like a dick)they are horrible pieces of junk. now the reason not to wear those is the same as purchasing your own footwear that you are in day in and out. if you are in crappy boots they will affect your feet in turn your ankles then knees, hips, back and so on. footwear is a very important piece of kit, and if you so chose to spend your own money on a pair of boots that are better for you, and they are all black and meet specs whats the problem? I was just trying to find a little help in finding this out. i have gone through the CF dress instruction manual and there is no mention of this, or one i could not find.
thanks  :salute:

You wear what you are issued...period.

If you require other styles of boots for medical reasons they are put on your docs and are issued to you from clothing stores.

It's in the books and not the dress instructions either. Get caught with unauthorized/ non-issued footwear and there could be hell to pay.

Regards
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS
Post by: Occam on August 31, 2009, 01:57:55
It's funny how there is always a line of people looking for the published order that states they have to wear the issued boots.  You never come across anyone asking about the order for any other specific item.  "Where is the CF instruction that says I have to wear the issued combat pants? you know - because I think I'd be happier in my Levis jeans."

You and I both know that there is a difference between issued boots and issued combat pants.  The instructions regarding CF issue boot and "alternative" boots (available through but not from supply) have to be the least documented, least publicized policies in the CF.

As someone who hasn't worn an "issued" pair of footwear in over 20 years, it's a learning experience every time I go for replacements.  Cut the new guys some slack when they're asking questions about it.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS
Post by: muskrat89 on August 31, 2009, 02:24:47
Quote
You and I both know that there is a difference between issued boots and issued combat pants.  The instructions regarding CF issue boot and "alternative" boots (available through but not from supply) have to be the least documented, least publicized policies in the CF.

As someone who hasn't worn an "issued" pair of footwear in over 20 years, it's a learning experience every time I go for replacements.  Cut the new guys some slack when they're asking questions about it.

And I was..... There are a bunch of footwear threads on this site that explain all of the ins and outs of issued boots versus non-issued versus med chits versus whatever. The original poster can find the info on here by utilizing the search function (which ironically is the same thing I would have to do, to actually post the links for him/her.

I am locking this. Occam and McG can discuss this via PM if desired. canuckdownder - try the search function. If you give it a whirl and can't find what you're looking for, shoot me a PM.

Locked
Army.ca Staff
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS
Post by: MCG on August 31, 2009, 16:49:50
There are a bunch of footwear threads on this site that explain all of the ins and outs of issued boots versus non-issued versus med chits versus whatever.
Well, I've now merged several of the stand-alone threads together.  There is another good discussion burried in the GP Boot thread starting here:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,50234.msg815648.html#msg815648

Here are some worth noting take aways:
It is not the responsibility of the health services community to validate that your boots fit.  That is the responsibility of the supply system (either through LPO or “made to measure” versions of what is in service).  Instead of burdening the supply system with a constant stream of individuals looking for unnecessary medical authorization for fitting boots (you are entitled to fitting boots even without asking a doctor).  The only time footwear should be a medical issue is when the source of the problem is the foot.

In those instances where a medical problem does require sourcing special boots, the sited reference states that it is not the job of health services to identify that soldier needs brand ‘X.’  Once the medical decision is made, it is again the job of the supply system to get the right solution (within whatever guidelines exist for LPO or ordering custom builds of issue boots).
 http://hr.ottawa-hull.mil.ca/health-sante/pd/pol/word/4090-20-eng.doc

I don’t think there is one style boot that will meet the requirements of all Army users.  We might be able to come close by giving soldiers a few options, but that still remains a requirements & supply problem (not medical).

...
Personnel who cannot be equipped with standard or peripheral size garments are entitled to the issue of special size items for actual requirements, not exceeding the quantity authorized by the applicable EGC.
If fitting indicates that an individual’s foot size is not within the range of standard catalogue footwear sizes, the individual is provided with locally purchased special size footwear IAW Special size footwear.
Local purchase, paid by the Crown?  Those boots should then be on the member's clothing docs, and are issued.

Methinks someone needs to issue a soldier-level guide to boots:

(1) If they came from clothing stores, they can be worn.

(2) If clothing stores had them custom made for you, they can be worn.

(3) If clothing stores bought them for you (including an LPO that you did yourself), they can be worn.

(4) If you bought them yourself because you're a ninja-sniper-SOF-Rambo, put on the damn Mk IIIs.

So, bringing things back to the current thread:
... The instructions regarding CF issue boot and "alternative" boots (available through but not from supply) have to be the least documented, least publicized policies in the CF.

As someone who hasn't worn an "issued" pair of footwear in over 20 years, it's a learning experience every time I go for replacements. 
I think you mean to say that for the last 20 years, you have been wearing issued non-standard boots.  They were locally purchsed by supply and issued to you.  These are issued boots and you can wear them.

... and this thread is now one stop shopping for all discussions on this topic.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Infanteer on August 31, 2009, 18:45:48
Funny, I thought this issue had died out to the more galling Tacvest - nobody really cares what you wear around where I work; as long as you got the right colour....
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Journeyman on August 31, 2009, 18:57:24
...nobody really cares what you wear around where I work...
And a blood-chilling wail of dispair was heard from generations of The RCR.....    ;D
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: ArmyVern on August 31, 2009, 21:26:06
Funny, I thought this issue had died out to the more galling Tacvest - nobody really cares what you wear around where I work; as long as you got the right colour....

"Where I work" being the operative words in your statement; nice for you, but not (necessarily) reflective of the thread's topic title "boot regulations".
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Lord ReZ on September 01, 2009, 01:50:34
I believe that no one boot, no matter how many sizes it comes in, fit every soldiers feet properly. I don't see the big deal in boots. If they're black, and don't look stupid, why should a soldier not be allowed to wear them? Danners, swats, magnums, matterhorns, bates, all should be allowed without the usual whining by higher ups claiming that a standard is broken. Well then, perhaps every beret should be formed the same too? Everyone will wear the same type of glasses, blah blah blah. It makes no sense for little things like that.

I'm glad in my unit, the term "common sense" applies. We are allowed to wear any boots we please as long as they're black, come at least 8 inches high, and don't look silly. Makes everyone lives easier, allows every soldier to wear a pair of boots they're most comfortable in while still maintaining that "black army boot" appearance.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: ArmyVern on September 01, 2009, 02:03:14
I believe that no one boot, no matter how many sizes it comes in, fit every soldiers feet properly. I don't see the big deal in boots. If they're black, and don't look stupid, why should a soldier not be allowed to wear them? Danners, swats, magnums, matterhorns, bates, all should be allowed without the usual whining by higher ups claiming that a standard is broken. Well then, perhaps every beret should be formed the same too? Everyone will wear the same type of glasses, blah blah blah. It makes no sense for little things like that.

I'm glad in my unit, the term "common sense" applies. We are allowed to wear any boots we please as long as they're black, come at least 8 inches high, and don't look silly. Makes everyone lives easier, allows every soldier to wear a pair of boots they're most comfortable in while still maintaining that "black army boot" appearance.

Yes, the strict application of "common sense" would indeed be nice.

Glad to hear as well that "your" Unit applies it.

What are you going to do when you go to (let's say) Gagetown (or elsewhere) on a course and wear "whatever" boots and the BRSM or School RSM asks "where's your chit or those?" ... And you don't have one??

What your home Unit aproves for wear (or doesn't) is one thing ... but head to a base and belong to them while on course etc ... and some of them don't give two shits what your "home unit" does - you are "their student" now; some places tend to stick "to the books".

I personally, give "no shits" about what boots you wear on you feet, but do NOT show up at clothing stores whining for us to issue you combat boots to wear "cause they won't let me wear my own boots while here on this course" because you didn't bother to bring your issued ones with you and get called on 'em by the staff. Standard response: "Hope you got someone at home who can courier them to you ..." (while shaking my head and walking away).

That happens at least 3 or 4 times a week and it's really getting old. Then again, so are the infantry guys showing up for courses at the Inf Sch who "forgot" to bring their tac vests.  ::)
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Lord ReZ on September 01, 2009, 02:19:10
The training schools I've attended on both as student and staff, the leniency towards soldiers having their own boots seems to be increasing. Soldiers who refuse to bring their issued boots to try and get away without wearing them, well....I'm glad you give them the cold shoulder :P . Easy enough to get a chit, don't give those lazy troublemakers leniency! ;)

That happens at least 3 or 4 times a week and it's really getting old. Then again, so are the infantry guys showing up for courses at the Inf Sch who "forgot" to bring their tac vests.  ::)
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Eye In The Sky on September 01, 2009, 13:43:04
Boots, the supply system and the medical system and the way it works, vice the way it is supposed to work is the subjec to this post of mine, which will more than likely be a rant.

- '03 or so, doing my medical Part I and II over at the Stad hospital, the MWO PA sees that I am pronating (I think thats the term, my feet fall "inwards"), which I didn't do when I was sworn in at all.  Sends me to the foot clinic, foot clinic does their thing, and off I go to get orthodics.

- orthodics don't fit in my issued boots (the old Cmbt boot or the CTS Wet Weather boot.  Supply sends me to local contractor for "special combat boots".  However, I am only issued 2 pair of boots, and take 1 "summer" (Magnum Stealths) and 1 "winter" (Bates M-9 Assault boots).  I go to Special Footwear at FLog and ask how come I am only getting 2 pair of boots to replace 4 pair of 'issued' boots.  No answer given, just "thats all you are entitled to. 

- CEMS project 3ish years later begin issueing CEMS boots.  Get issued 1 x pair of the new CWWB, they fit fine UNTIL I put my orthodic in them.  Civie sup tech tells me the only option I have it to take a wider or longer pair of boots.  I ask "so, the answer is to give me boots that don't fit my feet in order to accomodate orthodics, which will then leave me with orthodics in boots that are too big, which will eventually lead me back to the MIR with a different foot problem?  Civie suppie says "these boots are supposed to be suitable for 95% of AF personnel".  I guess although I am the other 5%, I still only get them.

- life goes on, I get issued the 2nd set of CWWBs, as I thought maybe, just maybe, it was that specific pair of boots.  Nope.  2nd set the same.  I explained I was assessed for special boots for my orthodics already, and civie sup tech notes that, yes, I have special footwear on my clothign docs.  Says there is nothing he can do though.  I continue wearing my Bates with the CEMS boots in my closet.

- CEMS issues Temperate Combat Boot last summer.  Same issue with my orthodics in those boots.  When I have the orthodics in, every step I take, the steel toe pushes down on the top of my toe joints, whatever they are called, and inside of an hour, I am limping around.  So back into my 1 pair of Magnums everyday.  My CoC at the time start telling me I have to wear the issued ones.  I say I can't with the orthodics.  Told 'well don't use the orthodics then'.  Ya, right.  Dumbass.

- Speaking to a supp tech, tell him about all of this crap.  He used to work for Flog, and says that no, I don't wear the issued boots if I have been assessed for special cmbt boots for my orthodics, which I was send to be assessed for during a medical, which the foot clinic then sent me for orthodics AND issued me a chit, which Special Footwear at Flog then added to my clothing docs.  He suggests I go back to Wing Supply and tell them I have been to the foot clinic and WAS assessed by the specialists who DID issue me special footwear, etc.  Off I go to Supply.

- same civie supp tech is at the counter.  Explain AGAIN that I have special footwear to accomodate my orthodics, which I can't wear in the CEMS boots, and that my special issue boots are really in bad shape (been wearing them for how long now?) and need replacement.  I also bring up the issue that I only have 1 "summer" and 1 "winter" boot, although I am supposed to have 2 x pair of each, the same issue I have of CEMS boots.  I try to turn in my CEMS boots, and am told he won't take them.  He says although I have special combat boots on my clothing docs, he can't send me to Special Footwear until he has a chit.  I already HAVE a ******' chit.  This is when I started clenching my fists I am sure.  He again says he can only put me in wider or longer boots.  I say "I will NOT wear boots that are the wrong size for my feet.  I don't need longer or wider ones, I need ones with a deeper footbed because of my orthodics."  He says "you'll have to go to the hosptial to be assessed at the foot clinic."

So.  Tomorrow morning at 0730, I will be back at the foot clinic, to tell them although they have assessed me in '03, and every 2 years since then (including last spring, when I went for my new orthodics...) I am back to be assessed for what they already assessed me for 6 ******* years ago and every 2nd year since.   ::)

Now...am I the only one that gets ******* mad over this crap? 

For anyone from the medical and supply world, here are my questions:

1.  How many pair of special boots am I supposed to have?  Isn't it the same as I am entitled to in CEMS boots (4 pair total)?

2.  If the medical world has sent me to the foot clinic, who has assessed me for orthodics and Special Footwear at Flog has put special cmbt boots on my clothing docs, how long is that good for?  Does it *run out*?  Its not like my goddamn feet are going to correct themselves. 

3.  Why are supply techs being told to put people in boots that aren't the right size for people's feet?  Boots that are too wide, or too long, or too short are NOT the right size boots and will cause foot problems, which the medical types will then have to assess and treat...which they already did for me.  Now, the solution to orthodics that I have to wear because of X years of clumping around in the old combat boots and shitty liners, is to put those orthodics which correct the problem into boots that are too long or wide, which will then cause a different problem with my feet?   ::)

frig me.  My blood pressure is up again just typing this.  This has got to be one of the STUPIDEST things I have ever dealt with in 20 years in the CF. 
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: COBRA-6 on September 01, 2009, 13:59:24
I feel the rage man...

I was sent to the CFSU(O) foot clinic by the CFSU(O) clothing stores because they changed their policy and my chit from my doc at the CFSU(O) HCC, which was less than a year old, was no longer valid, only chits from the foot clinic would now be accepted... FFS
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Eye In The Sky on September 01, 2009, 14:13:40
I hear ya!  But, in my case, it WAS the foot clinic who assessed me.  What a gong show.  The part that I don't get is the guy at the counter telling me they were told to put people in boots that are longer and/or wider than a mbr's foot, when what we/I really need is one that has a deeper footbed.  Which the CEMS boots do NOT have.

 :brickwall:
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Soldier1stTradesman2nd on September 01, 2009, 14:16:26
Conversely...

I am sure there was a point when the "standard" or "all dressing the same" (right to the same boot laces etc etc) was based on common sense or a sense of purpose (eg looking good on a parade, stretched out and often limited supply chains in extended campaigns etc). However, those responsible for conformity and dress regs (at schools, bases and units) have to start thinking big picture, ie preventative medicine. I for one do NOT have a chit for COTS boots, however, I am not going to frak up my feet and joints with sub-par GP boots just so I can say, "hey look at my feet and what the system has done to them, I am combat ineffective, now give me my chit!" If an RSM challenges me on my COTS boots, I would gladly challenge him/her on why I would willingly wait for my feet to be ruined just to fix the problem after the fact.

Now, this is not an endorsement for anyone to get into RSMs' faces about this issue. I just believe in using whatever works to get the job done, even if it does not always "conform" to a so called standard (esp when it comes to black/tan boots - get over it and focus on the tasks at hand!!).

Rant ends.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS
Post by: Not a Sig Op on September 01, 2009, 14:24:56
It's funny how there is always a line of people looking for the published order that states they have to wear the issued boots.  You never come across anyone asking about the order for any other specific item.  "Where is the CF instruction that says I have to wear the issued combat pants? you know - because I think I'd be happier in my Levis jeans."

Sorry, but that's flawed army-style logic. I defy you to show me a single case where there was a long term injury that has been caused by wearing, or could have been prevented by not wearing issued pants. (I do know of a single individual who has medical authorization to wear the old style combats due to an allergy to somthing in the cadpat combats, however there was no long injury caused)

I'll accept that "rules are rules" and that I have to wear issued boots (And then I'll ignore it, because very few people around here give a darn about issued vs non-issued boots, and I've got a vague medical chit for boots anyway) however, unlike pants, and ninja-sniper-wannabes aside, there are a great many documented injuries caused by issued boots, or that could have been prevented by not wearing issued boots.

My issue of disgust here is because of a handful of draconian attitudes, or what I like to call the "toy soldier" mentality, the army would rather wait until injuries have occured, and do what they can do help the injured party along after, rather then prevent the injury from occuring to begin with.

The concept that looking "identical" is what makes us a professional fighting force is dangerously out of date, the army should save it for the drill square, and let people get on with the business of soldiering. "Legally" (referring to the geneva convention, not to issued orders) we're only required to wear a recognisable uniform. No one is going to argue that wearing different sorts of boots is going to make us any less recognisable as Canadian soldiers.

The argument that it makes us look unprofessional in the eyes of the public, is also groundless. Are your boots clean and shiny? That's all it takes. John Q. Public won't know the difference if you're wearing SWATS or WWB or MKIIIs or Danners. He's clean, that's what they notice.

Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Soldier1stTradesman2nd on September 01, 2009, 14:30:27
Added to above by MCG, what looks unprofessional is soldiers in the sandbox (for example) jury-rigging all kinds of addons (due to necessity) to the POS tacvest flipflopping about, or Browning HPs falling out of M9 Beretta holsters. The list goes on.
THAT's what looks unprofessional.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Dirt Digger on September 01, 2009, 15:53:31
I feel your pain.  I have what can be best described as "monkey feet".  When this is coupled with low ankle mobility and orthotics for my pronation, I find very few boots will actually fit my feet.  (Then there was that bilateral fasciotomy for chronic compartment syndrome...but that's a separate headache.)

So far, I've dealt with boot issues in Winnipeg, Toronto and Trenton with different levels of success.  My understanding (which was aided some time ago by one of Vern's posts) is that:

a) the medical system gets you walking in a straight line, and
b) the supply system has to fit whatever system that takes into a pair of boots.

The problem are different levels of knowledge and understanding from both sides of the house.  Sometimes even different policies on bases about who you have to see first or who you need a check in the box from...clinic, supply, specialist, physio, etc, etc.  I've had a doctor write me a chit that said "authorized Danners" (um...no...authorized a boot that fits).  I've also had a Supply Tech insist that the current issued boot would fit my foot with my orthotic.

/Rant on
I'm sorry...I'm not trying to be a pain in the ***, but I do believe I know more about how my foot is fitting inside a boot than anyone else does.  Oddly enough, that foot is attached to my central nervous system...if it's inside a shallow boot with a deep orthotic and I can feel the stitches in the top of the heel cup digging into my heel...maybe, just maybe, I know what the hell I'm talking about.  A longer or wider boot will not correct a depth problem!
/Rant off

Anyways, I now have the heel scars (and photos) to show to the next individual that knows more about my feet than I do.

Current status: Through the system I have issued one pair of winter boots (Danners), one pair of summer boots (Rocky 911) and two pairs of desert boots (Danners).  I love my Rockys, but they're certainly nowhere as durable and long-lasting as the Danners.

I don't know if I've had better luck than most, but it pisses me off that something as critical as footware quickly becomes a gongshow.  I have a serious problem with the belief that something as complicated and varied as a human foot can be squeezed into a single boot design. 
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Loachman on September 01, 2009, 16:34:12
We must be truly spoiled here in Borden. Base Supply has always been a delight.

They purchased two pairs of Magnums for me when the issued hot weather boots would not fit (fit problem, not a medical problem), and swapped the POS a** f**ce Cold Wet Weather Boots, that killed my feet and in which I could not walk straight, for the Army version. I have not used the latter, and probably never will, but they are a much better fit and I can actually walk in them.

I did not even have to ask about the hot weather boots. The nice civilian lady saw the fit problem, filled out a form, and sent me into town to pick out something better.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: ArmyVern on September 01, 2009, 18:30:27
~Whew~
Boots, the supply system and the medical system and the way it works, vice the way it is supposed to work is the subjec to this post of mine, which will more than likely be a rant.

- '03 or so, doing my medical Part I and II over at the Stad hospital, the MWO PA sees that I am pronating (I think thats the term, my feet fall "inwards"), which I didn't do when I was sworn in at all.  Sends me to the foot clinic, foot clinic does their thing, and off I go to get orthodics.

- orthodics don't fit in my issued boots (the old Cmbt boot or the CTS Wet Weather boot.  Supply sends me to local contractor for "special combat boots".  However, I am only issued 2 pair of boots, and take 1 "summer" (Magnum Stealths) and 1 "winter" (Bates M-9 Assault boots).  I go to Special Footwear at FLog and ask how come I am only getting 2 pair of boots to replace 4 pair of 'issued' boots.  No answer given, just "thats all you are entitled to.   
Bullshit.
You are entitled to:

2 pr Combat Boots or 2 pr GP boots); and
2 pr CWWBs (gortex winter boots).

That's 4 pair of issued boots. If your orthotics do not fit into the 2 pair of cbt boots (or 2 pr GP boots as the case may be) that you are entitled to, then you are entitled to have 2 pair unlined/non-gortex/summer custom/LPOd boots which do accomodate your orthotics.

Additionally, if your orthotics do not fit into the 2 pair of CWWBs that you are entitled to, then you are entitled to have 2 pair lined/gortex/winter/waterproof custom/LPOd boots which do accomodate your orthotics.

That equals 4 pair of boots 2 pr of each). Exactly what you are entitled to be issued, just yours will be custom/LPOd.

But, now you're Air Force ...

Quote
- CEMS project 3ish years later begin issueing CEMS boots.  Get issued 1 x pair of the new CWWB, they fit fine UNTIL I put my orthodic in them.  Civie sup tech tells me the only option I have it to take a wider or longer pair of boots.   I ask "so, the answer is to give me boots that don't fit my feet in order to accomodate orthodics, which will then leave me with orthodics in boots that are too big, which will eventually lead me back to the MIR with a different foot problem?  Civie suppie says "these boots are supposed to be suitable for 95% of AF personnel".  I guess although I am the other 5%, I still only get them.

The yellow bit: the civvie is RTFOOer - tell 'em I said so and to check the CFSM. It is the civvies JOB (and SUPPLY's responsibility) to ensure your boots FIT. Making you take a wider/longer size than you require means THEY DON'T FIT. Most, but not all orthotics can be accomodated within the CTS GP boot, the CTS CWWB and the CEMS CWWB. That means 5% get them LPOd/custom!! <--- Tell him to consult hs &^%$* regulations in the CFSM!

Quote
...CWWBs, as I thought maybe, just maybe, it was that specific pair of boots.  Nope.  2nd set the same.  I explained I was assessed for special boots for my orthodics already, and civie sup tech notes that, yes, I have special footwear on my clothign docs.  Says there is nothing he can do though.  I continue wearing my Bates with the CEMS boots in my closet.

Bullshit again. He can read the reference andactually do his damn job.

Quote
- CEMS issues Temperate Combat Boot last summer.  Same issue with my orthodics in those boots.  When I have the orthodics in, every step I take, the steel toe pushes down on the top of my toe joints, whatever they are called, and inside of an hour, I am limping around.  So back into my 1 pair of Magnums everyday.  My CoC at the time start telling me I have to wear the issued ones.  I say I can't with the orthodics.  Told 'well don't use the orthodics then'.  Ya, right.  Dumbass.

You are also entitled to have 2 pair of temperate boots purchased for you (if & when entitled to temperate footwear) if your entitled ones do not accomodate your "medically prescribed" orhotics. Once they are bought for you by Supply, tell your CoC this: "they ARE my issued boots" now are you going to allow me to wear them or are you going to order me in writing to disobey a medical officers orders?"

Quote
- Speaking to a supp tech, tell him about all of this crap.  He used to work for Flog, and says that no, I don't wear the issued boots if I have been assessed for special cmbt boots for my orthodics, which I was send to be assessed for during a medical, which the foot clinic then sent me for orthodics AND issued me a chit, which Special Footwear at Flog then added to my clothing docs.  He suggests I go back to Wing Supply and tell them I have been to the foot clinic and WAS assessed by the specialists who DID issue me special footwear, etc.  Off I go to Supply.

This Sup Tech above was correct ...

Quote
- same civie supp tech is at the counter.  Explain AGAIN that I have special footwear to accomodate my orthodics, which I can't wear in the CEMS boots, and that my special issue boots are really in bad shape (been wearing them for how long now?) and need replacement.  I also bring up the issue that I only have 1 "summer" and 1 "winter" boot, although I am supposed to have 2 x pair of each, the same issue I have of CEMS boots.  I try to turn in my CEMS boots, and am told he won't take them.  He says although I have special combat boots on my clothing docs, he can't send me to Special Footwear until he has a chit.  I already HAVE a ******' chit.  This is when I started clenching my fists I am sure.  He again says he can only put me in wider or longer boots.  I say "I will NOT wear boots that are the wrong size for my feet.  I don't need longer or wider ones, I need ones with a deeper footbed because of my orthodics."  He says "you'll have to go to the hosptial to be assessed at the foot clinic."

Medical Regulations (not Supply regulations) state that pers entitled to orthotics must be re-assessed every two years by physio and obtain a new chit   if it's determined that orthotics are still required. Ergo, if your chit we have on file is greater than 2 year old, we at clothing can't do anything for you until you re-visit physio. Sorry dude, that's the process on the medical side of the house.
 
Quote
So.  Tomorrow morning at 0730, I will be back at the foot clinic, to tell them although they have assessed me in '03, and every 2 years since then (including last spring, when I went for my new orthodics...) I am back to be assessed for what they already assessed me for 6 ******* years ago and every 2nd year since.   ::)

Well, if they reassessed you last spring, why the ^*()^$ didn't they give you the new chit? They should know better. They certainly know that we can't buy you new footwear to accomodate your orthotics wihout one if the one you've got is more than 2 years old.

Quote
Now...am I the only one that gets ******* mad over this crap? 

For anyone from the medical and supply world, here are my questions:

Nope, read this thread. But, I get the impressin that physio didn't give you a new chit when you were assessed last spring --- that's a problem in and of itself on the medical side ofthehouse; I can't help you there.


Quote
1.  How many pair of special boots am I supposed to have?  Isn't it the same as I am entitled to in CEMS boots (4 pair total)?

2.  If the medical world has sent me to the foot clinic, who has assessed me for orthodics and Special Footwear at Flog has put special cmbt boots on my clothing docs, how long is that good for?  Does it *run out*?  Its not like my goddamn feet are going to correct themselves. 

3.  Why are supply techs being told to put people in boots that aren't the right size for people's feet?  Boots that are too wide, or too long, or too short are NOT the right size boots and will cause foot problems, which the medical types will then have to assess and treat...which they already did for me.  Now, the solution to orthodics that I have to wear because of X years of clumping around in the old combat boots and shitty liners, is to put those orthodics which correct the problem into boots that are too long or wide, which will then cause a different problem with my feet?   ::)

frig me.  My blood pressure is up again just typing this.  This has got to be one of the STUPIDEST things I have ever dealt with in 20 years in the CF.

I jus aswered them all again. And each point you've raised has been asked before on this site.

As for what boots/footwear you are entitled to:

For each and every set of mil pattern footwear that you are entitled to, you are also entitled to custom/LPOd if the "standard issue" mil pattern footwear can not accomodate your medically prescribed orthotics.

And yes, that includes custom-made ankle boots and oxfords that will accomodate your orthotics if you so desire.


Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Eye In The Sky on September 02, 2009, 11:00:58
Vern,

Thank you for taking the time to reply to my post.  I think you hit the nail on the head with the "the foot clinic should have given me a new chit" as, they did never give me a chit except the first time I was in back in '03. 

I went to the foot clinic today, explained what was going on.  The physiotherapist did her thing, and then gave me a new chit to take to Special Footwear (it is a memo format request for footwear to accomodate prescribed orthotics, signed by the BSurg. 

When I was at Supply last month, there was a chit on my paper-copy clothing docs, but it was from a while ago as it was for Sgt EITS and was dated 2003 IIRC.  When they said I had to be assessed every 2 years, I tried to explain I WAS assessed every 2 years.  Now I think I see where the issue was, as the physio folks hadn't given me a new chit every 2 years.  So, they (supply) had no paperwork to cover their a**.  Which now makes sense that he told me I had to go back to the foot clinic.  The misunderstanding was in the "chit" vice "be assessed" idea.  I had no idea they were supposed to give me a chit every 2 years for boots. 

They also wrote on my chit the words "Fit issue" with a narrative to follow and phone number to call if there is any questions.

The physiotherapist sort of looked at me funny when I mentioned that they said that a longer/wider boot would solve the problem, she said "but those boots then wouldn't fit your feet". 

However, she didn't mention anything about them not giving me a new chit to take to Special Footwear every 2 years, but she was quick to write me up one after looking at my file...I'd wager that she saw that they hadn't given me one in 6 years, despite me being back in '05, '07 and '09 for new orthodics.

*sigh* After leaving the foot clinic, I went right down to Special Footwear on the dockyard, only to find out they are closed on Wednesdays.   :blotto: 

Thanks again for the reply AV.  Seems that the whole problem was the foot clinic not giving me a new chit every 2 years.  As the end user, I had no idea they didn't do that, or were supposed to do that, at every 2 years assessment.  I just assume the folks doing this stuff know the requirements, and do them.  I'll know to ask next time.  Hopefully there won't be an issue with getting the 4 x pair of LPOd boots, vice the 2 x pair I was given last time.  It kinda sucked to have to wear the same pair of boots everyday, especially in the summer/heat. 



Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: dapaterson on September 02, 2009, 11:51:35
As with many things in the CF, the problem is in integrating all the moving parts, and ensuring that everyone involved understands the process and their part to play.

We seem to have gotten away from "old" methods of documenting processes and outcomes, and instead have twenty-year old pubs with a stack of CANFORGEN and other messages pasted in in various places.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Eye In The Sky on September 02, 2009, 12:30:06
As with many things in the CF, the problem is in integrating all the moving parts, and ensuring that everyone involved understands the process and their part to play.

We seem to have gotten away from "old" methods of documenting processes and outcomes, and instead have twenty-year old pubs with a stack of CANFORGEN and other messages pasted in in various places.

After reading this, I decided to look around the MARLANT IntraNet site.  Checked the CF H Svc C (A) site and checked out their FAQ.  Nothing there on this process.  Nada.  Tried Patient Services.  No way to find a reference to foot clinics, etc.  I am not sure how mbr's find out about this foot clinic.  I was referred by a PA, and had never heard of it before that.  Sure, a phone call to your CDU might get you the info, but wouldn't having the info avail save mbr's a trip to Sick Parade?  The foot clinic is self-referring here, you don't need to see the CDU staff to go to it, they are detached from the process it seems. 

Finding nothing there, I went to the FLog site, and after stumbling around in there, I found a link to Clothing - FAQs, just by luck.

http://halifax.mil.ca/FLog/customers/Clothing/FAQ.html

The 3rd last item in the drop-down list is "What is the process to get special size footwear?"  From that list item:

We will do want we can to fit you from the sizes available off the shelf. If we cannot fit you from stock, then we will either send you to the hospital for a medical chit or start the process to send you down town to be fitted. If you have orthotics insoles we will still follow the same process as earlier mentioned and if required you will require a chit from the physio department in Stad Hospital, then come down to fill out a request for the boots at the special size counter then we will call when you can go to a civilian supplier to pick up the boots.

It would be nice if:

1.  this information was easier to find;
2.  this information was complete (fails to mention you require a new chit every 2 years, assessment every 2 years);
3.  contained links to CF H Svcs policies and directives; and
4.  contained links to the CF Supply world policies and directives.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: PMedMoe on September 02, 2009, 13:06:13
Unfortunate, but most unit/base websites are woefully out of date (including links to main sites which are no longer valid).  I don't even know if all places offer foot clinics.  The blurb about boots not fitting is wrong as well, at least according to Vern's posts.

If a member simply does not fit into any boots in the system (and has no medical problems), it is a Supply issue, not a medical issue.  So the line about sending pers for a medical chit is wrong.

I do like the line about "we will do what we can to fit you from the sizes available" bit.  Yeah, we'll measure your foot, then ask you to try a pair of boots.  If they don't fit, we'll try wider, then we'll try longer.  Or at least, that was my experience in Kingston.  Unfortunately, it was not recorded on my docs and I have since been posted to Ottawa.  The policy here (apparently) is that you have to wear the boots for at least a week to prove they don't fit.  I was given insoles (not orthotics) at physio here and because they raise the arch of my foot so much, they are not comfortable with my boots.  Physio advised me to go get new boots at Clothing but after the problems I went through in Kingston, I don't want to go through all that (I know, my choice).  The boots hurt like hell without an insole driving my foot higher.  Can't imagine what they'd be like with the insole.   My physiotherapist has ordered me different insoles that I can wear with the boots I am presently issued.

Oh, and I also only have two pairs of issued boots.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Roy Harding on September 02, 2009, 19:23:19
As with many things in the CF, the problem is in integrating all the moving parts, and ensuring that everyone involved understands the process and their part to play.

We seem to have gotten away from "old" methods of documenting processes and outcomes, and instead have twenty-year old pubs with a stack of CANFORGEN and other messages pasted in in various places.

Give me a "Hallelujah", brother.

From an old post:

...

When the PULL system of amendments came in (late '90s as I recall), I was a Chief Clerk in a major unit.  I began to notice a decline in the expertise of my people - they were CONSTANTLY referring to the online pubs prior to expressing an opinion regarding their area of expertise.  Were they stupid?  Of course not - it was just that they had NO WAY of being confident in their knowledge without checking the online publication EVERY TIME they were asked a question - they didn't know what had been changed without PHYSICALLY (or electronically, if you prefer) checking the publication EVERY SINGLE TIME they were asked a question.

This fact slowed things down in my Orderly Room - none of my subordinates (or ME, for that matter) were able to CONFIDENTLY carry out their assigned duties without CONSTANTLY checking the online pubs.  This became even more onerous with the introduction of DAODs, and the arising of the habit of amending orders via CANFORGEN instead of actually amending the publication in question.
...


Roy
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: ArmyVern on September 02, 2009, 22:39:32

Oh, and I also only have two pairs of issued boots.

What enviornment are you?

Both the types of footwear and the numbers of each type of footwear you are entitled to change dependant upon enviornment and trade.

For example, sailors are not entitled to any pairs of combat boots. Air/Army aren't entitled to 2 pr sea boots.
Sup Techs, MSE Ops, Engr etc are entitled to 2 pr safety boots as well - Infantry guys to none ...

Whatever the case, whatever you are entitled to for your trade & enviornment in stock-issued footwear ... you are entitled to same (& entitled to same qty of each type as if they were your "issued") in custom/LPOd footwear if the mil pattern do not accomodate your orthotics into them.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: ArmyVern on September 02, 2009, 22:45:24
As with many things in the CF, the problem is in integrating all the moving parts, and ensuring that everyone involved understands the process and their part to play.

We seem to have gotten away from "old" methods of documenting processes and outcomes, and instead have twenty-year old pubs with a stack of CANFORGEN and other messages pasted in in various places.

Actually, this is not the case. In the old days, one had to go to clothing stores or base supply to consult the ever changing glue in-the-paragraph-change hard copy version of the ALM181 CF Supply Manual that covered footwear.

Now, the new manual in it's electronic form (The 007 CFSM) is available to every soldier/sailor/airman who has DIN access right from their own workplace. I've posted the links to it here before and have referenced the applic paras dealing without footwear. No need to cut message ammendments either via CANFORGEN or other means --- the CFSM is updated weekly online.

And for us Sup techs - that electronic version is a HUGE time saver and improvement over the old days of pouring through volumes & volumes of hard copy chapters of the 181 --- and then having to consult the hardcopies of the ammendments to ensure there wasn't an ammendment to your specific ref once you finally dug through 20kms of pubs to find it.

No one has to run any further than their computer. Sure we need to check weekly for updates, but we had to do that in the "old days" too - and it's a 500% more effecient process to do so these days.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: dapaterson on September 02, 2009, 22:51:57
Vern:

That's one pub that's being done properly.

I challenge you to find an up-to-date version of the dress manual, though...
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: ArmyVern on September 02, 2009, 22:57:18
Vern:

That's one pub that's being done properly.

I challenge you to find an up-to-date version of the dress manual, though...

There isn't one.

Hard to publish what is in (these days) a daily influx of ammendments and changes due to kit being constantly introduced ... where the heck does one begin when nary a minute goes by where someone somewhere isn't changing beard regs, ballcap regs, TV regs, badges allowed on "XX" mess kit uniform regs ... etc etc

Perhaps that's their story?  ???
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Eye In The Sky on September 03, 2009, 11:09:28
Now, the new manual in it's electronic form (The 007 CFSM) is available to every soldier/sailor/airman who has DIN access right from their own workplace. I've posted the links to it here before and have referenced the applic paras dealing without footwear. No need to cut message ammendments either via CANFORGEN or other means --- the CFSM is updated weekly online.

No one has to run any further than their computer. Sure we need to check weekly for updates, but we had to do that in the "old days" too - and it's a 500% more effecient process to do so these days.

The ref is CFSM Vol 3, Chap 13, Sect G, 3-13G-002 - Special size personal allotment clothing, footwear and orthopaedic furniture. para's 5-10 (unless I am right out of it this morning)?  I'll post the contents here for those who don't have access to CFSM. 

CFSM Link (http://dgmssc.ottawa-hull.mil.ca/dmpp_apps/SupplyManual/WebHelp/index.htm) - DWAN/Intranet/DIN access only

5.  Special size footwear:

The following definitions are provided for the purpose of this article:

Orthoses: Is an orthopaedic appliance or apparatus used to support, align, prevent or correct deformities or to improve function of moveable parts of the body. One common example is a custom foot insole. 

Orthopaedic Footwear: Is custom footwear required by individuals with deformed or surgically treated feet. This includes custom-made military pattern footwear, and internal or external modifications to military and civilian footwear. Orthopaedic footwear is funded by the Command Surgeon.

If after being fitted IAW Measuring and fitting of footwear (3-13G-003) an individual is found to have a foot size, which does not fall within the range of standard catalogue footwear sizes and does not require orthopaedic footwear, the individual will be provided with special size footwear. B/W/S are responsible to fund these requirements through their Command allotments. All special size boots are free issue to all Regular and Reserve force members. Supply sections shall ensure the member receives footwear that fits properly and that meets performance and quality standards equivalent to the authorized CF footwear to which the member is entitled as defined in the applicable scales of issue. Special size safety footwear must meet the safety standards of the regulation footwear. Supply sections are under no obligation to procure brand name footwear. The procedures for Special size shoes/oxfords is covered at para 7.

Athletic Shoes will only be issued to recruits on a one time basis and will not be exchangeable or available for purchase.  CF members Regular and Reserve force are responsible for the purchase of athletic shoes upon completion of recruit training.   The only exception would be for a member who has suffered a CF related injury or has surgically treated feet and requires a custom build athletic shoe.  In these rare cases the athletic shoe would be purchased by supply and funded by the Command Surgeon.

Note:  Class “A” Reservists shall only be issued one pair of Special Size Boots or Oxfords/Shoes as applicable. For example if an individual is entitled to one pair of shoes and two pair of boots the individual shall be issued one pair of shoes and one pair of boots. If the individual is converted to “B” or “C” class they shall be issued their full entitlement.

When special size footwear is ordered for an individual Supply Customer Maintenance MSO014 shall be used to annotate the member’s IA (special instructions) with the special size requirements. Item(s) should be brought on charge using the stock code of the closest size, taking caution to ensure that the total quantity (comprised of current balance, dues-in and special size items) does not exceed the district ROP/ROQ, which in turn could result in redistribution. Each time the individual requires footwear; the IA shall be checked to ascertain when the item was previously issued. Normally, special size footwear shall not be ordered for individuals during their last six months of service.

Special size footwear issued to an individual shall not be withdrawn when the employment justifying its issue ceases. The individual retains the footwear during his entire period of service.

6.  Orthopaedic and modified footwear:

When recommended by a medical board or specialist, individuals with deformed or surgically treated feet shall be provided with specially made or modified footwear in lieu of regulation boots and shoes.

Orthopaedic footwear shall be obtained through a Federal, Provincial or local orthopaedic and prosthetic facility IAW MSI 7000-011 Footwear requiring modification shall be altered as required by the same orthopaedic facility or by local procurement when authorized by the base medical officer, at no expense to the individual.

Special Size Orthopaedic boots and modification to boots are always at no cost to the member.  Special Size Orthopaedic Boots shall be brought on charge by CRV and entered on the individual’s IA.  Only the initial issue of Orthopaedic shoes/oxfords are free issue, procedures are detailed in para 7 of this article. 

Normally orthopaedic footwear shall not be ordered for individuals during their last six months of service.

Orthopaedic footwear obtained as per MSI 7000-011 is paid for by the appropriate Command Surgeon.

7.  Special Size Shoes/Oxfords

Special size shoes/oxfords are free issue upon enrolment.  Following enrolment special size shoe requirements must be purchased using applicable points for shoes/oxfords. If points are not available, member is required to purchase the shoes as per the price indicated using MSO101, option 1, action code “9.”  There are only two exceptions, which allow the free issue of shoes/oxfords following an individual’s enrolment:

The initial issue of shoes/oxfords as a result of a change in medical condition which requires shoes to accommodate orthoses such as arch supports, special insoles etc. The member must present the prescription or medical chit to Clothing Stores to be entitled to the initial free issue. The initial issue is funded by the supporting supply section through Command allotments. All subsequent requirements must be paid for using the applicable points for shoes/oxfords or funded by the member as per the price indicated using MSO101, option 1, action code “9” Clothing Stores must forward details of special size shoe purchases including members name, SN, item purchased to DSSPM email who will have the applicable number of points removed from the members account.

The initial issue of Orthopaedic or modified shoes/oxfords are free issue, and funded by the Command Surgeon. Any subsequent issues must be paid for using the applicable number of points for shoes/oxfords or funded by the member with the price indicated using MSO101 option “9." Orthopaedic footwear is defined at Para 5a. Clothing Stores must forward details of purchase to DSSPM so points can be removed, same procedure as for special size shoes. A copy of the medical officer’s recommendation is to be filed in the individual’s CF 892, and Supply Customer Maintenance MSO014 shall be used to annotate the member’s IA (special instructions) with the appropriate information.

8.  Resoling of MKIII combat boots NSN 8430-21-872-4291

Resoling is limited to the MKIII combat boot only, Medical Specialist Officers and GDMO are the only authority that can prescribe replacement of the insole and outsole components. Funding for the replacement of components is the responsibility of the supporting supply section through their command allotments as per the special funding requirements.

In the event that resoling of the MKIII is prescribed alteration specifications should be coordinated between the Medical Officer and the physiotherapist. NDHQ/DSSPM 2-3 is available to provide technical assistance, as required. 

In the event that resoling is prescribed to alleviate a medical condition diagnosed IAW policies established in MSI 7000-011, the following specifications should be followed:
 

Materiel - Vibram “Sierra” (Model #1276) or Vibram “Kletterlift” (Model #148) outsole with a cushion midsole of polyurethane.

Thickness - The thickness of the polyurethane should be sufficient to maintain the original heel elevation of the boot. It should generally run from approximately 1 inch thick at the heel to a third of an inch - to half an inch at the ball and toe.

9. Orthopaedic furniture. Orthopaedic furniture shall only be procured for individuals whose requirements have been given a prognosis and have been identified on an appropriate certificate signed by a medical doctor or chiropractor. A copy of the medical certificate shall be filed in the member's CF 892.  It is a unit responsibility to fund orthopaedic furniture requirements. Issues of orthopaedic chairs or furniture shall be classified as personal allotments and shall be documented on the individual’s IA special instructions using Supply Customer Maintenance MSO014. Stock number 21AAE4895 shall be used to issue orthopaedic chairs to a member’s IA. 

10.  Retention on posting of special size/orthopaedic clothing, footwear and equipment. When an individual is posted, transferred or seconded to another department the base/station/wing shall ensure that special size/orthopaedic items accompany the individual. In the case of furniture, these items may accompany individuals provided that there is departmental agreement that such transfers are cost beneficial.




Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: PMedMoe on September 03, 2009, 12:12:54
What enviornment are you?

Both the types of footwear and the numbers of each type of footwear you are entitled to change dependant upon enviornment and trade.

For example, sailors are not entitled to any pairs of combat boots. Air/Army aren't entitled to 2 pr sea boots.
Sup Techs, MSE Ops, Engr etc are entitled to 2 pr safety boots as well - Infantry guys to none ...

Whatever the case, whatever you are entitled to for your trade & enviornment in stock-issued footwear ... you are entitled to same (& entitled to same qty of each type as if they were your "issued") in custom/LPOd footwear if the mil pattern do not accomodate your orthotics into them.

I am Army.  Oh, and I forgot, I do have 1 pair of safety boots as required by trade.   ;)
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: ArmyVern on September 03, 2009, 13:28:08
I am Army.  Oh, and I forgot, I do have 1 pair of safety boots as required by trade.   ;)

Then you're entitled to

2 pr cbt boots (or GP);
2 pr CWWB; and
1 pr safety boots.

If any of the above do not accomodate your orthotics (chit dated within 2 years), you are entitled to have them LPOd (or custom). You'd still end up entitled to 5 pairs total at the end of the day.

Whether you choose to go to clothing and obtain them however is another matter as you stated below that you had "chosen" not to. Many pers choose not to get the ankle boots or oxfords done as they rarely wear them; depends on your personal sit.
Title: New virbram sole policy
Post by: meni0n on September 30, 2009, 11:01:40
After being told by the doc at the base clinic to go get vibram sole boots, I went to clothing stores, and was told that there is a new policy, I have to bring them both of my Mk IIIs to exchange for one pair of vibram sole. Anyone else got that policy in their LFC or is that just LFQA? I`m going on course soon and would need two pairs.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: MCG on October 07, 2009, 18:05:23
After being told by the doc at the base clinic to go get vibram sole boots, I went to clothing stores, and was told that there is a new policy, I have to bring them both of my Mk IIIs to exchange for one pair of vibram sole.
1. Health Services cannot prescribe brand-names for footwear.  They may prescribe that your footwear need to have given characteristics which are not found in the issued footwear - in this case the supply system would choose if the best way of achieving the characteristic would be re-soled MkIII, new GP boots, or an alternative LPO product.

2.  If you require special footwear, your entitlement is not reduced as to the number of boots that you should have unless you are a Class A reservist. 

For every boot that you have an entitlement, the CF is responsible to provide you footwear that fit your feet and are medically compatible with you.  If you are not getting this, that ask to speak with a supervisor at clothing stores.  If this fails, have your chain of command engage.  If this still fails to result in a timely resolution, then submit a redress of grievance to your Commanding Officer (who will probably forward it to the CO of your local ASG/ASU as IA).

If you are getting boots in the right quantities for every entitled type that fit and are medically compatible but you just don't like them, then submit a UCR.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: meni0n on October 11, 2009, 11:25:20
Thanks for the info. The new GP boots have vibram soles on them and that's what the doc meant when he wrote it on the chit. I actually did have two pairs issued and now waiting to go get sized for orthodics and then see how well they fit. But I did do a BFT in the new boots and they were horrible, my feet were a mess after. I don't know if it was because I didn't have the time to break them in or because they were just a tad longer than a snug fit. Some guys on the BFT wore Magnums which they said they bought only to wear for the 13km. Right now it seems like not a bad idea as I really don't want to go thru the same pain again.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: George Wallace on October 11, 2009, 11:29:36
Thanks for the info. The new GP boots have vibram soles on them and that's what the doc meant when he wrote it on the chit. I actually did have two pairs issued and now waiting to go get sized for orthodics and then see how well they fit. But I did do a BFT in the new boots and they were horrible, my feet were a mess after. I don't know if it was because I didn't have the time to break them in or because they were just a tad longer than a snug fit. Some guys on the BFT wore Magnums which they said they bought only to wear for the 13km. Right now it seems like not a bad idea as I really don't want to go thru the same pain again.

There is a topic on the GP boots (or Mark IV as some like to call them) and how they are comfy slippers when in the office, but cripplers when worn in the Field for long marches.  Even when broken in for a year, they will rip your feet to shreds.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: meni0n on October 11, 2009, 11:47:39
Thanks for the info George. Now I am not sure what to do, I have to have boots with vibram sole for medical reason but the boots destroyed my feet on the march. Should I go back to the doc and ask for a chit for boots that won't screw up my feet like the GP did?
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Loachman on October 11, 2009, 12:04:26
That could not hurt.

I did the BFT a couple of weeks ago with Magnums and Sole Footbeds. No foot issues at all. I had convinced/helped convince several others to try Magnums as well, and a few more were going to buy some after the BFT.

I did my last BFT two years ago with Mk IIIs and Sole Footbeds, and had to tape my feet to avoid blisters. That was unusual as I never had blister problems before. These were my oldest/comfiest Mk IIIs though, and perhaps a little loose as a result. I bought my Magnums shortly afterwards, mainly because of the atrocious a** f**ce cold wet weather boots.

No sense using forty-year-old boot technology when competitive manufacturers have gone so far beyond that.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: PuckChaser on October 11, 2009, 12:24:55
Though I'm not a doctor, a lot of the BFT issues people have are their boots aren't snug. I've only ever gotten 1 blister from a BFT or ruckmarch, and it was because my socks bunched up on a toe. Friction is a killer, and if your feet are sliding forwards and backwards, or side to side with every step, its a recipe for hamburger feet. If your GP boots don't fit perfectly, try QM and get a snug size (they stretch when broken in). If they can't give you the right size (insist that close enough isn't good enough) and your chit for COTS boots should be good to go.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: George Wallace on October 11, 2009, 12:36:38
Though I'm not a doctor, a lot of the BFT issues people have are their boots aren't snug. I've only ever gotten 1 blister from a BFT or ruckmarch, and it was because my socks bunched up on a toe. Friction is a killer, and if your feet are sliding forwards and backwards, or side to side with every step, its a recipe for hamburger feet. If your GP boots don't fit perfectly, try QM and get a snug size (they stretch when broken in). If they can't give you the right size (insist that close enough isn't good enough) and your chit for COTS boots should be good to go.

The hard leather cup in the heel is a killer.  Blisters on top of feet as well as bottoms.  These are fairly serious problems for a boot to have.  I have had Mk I, Mk II, and Mk III boots over the years, with very few problems with blisters, other than Nijmegen.  The GP boots ended that trend.  My feet were butchered. 


[Edit to add:  And that was in the days when we had to do the 2 X 10 mile, later the 2 X 13 km.]
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: recceguy on October 11, 2009, 12:40:16
Though I'm not a doctor, a lot of the BFT issues people have are their boots aren't snug. I've only ever gotten 1 blister from a BFT or ruckmarch, and it was because my socks bunched up on a toe. Friction is a killer, and if your feet are sliding forwards and backwards, or side to side with every step, its a recipe for hamburger feet. If your GP boots don't fit perfectly, try QM and get a snug size (they stretch when broken in). If they can't give you the right size (insist that close enough isn't good enough) and your chit for COTS boots should be good to go.

Just going to hazard a guess , but I'll bet most everyone here already knows how to suck eggs.

But thanks anyway.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: meni0n on October 11, 2009, 12:54:05
If I still had my MK3s I doubt I would have had the same problems. I do know my feet moved a little bit inside but it didn't cause a lot of problems. The boot is a tad on the heavy side, which gave me shin splints for the first km or so so until I slowed down a bit, which translated into more muscle fatigue on my legs, which I never had with the lighter MK3s. I also noticed the area near the big toe on the left boot is pretty tight which is why the toenail on my toe is a shade of blue-red. I only got 1 blister on the whole walk so it wasn't really the friction as much as the boots themselves.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Loachman on October 11, 2009, 15:09:09
Many years ago, I started carving off the "corners" of the heel on new combat boots to round them and reduce the camming action of the foot coming down and rotating. No shin splints since. The Magnums already have rounded heels.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: COBRA-6 on October 11, 2009, 15:27:06
That could not hurt.

I did the BFT a couple of weeks ago with Magnums and Sole Footbeds. No foot issues at all. I had convinced/helped convince several others to try Magnums as well, and a few more were going to buy some after the BFT.

I did my last BFT two years ago with Mk IIIs and Sole Footbeds, and had to tape my feet to avoid blisters. That was unusual as I never had blister problems before. These were my oldest/comfiest Mk IIIs though, and perhaps a little loose as a result. I bought my Magnums shortly afterwards, mainly because of the atrocious a** f**ce cold wet weather boots.

No sense using forty-year-old boot technology when competitive manufacturers have gone so far beyond that.

I used to get crazy blood blisters doing ruck marches, and shin splints. Switched to Original SWAT with Superfeet insoles and now I don't even get hotspots. I will never go back. Convinced a few others to try SWATs or Magnums and they are all converts. Some go through the process to get a chit so they don't have to buy them, others just pick up a pair on their own dime. No one seems to care either way, as long as they're black here or tan over there.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: recceguy on October 11, 2009, 15:54:55
I used to get crazy blood blisters doing ruck marches, and shin splints. Switched to Original SWAT with Superfeet insoles and now I don't even get hotspots. I will never go back. Convinced a few others to try SWATs or Magnums and they are all converts. Some go through the process to get a chit so they don't have to buy them, others just pick up a pair on their own dime. No one seems to care either way, as long as they're black here or tan over there.

My SWATS & Magnums are the best boots I've had on my feet since I joined in 68. A heck of a long way from hobnailed, cleated boots and putees I started with ;D
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: COBRA-6 on October 11, 2009, 16:43:41
My SWATS & Magnums are the best boots I've had on my feet since I joined in 68. A heck of a long way from hobnailed, cleated boots and putees I started with ;D

I found a pic!  ;D

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdigital.library.mcgill.ca%2Fwarposters%2Fimages%2Flarge%2Fwp1-r13-f3.jpg&hash=40c2110471d4f4f322cf00e46745dadf)
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Breacher41 on October 11, 2009, 20:15:39
Magnums are great (for me) and I haven't worn a pair of issued boots since I got them. Honestly, with the insulated versions of Magnums out there now, who'd want to wear the WWB?
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Eye In The Sky on November 13, 2009, 09:30:54
Question for those who might know:

Is there a list of CF-approved LPO replacement boots for each kind of "issued" boot?  If so...where the hell do you find it?  If not...why not?

It sure would make it easier for all involved. 
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: ArmyVern on November 14, 2009, 23:41:51
Question for those who might know:

Is there a list of CF-approved LPO replacement boots for each kind of "issued" boot?  If so...where the hell do you find it?  If not...why not?

It sure would make it easier for all involved.

No there isn't. That's because different boots (and there's hundreds of styles makes out there) work different for different people. And what is available locally differs across the nation.

The regulation is that you have to buy "black" boots. IE: if you buy black boots with orange threading ... I am not going to approve the re-imbursement for them (trust me ... some idiot actually did just that despite having signed the sheet as "read & understood" that he was required to purchase "all black" footwear that resembled military issued footwear. That's the regulation.

Also, if you are LPOing to replace "combat boots" - then the boots that you buy should be all-leather. No gortex crap that essentially makes them something other than a "combat boot". If your LPOing as a replacement for CWWBs ... then buying a gortex and thermal lined boot would be acceptable.
Instead of coming back to see us after 2 months and going "these boots are too hot to wear (cause it's summer and 35 degrees out), so you need to buy me 2 pairs of different ones now." That's been tried too.

You know, one thing I can't issue is common sense; the Supply system needs some of that issued too, but so do a WHOLE lot of soldiers. Seems to be a lot of high priced babysitting going on these days. I AM NOT these guys' momma ... I figure if they're old enough to be in the military they should be old enough to know better, sadly, that's not the case all the time. We can make lists for anything, but if troops just feel free to ignore paperwork they sign anyway (then fight with you for half an hour as to "why your ****ed up supply system" isn't willing to pay them for my black boots with orange threading) ... a "list" won't accomplish SFA - it's just a bit more handholding.

Just like the young troop living across the street from me ... fuzzy wolf blanket for a living room curtain with a couple of milk crates for furniture. With a computer sitting on a computer desk ... but a really hot new Porsche sitting in his driveway (where which I am sure his paycheck goes each month paying the insurance and gas on it).  ::)
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: gcclarke on November 15, 2009, 17:33:22
Just like the young troop living across the street from me ... fuzzy wolf blanket for a living room curtain with a couple of milk crates for furniture. With a computer sitting on a computer desk ... but a really hot new Porsche sitting in his driveway (where which I am sure his paycheck goes each month paying the insurance and gas on it).  ::)

See, what's the point of having a sweet-*** car to use trying to pick up women if you can't even bring them home without completely shattering their impression that you're rich? :D
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: X-mo-1979 on November 15, 2009, 23:25:39
We all have been young once!

Remember that Jimmy Gilmer &  Fireballs LP you needed vern.That was 5 cent's...the whole weeks pay at that time.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: ArmyVern on November 15, 2009, 23:39:26
We all have been young once!

Remember that Jimmy Gilmer &  Fireballs LP you needed vern.That was 5 cent's...the whole weeks pay at that time.

Jeebus ... I had to utilize my googlefu ... I've never heard of these guys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fireballs

1963!!??

My mother was 15 then! I wasn't even thought about until she was 20! Perhaps my mom remembers them though ... I'll ask her next time I'm talking to her!  ;D
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: X-mo-1979 on November 15, 2009, 23:45:01
lol
Come on sugar shack CLASSIC!

Figured you needed some humour..your lettin the boots get yah down.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: ArmyVern on November 16, 2009, 00:23:45
lol
Come on sugar shack CLASSIC!

Figured you needed some humour..your lettin the boots get yah down.

I just thought you were calling me old.

 ;D
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Chapeski on November 16, 2009, 03:11:30
I picked up a set of Magnums back in March. Wasn't able to wear them until June due to my, ahem, chain of command (a single person that didn't like the thought of troops buying their own boots.) I tried to explain that I had been wearing them outside of work and they seemed to be helping my ankle recover from an injury suffered over a year before. After said member of my CoC left I asked my Pl Comd if he would mind if I wore them. he didn't give a rats a** about it. I have had 2 flare ups in my ankle since June.... one of them was due to a massive drop in temperature, and only lasted about 3 hours, and the other was after a run (which I despise to start with, due to the previous injury) and didn't last long at all. I love my Magnums, I liked the GP Boot, but loooove the Magnums.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: krustyrl on November 16, 2009, 08:31:51
I like my Magnums (Stealth) as well but it sure doesn't take long for cracks to materialize in these. I had cracks develop after about 3 months wear, despite using polish to keep the leather supple. Turned in a pair that were all cracked along the width on top and the tread was barely scored.
Anyone else have this issue.?
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Loachman on November 20, 2009, 14:03:44
No sign of deterioration in my Magnums after over a year of regular use.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Breacher41 on November 20, 2009, 16:07:05
I like my Magnums (Stealth) as well but it sure doesn't take long for cracks to materialize in these. I had cracks develop after about 3 months wear, despite using polish to keep the leather supple. Turned in a pair that were all cracked along the width on top and the tread was barely scored.
Anyone else have this issue.?

Polish may be your problem. The only pair of magnums I have ever messed up was by putting polish on it. I use boot paste with it now, and after  3 yrs I have had no problems with any of my other pairs of magnums. I own lots.
Title: CANFORGEN on non issued combat boots
Post by: YanniHgcck on April 08, 2010, 10:28:13
Hello everyone!

Im in CFB Kingston, and have been told that I alone cannot wear non issued combat boots unless i can prove that I have a right to. Im not sure if this is the right board, but I was told there is a CANFORGEN stating that only a base commander can say no to non issued boots. I cannot find anything on the DIN. Nor can my clerks help me to find anything.

CAN ANYONE HELP ME TO FIND THIS CANFORGEN, OR ANY OTHER INFO ON NON ISSUED BOOTS??!!

Thank you :-[
Title: Re: CANFORGEN on non issued combat boots
Post by: George Wallace on April 08, 2010, 10:39:12
Hello everyone!

Im in CFB Kingston, and have been told that I alone cannot wear non issued combat boots unless i can prove that I have a right to. Im not sure if this is the right board, but I was told there is a CANFORGEN stating that only a base commander can say no to non issued boots. I cannot find anything on the DIN. Nor can my clerks help me to find anything.

CAN ANYONE HELP ME TO FIND THIS CANFORGEN, OR ANY OTHER INFO ON NON ISSUED BOOTS??!!

Thank you :-[

You are in the CF now.  Looking at your post, I think you have your info backwards.  Shouldn't it be that the Base Commander can authorize you wearing the boots, not you deciding for yourself?   
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: PMedMoe on April 08, 2010, 10:44:19
Here's the CANFORGEN (http://vcds.dwan.dnd.ca/vcds-exec/pubs/canforgen/2010/075-10_e.asp) that came out on 29 Mar:

REF: A. PROCUREMENT ADMINISTRATION MANUAL, A-PP-005-00/AG-001
B. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITIES FOR FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE AND CANADIAN FORCES HTTP://ADMFINCS.MIL.CA/DFPP/DELEGATION/MATRIX-MATRICE E.XLS)
BILINGUAL MESSAGE / MESSAGE BILINGUE

ADM MAT HAS OBSERVED AND DOCUMENTED THE PROCUREMENT OF OPERATIONAL EQUIPMENT, IN SOME CASES INCLUDING WEAPONS, AMMUNITION, PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT (PPE) AND CLOTHING. FORMATIONS AND UNITS HAVE NEVER HAD THE AUTHORITY TO PROCURE OPERATIONAL EQUIPMENT, IN PARTICULAR WEAPONS, AMMUNITION, OR PPE, AND THIS PRACTICE WILL CEASE FORTHWITH. FUTURE INSTANCES WILL RESULT IN THE REMOVAL OF ALL RELATED DELEGATIONS AND SPENDING AUTHORITY AND DISCIPLINARY ACTION WILL BE RECOMMENDED THROUGH THE APPROPRIATE CHAIN OF COMMAND.

THE SAFETY, PERFORMANCE AND EFFECTIVE INTEGRATION OF PERSONAL EQUIPMENT AND CLOTHING IS AT THE FOREFRONT OF ANY ACQUISITION. THE UNAUTHORIZED PROCUREMENT AND USE OF WEAPONS, PPE AND CLOTHING JEOPARDIZES MISSION SUCCESS AND PERSONAL SAFETY AND WILL NOT BE CONDONED IN ANY FORM. THE MATERIEL GROUP IS THE SOLE AUTHORITY TO ACQUIRE OPERATIONAL MILITARY EQUIPMENT, BASED ON THE REQUIREMENTS SET BY THE CF IAW REFS
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: George Wallace on April 08, 2010, 10:49:00
So!  In effect, it states that you are authorized to wear clothing that has been ISSUED to you, and nothing else.  You are NOT AUTHORIZED to wear non-issued clothing.  That would be your boots in this case.  ......... And the "Authority" is much higher up the food chain than the Base Commander.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: ArmyVern on April 08, 2010, 11:02:32
So!  In effect, it states that you are authorized to wear clothing that has been ISSUED to you, and nothing else.  You are NOT AUTHORIZED to wear non-issued clothing.  That would be your boots in this case.  ......... And the "Authority" is much higher up the food chain than the Base Commander.

No. Operational clothing like vests, camel backs etc.

Clothing is authorized to procure boots/uniforms when the requirement falls into our authorized areas for special sizing and/or medical.

There are COs out there who are having their Unit Acquisition card holders go out and purchase items such as camel backs (an OPERATIONAL clothing item). Things like that are NOT authorized. If it is an item of clothing scale then NO CO has the authority to authorize it's purchase for wear at Unit level. Pers in canada are NOT entitled to the issue of a camel back. yet, there are COs out there buying them with Unit funds so that their troops can wear 'em around base for PT or out in the field.

Short of it - if the only entitlement to the item is for deployed operations ... then no CO can buy it with Unit funds ... nor does he have the authority to order his Pte or Cpl or whoever in the Unit has the acquisition card to buy them. Unlawful and certainly NOT IAW purchasing regulations.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: George Wallace on April 08, 2010, 11:13:45
PPE could include boots.......could it not?  Lineman's boots, etc.?
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Eye In The Sky on April 08, 2010, 22:48:44
As a simple end-user, this is how I see the issue of boots that aren't in the CF standard issue group (i.e. those provided to CF members from the CTS, CEMS, NICE, etc Scales of Issue).

1.  If you have a medical requirement for boots other than the ones provided, you go to the CFHS unit at your base/wing/etc.  I can only speak for Halifax, in which case you report to the foot clinic on the days scheduled for walk-ins.  Again, in Halifax, you can either be referred to by your Health Services folks or self-report.  In the other instance I can think of, it is a SIZE issue vice foot issue, in which case you go see the folks at Supply IIRC from all of the info ArmyVern has posted on the subject on the forum.

2.  The assessment is made by these folks as to what, if anything, you need. 

3.  If you are deemed needing special/LPO boots, then these folks provide you with the paperwork to take to Special Sizes (in Halifax, not sure what it is called at all the other bases). They will then contract your requirement out and you will be called as to where/when to show up for your fitting.

Thats about it, for the end-user, IMO. 

The main point is that you should have either a medical or size requirement before the CF is going to provide you with LPO/special boots.  I know it sucks, and I am not saying I agree with it (I am a supporter of the annual boots allowance concept myself) but that is the way it is currently set up.

Some units may/may not allow their mbrs to wear non-issue boots that were purchased by you with your own funds.  That is up to the Unit CoC.

If you ever sustain an injury to the foot/ankle etc and you weren't wearing approved, issued footwear, you may find that Veterans Affairs will say "sorry" if they find out you were wearing your own boots.

If you need the boots because of medical or sizing issues, you should get special size/fit boots that will be procured and issued to you by your Supply folks, in which case they ARE your issued boots.

 :2c:
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Occam on June 22, 2011, 18:59:31
Reviving an older thread to bring up.....yes, again....the issue of boots.

I was successful getting the Air Force (CEMS) CWWB when they were initially issued several years ago.  When the CEMS Temperate WWB rolled out, I thought "Hey, it should be as easy as getting the same size in the TWWB, put my orthotics in them, and I'm good to go!".

Wrong.

Tried out the identical size in the TWWB, and the crease at the back end of the toe (just in front of the laces) digs into the top of my foot.  There's not enough room vertically in the toe for my foot and the orthotics.  So, the next step Clothing Stores has me try out is to go one size wider.  So now instead of a 270/106, now they want me to try a 270/110.  So I try them out, and while there's more room laterally, there's no more room vertically for my foot and the orthotic.

I went into Clothing Stores this morning and told them that size didn't work either, and that I'd like to know what's next.  The fella comes back with a pair of 270/114 boots.  At this point, I'm laughing, because now I'm being asked to wear a boot that's two sizes too wide in order to try and make vertical room in the boot.  I tried it on, and sure enough there's a ton of lateral room in the boot and there's no way I'm taking them.

I asked the fella what's next.  He tells me that I should be aware that they're not buying LPO boots anymore, and that if the CEMS footwear doesn't fit properly, then the only option is to have some place in Gatineau manufacture a custom boot, and that'll take three months minimum.  He tells me that the various stakeholders got pissed off that they spent $150,000 on LPO boots last year, and that it's now been killed.

Knowing that I'd seen a post ArmyVern made on this very topic only last year (http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,93138.msg927795.html#msg927795), does anyone know if there really has been a change in policy before I start waving the CF Supply Manual in anyone's face?
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: PMedMoe on June 23, 2011, 07:36:37
does anyone know if there really has been a change in policy before I start waving the CF Supply Manual in anyone's face?

Don't just wave it in their faces.  Smack them with it.   :nod:   ;)
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Occam on June 23, 2011, 10:01:13
Don't just wave it in their faces.  Smack them with it.   :nod:   ;)

Don't tempt me...I'm easily led astray these days!
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: MCG on June 23, 2011, 10:31:03
CFSM 3-13G-002 para 5 still states:
Quote
If after being fitted IAW Measuring and fitting of footwear (3-13G-003) an individual is found to have a foot size, which does not fall within the range of standard catalogue footwear sizes and does not require orthopaedic footwear, the individual will be provided with special size footwear. B/W/S are responsible to fund these requirements through their Command allotments. All special size boots are free issue to all Regular and Reserve force members. Supply sections shall ensure the member receives footwear that fits properly and that meets performance and quality standards equivalent to the authorized CF footwear to which the member is entitled as defined in the applicable scales of issue. Special size safety footwear must meet the safety standards of the regulation footwear. Supply sections are under no obligation to procure brand name footwear.
However, it should be noted that nowhere is there a specifically stated entitlement to LPO boots.  The CF supply system gets to decide the mechanism through which these boots are gotten and the CoC, from ADM (Mat) nationally anywhere down to the local base, could decide that LPO will not be used without an operational requirement.

If you have been getting on without the boots for years, you can probably get by a few more months without them.  However, if you have an urgent requirement then supply would have an obligation to seek the more expedient means of acquisition.  Expect that your CoC may have to justify the urgency of your requirement if you want to push this route.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Occam on June 23, 2011, 11:19:36
CFSM 3-13G-002 para 5 still states:However, it should be noted that nowhere is there a specifically stated entitlement to LPO boots.  The CF supply system gets to decide the mechanism through which these boots are gotten and the CoC, from ADM (Mat) nationally anywhere down to the local base, could decide that LPO will not be used without an operational requirement.

If you have been getting on without the boots for years, you can probably get by a few more months without them.  However, if you have an urgent requirement then supply would have an obligation to seek the more expedient means of acquisition.  Expect that your CoC may have to justify the urgency of your requirement if you want to push this route.

It's looking like that's the way they're playing now.  Apparently DSSPM has decreed that COTS boots are no longer authorized (nationally), and that a contract(s) has been let for manufacture.  Cost nor looks are the mitigating factor behind this, but the wellbeing of the individual and the fact that the boot needs to be identical to the stocked boot are the driving factors.

One could argue that there isn't an "operational" (read: urgent) need for the boot, but it could also be argued that year-round wear of the CWWB should be the exception rather than the rule when there is a suitable COTS replacement.  My Temperate WWB will arrive just in time for...Cold WWB season.   >:(
Title: Re: Military Boots -Non Issued
Post by: Old Log Dog on July 13, 2011, 07:23:38
"which by the much more comfy then the good old mark III":) good luck

FYI information there are very few pair of Mark III in the system and are no longer available for order through the system.  Our current boots come in 72 sizes (that's right 72) and while i agree there are some soldiers I say again SOME who legitimately in need of special size footwear.  I firmly believe that now we can accommodate the vast majority of people, including the people who have flat , and wide feet as these boots also accommodate orthodics. 
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: hotei on July 27, 2011, 22:01:49
I will be honest in this, I truly do not have a problem with the Mk IIIs, and I have wide and flat feet. That being said, I was issued the Mk IVs, and I absolutely despise them. They leak water (and I am not the only one to make that comment), they do not suppose my feet, but they do offer me more than enough room. I will be honest, I have tried a number of different gucci boots (Magnums, SWATs, Danners) and have found the Danners (Ft. Lewis) to be the most comfortable.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Hammer Sandwich on July 28, 2011, 00:48:29
Jeezum Christie.....I take  a size 15 shoe, and even I was accommodated in the "black boots-nearly unpolishable-(1)".

I was told that there were no WWB for me when my toes stuck out beyond the "shoe-fitting-dealie".
So they sent me somewhere else to get "cold weather" boots. (Toolbox, or some other strange name).

No biggie, if your boots don't fit, you'll be assigned new ones. (I was never issued CHIT, just footwear)
Yeah, it's kind a pain in the butt to explain it ad nauseum, but if you have big/strange/freaky-***-feet....then there's nothing they can do.

"OK, MCpl, or PO, " or whatever....I'll take my boots/shoes off....
"What now, MCpl?/PO?"

Just a bitter 2 cents.

HS


Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Tango18A on July 28, 2011, 01:37:53
Been there and got the Frankenstein boots to prove it. Not too happy with the process.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Hammer Sandwich on July 28, 2011, 02:06:25
....got the Frankenstein boots to prove it....

I feel your pain.
No one has Love for the Big-Footed.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Tango18A on July 28, 2011, 09:39:35
Especially the footwear manufacturers of the world.  :-[
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: PuckChaser on April 06, 2013, 15:19:59
So to resurrect this thread a bit (its a sticky so is it really a necro?): Does anyone know offhand how long a member should expect to wait for custom-sized boots? I'm not an off-the-shelf fit, and was placed in the queue to receive custom boots in Aug 2012. Kingston still doesn't have a contract for this, and I'm stuck using my one pair of SWATs (my own purchase), which isn't that big of a deal in Garrison. I went in to Clothing the other day, and they still don't have a contract to size and supply these boots, and they have over 400 people waiting. Is clothing required to LPO me boots if the wait is too long? Especially if I get tagged for Maple Resolve, I don't want to go to the field with only 1 pair of non-waterproof boots.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Sparkplugs on June 24, 2013, 22:10:11
So to resurrect this thread a bit (its a sticky so is it really a necro?): Does anyone know offhand how long a member should expect to wait for custom-sized boots? I'm not an off-the-shelf fit, and was placed in the queue to receive custom boots in Aug 2012. Kingston still doesn't have a contract for this, and I'm stuck using my one pair of SWATs (my own purchase), which isn't that big of a deal in Garrison. I went in to Clothing the other day, and they still don't have a contract to size and supply these boots, and they have over 400 people waiting. Is clothing required to LPO me boots if the wait is too long? Especially if I get tagged for Maple Resolve, I don't want to go to the field with only 1 pair of non-waterproof boots.

Sorry I can't help with Kingston-specific questions, but the dude that used to do the Trenton custom boots is gone for who knows how long, so they're in the same boat as you guys, it sounds like. I had custom boots done up with foot molding, fitting all that business, start to finish, for 2 pairs of black steeltoes, and 2 pairs of desert steeltoes, was just over two years. That was over 2009-2010. They were crap. Fell apart the first week I wore them. I was in KAF by then, so I just bought myself some tan boots that fit at the German PX and all was well with the world.

I recently went back to supply to ask about more boots, because mine don't fit any more. (As a side note, did you know that your feet can grow an entire size during pregnancy and then STAY THAT WAY FOREVER? Yeah me neither. The more you know.) Anyway. The boot lady at supply let me know that they stopped using the custom dude because it was like $1200 per pair, and they consistently fell apart. SO she said their first line of action for those of us with weird/misshapen/silly feet, was to send us to a relatively local boot store, try some on, and get that store to send an estimate for the boots you fit properly, to supply, who will then send money, order the boots, and you pick them up at supply.

So long reply short, if I were you, I'd go back to supply, tell them you need boots that fit, and what they would recommend you do. In my case, the boots were literally tearing my feet open and making them bleed, so they didn't have much of a choice, they had to find some that worked. (Another side note, it is extremely difficult to find a size 6.5 womens, bigger than EEE width boot.) Supply would much rather dish out a couple hundred bucks for LPO boots than for custom fit ones, at greater than $1200 a pop. So I would ask again about that.

And if you want to PM me, feel free. I've been dealing with boot issues for the past 7 years.  :blotto:
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: PuckChaser on June 24, 2013, 22:14:12
And if you want to PM me, feel free. I've been dealing with boot issues for the past 7 years.  :blotto:

The Clothing Spvr has actually been sending update emails, expecting a contract award and appts to start this month. I'll give them until after block leave, and ask again. I could care less what boots I get, as long as they fit and don't destroy my feet. Never had a sizing issue with Mk3 boots, but with the GPs and on its been horrible.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Sparkplugs on June 25, 2013, 07:54:53
The Clothing Spvr has actually been sending update emails, expecting a contract award and appts to start this month. I'll give them until after block leave, and ask again. I could care less what boots I get, as long as they fit and don't destroy my feet. Never had a sizing issue with Mk3 boots, but with the GPs and on its been horrible.

The regular GPs I can fit fine, but as soon as you stick the steel toe in there, I'm done for. Frustrating!
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: X_para76 on September 05, 2013, 20:18:57
As long as we're on the topic of boots can anyone tell me if there is anywhere in the dress regs that defines where pants should be bloused in relation to the boots?
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: ArmyVern on September 05, 2013, 20:33:56
The Clothing Spvr has actually been sending update emails, expecting a contract award and appts to start this month. I'll give them until after block leave, and ask again. I could care less what boots I get, as long as they fit and don't destroy my feet. Never had a sizing issue with Mk3 boots, but with the GPs and on its been horrible.

Custom Footwear is done via a National Contract (which was allowed to expire) vice a local or regional.  I know that you've already recd that update from Ottawa on expected PWGSC awarding of such (a new custom contract) ...  ergo the 'desert boot' slant.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: PuckChaser on September 05, 2013, 21:20:30
Custom Footwear is done via a National Contract (which was allowed to expire) vice a local or regional.  I know that you've already recd that update from Ottawa on expected PWGSC awarding of such (a new custom contract) ...  ergo the 'desert boot' slant.

Yeah, I got my desert boots last week. Strangely, they look the same on the outside but the inside doesn't have the massive foam inserts that kept my feet warm in Kabul last year. Must be a different manufacturer. At any rate, these at least fit properly from what I've seen (no rucks yet), however I think I'd be screwed in the fall/spring/winter without my NEOs.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: DirtyDog on October 02, 2013, 21:30:33
And a blood-chilling wail of dispair was heard from generations of The RCR.....    ;D
Been a Loyal Royal for going on 7 years now and never once have I heard a single person (i.e. RSM/SgtMaj types) complain about anyone's boots.  Not once.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Journeyman on October 03, 2013, 10:20:44
Quote
Quote from: Journeyman on August 31, 2009, 17:57:24
Really?  It took you FOUR years to come up with that brilliant "oh...oh ya" response?  Good work, Forest.   :not-again:
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: DirtyDog on October 04, 2013, 09:58:21
Really?  It took you FOUR years to come up with that brilliant "oh...oh ya" response?  Good work, Forest.   :not-again:
Actually buds, I didn't pay any attention to the date of your post.

I had clicked on the thread seeing it had new responses and the first thing I saw was your post which contained a common misconception (to which I responded).

I'm glad it caused you enough distress to feel the need to respond in a negative manner.  Have a life much?
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Journeyman on October 04, 2013, 14:07:12
Have a life much?
Guess not.
 
But then, I generally don't go back more than 2 years -- 3 years, tops -- to find something to respond to.   :boring:
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: DirtyDog on October 04, 2013, 21:45:42
Guess not.
 
But then, I generally don't go back more than 2 years -- 3 years, tops -- to find something to respond to.   :boring:
Hardly worth getting into but...

I rarely browse this site all that much.  The thread popped up and I clicked on it and I didn't bother looking at the dates.  Noticed your comment and hence my response.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Dimsum on December 04, 2015, 06:43:10
Bumping an old thread:

Question came up today at work - with the CANEX selling SWAT black and tan boots now, what are the regs (if any) regarding buying those instead of wearing the issued clunkers boots?  Presumably if CANEX is allowed to sell them, then the troops are allowed to buy/wear them...?
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: BobSlob on December 04, 2015, 09:26:09
Bumping an old thread:

Question came up today at work - with the CANEX selling SWAT black and tan boots now, what are the regs (if any) regarding buying those instead of wearing the issued clunkers boots?  Presumably if CANEX is allowed to sell them, then the troops are allowed to buy/wear them...?

The unofficial blessing for the tan ones came from the CoC in these terms when the issue of evading on foot with the issued tan boots was brought forward. "If you want to be comfortable, then spend your own money".

I now, like EVERYONE ELSE, own a set of bought tan boots.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: BinRat55 on December 04, 2015, 09:48:23
Bumping an old thread:

Question came up today at work - with the CANEX selling SWAT black and tan boots now, what are the regs (if any) regarding buying those instead of wearing the issued clunkers boots?  Presumably if CANEX is allowed to sell them, then the troops are allowed to buy/wear them...?

Not quite sure how you came to the conclusion that if the CANEX sells boots, we can wear them. Well, partly true - just not in uniform. Let me expand on that:

The CANEX does not write the dress regs, nor does the CANEX attend the CWO Conference. You are only permitted to wear in uniform what the regs allow, or what your CoC is willing to overlook. Now don't get me wrong - there are many many many soldiers from every rank and trade wearing non-issued boots. If your RSM is ok with you wearing SWATs or Magnums, then sure. BUT... the fact is, by the book, we should not have anything on our feet other than issued boots. And if you have a medical chit, Clothing Stores will LPO you a pair of COTS, bur even then we still have to conform to a certain standard.

The fact that a member of the CAF could even ask the question "If the CANEX sells it, can we wear it?" is just... well.. wow.

Now we have the LOTB. I have been issuing them out for about a month now, and you know what? Just more kit that everyone is bitching about.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: CombatMacgyver on December 04, 2015, 10:55:24

The fact that a member of the CAF could even ask the question "If the CANEX sells it, can we wear it?" is just... well.. wow.


I can kind of understand why people think that, given the CANEX is indirectly controlled/owned by DND.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Eye In The Sky on December 04, 2015, 10:58:28
Bumping an old thread:

Question came up today at work - with the CANEX selling SWAT black and tan boots now, what are the regs (if any) regarding buying those instead of wearing the issued clunkers boots?  Presumably if CANEX is allowed to sell them, then the troops are allowed to buy/wear them...?

This whole RCAF boot clusterf**k was an extended point during morning prayers just this past week.  Summary:

1.  To wear non-issued boots, at this time you are required (supposed to have...) either LPO type boots issued to you thru Supply, or  a chit from a MO saying member is auth to wear non-issued boots.  The Medical Chit part could very well be disappearing according to the Sqn Exec;  however I don't know how anyone is going to tell a MO they can't issue a chit to a mbr they think would benefit from it medically.  But that was the word we got.  For the time being, people with medical chits are providing a copy to the SCWO.  People like me with issued LPOs carry on as per.  All others are expected to be wearing the issued ones, however I haven't seen anyone going around 'looking' at this point.

2.  Specifically the RCAF "desert safety boot" was discussed;  I realize it's proper name is the desert combat boot but I don't see it as anything close to a combat boot.  It's a big heavy tan piece of crap boot for aircrew who have to consider the 'I ended up on the ground' aspect of our game.  There have been UCRs submitted on it from theatre;  one of the recommendations in the UCR was to include the Army Hot Weather boot to the LRP Aircrew SOI.  This was initially accepted, with the suggested SOI 1 pr safety, 1 pr Army Hot Weather for the current theatre SOI.  I was told the Div shut that down, which I think is BS.  Deck commando's need to listen to the folks in theatre and when you have LCols and everyone on down saying "this is a POS piece of kit!", you need to damn well listen.  I am aware of some Hazard Rep's going in on these boots in particular WRT rudder ability.

During that morning brief, the UCR process was also covered.  Where to find the site on the DWAN/DIN (ucrs.mil.ca IIRC), etc and how important it is for individual UCRs to be submitted and to not just say "these boots suck!".  Specificity and detail are important.

/Rant point on

The briefer then went on with the "if you aren't wearing issued kit, the CAF and Veterans Affairs will not cover you".  This is, to my knowledge, pure and utter BULLSHIT.  I was injured on a jump on Basic Para back in in '92.  I filed my papers with DVA in the fall of 2005.  Never once was I questioned if I was wearing issued boots, gloves, helmet or any of that crap.  2 main questions were (1) did this happen during military time and (2) was it related to the performance of a military duty.

/Rant point off

PPE, sure I get it.  It's been tested and meets with the CAF requirements.  Boots - if you require CSA grade 1 against a bonafide job requirement, great!  The Sono Ref Manual states "all personnel handling search stores SHALL wear safety footwear".  Makes sense.  The issued boots are not the 'only CSA grade 1s' out there.

Where the RCAF has gone off the tracks, IMO is with the "ALL RCAF pers shall wear safety footwear".  Not everyone in the RCAF needs safety toe.  This is about MONEY as far as I'm concerned; they went out and bought a shitload of stuff under the CEMS project and while some of it was great (ACE flying gear as an example) the boots didn't quite meet the mark but they have them sitting in the supply depot and lots of people would rather go to Shoeme.ca and get a decent pair of Magnums or something instead of the Mr Heavyfoot (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJqeIkV-THU) issued Temp and CWW boots.  They weight in at just over 5lbs for a size 10.  My LPO Magnums (http://www.magnumbootstore.ca/stealthforce8-5314.aspx) (also CSA grade 1) are about 1lb a pair.

What is the difference?  Price.  I was told the issued RCAF boots, made by Terra IIRC are about $80/pr.  My LPOs, which are composite vice steel, are about $200.  AND...not made in Canada.   :Tin-Foil-Hat:

The CEMS project (Clothing and Equipment Millennium Standard; the RCAF version of the army Clothe The Soldier project) produced some very improved kit, and added some kit that wasn't available to airmen/women/aviators prior to its work.   However, now that it is 'over', there seems to be any reluctance to accept 'some of the kit fell short and this has been demonstrated ON OPERATIONS' comments from those who are flying desks now.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Eye In The Sky on December 04, 2015, 11:06:29
The unofficial blessing for the tan ones came from the CoC in these terms when the issue of evading on foot with the issued tan boots was brought forward. "If you want to be comfortable, then spend your own money".

I now, like EVERYONE ELSE, own a set of bought tan boots.

Most recent published JIs (Aug '15) for the all-inclusive resort basically said "tan boots - COs discretion".  That is great and all, but the problem with that is the changing COs deal.  Bloggins could have worn something he paid for on ROTO 0 that the CO thought was jammy;  now he goes back on ROTO 2 and the CO says "nope!".

I am more disappointed at higher HQ level in Canada to not approve the SOI change to theatre aircrew so they get 1 pr of army hot weather boots.  I think the person who denied this should be made to put a pair of those tan cripplers on and then do a CSAR trg scenario for 12 hours.

Regardless of all this, people are going to buy their Magnums and stuff because they know the 'worst case scenario' and aren't going to reduce their chances of avoiding the orange pajama dance if the SHTF because someone at the Div or DSSPM doesn't get it
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Eye In The Sky on December 04, 2015, 12:02:47
Not quite sure how you came to the conclusion that if the CANEX sells boots, we can wear them. Well, partly true - just not in uniform. :

The CANEX does not write the dress regs, nor does the CANEX attend the CWO Conference.

Do you mean the National Defence Clothing and Dress Committee (NDCDC), [ The Chief of Defence Staff is advised on dress policies by a National Defence Clothing and Dress Committee (NDCDC), and, on matters which apply only to members allocated a specific environmental identity, by the principal commander of the applicable force].

CWOs might recommend and actually write/determine the DIs, but Command signs off on it.  Our Wing DIs are signed by the Wing Commander, which then gives subordinate commanders the authority to enforce.   

Quote
You are only permitted to wear in uniform what the regs allow, or what your CoC is willing to overlook or authorize, IAW CAF Regs and Orders.

FTFY  ;D

Quote
Now don't get me wrong - there are many many many soldiers from every rank and trade wearing non-issued boots. If your RSM is ok with you wearing SWATs or Magnums, then sure.

Knowing DIMSUMs rank, this is why I say that COMMANDERs (Wing Comd, COs, etc) have to 'sign off' on DIs.  Might seem unimportant but does a CWO have the authority to order a Capt or Maj to do something?  Put the COs signature on it...now its a different story.  Might seem like semantics to some, but this 'semantics' are important in the military IMO.

Quote
BUT... the fact is, by the book, we should not have anything on our feet other than issued boots. And if you have a medical chit, Clothing Stores will LPO you a pair of COTS, bur even then we still have to conform to a certain standard.

There are issues even in this though;  I had to tell the people I was dealing with at Clothing why the list of boots they provided me to 'pick from' didn't meet the applic standards (IAW the SAM) for the issued boots they were intended to replace.  A CWWB has to be both insulated and waterproof to be a CWWB;  they had none on the list.   ::) 

I am going to be honest with you; Clothing stores SHOULD be issuing the boots.  But THIS is where the Medical and Supply worlds have been ******* over people for so long now, some of those people have said "frig THIS crap" and either (1) gotten a chit so they can buy/wear their own boots or (2) just bought their own boots and wore them, not giving 2 shits what anyone thinks about it.

Before, special boots were a Medical system issue and paid for out of the Medical world fin codes.  Then the medical world pushed back and said it was a Supply issue and Supply would pay for it.  THIS is when the fucktardedness all started and people like me, who have been in LPO boots since 2003, have been getting the goddamn run-around every time I need new boots.

Case in point;  I have been TRYING to get my LPO winter boots replaced since JUNE 2015.  It is December and I DO NOT HAVE CWWBs.  That is NOT acceptable.  NOT ACCEPTABLE.  I have also been trying to get 1 pair of my LPO TCbs replaced.  I got those recently, just after the time I actually needed them.  WTF over?  I needed TCBs in July and August.  I got them in November.  In November, I needed CWBs.  Nope, none of those yet.  6 months.

I have been asked by multiple people...'why would you need CWWBs in July/Aug/Sep?".  Well, because planes can fly north and its cold up there?   ::)  Or hey, here's one;  BECAUSE WHOEVER DECIDED MY SOI DECIDED I SHOULD HAVE THEM.  Same as my parka that I have issued to me in June and July.    :brickwall:

Then the 'LPO boots are only SOI of 2 pair max'.  I'd heard that before as well; "show me on my SOI or the SAM where it says that".   :crickets:

The ONLY reason I did not staff a memo (which would have been supported with ref's and numerous emails over the last 6 months to accurately display how retarded this 'system' is when it is dysfunctional) is I was aware that the problem wasn't actually the Wing Clothing Stores staff;  the REAL issue was with 1 person at DSSPM who obviously knew SFA about how flying Sqn's operate. 

The way I see it, simple form is this:  someone has decided my SOI.  That part has been done.  If you are working at Clothing, no offence but I don't care what you think of that SOI.  The Air Force has said "you should have 2 pr of CWWBs, all the time".  If you work at Clothing, you really only need to do whatever you do to make sure I have my SOI.  You don't think I 'need' 2 pair of TCBs?  I don't care!  Someone already decided that.  :2c:

Quote
The fact that a member of the CAF could even ask the question "If the CANEX sells it, can we wear it?" is just... well.. wow.

In at least some parts of the CAF, common sense is allowed into the equation; if the CANEX SWATS look like military boots and others are wearing them (I am guessing you haven't been around a flying Sqn much) or other boots (I've seen SWAT, Magnums, Oakley, Matterhorn, etc) are being worn, then what is so surprising?  One thing I like about the RCAF over the Army when it comes to some kit, what matters more is if it works than "if it is the exact issued kit as Bloggins next to you has". 

Some of our stuff, we are required to wear;  ALSE, flying jacket/gloves/dual layer.  But I have a 4-color flashlight I bought at a PX that is superior to the issued one we get.  Should I have to use the issued one?  White light in an observer window is a bad idea sometimes.  Red is better;  I personally don't believe it is smart for me to potentially endanger a crew, aircraft and mission because I followed official policy and used only my issued white flashlight, IAW 'policy'.

Lots of people wear oxfords and windbreakers from the CANEX.  A lot of mess kit stuff is now available at the CANEX.  There are racks of belts, watch covers, FMP covers, boot bands, you name it, that are available at the CANEX for mbr's to buy; I've used some of it in the past in garrison, or in the field, without anyone batting an eye.

To extend that to include SWAT boots as well, especially for those who work primarily with flying Sqn's, isn't much a stretch at all when you think of it.

Quote
Now we have the LOTB. I have been issuing them out for about a month now, and you know what? Just more kit that everyone is bitching about.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing, the same way, over and over and expecting a different result.  ;D

Until the CAF and PWGSC and whoever accept that you can't make 1 kind of boot for 10,000 people, people will complain.  in 1995 when we had the old combat boots, before the days of TCBs and CWWBs and even Gortex socks, I dropped $125 USD on a pair of Matterhorn 10" Gortex field boots [which are frickin awesome boots!] while at the US Calvary store outside Ft Knox KY;  it was the best $ I had spent in a longggggggg time.  Was I authorized to wear them at the time, officially?  Nope.  After years of cold, wet feet did I particularly care?  Nope!  I didn't give a crap what anyone thought about my non-issued military looking, black, combat boots

20 years later, and we are still seeing people complaining that the boots don't work for them, buying their own, and the Uniformity Police reporting to sick parade with high blood pressure.

Insanity.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Eagle Eye View on December 04, 2015, 12:21:08
Eye In The Sky,

Very good post, I've had some of the same issues and frustations when it comes to the boots. Even worse when I went on Op Impact...that was a gong show.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: MJP on December 04, 2015, 12:24:32
The briefer then went on with the "if you aren't wearing issued kit, the CAF and Veterans Affairs will not cover you".  This is, to my knowledge, pure and utter BULLSHIT.  I was injured on a jump on Basic Para back in in '92.  I filed my papers with DVA in the fall of 2005.  Never once was I questioned if I was wearing issued boots, gloves, helmet or any of that crap.  2 main questions were (1) did this happen during military time and (2) was it related to the performance of a military duty.

/Rant point off

I won't get into the boot issue because quite frankly my blood boils everytime it gets hashed out by how ****ed we are.

I fully agree with you on the you must wear issued or not covered bit.  VAC/SISIP do not give a Flying Frig about if the mbr was wearing issued gear or not.  This myth is perpetuated by a bunch of dinosaurs that were all told the same thing until it became gospel.  I have point blank emailed and talked to a number of reps that have all said that the wearing or not wearing of issued kit isn't a consideration for them.  They only care about if the injury was on duty or in a Special Duty Area.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Eye In The Sky on December 04, 2015, 12:34:16
Eye In The Sky,

Very good post, I've had some of the same issues and frustations when it comes to the boots. Even worse when I went on Op Impact...that was a gong show.

When our crew was getting kitted out, the first ones went thru and were issued the old style army hot weather boot, the tan colored one.  Then a few others got issued the new army one, the coyote brown ones.  THEN Ottawa and Wpg decided 'all shall get the desert safety boot", so the remaining people got the Mr Heavyfoot boots.  Then a few of us with orthotics got the Reebok safety boots.  4 different boots amongst a crew!!   :blotto:  No wait.  There were a few people who said "FTS!!" and bought Magnums.  So.  5 different styles. 

True story - one guy has 2 different 'boot size' feet.  Well, they didn't have the different sizes in the same model/style so they tried to give him one style for his right and a different style for his left foot.  He looked at whoever was working the counter and said "not happening'.   :rofl:  People would think you were hammered the night before if you walked around like that...1 tan boot, 1 coyote brown boot!  I laughed so hard I couldn't breathe when I heard about that!
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Eye In The Sky on December 04, 2015, 12:44:55
I won't get into the boot issue because quite frankly my blood boils everytime it gets hashed out by how ****ed we are.

And you know what?  I don't blame you at all!! 

The ONLY reason I did not staff a memo (which would have been supported with ref's and numerous emails over the last 6 months to accurately display how retarded this 'system' is when it is dysfunctional) is I was aware that the problem wasn't actually the Wing Clothing Stores staff

People need to remember that IF Supply has the item you need and IF it is on your SOI, they will issue it to you most of the time.  If they can't, they've usually been told not to by some HHQ.

Clothing Stores take the brunt of the heat from the individual members who come in.  If its a Wing, a majority of your Ops community are officers, SNCOs and WOs.  It is usually Cpls and Pte's are the counter who have to say "No/I can't/we don't have any/etc" and take the crap for the policies someone far removed from the operational world has implemented (and to be fair, sometimes they have no choice either). 

Members who are unhappy need to remember, the sup techs are the counter aren't dictating policy, they are doing their jobs in the left and right of arcs they are allowed to.  If you hare unhappy, don't stand at the counter and ***** at them.  Ask to see the Clothing Stores 2 I/c, or Clothing Stores Supervisor.   :2c:
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Jarnhamar on December 04, 2015, 12:47:42
The unofficial blessing for the tan ones came from the CoC in these terms when the issue of evading on foot with the issued tan boots was brought forward. "If you want to be comfortable, then spend your own money".

I now, like EVERYONE ELSE, own a set of bought tan boots.

We've already been given the whole "the CF bought you new boots so that's what you'll wear". Only new issue too, not older issued tan or brown boots.
The CF is a business first.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: recceguy on December 04, 2015, 12:50:41
Not quite sure how you came to the conclusion that if the CANEX sells boots, we can wear them. Well, partly true - just not in uniform. Let me expand on that:

The CANEX does not write the dress regs, nor does the CANEX attend the CWO Conference. You are only permitted to wear in uniform what the regs allow, or what your CoC is willing to overlook. Now don't get me wrong - there are many many many soldiers from every rank and trade wearing non-issued boots. If your RSM is ok with you wearing SWATs or Magnums, then sure. BUT... the fact is, by the book, we should not have anything on our feet other than issued boots. And if you have a medical chit, Clothing Stores will LPO you a pair of COTS, bur even then we still have to conform to a certain standard.

The fact that a member of the CAF could even ask the question "If the CANEX sells it, can we wear it?" is just... well.. wow.

Now we have the LOTB. I have been issuing them out for about a month now, and you know what? Just more kit that everyone is bitching about.

It's time you quit being so condescending in your posts. Your position allows you to speak to things supply. Not pass judgement on those who wish to expand their knowledge.

---Staff---
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Eye In The Sky on December 04, 2015, 13:14:49
We've already been given the whole "the CF bought you new boots so that's what you'll wear". Only new issue too, not older issued tan or brown boots.
The CF is a business first.

Which is fine, until a MO determines, for medical reasons, that those boots are not suitable for a member.  No one in your CofC can override that.   8)

For years, I wore the old Mk IIs or IIIs with the issued insole (the flat, POS one that didn't really so SFA).  I went to the MIR with sore feet a few times; then I tried sneaker insoles.  Well, after they get destroyed in the field a few times from being soaking wet and falling apart, back to the junk issued ones that you can at least get thru an ADREP.

Well, that worked out well;  I developed 'fallen arches' or whatever it is called.  The CAF now pays for LPO boots and orthotics for me.  It has been since 2003 and I am CRA 2030.  27 years of paying for LPO boots and orthotics.  My orthotics are about $200 a pair every 2 years (I get 2 pr) or as needed.  My boots are about $200/pr for TCB, $250 for CWWB.  My TCBs are replaced about every 2 years, CWWBs about 5 years. 

All because, back in the day, they cheapened out on insoles.  SMRT. 
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: BinRat55 on December 04, 2015, 13:40:36
CWOs might recommend and actually write/determine the DIs, but Command signs off on it.  Our Wing DIs are signed by the Wing Commander, which then gives subordinate commanders the authority to enforce.

My experience may not be as extensive as yours or others, but RSMs have always "enforced" D&D. Obviously anything pertaining to standing orders on a wing / base is signed off by the Commander, but enforced by his/her FSM.

...I had to tell the people I was dealing with at Clothing why the list of boots they provided me to 'pick from' didn't meet the applic standards (IAW the SAM) for the issued boots they were intended to replace.  A CWWB has to be both insulated and waterproof to be a CWWB;  they had none on the list.   ::)

So, nowhere in the SAM (that I can find) is there any indication of what the milspec standard should be for a boot, combat or otherwise. Actually, this is the only thing I can find:
"Special size safety footwear must meet the safety standards of the regulation footwear. Supply sections are under no obligation to procure brand name footwear. Wherever possible, the special size footwear should be the same color and materials as CAF issued footwear"

It is incumbent upon the BSupO / WSupO to ensure that the choices in the proverbial "list" of footwear eligible for purchase strictly adheres to all military specification to the best of the local economy's capability. This is always a sore point on our annual SAV.

I am going to be honest with you; Clothing stores SHOULD be issuing the boots.  But THIS is where the Medical and Supply worlds have been ******* over people for so long now, some of those people have said "frig THIS crap" and either gotten a chit so they can buy/wear their own boots or (2) just bought their own boots and wore them, not giving 2 shits what anyone things about it.

What I have seen is not Supply or the MIR screwing people over, it's the other way around. Cpl Bloggins doesn't want / like the boots we issue, goes to the MO and voila! Chit me dude. This is another critical fork. Cpl Bloggins thinks that now he has a chit he can go get any boots he wants. Not so. Chit goes to Clothing Stores, we annotate his docs, fill out the paperwork and send him to specific SOS... then we issue those to his docs. But all too often people do an end-run around us. So often in fact, that RSMs now over look it.

Before, special boots were a Medical system issue and paid for out of the Medical world fin codes.  Then the medical world pushed back and said it was a Supply issue and Supply would pay for it.  THIS is when the fucktardedness all started and people like me, who have been in LPO boots since 2003, have been getting the goddamn run-around every time I need new boots.

From the SAM: "When uniforms or other articles of clothing require special procurement. For example, a size not stocked at any level, B/W/S SupO shall confirm all requests prior to initiating procurement action. Prices are obtained from local manufacturers and procurement action is taken IAW procurement policy. B/W/S fund special size requirements from Command allotments. If an individual is undergoing training at a unit other than his home unit, funding for special size clothing, footwear, and equipment should be requested from the individual’s home unit."

And more to the point: "If after being fitted IAW measuring and fitting of footwear procedures an individual is found to have a foot size, which does not fall within the range of standard catalogue footwear sizes and does not require orthopaedic footwear, the individual will be provided with special size footwear regulated by DSSPM. B/W/S is responsible to fund these requirements through their Command allotments.

Case in point;  I have been TRYING to get my LPO winter boots replaced since JUNE 2015.  It is December and I DO NOT HAVE CWWBs.  That is NOT acceptable.  NOT ACCEPTABLE.  I have also been trying to get 1 pair of my LPO TCbs replaced. 

Were you given a reason? That IS an unusually long period of time for boots that can be purchased within a week... or sooner...

Then the 'LPO boots are only SOI of 2 pair max'.  I'd heard that before as well; "show me on my SOI or the SAM where it says that".   :crickets:

You will not find anything about an entitlement of LPO boots anywhere. Your scale of issue indicates you are entitled to boots. If I can't give you boots off the shelf (according to your entitlement) then we buy them. See my response above re: who pays...

The way I see it, simple form is this:  someone has decided my SOI.  That part has been done.  If you are working at Clothing, no offence but I don't care what you think of that SOI.  The Air Force has said "you should have 2 pr of CWWBs, all the time".  If you work at Clothing, you really only need to do whatever you do to make sure I have my SOI.  You don't think I 'need' 2 pair of TCBs?  I don't care!  Someone already decided that.  :2c:

You must have had a bad experience or two at Clothing... we really DON'T care what your scale entitles you to - if we have it, it's yours!

I am guessing you haven't been around a flying Sqn much

6 years in Gander - 3 with 103 SAR and 3 as the 2 IC and Wing Sup O... You want to discuss retardedness? Read the scale of issue for a SAR Tech. Then read it again in 3 weeks.

I won't get into flashlights, socks and underwear. The mess kit and PT strip found at the CANEX today? Well we don't ISSUE mes kit, medals and ribbons, do we? Windbreakers, fancy leather flight jackets... none are found on any Air Force scale of issue. So buy all you want. At the end of the day, I will wear what the dress regs authorize me to wear and my RSM "blesses"...

But maybe you haven't been around an army base much...


Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: cld617 on December 04, 2015, 14:21:14
From the SAM: "When uniforms or other articles of clothing require special procurement. For example, a size not stocked at any level, B/W/S SupO shall confirm all requests prior to initiating procurement action. Prices are obtained from local manufacturers and procurement action is taken IAW procurement policy. B/W/S fund special size requirements from Command allotments. If an individual is undergoing training at a unit other than his home unit, funding for special size clothing, footwear, and equipment should be requested from the individual’s home unit."

And more to the point: "If after being fitted IAW measuring and fitting of footwear procedures an individual is found to have a foot size, which does not fall within the range of standard catalogue footwear sizes and does not require orthopaedic footwear, the individual will be provided with special size footwear regulated by DSSPM. B/W/S is responsible to fund these requirements through their Command allotments.

I'm going to take a stab at it and say these two statements apply to my current situation. I've had my feet measured, supply is telling me that a boot they have in stock should fit my feet however it feels too tight. I ask for a wider size, they say it's not available in stores or depo. A civilian worker claimed this means they're responsible to procure me something that fits, however stores 2 I/C has said "LPO is not an option" and then attempted to scare me off with a 1 year wait for special made to fit because they need to have 10 mbrs fitted at once. Am I being given the run around? I'm trying to finally have DND pay for the footwear I've been forced to pay for myself these last few years.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Eye In The Sky on December 04, 2015, 14:50:05
So, nowhere in the SAM (that I can find) is there any indication of what the milspec standard should be for a boot, combat or otherwise.Actually, this is the only thing I can find:
"Special size safety footwear must meet the safety standards of the regulation footwear. Supply sections are under no obligation to procure brand name footwear. Wherever possible, the special size footwear should be the same color and materials as CAF issued footwear"

Having read thru the SAM I was aware of this.  However, having also read Flight Comment, 2008, Issue 3 (http://www.flightcomment.ca/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/2008-3-eng.pdf) I was also aware of the Air Force Personnel Footwear article written by the RCAF DAP ALSE Officer, Maj England.  The article begins on Page 27 of the PDF, but the CEMS Project boot specs are covered on both pages 27 and 28:

- Air Force boots are constructed entirely from leather (p27).

- all the boots “feature a speed lacing system; a three part sole for shock absorption; a modified sole for anti-FOD, POL and penetration resistance; flame resistance; safety toes; waterproofing; and wicking characteristics” (p28).

- The Cold Wet Weather Boot (CWWB) will cover the -25°C to +10°C range “in all operating locations.” The boot sole is designed much like a winter tire, with a softer compound that will more easily grip icy surfaces without becoming a FOD hazard.

- The Temperate Combat Boot (TCB) will address the +10°C to +30°C range and will have a harder rubber compound sole, providing the appropriate amount of cushioning in warmer climates.

- The Desert Combat Boot (DCB) will protect Air Force personnel in extreme heat environments (+30°C and above).

- Of note, the ECWB and CWWB have a Gore Tex liner within the boot wall, providing the Wet Weather resistance, whereas the TCB and DCB are made with breathable liners, thus providing the appropriate wicking in moist/warm environments.

I provided the young Avr Supp Tech I was dealing with this info and article as he wasn't even IN the CAF when the article was written  ;D.  None of the boots I was told I could pick from were CWWBs so that told me the Avr didn't know the SAM wording either OR the CEMS boots specs.  I was trying to help him out, believing it was my job to provide info to substantiate my request for additional boots to be added to the approved list.

Quote
It is incumbent upon the BSupO / WSupO to ensure that the choices in the proverbial "list" of footwear eligible for purchase strictly adheres to all military specification to the best of the local economy's capability.

Which I pointed out to them, there was none on the LIST they provided, but at least one model of Bates their supplier could get DID meet the CWWB specs and was actually less $ than a pair of Danners that were on the list that were Gortex but not insulated.   I recommended the Bates Model 2284 be added (the 2274s were already there but lacked the 200g Thinsulate, basically, to make them suitable to the -25).  AFAIK it didn't happen but I am getting them because I 'pushed' asked for actual CWWBs. 

Quote
What I have seen is not Supply or the MIR screwing people over, it's the other way around. Cpl Bloggins doesn't want / like the boots we issue, goes to the MO and voila! Chit me dude. This is another critical fork. Cpl Bloggins thinks that now he has a chit he can go get any boots he wants. Not so. Chit goes to Clothing Stores, we annotate his docs, fill out the paperwork and send him to specific SOS... then we issue those to his docs. But all too often people do an end-run around us. So often in fact, that RSMs now over look it.

Okay, I do believe this is happening also.  But is this the exception, or the rule?  I have been doing special size/LPOs for 12 years and I have never tried to end-run anyone.  In fact, it was a MWO PA who referred me to the base foot clinic, who then referred me to a podiatrist, who said "this guy will need orthotics".  My arches will never 'fix themselves', yet I am required to bring in a new chit from physio every 2 years because why?  Honest 'customers' like me aren't trying to screw people over, we are honestly just trying to get the kit the RCAF says we should have to do our jobs.  Try to remember that please.  If someone like me is coming in and has been wearing LPOs for orthotics for over a decade, I think it is safe to assume I am not end-running anyone.  Some of us are in LPOs because we were referred, assessed and treated thru the MIR/H Svcs Centers.  I had no idea my feet were messed up until the PA said "holy crap".

Quote
From the SAM: "When uniforms or other articles of clothing require special procurement. For example, a size not stocked at any level, B/W/S SupO shall confirm all requests prior to initiating procurement action. Prices are obtained from local manufacturers and procurement action is taken IAW procurement policy. B/W/S fund special size requirements from Command allotments. If an individual is undergoing training at a unit other than his home unit, funding for special size clothing, footwear, and equipment should be requested from the individual’s home unit."

And more to the point: "If after being fitted IAW measuring and fitting of footwear procedures an individual is found to have a foot size, which does not fall within the range of standard catalogue footwear sizes and does not require orthopaedic footwear, the individual will be provided with special size footwear regulated by DSSPM. B/W/S is responsible to fund these requirements through their Command allotments.

Yup.  Command allotments right?  So Wing Supply would be buying mine thru an RCAF fin code no? 

Quote
Were you given a reason? That IS an unusually long period of time for boots that can be purchased within a week... or sooner...

Yes, a certain person at DSSPM said '1 pr per regardless of SOI until the LOTB is out'. 

Quote
You will not find anything about an entitlement of LPO boots anywhere. Your scale of issue indicates you are entitled to boots. If I can't give you boots off the shelf (according to your entitlement) then we buy them. See my response above re: who pays...

Which was my response ref: SOI.  I think I pissed a few people off when I was talking about the SAM and SOIs.  Jedi Mind Tricks don't often work with me; if I don't know the policy but what you say sounds like BS to me, I will go find the policy and then come back with it.  In this case, because I had already played the silly game with FLOG before being posted to my current Wing, I knew what the SAM and SOI wording was.   

Quote
You must have had a bad experience or two at Clothing...

I believe some of it was that I knew the policy, and there was already a LOT of people pissed off at supply because they couldn't get boots.  What they didn't understand was that problem wasn't actually from Wing Supply, it was something imposed down from DSSPM (you probably know who would be dealing with LPO boots there, so no need to say her name).  I was pissed at one point and ended up talking with the Clothing NCO/IC (Sgt) who explained why things were happening. 

Quote
But maybe you haven't been around an army base much...
  I sometimes wish that WAS true!  I've only been wearing the blue head wallet since '07.  8)
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: ArmyVern on December 06, 2015, 11:05:40


Okay, I do believe this is happening also.  But is this the exception, or the rule?  I have been doing special size/LPOs for 12 years and I have never tried to end-run anyone.  In fact, it was a MWO PA who referred me to the base foot clinic, who then referred me to a podiatrist, who said "this guy will need orthotics".  My arches will never 'fix themselves', yet I am required to bring in a new chit from physio every 2 years because why?  Honest 'customers' like me aren't trying to screw people over, we are honestly just trying to get the kit the RCAF says we should have to do our jobs.  Try to remember that please. If someone like me is coming in and has been wearing LPOs for orthotics for over a decade, I think it is safe to assume I am not end-running anyone.  Some of us are in LPOs because we were referred, assessed and treated thru the MIR/H Svcs Centers.  I had no idea my feet were messed up until the PA said "holy crap".



Just want to deal with the bold bit.  I wouldn't say it's the exception - probably 50/50.  Yes, you need a new chit every 2 years and "we" realize that your arches won't fix themselves. But, we mere sup tachs don't "know" what your particular medical issue is and whether or not your condition will fix itself.  We are not privvy to that bit of "protected" medical information.  And, boot chits are issued for a myriad of foot issues.  It is the medical side of the house that requires the chit every 2 years (thus it is included in our SOPs) because, although your specific condition may not correct itself, it also affords the medical side a scheduled date with you to ensure your condition hasn't actually gotten worse. 

Works both ways.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Eye In The Sky on December 06, 2015, 12:43:38
Okay, that makes sense.  In the case of someone like me, when I had to go to physio and book an appointment to see someone for a new chit, the medical pers I saw said "this is stupid that you have to come back for me to tell you your feet didn't fix themselves". 

Maybe have a "temp chit" and a 'permanent chit'?  I'd be a perm chit type and I would be able to stop wasting some people's time, mine included.   :2c:

FWIW, that person I am talking about from DSSPM (I think you know who I mean...) said in an email to me it was "her policy", so a DSSPM one, for the chit every 2 years requirement.   :dunno:

It's a clusterfuck for me to get some of the kit I need to do my job, boots being the top of the list.  I have enough actual stuff to do;  I shouldn't have to devote hours and hours and hours to chasing my tail to get something like boots.  Here I sit 6 months later, in December, still without CWWBs.  Something is broken.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: ArmyVern on December 06, 2015, 12:53:00

FWIW, that person I am talking about from DSSPM (I think you know who I mean...) said in an email to me it was "her policy", so a DSSPM one, for the chit every 2 years requirement.   :dunno:


It is "her" policy in that it is the one she has to follow.  "Our" (IE: Supply's policy) is devolved from the medical side of the house for medical footwear chits.  They work hand-in-hand.  You just took her too "literally". 

And, you would also recognize her from our time in Gagetown as she was my "footwear" Cpl there ... think back for a visual!!  I trained her well.   ;D
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: ArmyVern on December 06, 2015, 12:57:41
BTW, footwear has been broken for eons ... every sup tech knows it.  There's not a sup tech I know who does not believe the only proper fix is a "boot allowance".  My posts here from 2003ish will indicate that has been my position for over a decade now.  But, I have also posted the reasons why that will never happen despite it's requirement - and no one in DND or the CAF will change those reasons.

Believe you me, the broken footwear system (and shoddy boots themselves) is just as frustrating for us suppies.  We do not get off on ******* around the troops.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Eye In The Sky on December 06, 2015, 13:36:18
It is "her" policy in that it is the one she has to follow.  "Our" (IE: Supply's policy) is devolved from the medical side of the house for medical footwear chits.  They work hand-in-hand.  You just took her too "literally".

Oh.  Well, all I know is the Physio folks I always end up seeing say they don't get why I need a new chit, and I have to 'schedule an appointment' just to get to see them, which was seen as a waste of their time.  Supply says the one I had was older than 2 years...so off I went.   I am just the monkey in the middle.   ;D

Quote
And, you would also recognize her from our time in Gagetown as she was my "footwear" Cpl there ... think back for a visual!!  I trained her well.   ;D

Same last name then?  I am drawing a complete blank.  As soon as I got issued my first pair of reading glasses my memory started going...

Now that you mention it...the email was something I could have pictured you writing though.   >:D   You could almost sense where the swearing was in the first draft, but then removed.   ^-^

BTW, footwear has been broken for eons ... every sup tech knows it.  There's not a sup tech I know who does not believe the only proper fix is a "boot allowance".  My posts here from 2003ish will indicate that has been my position for over a decade now.  But, I have also posted the reasons why that will never happen despite it's requirement - and no one in DND or the CAF will change those reasons.

Believe you me, the broken footwear system (and shoddy boots themselves) is just as frustrating for us suppies.  We do not get off on ******* around the troops.

Aside from 2 individuals I've dealt with in the past, I believe that.  I mentioned in a post above, the counter staff are doing the job the way they are told to and take lots of the flak from mbrs.  I've seen it and advised people to talk to the 2 I/c or Clothing Supervisor, who can explain the 'whys' and other stuff. 

People need to remember that IF Supply has the item you need and IF it is on your SOI, they will issue it to you most of the time.  If they can't, they've usually been told not to by some HHQ.

Clothing Stores take the brunt of the heat from the individual members who come in.  If its a Wing, a majority of your Ops community are officers, SNCOs and WOs.  It is usually Cpls and Pte's are the counter who have to say "No/I can't/we don't have any/etc" and take the crap for the policies someone far removed from the operational world has implemented (and to be fair, sometimes they have no choice either). 

Members who are unhappy need to remember, the sup techs at the counter aren't dictating policy, they are doing their jobs in the left and right of arcs they are allowed to.  If you are unhappy, don't stand at the counter and ***** at them.  Ask to see the Clothing Stores 2 I/c, or Clothing Stores Supervisor.   :2c:
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Tcm621 on December 06, 2015, 21:22:16
I have been using after market boots for more than a decade and the supply system has paid for them. They are issued so I have never understood why I can't be entitled to an exchange when they where out like everyone else? Instead they send me to physio who have nothing to do with the reason I need special boots. I always get them but it ends up wasting a bunch of everyone's time.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Quirky on December 07, 2015, 01:32:33
I find it ridiculous that you need to have a medical "excuse" to wear the nicer boots. My feet fit perfectly fine in the issued garbage, but they hurt everyday walking around on hard floors. I'm almost five years on my "illegal" magnum safety boots without soreness or unnecessary pain. The magums are exactly the same as what mostly everyone that is on a chit wears. So I'm supposed to wear the crap that gives me  foot and some days, knee, soreness because I can? I'll spend $200 every 5 years not to walk around in pain, I'd rather prevent a medical issue, not adapt to it.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: ArmyVern on December 07, 2015, 01:40:31
I have been using after market boots for more than a decade and the supply system has paid for them. They are issued so I have never understood why I can't be entitled to an exchange when they where out like everyone else? Instead they send me to physio who have nothing to do with the reason I need special boots. I always get them but it ends up wasting a bunch of everyone's time.

Well, don't keep blaming the supply system. There's more than just us involved in it.  The boots suck; we get it.  All the bitching in the world isn't going to get a boot allowance though. 

I'm really not going to sit here and post all the myriad of outside influences involved in footwear as I've posted them all umpteen times before on this site; they haven't changed.

Everyone just keep on blaming supply though; we've got big shoulders and will bear the brunt of your ire with the shitty boots ... the same shitty boots we get to wear. 
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: BinRat55 on December 07, 2015, 07:59:31
I find it ridiculous that you need to have a medical "excuse" to wear the nicer boots. My feet fit perfectly fine in the issued garbage, but they hurt everyday walking around on hard floors. I'm almost five years on my "illegal" magnum safety boots without soreness or unnecessary pain. The magums are exactly the same as what mostly everyone that is on a chit wears. So I'm supposed to wear the crap that gives me  foot and some days, knee, soreness because I can? I'll spend $200 every 5 years not to walk around in pain, I'd rather prevent a medical issue, not adapt to it.

We have 74 sizes in the new LOTB to make you and every other soldier (without a bonafide deformity or medical issue) happy. You are definitely entitled to your opinion... if your feet fit, have you tried investing in a good set of insoles? I realize that it's an expense you shouldn't have to incur, but $20-30 is better than $200.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: PuckChaser on December 07, 2015, 08:47:06
We have 74 sizes in the new LOTB to make you and every other soldier (without a bonafide deformity or medical issue) happy. You are definitely entitled to your opinion... if your feet fit, have you tried investing in a good set of insoles? I realize that it's an expense you shouldn't have to incur, but $20-30 is better than $200.
Are those sizes in mondo point again? If so, the CAF will likely be buying me COTS boots again, unless they are radically different design. The joys of falling between one of those 74 sizes, and buying a standard 9.5D Rocky boot and having it fit like a glove.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Old and Tired on December 07, 2015, 09:07:18
Well, don't keep blaming the supply system. There's more than just us involved in it.  The boots suck; we get it.  All the bitching in the world isn't going to get a boot allowance though. 

I'm really not going to sit here and post all the myriad of outside influences involved in footwear as I've posted them all umpteen times before on this site; they haven't changed.

Everyone just keep on blaming supply though; we've got big shoulders and will bear the brunt of your ire with the shitty boots ... the same shitty boots we get to wear. 


Vern, I don't blame Supply Techs for the Crap they are forced to issue, just like I don't blame the Previous Base Commander in Halifax for the BS that comes out of Treasury Board about Pay Parking.  I had a conversation with a recently retired relative who was our ADM Fin CS and I under stand your pain about boot allowance and why it will never happened.  This point came up after dinner one night.  I told him point blank that the Army needs to stop buy **** boots and kit (Load Bearing stuff mostly), Kev asked why I wasn't wearing the new LOTP.  Point blank I told him that I did for a month.  After they fell apart because of poor quality materials and quality control, I went back to wearing my Rocky's
We have 74 sizes in the new LOTB to make you and every other soldier (without a bonafide deformity or medical issue) happy. You are definitely entitled to your opinion... if your feet fit, have you tried investing in a good set of insoles? I realize that it's an expense you shouldn't have to incur, but $20-30 is better than $200.

BinRat, it's not the 74 sizes that are the problem for most of us, the problem is that the Boots themselves are HORRIBLE.  They are poorly made, using unacceptable materials. If they can not stand up to the use and abuse that soldiers will, inevitably, give them then they have FAILED, miserably.  If they fail then most soldiers (I do not have enough experience with RCAF or RSN ops to tell) will continue to buy and wear their own.  I don't think I've worn an issue set of boots for more than a month since Bosnia in 1994 when I got my first set of Matterhorns.  Haven't looked back since and one has given me grief for it.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: BinRat55 on December 07, 2015, 12:41:44
BinRat, it's not the 74 sizes that are the problem for most of us, the problem is that the Boots themselves are HORRIBLE.  They are poorly made, using unacceptable materials. If they can not stand up to the use and abuse that soldiers will, inevitably, give them then they have FAILED, miserably.  If they fail then most soldiers (I do not have enough experience with RCAF or RSN ops to tell) will continue to buy and wear their own.  I don't think I've worn an issue set of boots for more than a month since Bosnia in 1994 when I got my first set of Matterhorns.  Haven't looked back since and one has given me grief for it.

As repetitive as I seem to be here, the 74 sizes are just that - 74 sizes. Quirky said in his post that his boots fit fine. Can't do better than that. I have soldiers come in to Clothing and say "These boots don't fit." I do my best... they can't come in and say "These boots suck - I want a different pair" (well, some do...) but as Vern stated - we are at the mercy of the system - both PWGSC and the medical system.

We need to utilize the UCR system to the best of our ability. "This boot sucks" is going to get a UCR shredded. "The lacing gave way in 3 separate pairs (model# here) during A / B and C. I attempted to do E, F and G with no solution"

If enough people use the system correctly, the system will work correctly.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Sheep Dog AT on December 07, 2015, 12:45:47
These boots are brand new. We collectively shouldn't be filling out UCRs. These boots passed all the rigours tests. There should be no flaws. No systematic failures.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: BinRat55 on December 07, 2015, 12:53:50
It's time you quit being so condescending in your posts. Your position allows you to speak to things supply. Not pass judgement on those who wish to expand their knowledge.

---Staff---

If you see condescension, the so be it. I become rather frustrated with members of the CAF that are supposed to know better - not just here, but all over. I will become less "condescending" but don't confuse deserved sarcasm with me thinking i'm better than anyone - I am not. My trade allows me to speak to things supply, but my experience allows me to speak to many other things as well. As far as passing judgment? I have done that a total of one time in my many years on this site.

And we can discuss my experience line item by line item any time you wish.

I apologize to anyone I may have offended.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: BinRat55 on December 07, 2015, 13:13:18
These boots are brand new. We collectively shouldn't be filling out UCRs. These boots passed all the rigours tests. There should be no flaws. No systematic failures.

Agreed - however, here we are. Everyone is saying things like "garbage" and "heavy, clunky, sheite..." I don't know exactly how the information from T&E is assessed, but if, as you say the boots passed all rigorous tests, these boots are being procured I think we still have to tell those that are in a position to make the difference.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: recceguy on December 07, 2015, 13:29:33
If you see condescension, the so be it. I become rather frustrated with members of the CAF that are supposed to know better - not just here, but all over. I will become less "condescending" but don't confuse deserved sarcasm with me thinking i'm better than anyone - I am not. My trade allows me to speak to things supply, but my experience allows me to speak to many other things as well. As far as passing judgment? I have done that a total of one time in my many years on this site.

And we can discuss my experience line item by line item any time you wish.

I apologize to anyone I may have offended.

No one has problem with your experience or trade insight. Nor with well placed sarcasm, which is a staple here.

The "I can't believe anyone with x time in the CAF would ask\ think such a thing", etc, comments are the ones that we can do without.

---Staff---
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: sidemount on December 07, 2015, 13:35:29
Maybe sarcasm i dunno. It might be like saying the LSVW passed all the rigorours tests.....its kinda true, but not really :)

As for boots, what I have learned in 12 years in the army is my feet knees and back need to be taken care of first and foremost. That means, i get the best fitting, most comfortable boot that Im allowed to have. The new boots may be great, but if they don't fit my feet right (fit is more than just 74 sizes) I will wear something else if I am allowed. That doesn't mean the boot itself is bad....its just bad for me. It may be perfect for others and they may hate the type of boots I wear. Its just how it goes.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: BinRat55 on December 07, 2015, 15:10:50
So on a not-so-off topic, the new LOTB issue is moving along. We received direction from DGLEPM last week (yes, we receive direction - we don't arbitrarily make these decisions on our own) to this degree (I am fragmenting and highlighting from the original):

"... there is no such thing as the perfect fit when it comes to footwear... our boots are designed to fit 95% of all the member's of CAF... there will be more stricter (sic) put in place WRT purchasing boots downtown... the "perfect" fit is virtually unattainable and beyond reasonable expectation... members need to take some responsibility for their own comfort as well... most LPO requests will not be entertained..."

That being said, I have sized soldiers with feet like skis (no size to fit - LPO) and feet like bananas (no size to fit - LPO) but as I have stated - 74 sizes WILL fit most. As for comfort? You'll never please everyone I guess. Hopefully this allows more people to see where we are coming from. Don't shoot the messenger!
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: cld617 on December 07, 2015, 15:21:17
Appreciate the update to the thread. I'm definitely one of these people who is in between sizes, but as a result to shortages in the supply system making my size unobtainable.

I'm curious what responsibility for my own comfort entails. My own purchased insoles, thicker socks, sucking it up? I'm in the fortunate position at the moment where I can wear a boot that conforms to the safety requirements of my job, and no one questions whether it was purchased or issued. Many are not in this position, their only option is clothing stores and they're going to be left high and dry.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: BinRat55 on December 07, 2015, 15:51:20
Yes - an insole (a good one, not the dollar store variety where you cut them up with scissors...). Also be diligent with the sizing. I'll explain the mondo-point sizing so everyone knows how it works:

You have two numbers (i.e. 280/106) The first number is your foot, from heel to toe, measured in millimeters. Same as the second number - width of foot measured in millimeters. The first number (280) actually begins for us at 210 and progresses by 5mm increments to 310. You go from 280 to 285 you are essentially lengthing the boot by 5mm. The second number (the width) cycles from 86 to 118 (depending on the length) in 4mm increments. The longer the boot, the higher the second number starts at (I.e. for a boot that is only 210 in length its conceivable to have a width of 86mm. However you will not see that narrow of a width on a longer boot, like say 280. The length and width need to be somewhat proportional.

If I were sizing you and I measured you at a width that was not exactly within the 4mm increment (say you were sized at a 265/102 but we don't make a 102 in the 265s - 100 or 104 would be the choice, I pick the 104. It is a huge 2mm difference.) Sometimes going up the length (270 vice a 265) may help, but you are still in the same boat with the width.

Also, remember what I said about proportionality? Well it's the same throughout the sizing kit - a 110mm width will fit and feel differently on a 280 than on a 300 (280/110 vs 300/110). The last thing you have to keep in mind as the LOTB, as well as the CWWB and GP boot WILL stretch. Depending on the material of the boot, the hell you put it through and the duration worn will determine how much.

I hope this helps a few people exercise their "managed" choice. Don't be afraid to ask the staff at Clothing if you want to try a different size - I (an any good Supply Tech) will spend as much time as is required with you. Trust me, I have had some real divas... but you live on your feet. They need to be happy.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: MJP on December 07, 2015, 15:57:39


I'm curious what responsibility for my own comfort entails. My own purchased insoles, thicker socks, sucking it up?

 Here the ADMMAT response to that question ( and others) when the field force raised up a series of issues on the new boots.

ALCON,

I am sending this email in response to some of the more unreasonable requests that have been arriving in my email.  Pls note that there is no such thing as the ‘’perfect fit’’ when it comes to footwear.  Our boots are designed to accommodate 95% of the mbrs of the CAF as this is our mandate.   With the arrival of the LOTB, there will be much stricter controls put in place WRT LPO for boots.  The Technical Authority for Footwear and I have submitted changes to be added to the A-LM-007-100/AG-001 (SAM) shortly IOT support Supply techs with the ‘’how to fit footwear’’ for the mbr and to support the supply tech who needs to have the client understand that we try to supply correct and comfortable footwear but that the ‘’perfect’’ fit is virtually unattainable and beyond reasonable expectation.  Mbrs need to take some responsibility for their own comfort as well.  If an insole is all that is required for comfort or a better fit, then the mbr may purchase their own – not demand a new pair of boots thru Supply as these requests will not be entertained.


Now I agree in part with the originator on the at times unreasonable expectations.  Having seen first hand over many years on both sides of the counter, some people will be contrary regardless of what you are issuing them.  However the tone of the email sucked and was very similar to the respose that was recieved when we complained about the Tac Vest.  My comment when forwarding this was simply "as usual the field force isn't using it right and Ottawa knows best".


Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Occam on December 07, 2015, 16:50:53
I have no dog in this fight anymore, having retired from the CF more than four years ago now.  However, after reading the excellent description of the Mondopoint sizing system, I'm left wondering:

Mondopoint does a great job of measuring a foot in two dimensions.  However, people don't have two-dimensional feet - your feet exist in three dimensions.  Wearing the crappy old sea boots with zero arch support for so long ruined my feet, and as a result I required a pretty aggressive design of orthotic.  More times than not, I couldn't get a good fit with both the orthotic AND my foot in the same boot.  Things improved somewhat when I went to the CEMS CWWB, but they were still lacking - I still developed thick painful callouses on my feet because there simply wasn't enough height accommodation in the boot.

The powers that be may be saying "stricter controls" when it comes to LPO boots, but I don't think that plan will survive contact with the troops who are wearing orthotics.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Old and Tired on December 07, 2015, 17:03:10
Here the ADMMAT response to that question ( and others) when the field force raised up a series of issues on the new boots.

ALCON,

I am sending this email in response to some of the more unreasonable requests that have been arriving in my email.  Pls note that there is no such thing as the ‘’perfect fit’’ when it comes to footwear.  Our boots are designed to accommodate 95% of the mbrs of the CAF as this is our mandate.   With the arrival of the LOTB, there will be much stricter controls put in place WRT LPO for boots.  The Technical Authority for Footwear and I have submitted changes to be added to the A-LM-007-100/AG-001 (SAM) shortly IOT support Supply techs with the ‘’how to fit footwear’’ for the mbr and to support the supply tech who needs to have the client understand that we try to supply correct and comfortable footwear but that the ‘’perfect’’ fit is virtually unattainable and beyond reasonable expectation.  Mbrs need to take some responsibility for their own comfort as well.  If an insole is all that is required for comfort or a better fit, then the mbr may purchase their own – not demand a new pair of boots thru Supply as these requests will not be entertained.


Now I agree in part with the originator on the at times unreasonable expectations.  Having seen first hand over many years on both sides of the counter, some people will be contrary regardless of what you are issuing them.  However the tone of the email sucked and was very similar to the respose that was recieved when we complained about the Tac Vest.  My comment when forwarding this was simply "as usual the field force isn't using it right and Ottawa knows best".


Did anyone at ADM MAT say anything about what should be at least 100 UCR's from the ENGR world in regards to the quality, or lack of, in the new LOTP.  I know that I have sent 3.  One for each of the Brown/Tan boots I've had in the last 3 years.  In 3 years I've burned through 6 pair of boots (2 of each style).  They have all been returned to clothing being unserviceable after anywhere from 2 weeks to 2 months.  I'm back in Rocky's again because they work, they fit, and they last.

I remember the TAC VEST Fiasco as well.  I was on the very first tour that deployed with them. Day one when issued we all thought "WOW, we have arrived in the big leagues."  Two months later in my Troop of 34, counting myself and Troop Comd, we had over 25 returned as unserviceable due to zipper's, stitching, buckles and on and on. UCR duly filled out, filed and ignored by the powers that be. Off to the British PX to buy their gear.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: BinRat55 on December 07, 2015, 17:23:49
I have no dog in this fight anymore, having retired from the CF more than four years ago now.  However, after reading the excellent description of the Mondopoint sizing system, I'm left wondering:

Mondopoint does a great job of measuring a foot in two dimensions.  However, people don't have two-dimensional feet - your feet exist in three dimensions.  Wearing the crappy old sea boots with zero arch support for so long ruined my feet, and as a result I required a pretty aggressive design of orthotic.  More times than not, I couldn't get a good fit with both the orthotic AND my foot in the same boot.  Things improved somewhat when I went to the CEMS CWWB, but they were still lacking - I still developed thick painful callouses on my feet because there simply wasn't enough height accommodation in the boot.

The powers that be may be saying "stricter controls" when it comes to LPO boots, but I don't think that plan will survive contact with the troops who are wearing orthotics.

This is a great point. One that we should all consider when both sizing and complaining. I can get you 2 thirds of the way there, but until I get a little tiny BOSS machine and a company willing to add on another 42 sizes (or more...) I got what I got. But still, a hugely valid point - too often we forget about the height of said foot - I know I did!

Did anyone at ADM MAT say anything about what should be at least 100 UCR's from the ENGR world in regards to the quality, or lack of, in the new LOTP.  I know that I have sent 3.  One for each of the Brown/Tan boots I've had in the last 3 years.  In 3 years I've burned through 6 pair of boots (2 of each style).  They have all been returned to clothing being unserviceable after anywhere from 2 weeks to 2 months.  I'm back in Rocky's again because they work, they fit, and they last.


O & T - not sure if you are actually referring to the new LOTB or just the fact that you have used the system... the "new LOTB" has only been out for a few months now and there are only 2 units on my base that has them - Engineers not being one. The brown boots you have worn over the past few years were intrem and not meant to be permanent - remember the CADPAT boot that wasn't? That was the brown boot without the paint. According to the powers that be, this new LOTB is here to stay. Get your laces or zipper on, put THEM through the paces, then see if a UCR is warranted. I'm not saying it will, I'm not saying it won't - I'm saying give them a chance.

Thank you for using the UCR system instead of taking it out on a Supply Tech BTW...
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: SupersonicMax on December 07, 2015, 17:34:30
There is a simple solution that other services have in place:  authorize a list of COTS footwear and have them available at the Canex for purchase.  Give every member yearly entitlement to purchase work boots (a claim, jusrified with a receipt from Canex only).

Then the onus is on the member to get comfortable footwear and we can stop having below average footwear that destroy our lower joints and are not suitable for combat.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Old and Tired on December 07, 2015, 17:36:48

O & T - not sure if you are actually referring to the new LOTB or just the fact that you have used the system... the "new LOTB" has only been out for a few months now and there are only 2 units on my base that has them - Engineers not being one. The brown boots you have worn over the past few years were intrem and not meant to be permanent - remember the CADPAT boot that wasn't? That was the brown boot without the paint. According to the powers that be, this new LOTB is here to stay. Get your laces or zipper on, put THEM through the paces, then see if a UCR is warranted. I'm not saying it will, I'm not saying it won't - I'm saying give them a chance.

Thank you for using the UCR system instead of taking it out on a Supply Tech BTW...

The last two I returned were the newest LOTP.  I just wrapped up an ex in Gagetown involving 4 ESR, 5RGC, CFSME and part of Ex Common Ground.  By the end of the three weeks in the field the zippers in one pair of boots had blown out and the laced ones has the Tread portion of the sole come off.  The Guys from 5 RGC were in even worse shape with there boots.  That's were the majority of the UCRs will be originating.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: MJP on December 07, 2015, 17:38:48
UCRs are decent as long as people fill them out and finish them, them coupled with command pressure can work miracles.  I know this thread is for boots but to slightly hijack the thread, can any hazard a guess how many UCRs have been done on the Tac Vest, an item hated as much as the boots?  If you guessed hundreds based on the outrage you would be wrong.  There are 6 UCRs that have been raised on the TV.  Boots by NSN is even less but I only went through the last 8-10 years of Army issued boots.  We like to complain but don't like to do any work to fix it.  Kinda like making a mean post on Facebook.  Slacktivisim at its finest.

 
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: BinRat55 on December 07, 2015, 17:40:47
There is a simple solution that other services have in place:  authorize a list of COTS footwear and have them available at the Canex for purchase.  Give every member yearly entitlement to purchase work boots (a claim, jusrified with a receipt from Canex only).

Then the onus is on the member to get comfortable footwear and we can stop having below average footwear that destroy our lower joints and are not suitable for combat.

Max - for many years now I have been saying this exact same thing (and I think I've said it once or twice in this tread...) but it will never happen. I agree with you - I even likened it the BTU (female soldiers bra claim) but alas, it make too much sense. I have to tow the corporate line on this one. But i'm with ya - in spirit!
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: BinRat55 on December 07, 2015, 17:42:43
The last two I returned were the newest LOTP.  I just wrapped up an ex in Gagetown involving 4 ESR, 5RGC, CFSME and part of Ex Common Ground.  By the end of the three weeks in the field the zippers in one pair of boots had blown out and the laced ones has the Tread portion of the sole come off.  The Guys from 5 RGC were in even worse shape with there boots.  That's were the majority of the UCRs will be originating.

Funny - I never saw any boots returned. Where did you get your boots from?
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Tcm621 on December 07, 2015, 18:15:24
Vern, Binrat et al. I do blame the supply system but I don't blame supply clerks. The system is not only broken, it is stupid. If a member has been issued Magnums for a decade and his wear out he should be able to get them exchanged just as any other soldier does. We all know it isnt a fit issue it is a quality issue yet emails like the above come out blaming soldiers for looking for some mythical "perfect fit " which is unattainable with issued boots but perfectly easy to find with low end (Magnums and SWATs are low end) tactical boots only available in the standard 1/2 sizes.

I totally agree that most people don't have a medical reasons for non standard boots beyond the fact that they don't want to wear crappy issue boots. The same thing happened with the MKIII, although I would wear those over the MKIV anyday especially if you spent the money on the vibrant soles. The boot allowance is the way to go but we all know that would take money out of deserving companies in Quebec.

My personal issue is not with the initial hassle,  you don't want to make it too easy.  But once a person has been through all the hoops why waste everyone's time again? Just issue a one for one exchange like any other issued boots.

On a related note,  the system can be more flexible in regards to which boot it offers. In my case the old desert boots were perfect for my issue but they were only authorized for use in a desert environment. So the system ended up buying Magnums.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: PuckChaser on December 07, 2015, 18:21:22
Here the ADMMAT response to that question ( and others) when the field force raised up a series of issues on the new boots.

ALCON,

I am sending this email in response to some of the more unreasonable requests that have been arriving in my email.  Pls note that there is no such thing as the ‘’perfect fit’’ when it comes to footwear.  Our boots are designed to accommodate 95% of the mbrs of the CAF as this is our mandate.   With the arrival of the LOTB, there will be much stricter controls put in place WRT LPO for boots.  The Technical Authority for Footwear and I have submitted changes to be added to the A-LM-007-100/AG-001 (SAM) shortly IOT support Supply techs with the ‘’how to fit footwear’’ for the mbr and to support the supply tech who needs to have the client understand that we try to supply correct and comfortable footwear but that the ‘’perfect’’ fit is virtually unattainable and beyond reasonable expectation.  Mbrs need to take some responsibility for their own comfort as well.  If an insole is all that is required for comfort or a better fit, then the mbr may purchase their own – not demand a new pair of boots thru Supply as these requests will not be entertained.


Unfortunately ADMMAT has his/her head up their ***. I should wear a 270/96 boot. However, the width is for the forefoot not the heel. I have slender heels and a 96 width means my heel slides up and down when I walk causing blisters and pain. 270/92 means I can't feel my forefoot but the heel is nice and snug. I hardly think I'm a 5% of the CAF when I can wear a pair of SWATs in 9.5D with no issues whatsoever.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Old and Tired on December 07, 2015, 18:28:56
Got the boots in HRM by happenstance. I was told to get the "New Tan" boots. I went into local clothing they said they didn't have any but some on order. Lo and behold LOTPs showed up.

The quote below is why I have ZERO faith i  the UCR process. I know from the last Tour I did with the RCD there were 25 from my troop alone and perhaps 200 - 250 across the Battle Group that were submitted up the chain through NSE. I even have a copy somewhere of the TAV report from a Maj (LdSH) that agreed with us. The official response was "                   ". Dead Air.
UCRs are decent as long as people fill them out and finish them, them coupled with command pressure can work miracles.  I know this thread is for boots but to slightly hijack the thread, can any hazard a guess how many UCRs have been done on the Tac Vest, an item hated as much as the boots?  If you guessed hundreds based on the outrage you would be wrong.  There are 6 UCRs that have been raised on the TV.  Boots by NSN is even less but I only went through the last 8-10 years of Army issued boots.  We like to complain but don't like to do any work to fix it.  Kinda like making a mean post on Facebook.  Slacktivisim at its finest.

 
Funny - I never saw any boots returned. Where did you get your boots from?
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: MJP on December 07, 2015, 18:48:23
Got the boots in HRM by happenstance. I was told to get the "New Tan" boots. I went into local clothing they said they didn't have any but some on order. Lo and behold LOTPs showed up.

The quote below is why I have ZERO faith i  the UCR process. I know from the last Tour I did with the RCD there were 25 from my troop alone and perhaps 200 - 250 across the Battle Group that were submitted up the chain through NSE. I even have a copy somewhere of the TAV report from a Maj (LdSH) that agreed with us. The official response was "                   ". Dead Air.

Unless someone sat on a computer and physically inputted them on the UCR website they most likely went nowhere.  I don't blame the UCR system in that case but the folks who were controlling or advising on the submission of your UCRs
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: ArmyVern on December 07, 2015, 19:19:13
There is a simple solution that other services have in place:  authorize a list of COTS footwear and have them available at the Canex for purchase.  Give every member yearly entitlement to purchase work boots (a claim, jusrified with a receipt from Canex only).

Then the onus is on the member to get comfortable footwear and we can stop having below average footwear that destroy our lower joints and are not suitable for combat.

You've been on the site long enough now to know it will never happen.  No boot allowance will ever occur. It's a political issue.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Sheep Dog AT on December 07, 2015, 19:19:31
First and only time I've ever heard of UCRs was this site.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: PuckChaser on December 07, 2015, 19:22:45
You've been on the site long enough now to know it will never happen.  No boot allowance will ever occur. It's a political issue.

Absolutely. With so much of our kit with its only primary requirement being porkbarrelling and "Made in Canada", why would PWGSC or TB allow soldiers to buy the one thing they absolutely need 2 pairs of every few years from a company that's not in Canada (Quebec)?

From what I've heard of the LOTB, those 2 brands came in 6th and 7th on the list. Oakley and Rocky blew everyone away. They aren't made in Canada, and PWGSC picked the 6th/7th best models because a factory got 3 extra jobs to crank them out.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Tcm621 on December 07, 2015, 19:37:35
First and only time I've ever heard of UCRs was this site.
This is where I have a bit of an issue. The UCR process is something most people know very little of,  I didn't know about it for at least half my career and know I know about it but I am still pretty fuzzy on the details. For example,  the post just above was the first time I heard of a website.

If I send my C7 into a weapons tech because it doesn't work right,  is it my job to do something about it or the weapons tech who has seen a hundred with the same problem? If a pilot says the new radar isn't working,  is it his job or the AVS techs job to raise the issue to be fixed?

I don't want to completely throw supply techs under the bus because I know of they have to do as they are told too but if every supply tech in the CF has seen dozens of people complain about problems with boots why does the user, who probably knows next to nothing about UCRs and the supply system, who needs to do the work? If I am working in Ottawa and I see a UCR from Cpl Bloggins from 7 Unicorn Battalion complaining about his boots,  it is easy to write off as soldiers bitching about kit.  However,  when I get a UCR from Sgt Bloggins, NCO clothing at CFB Shilo, describing the common faults seen by his section over the hundreds of boot fittings they have done,  it carries more weight. Am I wrong in having this opinion? It seems like supply techs are the perfect people to tackle issues involving kit. I can't even think it is because all they do is sit in cushy offices all day because supply techs do go in the field or to sea even if they don't have the same level of suck as the Cbt arms.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Eye In The Sky on December 07, 2015, 20:07:05
So, in summary:

1.  current way of doing boot procurement will never change (politics, "Canadian content", all that magical crap)
2.  because of #1, the CAF will make it harder for mbr's to get LPO boots by changing some wording in the SAM and other policy documents...because paying for the shitty boots from #1 AND LPO boots is expensive
3.  for some stupid reason, despite being willing to buy their own boots that meet the standard of safety etc, mbr's will have to wear the shitty boots from #1.

4.  Because of #1, #2, and #3...CAF members will be allowed to purchase insoles out of their own pocket.

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgifsec.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2FGIF%2F2014%2F11%2Fclap-clapping-congrats-congratulations-friends-Golf-Clap-good-job-well-done-GIF.gif%3Fgs%3Da&hash=97e297d8b1188688e867fbc7225afe30)
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: dangerboy on December 07, 2015, 20:12:04
This is where I have a bit of an issue. The UCR process is something most people know very little of,  I didn't know about it for at least half my career and know I know about it but I am still pretty fuzzy on the details. For example,  the post just above was the first time I heard of a website.

If I send my C7 into a weapons tech because it doesn't work right,  is it my job to do something about it or the weapons tech who has seen a hundred with the same problem? If a pilot says the new radar isn't working,  is it his job or the AVS techs job to raise the issue to be fixed?

I don't want to completely throw supply techs under the bus because I know of they have to do as they are told too but if every supply tech in the CF has seen dozens of people complain about problems with boots why does the user, who probably knows next to nothing about UCRs and the supply system, who needs to do the work? If I am working in Ottawa and I see a UCR from Cpl Bloggins from 7 Unicorn Battalion complaining about his boots,  it is easy to write off as soldiers bitching about kit.  However,  when I get a UCR from Sgt Bloggins, NCO clothing at CFB Shilo, describing the common faults seen by his section over the hundreds of boot fittings they have done,  it carries more weight. Am I wrong in having this opinion? It seems like supply techs are the perfect people to tackle issues involving kit. I can't even think it is because all they do is sit in cushy offices all day because supply techs do go in the field or to sea even if they don't have the same level of suck as the Cbt arms.

While the individual troop is not expected to know about or fill out the UCR form his supervisor should.  The majority of Platoon WOs and up should know that the process exists and while they might not be familiar with it, they know to ask questions.  If supervisors are noting deficiencies on new pieces of kit they should be documenting them and sending them up the chain.  A briefing note with a cover letter from a unit CO to the brigade carries a lot of weight.   
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: dapaterson on December 07, 2015, 20:13:38
EITS: Your #3 is directly related to the immortal question of why raincoats and toques are incompatible; in other words, the 'possum was right.

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frelationshiparts.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F06%2FPogo-We-have-met-800wi.jpg&hash=873959d82977dd1bfa37888a3d61e181)
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: MJP on December 07, 2015, 20:14:11
This is where I have a bit of an issue. The UCR process is something most people know very little of,  I didn't know about it for at least half my career and know I know about it but I am still pretty fuzzy on the details. For example,  the post just above was the first time I heard of a website.

If I send my C7 into a weapons tech because it doesn't work right,  is it my job to do something about it or the weapons tech who has seen a hundred with the same problem? If a pilot says the new radar isn't working,  is it his job or the AVS techs job to raise the issue to be fixed?

I don't want to completely throw supply techs under the bus because I know of they have to do as they are told too but if every supply tech in the CF has seen dozens of people complain about problems with boots why does the user, who probably knows next to nothing about UCRs and the supply system, who needs to do the work? If I am working in Ottawa and I see a UCR from Cpl Bloggins from 7 Unicorn Battalion complaining about his boots,  it is easy to write off as soldiers bitching about kit.  However,  when I get a UCR from Sgt Bloggins, NCO clothing at CFB Shilo, describing the common faults seen by his section over the hundreds of boot fittings they have done,  it carries more weight. Am I wrong in having this opinion? It seems like supply techs are the perfect people to tackle issues involving kit. I can't even think it is because all they do is sit in cushy offices all day because supply techs do go in the field or to sea even if they don't have the same level of suck as the Cbt arms.

The real weight behind changing anything is command pressure full stop.  It is amazing how fast some things change once commanders get involved.  As an aside, there is a Tech reporting mechanism on the UCR site but I have never used it, but from my understanding it is for techs of all natures to ID mechanical issues on equipment

To address your points I feel the UCR process is for units and individuals to display their dissatisfaction with a piece of kit or aspects thereof.  By downloading that responsibility to another agency is IMHO just another way of getting out of doing any real work.  By doing your own UCR(s) or hell even multiple ones on the same piece of kit and getting the Chain of Command on board with their comments (there is a section for substantiation that can be filled out by any number of people) lends more weight than any non-user ever could.  Besides the Supply Tech/AVS/Wpns tech only knows that something has failed to work properly.  The actual end user that experienced that failure know in what conditions the item failed or is lacking and what is required to bring it up to speed.  A Tech of any nature most likely won't have those details or knowledge of every particular job to do a UCR justice.  FWIW I don't say that the end user should be the one to write it because it would be my folks and I want to shelter them from work.  I have been in your shoes and put my money where my mouth is and wrote numerous UCRs to highlight our sometimes shitty kit.  I can honestly say that doing them with several peers, we came up with better write ups and justification than any supporter could because we knew what we wanted our kit to do and be.   

Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Tcm621 on December 07, 2015, 22:17:51
The real weight behind changing anything is command pressure full stop.  It is amazing how fast some things change once commanders get involved.  As an aside, there is a Tech reporting mechanism on the UCR site but I have never used it, but from my understanding it is for techs of all natures to ID mechanical issues on equipment

To address your points I feel the UCR process is for units and individuals to display their dissatisfaction with a piece of kit or aspects thereof.  By downloading that responsibility to another agency is IMHO just another way of getting out of doing any real work.  By doing your own UCR(s) or hell even multiple ones on the same piece of kit and getting the Chain of Command on board with their comments (there is a section for substantiation that can be filled out by any number of people) lends more weight than any non-user ever could.  Besides the Supply Tech/AVS/Wpns tech only knows that something has failed to work properly.  The actual end user that experienced that failure know in what conditions the item failed or is lacking and what is required to bring it up to speed.  A Tech of any nature most likely won't have those details or knowledge of every particular job to do a UCR justice.  FWIW I don't say that the end user should be the one to write it because it would be my folks and I want to shelter them from work.  I have been in your shoes and put my money where my mouth is and wrote numerous UCRs to highlight our sometimes shitty kit.  I can honestly say that doing them with several peers, we came up with better write ups and justification than any supporter could because we knew what we wanted our kit to do and be.
My post wasn't to take the responsibility of the end user as much as it was a question of the appearance of a lack of a GAF on the supply side. The idea that supply knows it is a problem and sympathize but until the end user does a  UCR it is not their problem. I don't want to point at people like you,  ArmyVern or Bindra because I know that you guys do GAF but at the end of the day the Supply Techs job is to get the right kit in the hands of the end user.  The claim that " I have heard a million complaints about the TAV but only 5 UCRs are written"  is a bit of a cop out,  wouldn't you say? If you hear a million complaints,  then do you staff up reports on the feedback you are getting from the end user? It seems to me that the supply chain is definitely an important route to take these issues up the chain.

Basically I am talking data points. When dealing with bureaucrats nothing sells like charts and spreadsheets.  Not many people will UCR tightness at the arch of the foot,  so you won't get the numbers to make a difference.  However,  80% of supply sections are reporting that arch tightness is a common issue amongst end users might get traction? Maybe this is done already,  I am not a supply tech so I don't know.  Maybe the CF needs to put a survey up on the DIN, I don't know.

I would like to give a little props to supply though,  just so they don't think they are being picked on all the time.  A good supply tech is worth their weight in gold and whiskey and sometimes we don't tell them when they are doing a great job.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: MCG on December 07, 2015, 22:25:23
I don't want to completely throw supply techs under the bus because I know of they have to do as they are told too but if every supply tech in the CF has seen dozens of people complain about problems with boots why does the user, who probably knows next to nothing about UCRs and the supply system, who needs to do the work? If I am working in Ottawa and I see a UCR from Cpl Bloggins from 7 Unicorn Battalion complaining about his boots,  it is easy to write off as soldiers bitching about kit.  However,  when I get a UCR from Sgt Bloggins, NCO clothing at CFB Shilo, describing the common faults seen by his section over the hundreds of boot fittings they have done,  it carries more weight. Am I wrong in having this opinion?
You are wrong.  The perspective from Ottawa will be that if it is not important enough for a single user/operator to document his/her concern with the kit, then it is clearly not important enough to consume staff effort.  Just because a supply tech has listened to hundreds of infantrymen whine about a particular piece of kit does not make that supply tech best qualified to communicate the operator perspective to the technical authority.

So if it matters to you, then you need to do the leg work and communicate your perspective.

Every UCR goes through the source unit's UCR coordinator (from my experience, this is usually somebody in maintenance and not supply) who gives an element of chain of command support.  Nothing stops units from passing the UCR through other technical or operator SMEs either. So, for example, an Army unit could have all UCRs receive comment (as "additional substantiation") from the originating sub-unit's sergeant major before those UCRs are forwarded to Ottawa by the UCR Coord.

As an aside, there is a Tech reporting mechanism on the UCR site but I have never used it, but from my understanding it is for techs of all natures to ID mechanical issues on equipment
Yes.  The TFR is used when something has failed in unusual, unexpected, or spectacular way and when the failure of something may suggest a fleet wide problem.  Techs will do both UCR and TFR, but they write from the perspective of a repairman.  If something is incapable to perform its job while fully serviceable, that most likely becomes a user/operator generated UCR.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: MCG on December 07, 2015, 22:28:48
... at the end of the day the Supply Techs job is to get the right kit in the hands of the end user.
No.  The job of the Supply Tech is the in-service kit.  Getting the right kit is the job of requirements staffs (who come from the user/operator communities) working with Project Managers (Civies and various engineering officers) in Ottawa.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: signalsguy on December 07, 2015, 22:34:36
This is where you need to find your Tech Adjutant or Master Gunner, if they exist in your unit and push the UCR through them. Any of the recent Tech Staff/ATWO graduates will have a pretty solid grasp on how to document and report equipment failures, including using the UCR process.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: MJP on December 08, 2015, 00:09:26
  The claim that " I have heard a million complaints about the TAV but only 5 UCRs are written"  is a bit of a cop out,  wouldn't you say? If you hear a million complaints,  then do you staff up reports on the feedback you are getting from the end user? It seems to me that the supply chain is definitely an important route to take these issues up the chain.

Ack.  I know where you are coming from and can see your point.  Now where the responsibility lies IMHO for Techs of all varieties but especially 1st line Techs is to feed/kickstart the UCR process.   I have seen it done very well, but largely the Techs themselves are just as clueless when it comes to the UCR side of the house.  Especially in the Supply world as as MCG has pointed out it is generally the RCEME folks that guide the process.  The LOG and RCEME world don't always work hand in hand so if one isn't talking to the other friction points come up and Sgt Keener from a rifle coy or tank sqn just gives up on the process. 

Mods as an aside maybe a split is in order?  If I get time tomorrow I will post the UCR site along with some reference numbers to some decent UCRs to help anyone thinking of creating one.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Sheep Dog AT on December 08, 2015, 00:14:49
Perhaps make a UCR sticky.  :gottree:
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: BinRat55 on December 08, 2015, 07:53:13
I did that in another thread...

Just in case there are those who wish to complain the right way:

http://ucrs.mil.ca/
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Old and Tired on December 08, 2015, 09:30:26
"The real weight behind changing anything is command pressure full stop.  It is amazing how fast some things change once commanders get involved.  As an aside, there is a Tech reporting mechanism on the UCR site but I have never used it, but from my understanding it is for techs of all natures to ID mechanical issues on equipment

To address your points I feel the UCR process is for units and individuals to display their dissatisfaction with a piece of kit or aspects thereof.  By downloading that responsibility to another agency is IMHO just another way of getting out of doing any real work.  By doing your own UCR(s) or hell even multiple ones on the same piece of kit and getting the Chain of Command on board with their comments (there is a section for substantiation that can be filled out by any number of people) lends more weight than any non-user ever could.  Besides the Supply Tech/AVS/Wpns tech only knows that something has failed to work properly.  The actual end user that experienced that failure know in what conditions the item failed or is lacking and what is required to bring it up to speed.  A Tech of any nature most likely won't have those details or knowledge of every particular job to do a UCR justice.  FWIW I don't say that the end user should be the one to write it because it would be my folks and I want to shelter them from work.  I have been in your shoes and put my money where my mouth is and wrote numerous UCRs to highlight our sometimes shitty kit.  I can honestly say that doing them with several peers, we came up with better write ups and justification than any supporter could because we knew what we wanted our kit to do and be."


This is fine in theory, however when it is the "Command Pressure" that chooses to ignore what the soldiers are telling them, we have a bigger problem to deal with.

No.  The job of the Supply Tech is the in-service kit.  Getting the right kit is the job of requirements staffs (who come from the user/operator communities) working with Project Managers (Civies and various engineering officers) in Ottawa.

I agree whole heartily with this.  Supply techs are not the ones to blame for lack of sizing, lack of availability, bad quality or the changes to orders covering the issue of standard or special sized anything; be it boots, shirts or left-handed nonconducting Gerbers. STOP BLAMING local Sup Techs for things they have no control over.

As far as boots are concerned it's probably a problem that goes back to our great grandfathers heading off to the BOOR War.  I know in my family that's had 4 generations of Canadian soldiers going back to that era Non-Issue, Non-Standard boots have been the go to solution for all of us.  As I was told by my bother the bean counter in Ottawa, the DND and CAF's actual operational requirements will ALWAYS take second place to Regional Industrial Benefits.  There is no way around it.  For the most part the mandarins are more concerned with the "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs" as E.R. Campbell continually reminds us.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Tcm621 on December 08, 2015, 10:59:13
Just to be clear,  no one is blaming the local supply tech. But Supply MOS works through the entire supply chain, correct? They seem like they are in a position to help.  And I should include Log officers who work the supply side, they are even more important to the cause.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: MCG on December 08, 2015, 11:06:39
Just to be clear,  no one is blaming the local supply tech. But Supply MOS works through the entire supply chain, correct? They seem like they are in a position to help.  And I should include Log officers who work the supply side, they are even more important to the cause.
At the national level in ADM(MAT) the technical authorities are civilians or come from maintenance and engineering occupations.  Supply Managers include some Sup Techs, but it is not the job of the SM to tinker with the specifications of the product.  The SM buys the product defined by the TA's spec.

If you as the user have a problem with a piece of kit, communicate that problem and stop looking for someone to do the work for you.  The people in a position to help are users/operators and the chain of command. 
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: BobSlob on December 08, 2015, 12:43:29
At the national level in ADM(MAT) the technical authorities are civilians or come from maintenance and engineering occupations.  Supply Managers include some Sup Techs, but it is not the job of the SM to tinker with the specifications of the product.  The SM buys the product defined by the TA's spec.

If you as the user have a problem with a piece of kit, communicate that problem and stop looking for someone to do the work for you.  The people in a position to help are users/operators and the chain of command.

I remember this exact lecture from a General in front of ~100 pers currently deployed overseas within the last few months. He didn't have an answer when it was mentioned said paperwork was done (at least by the Air Crew) over a year ago, and sat in Winnipeg for 6 months before even being assigned to someone.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Old and Tired on December 08, 2015, 17:36:28
Ok, so ADM MAT are the people that need to hear about the problems, understood, then how,  when deployed and we are told by the SLOO of NSE that all UCR' are to be complied and sent to him/her for collation and forwarding to the appropriate OPI, and nothing happens or Clothe the Soldier comes back and says you the user are wrong and the UCRs are ignored; how exactly are we to make the system work as intended. As you said up thread you could old find 8ish UCRs on the TV. From personal experience I know this to be incorrect. On the Boot issue, nothing happens until the Government of the day gets Nationally Embarrassed in the media. Then we go thru the cycle again and get substandard quality foot wear, again. And the cycle repeats.

How do we fix that, and get troops decent foot wear in the process?
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Eye In The Sky on December 08, 2015, 19:57:40
I remember this exact lecture from a General in front of ~100 pers currently deployed overseas within the last few months. He didn't have an answer when it was mentioned said paperwork was done (at least by the Air Crew) over a year ago, and sat in Winnipeg for 6 months before even being assigned to someone.

By at least 2 different dets in the ATF.  And they were fairly well done.   ;D
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: MCG on December 08, 2015, 20:12:39
Ok, so ADM MAT are the people that need to hear about the problems, understood, then how,  when deployed and we are told by the SLOO of NSE that all UCR' are to be complied and sent to him/her for collation and forwarding to the appropriate OPI, and nothing happens ...
That is where you need to engage the local chain of command to sort-out the staff officer who did not forward the UCR.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: BinRat55 on December 09, 2015, 07:46:26
A quick search of the pending UCRs show me that there is a grand total of one (1) UCR in on the new LOTB. Raised in Nov, the particulars are regarding sizes not available. Nothing about equipment malfunction.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Eye In The Sky on December 09, 2015, 20:15:44
The UCRs I was talking about are for the (RCAF CEMS Project) Desert Combat Boot.   :nod:  aka "the cripplers!".
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: CDNAIRFORCE on December 10, 2015, 19:45:08
I lucked out and the STC brand hot weather safety boots broke in for me after a few weeks. Down here at AJAB, there have been varying ways to deal with the boots. Some successful trips up to Arifjan PX and some people ordered things through Amazon. There is also a donation bin similar to the goodwill ones on street corners where people put unwanted clothing, books, footwear, etc when they leave here. A few guys found some pairs of used USAF ones, that despite previous use, cured their issues right away. For the amount of walking you do on the flight line here, our Chief basically said as long as it's tan (though some people wore blacks quite awhile until they found something that worked), steel-toed, and was comfortable for you he has no issue. Of course now it's cold enough at night that in addition to toques and gloves some nights, green fleece or whatever civilian equivalent under the coat is often worn so the tan is kind of a moot point now.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Eye In The Sky on December 10, 2015, 21:53:37
Steel not just 'safety'?

I have Reebok (http://reebokwork.com/258/Reebok-Rapid-Response-RB-RB8894) thru the supply system;  weight next to nothing, CSA grade 1 composites.   

There isn't really any boot cops in ASAB;  but the PATCH POLICE are out in force.   ::)   The new term going around lately I've heard?

CJOC....the J is silent.   ;D
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Loachman on December 11, 2015, 14:13:57
Ahh. Yes. Cee-ock.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on December 11, 2015, 17:46:31
Speaking of boots, I heard the boot program was cancelled again.   :rofl:

Guess I'll need to wait another decade for a new pair of boots. 
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Aaron97 on March 24, 2016, 17:12:48
Would anyone know if we can wear our own boots in garrison while at our unit?

I plan on buying these ones: https://oakleyforces.ca/footwear?product_id=1450

thanks
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Sheep Dog AT on March 24, 2016, 17:17:55
You'll be wasting your money more then likely given that the CAF is pushing out 2 new types of boots...... Eventually
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: dangerboy on March 24, 2016, 17:36:33
Would anyone know if we can wear our own boots in garrison while at our unit?

I plan on buying these ones: https://oakleyforces.ca/footwear?product_id=1450

thanks

Best thing to do is talk to your Section Commander as every unit has their own rules and sometimes it changes between sub-units.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: cld617 on March 24, 2016, 17:44:52
Would anyone know if we can wear our own boots in garrison while at our unit?

I plan on buying these ones: https://oakleyforces.ca/footwear?product_id=1450

thanks

How about you wait until you're actually in the Forces and at your unit before you start deciding what kit isn't good enough?
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Lean-N-Supreme on March 24, 2016, 18:27:27
Would anyone know if we can wear our own boots in garrison while at our unit?

I plan on buying these ones: https://oakleyforces.ca/footwear?product_id=1450

thanks
Check with your CoC or look and see what other guys are wearing. Some units are more relaxed while some aren't. Your profile says you're still a no hook and on your BMQ-L and trades course it is unlikely you're going to be allowed to wear any non-issued kit so it might be better to get your hook first before you go out to get new boots.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Arty39 on March 24, 2016, 20:20:46
I think the lotb is mandatory once issued which is soon for most people. On my dp1 you had to have a boot chit to wear non issued boots or you would get written up. As for non issued boots if you stick with rocky's, swats or magnums you will most likely be fine.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: sidemount on March 24, 2016, 20:27:25
Or by the sounds of things most wont get lotb and be right back to crap
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: LunchMeat on March 24, 2016, 21:52:33
I think the lotb is mandatory once issued which is soon for most people. On my dp1 you had to have a boot chit to wear non issued boots or you would get written up. As for non issued boots if you stick with rocky's, swats or magnums you will most likely be fine.

They will be issuing out old stock before issuing the LOTB.

Direction from above has expressly stated that the Interim Temperate Boot and the Wet Weather boots are the only approved footwear if you have not been issued the LOTB.

However, there has been a problem with people getting boots period, regardless of what version, as such I have drafted my subordinates a letter if they're going on a course or tasking should they be asked why they're not wearing issued boots.


80% of the time there's never been an issue and they were able to either get boots at their TD location or they were allowed to continuing wearing COTS boots
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: NFLD Sapper on March 24, 2016, 22:01:24
Direction from above has expressly stated that the Interim Temperate Boot and the Wet Weather boots are the only approved footwear if you have not been issued the LOTB.

Dear lord they walk among us....................................dinosaurs.........................
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: PuckChaser on March 24, 2016, 22:05:31
Would anyone know if we can wear our own boots in garrison while at our unit?

I plan on buying these ones: https://oakleyforces.ca/footwear?product_id=1450

thanks
Are you even in yet? Rules for boots vary unit by unit, ask your section commander. Likely won't be allowed to wear your own boots on BMQ.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: sidemount on March 24, 2016, 22:22:58
This is one of the common sense things that regular units actually seem to get right for the most part.

I don't know of many units besides the schools that don't allow COTS boots. You see higher ups in their own COTS boots all the time, I don't see this changing.

Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Lumber on March 24, 2016, 22:39:30
What are COTS boots?
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: PuckChaser on March 24, 2016, 22:40:57
Commercial off the shelf, aka the SWATs or Rocky's everyone buys.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Lumber on March 24, 2016, 22:42:48
Commercial off the shelf, aka the SWATs or Rocky's everyone buys.

Cool! Thanks.

My Chief Clerk just got ordered a pair of SWATs by Supply because they said they would not have his size in for such a long time that it justified them buying him COTS.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: sidemount on March 24, 2016, 23:39:49
Comercial off the shelf

Edit to add:nvm didnt see the reply
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: PuckChaser on March 24, 2016, 23:45:40
Cool! Thanks.

My Chief Clerk just got ordered a pair of SWATs by Supply because they said they would not have his size in for such a long time that it justified them buying him COTS.
I have 2 sets of Rocky's purchased that way, as no CAF sizes fit properly. Usually the boots are on a short list from local suppliers, you pick them out, return a form, clothing buys them and you pick them up.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: BinRat55 on March 29, 2016, 10:14:43
I have 2 sets of Rocky's purchased that way, as no CAF sizes fit properly. Usually the boots are on a short list from local suppliers, you pick them out, return a form, clothing buys them and you pick them up.

We have stopped doing that (for the most part) - maybe one in 30 people now get approved for LPO boots. Ottawa says we will fit everyone (they figure 98%) in one of the combined 140 sizes we have in the new LOTB.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: PuckChaser on March 29, 2016, 10:19:47
I find the LOTB fits more like a commercial boot, even with mondopoint. Still trying them out to see if they'll work for me. I'd love not to spend $200 every 2 years on boots, but I won't deal with stuff that won't fit.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: BinRat55 on March 29, 2016, 10:43:15
I find the LOTB fits more like a commercial boot, even with mondopoint. Still trying them out to see if they'll work for me. I'd love not to spend $200 every 2 years on boots, but I won't deal with stuff that won't fit.

The biggest problem we are having with the LOTB is that that are both way shorter that what we are used to. Most think the zipper will crap out... but 99% of what we got back was the stitching on the side of the toe box lets go. Apart from the stupid white line on the sole of the zippered boot, most say that with a custom orthotic these are truly more comfortable.

I personally like the laced ones. More professional looking.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Tcm621 on March 29, 2016, 21:44:43
We have stopped doing that (for the most part) - maybe one in 30 people now get approved for LPO boots. Ottawa says we will fit everyone (they figure 98%) in one of the combined 140 sizes we have in the new LOTB.
I can always fit comfortably in a size 10 magnum or swat.  No need for 140 sizes. Just make a half decent boot. I haven't seen the new boot so I will reserve judgment but if it is like all the other recent ones, then we will have the same problem.

The other problem with 140 sizes is keeping stock of the common ones.  If you are a size ten you are out of luck on a lot of bases.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Hamish Seggie on March 29, 2016, 21:59:22
I can always fit comfortably in a size 10 magnum or swat.  No need for 140 sizes. Just make a half decent boot. I haven't seen the new boot so I will reserve judgment but if it is like all the other recent ones, then we will have the same problem.

The other problem with 140 sizes is keeping stock of the common ones.  If you are a size ten you are out of luck on a lot of bases.

Someone is focussed on the 100% solution. Go for 80% and it will probably suffice.

This, seriously, is getting ridiculous.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Loachman on March 29, 2016, 22:42:43
"Getting"?
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: NFLD Sapper on March 29, 2016, 22:45:03
Gentleman I think we are through the looking glass on this one...
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: LPike on April 20, 2016, 13:17:14
I hope Halifax gets the LOTB soon.

I've only been issued one pair of wet weathers, and none of the local clothing stores have any other boots in my size. Clothing estimates another month until they get any boots in at the least.

At least I'm only PRes, and not full time RegF.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Eye In The Sky on April 20, 2016, 14:54:30
Did they attempt to even order your size in?
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: LPike on April 20, 2016, 15:04:55
Did they attempt to even order your size in?
No, but they said they were ordering a "shitton" of boots as of yesterday. That's when they quoted the month figure.

We'll see how it turns out. The Army, Navy, and Air Force supplies are all out of boots in anything even close to a 275/108. I've been wearing my Surplus Mark IIIs for awhile now, I can't stand the WWBs.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Eye In The Sky on April 20, 2016, 16:23:54
Just a point;  for CFB Halifax and area, FLOG Clothing Stores is what the 'army, navy and air force' supply places all fall under.  Last I was posted to Hfx, the Clothing Stores in the Armouries, the dockyard and over at 12 Wing were all det's of FLOG. 

Hope it works out for you.  If you have a pressing need for them and it doesn't look like they can get them from the issue variety, you should ask about LPO if you are going on tasking/course or something. 
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: LPike on April 20, 2016, 16:27:30


Just a point;  for CFB Halifax and area, FLOG Clothing Stores is what the 'army, navy and air force' supply places all fall under.  Last I was posted to Hfx, the Clothing Stores in the Armouries, the dockyard and over at 12 Wing were all det's of FLOG. 

Hope it works out for you.  If you have a pressing need for them and it doesn't look like they can get them from the issue variety, you should ask about LPO if you are going on tasking/course or something.

Yeah, that's what I mean by Army, Navy, and Air Force.
I might ask about LPO, however I'm on BMQ at the moment, so I feel like A: Theres hardly a need for me to have boots right this moment, and B: Even if I did get them, at the start of the crse, the crse WO specifically stated that non issued boots would not be tolerated.

Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Eye In The Sky on April 20, 2016, 16:28:49
If they are LPO from supply, they are issued boots though.   :nod:
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: LPike on April 20, 2016, 16:34:52
If they are LPO from supply, they are issued boots though.   :nod:
Ahhh, I see.

Now, for a poor no-hook, no clue, would you be able to explain the LPO process?...

Thanks in advance!

Sent from my XT1563 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: recceguy on April 20, 2016, 16:35:32
I believe, the last CANFORGEN that came out on boots said no more LPOs are allowed.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Eye In The Sky on April 20, 2016, 16:39:08
Basically, if supply can't get you the boots thru the system, lack of sizes etc, they have the ability to go to local suppliers and contract out the requirement for your boots.  When I did it in Halifax, they would contact a supplier, who would contact me to come in for sizing.

Once I was sized, they would order 1 pair of the boots.  When they came in to the supplier, they would ship them to Supply, who would then contact me and I would go to supply to get 'issued' the boots. 

After about 30 days if I was happy with the boots and there wasn't any issues, I would then contact supply and they would order my 2nd pair.

That's the basics.  LPO stands for Local Purchase Order I believe. 
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Eye In The Sky on April 20, 2016, 16:51:45
I believe, the last CANFORGEN that came out on boots said no more LPOs are allowed.

I don't see how they can do that.  The issued boots don't fit everyone's feet!

FWIW, I just picked up a pair of LPO boots a few weeks ago.  I don't have a single pair of 'standard' issue boots except my ankle boots.  My TCBs (Magnum 5314s (http://www.magnumbootstore.ca/stealthforce8-5314.aspx)), CWWBs (Bates 2284s (http://www.workauthority.ca/Store/tabid/62/CategoryID/140/List/0/Level/a/ProductID/1594/language/en-CA/Default.aspx)) and desert boots (Reebok RB 8893s (http://www.globalindustrial.ca/p/safety/foot-protection/boots-shoes/reebokrb8893-mens-stealth-8-boot-desert-tan-size-12-m?infoParam.campaignId=T9F&gclid=CMnr1cP-ncwCFQUIaQod5ZsFNg)) are all LPO.   :dunno:
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: recceguy on April 20, 2016, 17:30:32
I've gone back to look. It's not a CANFORGEN. It's an email trail, from those 'people up there'. It's not mine so I won't post it.

As far as "I don't see how they can do that.  The issued boots don't fit everyone's feet!", you've been around long enough to know that there are faceless wogs out there with more power than they should have, that, on occasion, do whatever the frig they want and let the crap flow downhill. Just because they can and need that 'Leading Change' bubble filled.

One only has to look to the idiots, in uniform, that pressed the government for changes to buttons and bows. From what I have heard, the twit that sent that ball rolling was nothing more than a Reserve LCol and his connections to various Reserve Senates. (Another reason to dash that whole antiquated system against the rocks)

So, yes, things that stupid are easily done by self centred, silo erecting, empire builders that should have never gotten out of BM(O)Q, but have somehow managed to get someone's ear.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: ArmyVern on April 20, 2016, 17:51:44
I've gone back to look. It's not a CANFORGEN. It's an email trail, ...

I see them ... (there's two separate e-mails), I do see that they made it to all the G4s, N4s, A4s and Snr Sup Techs at all the bases and wings by the time I saw them  --- so people, one would hope, should be tracking by now:

Essentials:

(email date 18 March 2016):  FW: General Purpose/Temperate Army Boots - Cease LPO/
Eff: of Monday, 21 Mar 2016, LPOs will no longer be approved for any COTS Army boot replacements as LOTB is avail to Clot Stores and to be issued through attrition.  Any LPOs already recd by higher will be actioned. No new LPOs will be accepted.


(email date 22 March 2016):   Rappel - Restriction des bottes de climat chaud (Bottes désert)/Reminder - Restriction on Army Hot Weather boots (Desert Cbt Boots)
Essentially authorizes LPOs of COTs from the approved DLR list if nil stock in certain sizes of desert boots (CFTPO Number will be required).  Entertaining no exceptions from the DLR List of approved. And, states LOTBs not to be used as replacements for DCBs.
Also:  LOTB’s are authorised for RCAF members deploying on OP IMPACT.

Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Eye In The Sky on April 20, 2016, 18:09:24
I see them ... (there's two separate e-mails), I do see that they made it to all the G4s, N4s, A4s and Snr Sup Techs at all the bases and wings by the time I saw them  --- so people, one would hope, should be tracking by now:

Essentials:

(email date 18 March 2016):  FW: General Purpose/Temperate Army Boots - Cease LPO/
Eff: of Monday, 21 Mar 2016, LPOs will no longer be approved for any COTS Army boot replacements as LOTB is avail to Clot Stores and to be issued through attrition.  Any LPOs already recd by higher will be actioned. No new LPOs will be accepted.

I guess the key part there is Army boots, not the CEMS project ones.

So, this leads to the question I'll ask;  I am army, the LOTBs do not fit my feet properly and cause me injury...what then?

Quote
(email date 22 March 2016):   Rappel - Restriction des bottes de climat chaud (Bottes désert)/Reminder - Restriction on Army Hot Weather boots (Desert Cbt Boots)
Essentially authorizes LPOs of COTs from the approved DLR list if nil stock in certain sizes of desert boots (CFTPO Number will be required).  Entertaining no exceptions from the DLR List of approved. And, states LOTBs not to be used as replacements for DCBs.
Also:  LOTB’s are authorised for RCAF members deploying on OP IMPACT.


Okay, the underlined parts confuse me.  If you are RCAF or employed with an RCAF unit, you get issued DCBs for IMPACT.  1 Cdn Air Div also directs 'all pers shall wear safety toe'.  How can LOTBs be authorized for RCAF OP IMPACT folks, but are not replacements for DCBs ???

Aircrew deploying have been trying to state a case for those DCBs (utter garbage boots IMO) to be removed from the SOI for IMPACT/desert flying ops for over a year, to no avail.  Flyers 'shall' wear safety toes at all times.  LOTBs are soft toe, aren't they?

Or, are they again, just talking about the Army boots?  I thought the army had 'hot weather boots' and the air force had 'DCBs"?  ??? 
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: PuckChaser on April 20, 2016, 18:11:06
How does that apply to LPO boots because military sizing does not fit? I'm trialling a pair of LOTBs now, but if they don't work and there's no custom boot contract, did higher just pull out a "suck it up"?
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Eye In The Sky on April 20, 2016, 18:17:51
How does that apply to LPO boots because military sizing does not fit? I'm trialling a pair of LOTBs now, but if they don't work and there's no custom boot contract, did higher just pull out a "suck it up"?

Yup, nothing like issuing a big frig U! to the troops.  Not everyone who wants LPOs are after the LCF.  I was sent to the foot clinic in 2003, was assessed and have been wearing orthotics and LPOs since then; even the '72 different size' RCAF boots don't work, because....surprise! they all have the exact same heel cup and boot depth.

Just because they designed 'new' boots and paid for them doesn't mean they will work for everyone.    :facepalm:

I am very curious, what do they intend to do about the people who the LOTB will not fit properly. 
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: ArmyVern on April 20, 2016, 18:26:23


So, this leads to the question I'll ask;  I am army, the LOTBs do not fit my feet properly and cause me injury...what then?


Enough already.  For MEDICAL, that is a medical Chit:  The rules have never changed:  that's a medical chit with MO authorization to LPO boots.


Every damn time we go through this ...   :facepalm:

Quote

Okay, the underlined parts confuse me.  If you are RCAF or employed with an RCAF unit, you get issued DCBs for IMPACT.  1 Cdn Air Div also directs 'all pers shall wear safety toe'.  How can LOTBs be authorized for RCAF OP IMPACT folks, but are not replacements for DCBs ???

Aircrew deploying have been trying to state a case for those DCBs (utter garbage boots IMO) to be removed from the SOI for IMPACT/desert flying ops for over a year, to no avail.  Flyers 'shall' wear safety toes at all times.  LOTBs are soft toe, aren't they?

Or, are they again, just talking about the Army boots?  I thought the army had 'hot weather boots' and the air force had 'DCBs"?  ???

You do realize, of course, that not all pers in RCAF uniforms belong RCAF Units but may still find themselves on Op IMPACT. 

What the message is saying is that IF an RCAF member is issued LOTBs, that they do NOT replace the DCBs .... that those members will still be entitled to be issued their DCBs.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: ArmyVern on April 20, 2016, 18:28:48
Yup, nothing like issuing a big frig U! to the troops.  Not everyone who wants LPOs are after the LCF.  I was sent to the foot clinic in 2003, was assessed and have been wearing orthotics and LPOs since then; even the '72 different size' RCAF boots don't work, because....surprise! they all have the exact same heel cup and boot depth.


It's a big FU to no one.  Medical requirements haven't changed; you have the ref - I've sent it you before - nil change.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: recceguy on April 20, 2016, 18:37:16
Thanks Vern. You explained it ever so much better than I possibly could've. :salute:
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: PuckChaser on April 20, 2016, 18:38:28
So only medical chits will be entertained? I have to waste the doc's time to get a chit for boots because bad sizing?
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: ArmyVern on April 20, 2016, 18:46:07
So only medical chits will be entertained? I have to waste the doc's time to get a chit for boots because bad sizing?

You mean, don't waste your own time because the doc will not give you a chit for sizing as that is not a medical problem.  Sizing is a Supply problem, but here's the problem:


"Sizing" is the issue - if the mondopoints don't fit, and that's the kicker, because they say that mondopoints run in many, many more size options (length, width etc) than COTs footwear (and they actually do - they just suck!).  They say, that if you fit into COTs that you can walk into the store and buy, then you fit into mondopoints. Period.  I don't say that.

It is the very rariety with the size 1, size 18 foot (or extremely small, but extremely wide feet etc etc) who can/will not be fitted out of stocked items - the far ends of the sizing spectrum.  They would get LPOd footwear as there are no stocked & issued boots in those rare cases.  All us in betweens - apparently fit into mondos.

Someone says so, again - not me.

Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Jarnhamar on April 20, 2016, 18:53:34
Are there any ramifications for whoever is responsible for the CAF accepting these shitty new boots and letting them be mass produced?
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: recceguy on April 20, 2016, 19:56:03
Are there any ramifications for whoever is responsible for the CAF accepting these shitty new boots and letting them be mass produced?

Thought you didn't do drugs? ;D
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: dapaterson on April 20, 2016, 20:15:00
Are there any ramifications for whoever is responsible for the CAF accepting these shitty new boots and letting them be mass produced?

Would that be the units that refuse tasks to test equipment?  The branches and corps that refuse to post their top people into the projects to acquire equipment?
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: ballz on April 20, 2016, 21:06:07
Would that be the units that refuse tasks to test equipment?  The branches and corps that refuse to post their top people into the projects to acquire equipment?

My current company spent an entire year (2013) answering to DLR. DLR practically owned the company over the course of 2x trials on the platform. The LAV 6.0 is still a jugf**k to this day, pretty much as unprepared for war as those boots that keep blowing at the seams in the office. The problems of our procurement goes well beyond not having enough people (or quality people) to test equipment.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Jarnhamar on April 20, 2016, 21:43:29
Would that be the units that refuse tasks to test equipment?  The branches and corps that refuse to post their top people into the projects to acquire equipment?

If a unit refused out of laziness and not lack of relevance I would say for sure.

I know of a unit of infanteers which included basic and advanced reconnaissance patrolmen, basic and advance snipers, pathfinders etc.. who's contribution to this LOTB project was having 10 pairs of various boots placed on a table and then have members from said unit walk in the room, look at the boot and then rate them based on looks and looks only. Members were strictly forbidden from physically touching the boot.

Pretty sure whoever decided that was on drugs  ;D


Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Nudibranch on April 20, 2016, 22:06:26
So only medical chits will be entertained? I have to waste the doc's time to get a chit for boots because bad sizing?

To add to the "sizing is not a med issue" - in any case you won't be wasting the doc's time, you'll be wasting (or not) the Physio's. They took the boot-chit complaints away from MOs because frankly MOs know nothing about boots (why in the world would they, boot-fitting is not something taught in med school), and would often just auto-scribble a chit on request.

The Physios are harsh mistresses&misters of boot chits, and will assess and trial any number of orthodics before you'd get a med boot chit out of them.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: ballz on April 20, 2016, 22:25:18
To add to the "sizing is not a med issue" - in any case you won't be wasting the doc's time, you'll be wasting (or not) the Physio's. They took the boot-chit complaints away from MOs because frankly MOs know nothing about boots (why in the world would they, boot-fitting is not something taught in med school), and would often just auto-scribble a chit on request.

The Physios are harsh mistresses&misters of boot chits, and will assess and trial any number of orthodics before you'd get a med boot chit out of them.

Hmmm... one might think it would be a better use of resources to just hand out med chits on demand and let people get boots they like... :facepalm:
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: PuckChaser on April 20, 2016, 22:41:27
You mean, don't waste your own time because the doc will not give you a chit for sizing as that is not a medical problem.  Sizing is a Supply problem, but here's the problem:

"Sizing" is the issue - if the mondopoints don't fit, and that's the kicker, because they say that mondopoints run in many, many more size options (length, width etc) than COTs footwear (and they actually do - they just suck!).  They say, that if you fit into COTs that you can walk into the store and buy, then you fit into mondopoints. Period.  I don't say that.

It is the very rariety with the size 1, size 18 foot (or extremely small, but extremely wide feet etc etc) who can/will not be fitted out of stocked items - the far ends of the sizing spectrum.  They would get LPOd footwear as there are no stocked & issued boots in those rare cases.  All us in betweens - apparently fit into mondos.

Someone says so, again - not me.

I hear you, I don't think anyone here would accuse you of siding with the boot mafia, just giving us the info.

Unfortunately I think EITS described the problem, where all mondopoint sizes have the same heel cup size as forefoot width. So someone with feet like mine, where the heel is narrower than the forefoot, I get stuck with too tight on front, blisters in back, or vice versa.

Jay-Z said it best: 72 sizes and my feet ain't one.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: sidemount on April 20, 2016, 22:59:40
Are there any ramifications for whoever is responsible for the CAF accepting these shitty new boots and letting them be mass produced?
Promotion most likely....
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Tcm621 on April 21, 2016, 00:32:16
Are there any ramifications for whoever is responsible for the CAF accepting these shitty new boots and letting them be mass produced?
A promotion?
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Nudibranch on April 21, 2016, 02:02:46
Hmmm... one might think it would be a better use of resources to just hand out med chits on demand and let people get boots they like... :facepalm:


No. A better use of resources would be to quit medicalizing non-medical issues. Like boot chits. And workplace conflict. And beard chits (ok, pseudofolliculitis barbae does exist. But it mostly affects black men, and there's no legitimate medical reason half of Valcartier's running around with beard chits).
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: PuckChaser on April 21, 2016, 09:16:12
Beard chits and shaved heads.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: BinRat55 on April 21, 2016, 09:44:11
Oy vey.

Another side of the problem is when Clothing Stores across Canada start doing their own thing, making their own policies and treating direction differently than everyone else. I have a soldier who comes in from Shilo (completely hypothetical...) and says he's been getting COTS for years now. Chit? No sir. Why are you getting LPO boots then? Well I just told them that their boots didn't fit - I was getting blisters. So they sent me downtown. Can I get my new Swats please? I say he's not entitled to LPO boots here just because he says so. He becomes irate because "Gagetown doesn't know what they are doing".

When someone is treated a certain way on one base and another base differs from that, they become offensive. If we (Clothing Stores and Base Supply) stuck to policy and directives ACROSS the board, I believe it would be easier in the long run. My 2 cents.

As far as the LOTB / LPO boots are concerned - see above. Oy vey!
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: ArmyVern on April 21, 2016, 10:22:26
To add to the "sizing is not a med issue" - in any case you won't be wasting the doc's time, you'll be wasting (or not) the Physio's. They took the boot-chit complaints away from MOs because frankly MOs know nothing about boots (why in the world would they, boot-fitting is not something taught in med school), and would often just auto-scribble a chit on request.

The Physios are harsh mistresses&misters of boot chits, and will assess and trial any number of orthodics before you'd get a med boot chit out of them.

Actually, they hit the Doc and/or Med A first through the MIR (ooopps .. CDU  ::)) to complain about their feet, but when they bring up size, the Doc/MedA may send them away right then and there. OR, they may send them on to Physio to waste Physio's time.

In order to get far enough to waste physio's time, you're hitting the med side first to waste theirs. 
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: ArmyVern on April 21, 2016, 10:23:39
Hmmm... one might think it would be a better use of resources to just hand out med chits on demand and let people get boots they like... :facepalm:

Medical budget pays for medical footwear; good luck with that.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: ArmyVern on April 21, 2016, 10:30:05
I hear you, I don't think anyone here would accuse you of siding with the boot mafia, just giving us the info.

Wasn't actually hinting at me, personally, but rather "Sup techs" in general ... we always get the rants and blame for "the rules" that we have neither input into nor control over.

Quote
Jay-Z said it best: 72 sizes and my feet ain't one.

Speaking of the beotch of the boots and mondopoint - I totally agree.  I've had quite a few experiences fitting troops' feet and many cases like that you speak of.  Also quite a few where pers did not have nice arches on the tops of their feet.  The boots would fit perfectly toe to heel, but even yanking the laces as tight as they could go so that all eyelets were touching each other saw us still being able to "pinch an inch" of unfilled leather.  Imagine those feet after a nice day of humping ruck.

Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: ArmyVern on April 21, 2016, 10:37:22

No. A better use of resources would be to quit medicalizing non-medical issues. Like boot chits. And workplace conflict. And beard chits (ok, pseudofolliculitis barbae does exist. But it mostly affects black men, and there's no legitimate medical reason half of Valcartier's running around with beard chits).

Sizing isn't medicalized though and never has been.  Issues with special sizing have always been dealt with via the SAM and are a Supply problem.

Medical Issues with feet are a Medical Chit issue (fallen arches, requirement for mesh-sided due to skin condition, ortho footwear, ortho soles with lift etc)

Helmets On:  I saw the most epic beard out here in Edmonton yesterday ... at least a good 8 inches long on a uniformed gent with no hair on his head.


Much like sleeping bags:  If you are allergic to feathers, the medical side of the house allows via Chit for procurement of different sleeping bag (through clothing stores) due to your medical condition.  If you are 7' tall, then clothing stores will procure the extra-long bag without requiring Chit as it is a sizing issue.


Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: ArmyVern on April 21, 2016, 10:40:50
Oy vey.

Another side of the problem is when Clothing Stores across Canada start doing their own thing, making their own policies and treating direction differently than everyone else. I have a soldier who comes in from Shilo (completely hypothetical...) and says he's been getting COTS for years now. Chit? No sir. Why are you getting LPO boots then? Well I just told them that their boots didn't fit - I was getting blisters. So they sent me downtown. Can I get my new Swats please? I say he's not entitled to LPO boots here just because he says so. He becomes irate because "Gagetown doesn't know what they are doing".

...

And, due to locations like that ... we have the CANLANDGEN that needed to be cut re-inforcing the "rules".  Post a copy of it inside your door next to the uniform that I hung up there years ago (which probably is still there). 

BTW, that's a shitty sup tech in Shilo causing problems for everyone else but I'd also suspect he was wearing LPOd for so long because one his buddies worked there and was "looking after him".   There's a charge for that.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: BinRat55 on April 21, 2016, 11:21:48
And, due to locations like that ... we have the CANLANDGEN that needed to be cut re-inforcing the "rules".  Post a copy of it inside your door next to the uniform that I hung up there years ago (which probably is still there). 

Lol!! Actually, it is! We have the CANLANDGEN posted, and I actually went a step further and posted the SAM references along with Sandra's email (her full name redacted of course) and the new, revised LOTB Implementation Order.

You know as well as I do - I can stamp it on people's foreheads and some will still not get it!
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: NFLD Sapper on April 21, 2016, 13:02:32
Lol!! Actually, it is! We have the CANLANDGEN posted, and I actually went a step further and posted the SAM references along with Sandra's email (her full name redacted of course) and the new, revised LOTB Implementation Order.

You know as well as I do - I can stamp it on people's foreheads and some will still not get it!

Now that I want to see....

Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: George Wallace on April 21, 2016, 13:26:23

You know as well as I do - I can stamp it on people's foreheads and some will still not get it!

Unless they look in the mirror, they won't get it.  Even if they do, it will all be backwards to them.  Might as well be Greek.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: BinRat55 on April 21, 2016, 14:17:34
Unless they look in the mirror, they won't get it.  Even if they do, it will all be backwards to them.  Might as well be Greek.

Leave it to a zipperhead to turn my sarcasm into logic!
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Nudibranch on April 21, 2016, 14:49:08
Sizing isn't medicalized though and never has been.  Issues with special sizing have always been dealt with via the SAM and are a Supply problem.

Medical Issues with feet are a Medical Chit issue (fallen arches, requirement for mesh-sided due to skin condition, ortho footwear, ortho soles with lift etc)

No, it was the "I wannas" that were medicalized (same as with the majority of beards). Given the huge drop-off in med chits for boots once it went from MO to Physio, that's quite clear - MOs just scribbled a chit. Foot-for-boot assessment isn't something they ever get taught, and frankly, as a group they don't care. It wastes their time, here's a chit, get lost.
Physios will actually assess the foot. And if mbr has a legit med reason that can't be handled via the various orthodics they have, mbr will still get a chit.

But the "I wannas" that slid through under the MO-chit system have been largely controlled by giving boot chit control to Physio.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Eye In The Sky on April 21, 2016, 16:24:26

Enough already.  For MEDICAL, that is a medical Chit:  The rules have never changed:  that's a medical chit with MO authorization to LPO boots.


Every damn time we go through this ...   :facepalm:

I guess I took the wording the email literally (too literally?)..."LPOs will no longer be approved for any COTS Army boot replacements"   :dunno:

But...I do want to note...I said "the LOTBs do not fit my feet properly ";  I would bet a months pay that the staff at the MIR/BHosp will say that is a FIT issue, not a medical one...

So, for the end user it will likely end up being the same now as it has been as of late;  supply will require mbr's to go to the BHosp because supply says its a medical issue.  Mbr will go to the BHosp and medical will say it is a fit issue.

I've been the monkey in the middle of the Supply/Medical  :slapfight: over 'who pays for special issue boots' before, and suspect it will happen to myself, and others, despite the LOTBs now being available.  It is unfortunate and not likely to change.  Ever.

It's a big FU to no one.  Medical requirements haven't changed; you have the ref - I've sent it you before - nil change.

Again, I took the wording of the email you posted too literally I guess.

BUT...you know of the run around I went thru.  In the end, the CWWBs I started trying to get last June, I picked them up...the end of March.  Yup, fan-*******-tastic.

This whole boot thing is a flash-point for me;  I've gotten the run around so many times over 13ish years since being put in orthotics I am pretty tired of it at this point.  It is never just as easy as "take worn out boots into supply, get new ones ordered, get phone call when they arrive, go to supply to get them".  It always seems to be an exercise in  :brickwall:.

Copy what they mean about LOTBs being issued to RCAF pers for IMPACT.  But, again the way that is worded also looks like all RCAF pers can be issued the LOTB for IMPACT, which is almost exactly what we have been trying to do since IMPACT started - get the army hot weather boot on the SOI for deploying aircrew. 
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Eye In The Sky on April 21, 2016, 16:48:25
The Physios are harsh mistresses&misters of boot chits, and will assess and trial any number of orthodics before you'd get a med boot chit out of them.

My experiences with them the last 13 years is the opposite, I must say.  Most recent being last summer, when I had to 'update' my chit with Supply.  Physio huffed and puffed about how ridiculous that was, that my feet weren't going to 'get better by some miracle', and wrote me out a new chit saying I require LPO to fit my orthotics.   Other than that, I was asked if my current boot/orthotics are working together.  I said "yup" and was on my way inside of 4-5 minutes.   :2c:
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: ArmyVern on April 21, 2016, 16:54:23
No, it was the "I wannas" that were medicalized (same as with the majority of beards). Given the huge drop-off in med chits for boots once it went from MO to Physio, that's quite clear - MOs just scribbled a chit. Foot-for-boot assessment isn't something they ever get taught, and frankly, as a group they don't care. It wastes their time, here's a chit, get lost.
Physios will actually assess the foot. And if mbr has a legit med reason that can't be handled via the various orthodics they have, mbr will still get a chit.

But the "I wannas" that slid through under the MO-chit system have been largely controlled by giving boot chit control to Physio.

Seen.  Thank you!
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Eye In The Sky on April 21, 2016, 17:11:57
Wasn't actually hinting at me, personally, but rather "Sup techs" in general ... we always get the rants and blame for "the rules" that we have neither input into nor control over.

Never at you, I know which side of the argument you're on.  At sup techs in general?  Not so much...but the current system, the  :slapfight: over 'who pays' between the Supply and Medical world, which people like me end up getting caught up in.

 
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: ArmyVern on April 21, 2016, 17:54:14
Never at you, I know which side of the argument you're on.  At sup techs in general?  Not so much...but the current system, the  :slapfight: over 'who pays' between the Supply and Medical world, which people like me end up getting caught up in.

Med for Med; Sup for sizing (out of Command allocation).  It isn't an issue for me.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Eye In The Sky on April 22, 2016, 12:34:21
The problem is, though, that not everyone in the Supply of H Svcs worlds do know, and in those cases the mbr is caught between the 2 competing branches and without the kit they need/should have to do their primary function in the CAF.  I've been the monkey in the middle and it is very frustrating. 

Hopefully the LOTBs take some of the strain off the system. 
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: ArmyVern on April 22, 2016, 12:41:51
The problem is, though, that not everyone in the Supply of H Svcs worlds do know, and in those cases the mbr is caught between the 2 competing branches and without the kit they need/should have to do their primary function in the CAF.  I've been the monkey in the middle and it is very frustrating. 

Hopefully the LOTBs take some of the strain off the system.

Medical policy does not impact Supply activity.  Supply policy does not impact medical policy/activity.

The problem seems to be that everyone automatically assumes supply has a say or dictates medical issues of footwear.  We don't, this is their area and none of the communications we put out regarding footwear LPOs are applicable to medical requirements.  That's their domain. 

Our footwear comms relate only to our footwear domain:  special sizing and stocked items.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: PuckChaser on April 22, 2016, 13:09:41
So far I find the LOTB to fit far more like a commercial boot. No rucks or field training yet, but seems like a step in the right direction.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: LPike on April 22, 2016, 14:09:41
Update on my end:

Went to the Dockyard supply, and they had a pair of LOTBs with a minor issue, they're missing the lower quick-lace eyelet (Lace can be threaded through the hole, so no big deal.

In my quick once over and try on, they're really nice. Cut a lot lower than the black Cripplers, but I like them.

Thanks for all your help!

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuploads.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F20160422%2F47a8a8dfcd027eb1d3e8c1a29f466552.jpg&hash=ef86f8661bc35f82158e317913f733e1)

Sent from my XT1563 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Old and Tired on April 22, 2016, 14:12:05
So far I find the LOTB to fit far more like a commercial boot. No rucks or field training yet, but seems like a step in the right direction.

It's the quality of these boots that I found lacking in November.  They just could take the hard use in the field.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: BinRat55 on April 26, 2016, 12:58:46
Saw this and had to comment - this is what happens when we try to make EVERYONE happy...
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Harris on April 26, 2016, 13:59:38
Received my first pair of LOTB Thur.  Refused the zippered version and received the other style.

First issue - The mondo point size I'm supposed to wear doesn't fit.  In fact the opening to insert my foot is too small for me to do so due to high arches.  The supply pers said that that was happening a lot and people have to get larger sizes.  I had to get a size two sizes too large in order for my foot to fit.  Wore for the weekend and they were terrible.  Will give them a few weeks of wear to see if they break in.  One problem I'm seeing already is because they are so large my toes have a ton of room and are nowhere near where they are supposed to be and the bend in the toe when I walk digs into my toes.  Not looking forward to a ruck march in them.

Another of my soldiers received the zippered version and once he did up both the laces and zippers, undoing the zipper only wouldn't allow him to get his foot out.  He now has to use the laces anyhow.

Yet my 4 pairs of various self purchased boots, both gortex and non have never had any of these issues.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Loachman on April 26, 2016, 14:23:58
Saw this and had to comment - this is what happens when we try to make EVERYONE happy...

Unsatisfactory. How do they expect one to open one's wine without losing half of the contents of the bottle with the corkscrew in that location? Are we supposed to become contortionists now?
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Eye In The Sky on April 26, 2016, 17:15:57
Received my first pair of LOTB Thur.  Refused the zippered version and received the other style.

First issue - The mondo point size I'm supposed to wear doesn't fit.  In fact the opening to insert my foot is too small for me to do so due to high arches.  The supply pers said that that was happening a lot and people have to get larger sizes.  I had to get a size two sizes too large in order for my foot to fit.  Wore for the weekend and they were terrible.  Will give them a few weeks of wear to see if they break in.  One problem I'm seeing already is because they are so large my toes have a ton of room and are nowhere near where they are supposed to be and the bend in the toe when I walk digs into my toes.  Not looking forward to a ruck march in them.

Another of my soldiers received the zippered version and once he did up both the laces and zippers, undoing the zipper only wouldn't allow him to get his foot out.  He now has to use the laces anyhow.

Yet my 4 pairs of various self purchased boots, both gortex and non have never had any of these issues.

If the boots have to be 'too long' to fit your feet, then...they don't actually fit your feet (either pair, the 'right length' ones, or the 'can get it on my feet now'.  If there isn't enough depth to the boot, issuing someone ones that are longer doesn't 'fix' the fit issue, it simply creates a different one.

 :facepalm:
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: ArmyVern on April 26, 2016, 17:16:42
If the boots have to be 'too long' to fit your feet, then...they don't actually fit your feet (either pair, the 'right length' ones, or the 'can get it on my feet now'.  If there isn't enough depth to the boot, issuing someone ones that are longer doesn't 'fix' the fit issue, it simply creates a different one.

 :facepalm:

Yep.  If the boots don't fit - they don't fit!
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Tcm621 on April 26, 2016, 20:30:30
Saw my first pair of these recently. They look like kids shoes. The white band around the sole is particularly bad.  Maybe I'm just getting old but what is wrong with black? These new one look horrible with CADPAT. Early reports of comfort aren't promising but I have no personal information on that.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: BinRat55 on April 27, 2016, 08:05:33
Unsatisfactory. How do they expect one to open one's wine without losing half of the contents of the bottle with the corkscrew in that location? Are we supposed to become contortionists now?

Haha!! Spoken like a TRUE air force officer!

Maybe we should commission a committee for some research initiative on the merits of moving said corkscrew to a more amicable area. Or change the way wine bottles are corked... we could all get together at the Marriott in Jamaica for a week of round-table discussion and break-out problem solving... should only take 12 days or so...

We will emerge victorious with a shiny, new redesigned... tac vest?
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: BinRat55 on April 27, 2016, 08:09:02
Maybe I'm just getting old but what is wrong with black?

Black doesn't conform to the AR (tan) combats we wear... one of the reasons we are supposed to be moving to a tan boot was to alleviate the need for another issued set to go overseas with - one boot all occasions (in theory)... Count your lucky stars we never rolled out that silly CADPAT boot!
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Loachman on April 27, 2016, 08:18:08
TRUE air force officer!

I am SO not that.

Do you think that they are the only ones who drink?
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: BinRat55 on April 27, 2016, 08:23:39
I am SO not that.

Do you think that they are the only ones who drink?

The only ones who drink like girls! Hey Loach - tell me... have you ever been "iced"?
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Loachman on April 27, 2016, 09:16:26
Iced? Like a cake?

That's a bit of a personal question, methinks.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Tcm621 on April 27, 2016, 10:23:24
Black doesn't conform to the AR (tan) combats we wear... one of the reasons we are supposed to be moving to a tan boot was to alleviate the need for another issued set to go overseas with - one boot all occasions (in theory)... Count your lucky stars we never rolled out that silly CADPAT boot!
The AR combats are worn a fraction of the time. And aren't we getting brown and tan boots?

Regardless, it is probably just me getting old and wanting the "good" old days.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: BinRat55 on April 27, 2016, 11:34:25
Iced? Like a cake?

That's a bit of a personal question, methinks.

Lol!! Iced is when you are handed a Smirnov Ice. As an officer AND a gentleman, you HAVE to drink it. Iced.

Cake. Now THAT'S a true AF Officer thing!!
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: BinRat55 on April 27, 2016, 11:36:35
The AR combats are worn a fraction of the time. And aren't we getting brown and tan boots?

Regardless, it is probably just me getting old and wanting the "good" old days.

Nope. No brown boots. Well, I guess they do look kinda brown.... but the premis remains. We don't have to get yet another type of boot JUST for operations. One man one boot!
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Loachman on April 27, 2016, 12:07:09
Lol!! Iced is when you are handed a Smirnov Ice. As an officer AND a gentleman, you HAVE to drink it. Iced.

I have no idea what a Smirnoff Ice is, but I do not care for diluted drinks.

And ******* stop ******* calling me ******* a** f**ce frig.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Lumber on April 27, 2016, 12:12:38
Lol!! Iced is when you are handed a Smirnov Ice. As an officer AND a gentleman, you HAVE to drink it. Iced.

Cake. Now THAT'S a true AF Officer thing!!

As a Naval Officer, I take offence. Cake (i.e. "duff"), is most definitely a Navy thing.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: BinRat55 on April 27, 2016, 12:17:30
I have no idea what a Smirnoff Ice is, but I do not care for diluted drinks.

This is why "Icing" an officer is so much fun. I actually had the privilege of sending a bottle of the stuff to a certain Col VIA Griffon supply drop on an ex one time. The caveat is once you have been iced, you have to snap a selfie while downing the sludge - proof for all the other officers involved in the prank!

And ******* stop ******* calling me ******* a** f**ce frig.

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and checks into a hotel on ex and complains about room service, it MUST be an Air Force officer!!

Loach you're fun to play with. We should have a Smirnoff sometime!!
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: BinRat55 on April 27, 2016, 12:19:51
As a Naval Officer, I take offence. Cake (i.e. "duff"), is most definitely a Navy thing.

Yes it is. I think Loachman is in the closet about which element he actually is!
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: George Wallace on April 27, 2016, 12:22:23
As a Naval Officer, I take offence. Cake (i.e. "duff"), is most definitely a Navy thing.

Would that be where us Brown Jobs came up with the term "NO DUFF" due to having to lift some heavy duff eating member of the Senior Service up after they had fallen and could not get up?    >:D
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on April 27, 2016, 12:27:13
Binrat55:

Were I you, I would be very careful about pushing Loachman much further.

Might I remind you that nowadays, both Griffons and Chinooks are packing ... and he knows where you live! Just sayin'  ::)
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Jarnhamar on April 27, 2016, 13:21:00
Received my first pair of LOTB Thur.  Refused the zippered version and received the other style.


I just threw out a pair of Rocky S2Vs. I've had them since 2009 and worn them pretty much consistently, including over some really shitty terrain.

I haven't got the LOTB issued yet but speaking to soldiers that have they're having their boots rip and blow out after 2 weeks of garrison use.   
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: BinRat55 on April 27, 2016, 13:27:29
Binrat55:

Were I you, I would be very careful about pushing Loachman much further.

Might I remind you that nowadays, both Griffons and Chinooks are packing ... and he knows where you live! Just sayin'  ::)

I would hope by now he knows my dry ARMY sense of humor. Not to dispair - I give ALL officers a hard time regardless of element (some are just easier than others..) That's what we crusty old WOs do!

Now about those Griffons and Chinooks... does he happen to have my old address? Where my ex lives? Curious...
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Loachman on April 27, 2016, 14:03:28
I don't, but I'd still meet you for drinks. Nothing diluted, and no selfies - I have a very low opinion of the self-important twits addicted to that ridiculosity.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Spectrum on April 27, 2016, 14:16:07
I take it you didn't vote Liberal, eh Loachman?

...sorry, back to boots.

 ;D
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: BinRat55 on April 27, 2016, 14:17:19
I don't, but I'd still meet you for drinks. Nothing diluted, and no selfies - I have a very low opinion of the self-important twits addicted to that ridiculosity.

So nothing like a long, steep bank over the Parliament buildings with duck lips out?

I'd definitely meet you for drinks. I'm a Jack guy. Just Jack. Hold the pouty self love in perpetuity.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: ArmyVern on April 27, 2016, 14:23:41
Tequila.   8)

Back to boots ... because this thread (yet another boot thread) really could be merged with the "The Stuff the Army Issues is Useless" thread ...
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Lumber on April 27, 2016, 14:33:40
Tequila.   8)

Back to boots ... because this thread (yet another boot thread) really could be merged with the "The Stuff the Army Issues is Useless" thread ...

Can I start a thread that says "The Stuff the Navy issues is... well... pretty good!
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Tcm621 on April 28, 2016, 20:03:32
Just to illustrate how ridiculous this whole issue is from all sides,  I overhead this (paraphrased)  conversation today at supply.

Mechanic: I need new boots the steel toe cup cuts into my toes.

Supply tech: try this wider size.

M: the boot is wider but the toe cup is the same size.

S: what do you mean?

M: see how the boot is wide here and then narrows down at the toe?

S: Well that's stupid.

M: without steel toed boots I can't work on the shop floor....
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: BinRat55 on April 29, 2016, 08:02:56
Just to illustrate how ridiculous this whole issue is from all sides,  I overhead this (paraphrased)  conversation today at supply.

Mechanic: I need new boots the steel toe cup cuts into my toes.

Supply tech: try this wider size.

M: the boot is wider but the toe cup is the same size.

S: what do you mean?

M: see how the boot is wide here and then narrows down at the toe?

S: Well that's stupid.

M: without steel toed boots I can't work on the shop floor....

I fail to see the illustration...
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: PuckChaser on April 29, 2016, 09:17:41
Maintainer doesn't have boots that fit to work safely. Supply tech frustrated he can't help provide those boots.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: ArmyVern on April 29, 2016, 10:52:27
Maintainer doesn't have boots that fit to work safely. Supply tech frustrated he can't help provide those boots.

Supply Tech needs to consult the SAM and see what it says about "sizing" and what happens when members can not be properly fitted from stock-range footwear.  Section 5.5, part 2.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: BinRat55 on April 29, 2016, 11:51:56
If it's something like a systemic issue, a consistant failure they need to know. The problem is 4000 people have this "cup and toe" issue, 3 people actually put up a UCR. They see 3 issues and say "That's pretty darn good - we nailed it!"

You can't fix a broken wheel until you know it's broken. We need to submit UCRs, AARs... i don't know - get creative. But someone other than the Cpl supply tech who's only job is to put your feet in a tray and say 265/104 needs to know. And not just "Jeez it sucks..." but "This boot does not fit here, here and here. This is what it does when I do this, this and this..."
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Eye In The Sky on April 29, 2016, 12:11:18
When we return something to you folks at supply, is there anywhere in the 'system' where it is recorded 'why' I am returning it?  I have 0 knowledge on your system so...
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: ArmyVern on April 29, 2016, 12:16:26
When we return something to you folks at supply, is there anywhere in the 'system' where it is recorded 'why' I am returning it?  I have 0 knowledge on your system so...

"Scrap" or "Serviceable" and that's about it.  UCR is for noting the specifics of failed/below standard kit.

Even if the system went beyond "scrap", there's not enough bods in Ottawa to sit back and analyse any of that data - they can hardly keep up with issuing contracts and re-supplying uniforms to the shelves let alone tracking stuff that should be UCRd by the members for whom the kit failed.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: George Wallace on April 29, 2016, 12:18:57
Having high arches, my solution to boots that gave me blisters on the tops of my feet, was quite simple:  I did not cross my laces over the top of my arch.  I ran the laces up the sides of the boot at my arch for those two pairs of eyelets.  Problem solved. 
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on April 29, 2016, 12:20:55
Binrat55, I fail to see what the number of UCR has to do with anything.

I can guarantee you that if I return a single gun, or diver's air tank, or breathing apparatus with a UCR report, the "system" takes a serious look at the item and tries to figure out why it became the object of a UCR, and if its is a systematic problem, a recall or fix will be found for all the similar items in the system.

Why should it be different for items like boots? One UCR? Fine: What is the problem -the steel cap as designed cuts into people's toes when they walk with it. Issue a recall and have boots with a redesigned steel cap issued. How hard is this?
 
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Eye In The Sky on April 29, 2016, 12:25:50
Roger...I was thinking along the line of for items that require a UCR, the system could track "UCR required"...so it could keep track of the # of returned items that "should" have had a UCR submitted.

Then the item manager could say "ok, so the system saw 1346 widgets returned, 57% of those were flagged "UCR required" with a total of...zero UCRs submitted".

If 'we' aren't doing our part, that part of it needs to be fixed.  I've done UCRs before, heck they aren't that difficult.

* UCR question - is it normal for UCR to be submitted by each mbr?  Is it normal, or at the very least, acceptable, to do a 'general submission' UCR on an item for a whole unit?
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Eye In The Sky on April 29, 2016, 12:27:01
Why should it be different for items like boots? One UCR? Fine: What is the problem -the steel cap as designed cuts into people's toes when they walk with it. Issue a recall and have boots with a redesigned steel cap issued. How hard expensive is this?

 ;D
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Jarnhamar on April 29, 2016, 12:28:37
What recourse would a member have if they tried on both options for the LOTB and both boots were too narrow and hurt their feet?

Can we order special width sizes for these?
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: ArmyVern on April 29, 2016, 12:31:35
Binrat55, I fail to see what the number of UCR has to do with anything.

I can guarantee you that if I return a single gun, or diver's air tank, or breathing apparatus with a UCR report, the "system" takes a serious look at the item and tries to figure out why it became the object of a UCR, and if its is a systematic problem, a recall or fix will be found for all the similar items in the system.

Why should it be different for items like boots? One UCR? Fine: What is the problem -the steel cap as designed cuts into people's toes when they walk with it. Issue a recall and have boots with a redesigned steel cap issued. How hard is this?

Actually it does because for clothing they go for the 80% solution/satisfaction.

When they only receive 2 or 3 UCRs ... the teams in Ottawa think they're doing pretty darn good n'est pas?

Also, avoid doing "mass" UCRs - such as 1 Unit submitting a UCR on "X" pairs of failed boots.  They do get looked at, but at the end of the day, it still looks like "1" UCR to those who just pull up the total listing and is mostly judged as "well, it's not an important enough issue for the troops to bother doing UCRs".

As for the steel toed cap with 1 UCR; why issue a recall?  It's one UCR for the thousands of pairs of them out there.  Is it really an issue with all the caps?  One guys non-standard feet? or a manufacturing flaw that affected just 1 pair?  A single UCR doesn't answer that all-important question.

Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: ArmyVern on April 29, 2016, 12:36:15
What recourse would a member have if they tried on both options for the LOTB and both boots were too narrow and hurt their feet?

Can we order special width sizes for these?

The reference is in this thread; you have access to the DWAN.  Pull up the SAM and read it - it's not that hard.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Jarnhamar on April 29, 2016, 12:39:06
Reading it isn't that hard or addressing the issue isn't that hard?
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: ArmyVern on April 29, 2016, 12:39:15
Roger...I was thinking along the line of for items that require a UCR, the system could track "UCR required"...so it could keep track of the # of returned items that "should" have had a UCR submitted.

Then the item manager could say "ok, so the system saw 1346 widgets returned, 57% of those were flagged "UCR required" with a total of...zero UCRs submitted".

If 'we' aren't doing our part, that part of it needs to be fixed.  I've done UCRs before, heck they aren't that difficult.

* UCR question - is it normal for UCR to be submitted by each mbr?  Is it normal, or at the very least, acceptable, to do a 'general submission' UCR on an item for a whole unit?

UCRs are found on the DWAN; each Unit is supposed to have a UCR co-ordinator. It is the persons for whom the kit fails who is supposed to submit the UCR on that particular kit.  They don't.

Those that do, know that their UCR is visible and trackable throughout it's processing.  I can tell the troops a million times at the front counter to do a UCR ... I can't make them do it. And, for the most part - they don't.  Hmmmmm.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: ArmyVern on April 29, 2016, 12:40:19
Reading it isn't that hard or addressing the issue isn't that hard?

You are a leader in the CAF I believe.  Look up the ref (because I've posted it in this very thread) and you'll find your answer to your question.  Then, you'll be able to impart this knowledge to your subordinates as leaders do.  How many times do you want me to do it for you?  Knowledge is power. Pass it along.

Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Eye In The Sky on April 29, 2016, 12:47:27
UCRs are found on the DWAN; each Unit is supposed to have a UCR co-ordinator. It is the persons for whom the kit fails who is supposed to submit the UCR on that particular kit.  They don't.

Those that do, know that their UCR is visible and trackable throughout it's processing.  I can tell the troops a million times at the front counter to do a UCR ... I can't make them do it. And, for the most part - they don't.  Hmmmmm.

Roger that.  I was just curious; while deployed last year, I know there was at least 2 "unit" UCRs done up on a particular piece of kit (Air force DCBs).  I saw both of them and I know they were entered into the system, but had never seen or heard of a single UCR submitted on behalf of a 'unit' before.  I was wondering if, in hind site, it would have been better if each individual would have done a separate UCR vice the 'consolidated one' that was drafted/submitted.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Old and Tired on April 29, 2016, 12:52:09
Vern, BinRat55, OldGateBoatDriver

What do we do when UCR's are submitted (in largish numbers) but multiple units; for example as a result of an EX; but they never make it to the system?  I have my own (Tinfoil Hat) guess where they went but what can we do when people figure it's better to protect their reputation or their Kingdom than actually fix the problem?

I know that I filled out to 2 UCR's at the end of November.  One each for both versions of the new LOTB. I also know that close to 50 troops on the Ex went back to non-issue boots (myself included) rather than return/exchange the LOTB they had.  SWATS, Magnums and Rocky's became the boots of choice.

From what BinRat55 says up thread there are less than 5 - 10 UCR's on the LOTB in the system.  Two of them should have my name on them describing what failed, what I was doing when they failed.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Jarnhamar on April 29, 2016, 13:15:06
You are a leader in the CAF I believe.  Look up the ref (because I've posted it in this very thread) and you'll find your answer to your question.  Then, you'll be able to impart this knowledge to your subordinates as leaders do.  How many times do you want me to do it for you?  Knowledge is power. Pass it along.

I went back 8 pages and couldn't decipher the reference you're talking about. Could you narrow it down a little for me please?

Also
Quote
LOTB is avail to Clot Stores and to be issued through attrition.

Could you explain exactly how issuing these boots through attrition works?  Does that mean I can take a pair of black combat boots and exchange them for new LOTBs or would my black combat boots need to be unservicable first in order to get the new boots issued?

Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: ArmyVern on April 29, 2016, 13:28:27
I went back 8 pages and couldn't decipher the reference you're talking about. Could you narrow it down a little for me please?


On this very page of this thread:

http://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,29061.msg1432746.html#msg1432746
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Jarnhamar on April 29, 2016, 13:33:07
Right under my nose lol thank you. 

What about boot attrition?
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: ArmyVern on April 29, 2016, 13:35:02
What about boot attrition?

Your own particular RSM and CO should have been briefed on boot attrition by the respective QM, LogO, RQ, whatever by now and passed it via O Gps.  The attrition bit is out in email format from Ottawa and went to all bases; if you haven't heard anything on it yet, I'm guessing that's an internal comms problem.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Old and Tired on April 29, 2016, 13:45:12
Not having had an issue set of boots (except briefly the LOTB this past year) since the WWB fiasco started 1998 - 2000 time frame, what qualifies as attrition?  I still use MkIII, I gather supply will still exchange these provided their on a members Docs?
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: ArmyVern on April 29, 2016, 14:03:52
I still use MkIII, I gather supply will still exchange these provided their on a members Docs?

I still wear mine too, but as for exchanging them ... no longer in the system.  If it's soles though, there are a few cobblers still in existence who will re-sole for you.   :-\
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Flavus101 on April 29, 2016, 19:38:53
And if for some reason you ever had an inkling to buy MKIII's you can get them for cheap!
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: PuckChaser on April 29, 2016, 20:06:57
Supply Tech needs to consult the SAM and see what it says about "sizing" and what happens when members can not be properly fitted from stock-range footwear.  Section 5.5, part 2.
I read that reference at work, so only members not drawing LOTB can get special size footwear? You posted an excerpt from an email stating LOTB or nothing basically.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: ArmyVern on April 30, 2016, 20:34:51
I read that reference at work, so only members not drawing LOTB can get special size footwear? You posted an excerpt from an email stating LOTB or nothing basically.

Sigh.

No, Ottawa was LPOing OTR footwear for everyone and their dog because there were none to be had in the system (there was no stock).  Now, the LOTBs are stocked in the system so people have to go get sized/issued them from clothing.  Blanket LPOs are no longer being done by Ottawa with national fin coding (because they are now stocked) for this item.

BUT, IAW the ref, if you can not be fitted from standard stocked sizes, then you need to see the Sup tech at clothing stores (not Ottawa) about LPOing you footwear that properly fits (with their Base's command allotment fin coding they receive for exactly this purpose).
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: PuckChaser on April 30, 2016, 20:46:38
Sigh.

No, Ottawa was LPOing OTR footwear for everyone and their dog because there were none to be had in the system (there was no stock).  Now, the LOTBs are stocked in the system so people have to go get sized/issued them from clothing.  Blanket LPOs are no longer being done by Ottawa with national fin coding (because they are now stocked) for this item.

BUT, IAW the ref, if you can not be fitted from standard stocked sizes, then you need to see the Sup tech at clothing stores (not Ottawa) about LPOing you footwear that properly fits (with their Base's command allotment fin coding they receive for exactly this purpose).

I don't think the Sigh is required, as you likely are aware, the SAM is huge and the intricacies of the supply system are not at the forefront of people's minds. I'm not going to get frustrated because someone signing for a radio from Crypto doesn't have the INFOSEC 2(D) memorized and analyzed, I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.

Thank you for the clarification.

Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: ArmyVern on May 02, 2016, 13:53:09
I don't think the Sigh is required, as you likely are aware, the SAM is huge and the intricacies of the supply system are not at the forefront of people's minds. I'm not going to get frustrated because someone signing for a radio from Crypto doesn't have the INFOSEC 2(D) memorized and analyzed, I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.

Thank you for the clarification.

Well, I sigh because I am not at work ... and you should have a sup tech or someone to talk to at your Unit.

I do my very best to help out, but people unable to exert leadership and look up refs on the DWAN etc, or failure within their own CoCs to communicate down to their own members makes me freakin' sigh.  IE:  The probably 50 or so times I referenced the boot reference on this site ... and still get asked for it.  Some of these people are supposed to be "leaders" --- why am I their mother?  For crying out loud, the link to the SAM is on the Defence Team Homepage:  http://intranet.mil.ca/en/


Not you personally, just the fact this crap is no secret.

And, I'm on my own damn time.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Spectrum on May 02, 2016, 14:05:30
If I was a betting man, I'd say there's not a Snr NCO in my immediate chain of command that would actually be able to find the correct reference on footwear and provide it to a junior member. Not on their own at least.

I have less than a decade of service, and yet the absolute lack of institutional knowledge I've seen displayed by those with double my TI is amazing. Even when you shove the reference in their face, they don't believe it or interpret it wrong, have to ask the WO/MWO/CWO for guidance.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: ArmyVern on May 02, 2016, 14:18:29
If I was a betting man, I'd say there's not a Snr NCO in my immediate chain of command that would actually be able to find the correct reference on footwear and provide it to a junior member. Not on their own at least.

I have less than a decade of service, and yet the absolute lack of institutional knowledge I've seen displayed by those with double my TI is amazing. Even when you shove the reference in their face, they don't believe it or interpret it wrong, have to ask the WO/MWO/CWO for guidance.

The SAM is a large manual.  The link to it is on the DWAN homepage.  A search of DND for "Supply Manual" will also bring it up.

I bet you there isn't a supply tech in NATO who could give you the proper reference for footwear either.  The Supply Trade has way too many specialized areas (procurement, disposal, clothing, weapons etc etc).  Sup techs working in "Section X" would only be able to give you the refs for "Section X" and would have invalid insight into areas of other Sections' operations.  The rules just change too often. 

BUT, the PDF file is also able to be searched quite easily - to find the now-valid boot ref I simply went "Cntrl + F", and typed in "Footwear" into the search bar, then clicked "next" until it brought me to the applicable topic. 

In my ref in this thread (I found it by doing the above), I even gave the Section and beginning para.  If I want to know about LPO procedures, I go talk to the Cpl who currently works LPO as they are the SMEs and know their refs. 

I'd argue that any soldier should know where to look for the refs to clothing --- as their kit is signed for by them and is theirs.   They should care, but apparently they do not until there is a problem.  Call it a tick in the box under:  Problem Solving, Resource management, Initiative, Working with Others, Administration, Professional Development etc etc etc.

You can be sure that when I have an issue with claims, I am looking up the applicable regulations even though I am not a Clerk ... and I'm sure many of those who can't seem to find the SAM have also done so without hesitation.

Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: BinRat55 on May 14, 2016, 11:14:03
If I was a betting man, I'd say there's not a Snr NCO in my immediate chain of command that would actually be able to find the correct reference on footwear and provide it to a junior member. Not on their own at least.

I have less than a decade of service, and yet the absolute lack of institutional knowledge I've seen displayed by those with double my TI is amazing. Even when you shove the reference in their face, they don't believe it or interpret it wrong, have to ask the WO/MWO/CWO for guidance.

THIS is one of the things MOST wrong with the CAF today - laziness. And what does result? This. I don't wanna do the work so it's someone else's fault.

I once attempted to back a discussion at the front counter with a SAM reference and the MWO on the other side (Artillery) said to me "Son, there are three people I answer to - my CO, my mother and my God. Your book is NOT my concern..." Like really?
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Jarnhamar on May 14, 2016, 13:50:27
Even when you shove the reference in their face, they don't believe it or interpret it wrong, have to ask the WO/MWO/CWO for guidance.

The chain of command only likes policies when it supports the way they think it should be.

Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Eye In The Sky on May 14, 2016, 14:24:46
I'd buy that for a dollar!

It been getting a lot worse the past few years too, and those in 'authority positions' who screw up seem rarely to be held to account.

Just another one of those 'little big things' in the CAF that are slipping more and more all the time...
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: kratz on May 14, 2016, 17:27:23
I'd buy that for a dollar!

It been getting a lot worse the past few years too, and those in 'authority positions' who screw up seem rarely to be held to account.

Just another one of those 'little big things' in the CAF that are slipping more and more all the time...

Don't be too harsh with the changes in the CAF, as these changes are society wide.  :nod:
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Eye In The Sky on May 14, 2016, 18:21:51
I don't care about society though.  We are the CAF.  If you can't do the job you have according to the rules and regs, you should be held accountable.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: MilEME09 on October 19, 2016, 04:05:16
Maybe someone can point me the right direction here to the applicable document, I checked the dress manual and couldn't find anything but I keep hearing the back and forth of combats being shown, or that they have to be just blackened.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: sidemount on October 19, 2016, 09:33:40
This is from the dress regs:


a. Shoes leather, oxfords, pumps, and boots
ankle shall be clean and shone at all times.

b. Footwear shall be laced as shown in
Figure 2-2-6.

c. Overshoes, high, boots, cold weather
(women’s), or black toe rubbers (optional)
may be worn as required and kept clean.

Sent from my Samsung S6 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Rheostatic on October 19, 2016, 15:58:41
This is from the dress regs:


a. Shoes leather, oxfords, pumps, and boots
ankle shall be clean and shone at all times.

b. Footwear shall be laced as shown in
Figure 2-2-6.

c. Overshoes, high, boots, cold weather
(women’s), or black toe rubbers (optional)
may be worn as required and kept clean.

Sent from my Samsung S6 using Tapatalk
Doesn't address combat boots.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: MilEME09 on October 19, 2016, 16:17:10
Doesn't address combat boots.

Yes my understanding is those regulations cover boots for DEU's as it is under the service dress section of the dress regulations
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: sidemount on October 19, 2016, 17:39:22
Doesn't address combat boots.
Well thats all I could find :)

Sent from my Samsung S6 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: sidemount on October 19, 2016, 17:50:26
Check out 2-2-1 on Appearance. Under Deportment, para 3, Military presence. Personnel in uniform shall be well groomed, with footwear cleaned and shone. And it continues on.

Sent from my Samsung S6 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Lumber on October 20, 2016, 09:41:37
10 Years-In. I've never been told to "shine" my combat boots, and I don't think I've seen many in passing.

The one glaring exception would be during 2 of my 4 years at RMC. We had a super-keen Sgt Maj who shined his combat boots to an almost mirror gloss. However, he flat out told the entire Cadet Wing that "You're not supposed to shine your combat boots! I do, but that's just me So do as I say, not as I do!" or something like that...

God he was a terrifying man...
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Dimsum on October 20, 2016, 11:06:36
10 Years-In. I've never been told to "shine" my combat boots, and I don't think I've seen many in passing.

The one glaring exception would be during 2 of my 4 years at RMC. We had a super-keen Sgt Maj who shined his combat boots to an almost mirror gloss. However, he flat out told the entire Cadet Wing that "You're not supposed to shine your combat boots! I do, but that's just me So do as I say, not as I do!" or something like that...

God he was a terrifying man...

I thought the current style black boots weren't to be shined but to use that green-tin silicone (?) stuff? 
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: sidemount on October 20, 2016, 11:16:36
Same...14 years and have always been told to avoid a shine. High gloss shine on combat boots is right out of er.
Ive been on parade with some who spit shone the old mk3s and they stuck out...the Sgt Maj came right aboard them.

I've always been told, and now tell that black and clean is fine. Unless they have tan boots...which is a whole other story.

Sent from my Samsung S6 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Pickle Rick on October 20, 2016, 14:09:52
I thought the current style black boots weren't to be shined but to use that green-tin silicone (?) stuff?

That paste is for the Wet Weather Boots.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Eye In The Sky on October 23, 2016, 17:17:34
IIRC it is also the only thing to be used on the RCAF TCBs and WWBs. 

Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Arty39 on October 23, 2016, 21:31:05
That paste is for the Wet Weather Boots.
If you read the instructions for the mark 4's it says to use the boot paste.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Jarnhamar on November 03, 2016, 18:56:13
I've heard from a reliable source that the CAF will be returning to Black Mk 4 leather combat boots except they'll come with vVbram soles and speed laces. And of course will be the only authorized boots to wear   ;D
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: RocketRichard on November 03, 2016, 20:47:56
I've heard from a reliable source that the CAF will be returning to Black Mk 4 leather combat boots except they'll come with vVbram soles and speed laces. And of course will be the only authorized boots to wear   ;D
This would be a good thing.  Except for the only authorized boots part;)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: George Wallace on November 03, 2016, 20:58:25
I've heard from a reliable source that the CAF will be returning to Black Mk 4 leather combat boots except they'll come with vVbram soles and speed laces. And of course will be the only authorized boots to wear   ;D

Then they would no longer be Mk 4's.......Mk 5's anyone?
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Tcm621 on November 03, 2016, 21:31:14
Same...14 years and have always been told to avoid a shine. High gloss shine on combat boots is right out of er.
Ive been on parade with some who spit shone the old mk3s and they stuck out...the Sgt Maj came right aboard them.

I've always been told, and now tell that black and clean is fine. Unless they have tan boots...which is a whole other story.

Sent from my Samsung S6 using Tapatalk
God I'm getting old. I remember having to have my MKIII combat boots highly shone (brush shine only) and my combats creased. It was a pain in the *** but on the other hand,  one didn't get these people with chewed up boots and wrinkly combat. Part me wants to go back to proper walking out dress that sets a high standard of dress and deportment. Not a huge part, mind you, but part of me

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: eliminator on March 11, 2017, 09:29:23
Does anyone know the back-story with this choice of boots?
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Eye In The Sky on March 11, 2017, 10:01:07
I'd bet there is a maroon beret on the head that is cut off the picture;  most jump/airborne units were the bloused combat boots in CFs/DEUs.  If its a tan beret, well I guess the jump qual'd folks in CSOR in Army DEU/jump positions are allowed to wear the bloused combat boot in DEU.

Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: eliminator on March 11, 2017, 10:05:03
I'd bet there is a maroon beret on the head that is cut off the picture;  most jump/airborne units were the bloused combat boots in CFs/DEUs.

Tan berret.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Eye In The Sky on March 11, 2017, 10:10:35
There's nothing (I could find with a search) in 265 about this, so a guess is its in a C Army, Base or Unit dress instruction as to the who/when is authorized this variation of DEU.  Can't remember if the RCD Jump Troop was auth this...but normal for jumpers AFAIK.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: dangerboy on March 11, 2017, 10:20:16
As Eliminator pointed out the person is from CANSOFCOM, hence the no face in the picture. They now blouse their DEUs into a type of jump point.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Eye In The Sky on March 11, 2017, 10:25:13
Rgr that...figured it one maroon or tan.  Should have guessed tan beret with the badges and GCS-Exp on his DEU. 

Nothing new for jumpers to wear combat boots with pants bloused in CFs/DEUs.  Obviously an older picture with the guys in tans, from the CAR FB page.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: George Wallace on March 11, 2017, 14:35:35
Rgr that...figured it one maroon or tan.  Should have guessed tan beret with the badges and GCS-Exp on his DEU. 

Nothing new for jumpers to wear combat boots with pants bloused in CFs/DEUs.  Obviously an older picture with the guys in tans, from the CAR FB page.

Just a small correction.  The SSF did not wear Cbt Boots with their CFs/DEU's, but the SSF Boots; which were similar to the issue ankle boots, but were 8" to 10" instead of 6" sides.  They bloused their Cbt Boots when wearing Work Dress or Cbts; and later the Garrison Boot was worn with Garrison Dress.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Eye In The Sky on March 11, 2017, 14:44:19
Ahh...so that's what the guys in the tans have on.  Seen.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Blackadder1916 on March 11, 2017, 16:00:25
Rgr that...figured it one maroon or tan.  Should have guessed tan beret with the badges and GCS-Exp on his DEU. 

Nothing new for jumpers to wear combat boots with pants bloused in CFs/DEUs.  Obviously an older picture with the guys in tans, from the CAR FB page.

Most likely taken on 17 June 1994.  That was the date of the presentation of the Medal of Bravery (MB) to five members of the CAR for actions performed by them in Somalia. 

http://www.airborneassociation.com/e/about/decorations.html
Quote
Corporal BRENT CHRISTOPHER ASHTON, M.B.,
Corporal ROBERT WELLINGTON FARQUHAR, M.B.,
Corporal DINO LEON SIMONE, M.B.,
M/Cpl PAUL DEAN SPRENGER, M.B.

Medal of Bravery, Date of Presentation: June 17, 1994

While off duty in Mogadishu, Somalia, on June 2, 1993, Cpl. Sprenger, then Ptes. Ashton, Farquhar and Simone, swam to the aid of a woman who was being attacked by a shark. Hearing screams from swimmers 500 metres from shore, Ptes. Ashton and Farquhar, followed by Pte. Simone and Cpl. Sprenger bringing an inner tube, swam out to the woman, whose leg had been torn off by a shark. Despite the danger of the blood-filled waters and the rolling surf, Pte. Farquhar attempted artificial respiration while the others managed to place the victim on the inner tube. Pte. Ashton removed his shirt, which Pte. Farquhar used as a tourniquet around the severed limb. The four soldiers brought the woman back to shore, continuing artificial respiration until a helicopter arrived. Unfortunately, their efforts to save the woman were not successful.

Corporal JOSEPH JACQUES MARIO CHARETTE, M.B., Petawawa, Ontario

Medal of Bravery, Date of Presentation: June 17, 1994

A medical assistant with the Canadian Airborne Regiment in Somalia, Cpl. Charette defused a violent demonstration of armed townspeople at the entrance to the Belet-Wen Hospital on February 17, 1993. Cpl. Charette was working alone when a crowd advanced towards the gates of the hospital. Shots were fired and a grenade exploded while Cpl. Charette called for back-up. Despite the growing chaos, Cpl. Charette continued to transmit situation reports while he screened and disarmed the demonstrators. His efforts prevented further destruction of the hospital and the possible deaths of many people.

 
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Eye In The Sky on March 11, 2017, 16:26:02
Most likely taken on 17 June 1994.  That was the date of the presentation of the Medal of Bravery (MB) to five members of the CAR for actions performed by them in Somalia.

Oddly enough, I don't remember that ever being in the news around that time.  Anything that had CAR in it was negative press.  Tks for the link!
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non
Post by: Blackadder1916 on March 11, 2017, 18:19:40
I do recall the announcement of these awards (perhaps in a CANFORGEN or by other internal media), but perhaps because one of the incidents involved a Med A, it probably stuck in my mind.  At the time of the actual presentation I had just repatted from Germany so when any coverage of the events occurred, it would have been like most news we got in Lahr, with a heavy military slant.  Remember, the time was essentially pre-internet.  Yeah, it existed but not that many people were on-line.  If you wanted porn, you actually had to rent videos.  And most people got their news by reading a paper or from the TV/radio.

The presentation would not have been a military affair, as can be noted by the other recipients of bravery decorations on that day.
https://www.gg.ca/honours.aspx?ln=&fn=&t=3&p=&c=&pg=1&types=3&advdfbif=1994-06-17&advdfbit=1994-06-17
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Dimsum on June 16, 2017, 02:57:29
Quote
National Defence considers the boots on the ground
After more than a decade of testing new boots, the Canadian Armed Forces is set to return to the basics.

In the wake of a striking new review of Canada’s military, and promises of a 20-year vision for the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), the Department of National Defence has confirmed a new, high-tech, painstakingly engineered form of transportation for soldiers in the field. After years of niggling displeasure, CAF members can anticipate a sigh of relief.

The department is buying new boots.

“We’re aiming to get the solicitation on the streets by the end of August,” Lieutenant-Colonel Gordon Edwards, director of soldier systems program management for the CAF, confirmed to The Star. It’s been just three years since the government signed on to $11.7 million in contracts for their current footwear.

“The Land Operation Temperate Boot doesn’t seem to have met the needs of the soldiers the way we hoped that it would,” Lt.-Col. Edwards admitted. The new boots have elicited a range of complaints, from material breaking down to zippers breaking apart in harsh weather.

While the army conducted a user trial prior to purchase — “which is probably one of the first times I think we’ve done it for boots,” Lt.-Col. Edwards added — the then-positive results haven’t held up.

“There’s no test that can be as good as wearing those boots in operation for one year, or nine months,” Major Patrick Lottinville, the director of Land Requirements 5-4/DLR 5, noted. The boots haven’t presented an issue so severe that an immediate switch was required, but Lt.-Col. Edwards ceded that there have been “lots of emails and discussions” dedicated to the topic.

Boots, as it happens, have a complex history in the Forces.
[/color]

No s***, Sherlock.

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2017/06/15/national-defense-considers-the-boots-on-the-ground.html
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: milnews.ca on June 16, 2017, 07:49:24
Quote
... Boots, as it happens, have a complex history in the Forces ...
"I'll try "Canadian Defence Procurement Understatements" for $400, Alex ..."
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Eye In The Sky on June 16, 2017, 17:33:31
Lsst WCWO *Sgts Townhall* I attended, it was passed on that there are (serious) efforts underway to go to a boot allowance of some sort;  there will be 4 - 5 kinds of boots approved, the mbr would get an allowance, go determine which ones fit and purchase them.  Something along that line.

IF...the boots you can pick from are of the same...less than desirable quality...then situation no change and people will be back to LPOs or stuff they buy themselves off shoeme.ca etc. 
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Eagle Eye View on June 16, 2017, 17:47:05
So I know I read the CA is going back to black boots?
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: signalsguy on June 17, 2017, 08:56:10
Perhaps just a simplification of the situation. We have a boot design that is the 85% solution. Issue that to everyone but let them wear whatever as long as the boot fits into some hopefully broad set of requirements.

Totally conjecture but let's see what happens.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: PuckChaser on June 17, 2017, 14:19:17
If 85% of our force is destined for offices and never doing a day of field work, we totally have a 85% solution. Good combat boots run from $250-$450 CAD at retail prices. As soon as we stop trying to re-invent the combat boot, we'll sort this out. Look at the US AR670-1 with a quick synopsis from here: http://authorizedboots.com/list-of-authorized-army-combat-boots/ (http://authorizedboots.com/list-of-authorized-army-combat-boots/)
 
Quote
    Are they made of synthetic materials? If so, they’re out. The upper portion cannot be made of synthetic leather, synthetic suede, or “Wolverine Warrior Leather”…which is another term for pig leather. Your boots must be made of cow/cattlehide leather.
    Is the leather flesh side out? This means the inner lining of the leather is actually facing out. The flesh side is softer and it’s often called “suede leather“.
    Is the sole the same color as the boot? It should be.
    Is the outsole made of rubber or polyether polyurethane? Good.
    Is the height of the soles 2” or less.
    Does the sole curl around the toe or up the heel? Bad.
    Is the upper part leather or a combination of leather and non-mesh? Good. Anything else, then you need a new pair of boots.
    Is the boot 8 to 10 inches tall? Good. Otherwise, it’s out.

I mean, we're not designing #$%$#ing rocket appliances here. It's a pair of boots. Generate some bonafide requirements due to flight/field/ship safety, outline those requirements and let industry advertise boots that are compliant.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Old Sweat on June 17, 2017, 15:02:59
In case you are thinking something good will come of all this, ponder on the little snippet that bitching about sub-standard boots should be an authorized military sport. I joined the army in December 1957 and the troops were griping about our footwear back then nearly sixty years ago. Our first waterproof combat boots were anything but, and the beat goes on. Heck, the cavemen probably complained about the poor quality of their mammoth-hide footwear. 
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: BinRat55 on July 01, 2017, 21:01:21
Lsst WCWO *Sgts Townhall* I attended, it was passed on that there are (serious) efforts underway to go to a boot allowance of some sort;  there will be 4 - 5 kinds of boots approved, the mbr would get an allowance, go determine which ones fit and purchase them.  Something along that line.

IF...the boots you can pick from are of the same...less than desirable quality...then situation no change and people will be back to LPOs or stuff they buy themselves off shoeme.ca etc.

It'll never happen. And the only way to prove either one of right / wrong is wait. But I'm my own opinion, the elusive "boot allowance" has been discussed and shot down several times. It will never see the light of day. Right now we are emptying the shelves at both depots of all boots in a systematic order. We have also been told that a new boot sizing kit will be on the way to us before Christmas. For what you ask? Pimped out MkIVs... yessir. Mark 4s are back.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Jarnhamar on July 01, 2017, 21:25:34
It'll never happen. And the only way to prove either one of right / wrong is wait. But I'm my own opinion, the elusive "boot allowance" has been discussed and shot down several times. It will never see the light of day. Right now we are emptying the shelves at both depots of all boots in a systematic order. We have also been told that a new boot sizing kit will be on the way to us before Christmas. For what you ask? Pimped out MkIVs... yessir. Mark 4s are back.

Nice to see you posting BinRat.

What you're saying is what I was told by the army RSM or whoever he was, with all his fancy patches.

New boots will be modified mk4's (vibram soles, speed laces) and f**K  all the guys who paid out of their own pocket for quality boots that work(and don't fall apart)  cause once the new ones new-new ones are issued there will be a crusade against non-issued boots. Again.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Eye In The Sky on July 01, 2017, 21:38:28
Well...I don't know what to tell you.  This was supposedly discussed at the highest levels and is being given consideration.  Maybe its the RCAF that is going to seriously try this?   :dunno:  This was just what the WCWO said was seriously being considered and reviewed at the WCWO Sgts Townhall.  Time will tell though eh?

While I feel for my subordinates who have to suffer thru more of this crappy boot fiasco, where the same problem will tried to be fixed by different people using the same solutions that didn't work XX times before...I am effin glad my *issued* boots are Magnums and Bates.  One good thing I can thank the crappy boots of the late 80s and early 90s for (or crappy insoles/inserts) is foot problems today that = LPO for me.



Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: RocketRichard on July 01, 2017, 22:53:53
Well...I don't know what to tell you.  This was supposedly discussed at the highest levels and is being given consideration.  Maybe its the RCAF that is going to seriously try this?   :dunno:  This was just what the WCWO said was seriously being considered and reviewed at the WCWO Sgts Townhall.  Time will tell though eh?

While I feel for my subordinates who have to suffer thru more of this crappy boot fiasco, where the same problem will tried to be fixed by different people using the same solutions that didn't work XX times before...I am effin glad my *issued* boots are Magnums and Bates.  One good thing I can thank the crappy boots of the late 80s and early 90s for (or crappy insoles/inserts) is foot problems today that = LPO for me.
Are you speaking about the issued combat boots from the late 80's/early 90's. Mine fit great and didn't hear complaints by others either. That also doesn't mean that they fit everyone...

Now the issued running shoe/boot for the field that have been issued of late...  UGH!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Eye In The Sky on July 02, 2017, 09:13:03
The boots were good (not great, but good) but the insoles were crap; no arch support so its orthotics and LPO boots for me since around 2003.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: RocketRichard on July 02, 2017, 09:25:51
The boots were good (not great, but good) but the insoles were crap; no arch support so its orthotics and LPO boots for me since around 2003.
Good point  about insoles. Wasn't an issue for me then. Now I use orthotics for everything as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Pickle Rick on July 02, 2017, 09:50:59
New boots will be modified mk4's (vibram soles, speed laces) and f**K  all the guys who paid out of their own pocket for quality boots that work(and don't fall apart)  cause once the new ones new-new ones are issued there will be a crusade against non-issued boots. Again.

Didn't the original Mk4 boots have vibram soles and speed laces(I'm thinking of the eyelets on the top 3/4 of the boot, or is this new speed lacing something different?)  Also, any confirmation that the boots will be black as I've been hearing they will be brown?

As for the crusade against non issue boots, I heard that same thing the first time the Mk4s came out but never saw it in any unit I've been in, so I'll stay optimistic that non issue boots are still allowed.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: PuckChaser on July 02, 2017, 19:16:59
It'll never happen. And the only way to prove either one of right / wrong is wait. But I'm my own opinion, the elusive "boot allowance" has been discussed and shot down several times. It will never see the light of day. Right now we are emptying the shelves at both depots of all boots in a systematic order. We have also been told that a new boot sizing kit will be on the way to us before Christmas. For what you ask? Pimped out MkIVs... yessir. Mark 4s are back.

Sweet, the system can keep buying me LPO boots, because MarkIVs aren't even close to fitting me properly. Do you know if they've finally got a contract in place to custom fit the boots? Its been years since I heard anything about it after the contract was let to expire without renewal/replacement.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: ArmyVern on July 02, 2017, 22:42:32
... It will never see the light of day. Right now we are emptying the shelves at both depots of all boots in a systematic order. We have also been told that a new boot sizing kit will be on the way to us before Christmas. For what you ask? Pimped out MkIVs... yessir. Mark 4s are back.

Yep; and

...
What you're saying is what I was told by the army RSM or whoever he was, with all his fancy patches.  (CWO Guimond, Cdn Army Sergeant-Major) <--- inserted by Vern

New boots will be modified mk4's (vibram soles, speed laces) and f**K  all the guys who paid out of their own pocket for quality boots that work(and don't fall apart)  cause once the new ones new-new ones are issued there will be a crusade against non-issued boots. Again.

Yep.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: BinRat55 on July 03, 2017, 10:51:30
Sweet, the system can keep buying me LPO boots, because MarkIVs aren't even close to fitting me properly. Do you know if they've finally got a contract in place to custom fit the boots? Its been years since I heard anything about it after the contract was let to expire without renewal/replacement.

No answer there - all I can say is that custom fitting is / was not cost efficient. 1200.00 for a pair of boots? With the mondo-point sizing, there are over 70 sizes in one boot style. That said, most soldiers should fit. There are definitely those who won't (we are not all the same dimensions) but there will also be the soldiers who will want the "cool factor" with a high speed, low drag boot. Now, don't get me wrong - there's nothing better for a soldier's foot than a really good boot. But considerations have to be made for the vast difference in use, wear, and climate changes according to tours and such. No, a custom fit will MTL come down to Ottawa approving the LPO route only after all other avenues have been exhausted to keep the soldier in an issued boot.

And yes, it's that much red tape. You just can't walk into Clothing Stores and say that you can't wear what's issued so you need to go downtown. Our LPO Cpl has to jump through several hoops first. Try this, try that, how about this, can we do that... only then can he request authorization for LPO.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Pickle Rick on July 03, 2017, 11:24:56
Are the new/old boots going to stay brown or are we going back to black boots?

Also, out of curiosity do we still have a contract for desert boots, or was that cancelled/expired after the LOTBs came out?
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: ballz on July 03, 2017, 12:08:04
I'm sorry, I just need to vent so bare with me....

No answer there - all I can say is that custom fitting is / was not cost efficient. 1200.00 for a pair of boots?

If cost efficiency were a factor, we wouldn't be where we are today at all.

With the mondo-point sizing, there are over 70 sizes in one boot style. That said, most soldiers should fit.

How long have we been using this mondo-point sizing? I think there is more to a boot "fitting" than just physical dimensions. I can get 6 boots off the shelf that "fit," but some will destroy my feet after only 5km. People don't seem to understand it, and it doesn't help when you've got guys like this guy from DLR trying to solve the problem. I don't know him and I don't want to step on my dick here but I'm going to go out on a limb and say he's probably never been employed beyond a desk based on his comments, unless there is a typo.

Quote
“Some users might say, ‘I want the lightest possible boots I can have, which is good for my job’,” Maj. Lottinville said. “But when you put those boots on a soldier in Afghanistan, with 20 pounds of backpack and ammo and everything? It hurts their feet.”

There are definitely those who won't (we are not all the same dimensions) but there will also be the soldiers who will want the "cool factor" with a high speed, low drag boot.

I hear this a lot. I have never heard anyone say "your boots look awesome, I want a pair." I have heard questions like "are they waterproof? do they dry out quickly? are they breathable? do they have ankle support? how long did it take to break them in? are they light? etc etc." I know they use "looks" as one of the criteria and this is supposedly based on research that the troops want a good-looking boot, but there are few things I hate more than the suggestion than the reason most people are wearing non-issued boots is simply because they want a cool-looking boot, which insinuates that there is actually no problem with our boots or diminishes the problem to negligible.

Can someone explain how the bra-allowances / issuing of bras work for women? My understanding is its a simply allowance that they get, recognizing that bras are a highly individual thing and all that jazz. Is there any actual tangible reason this can't be done for boots or is it simply a bunch of dinosaurs that we have to wait out until some common sense gets promoted to the top?
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: SupersonicMax on July 03, 2017, 19:05:20
Why not issue boots and if people are unhappy, let them buy boots, given some guidelines for look?
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: PuckChaser on July 03, 2017, 19:19:40
Why not issue boots and if people are unhappy, let them buy boots, given some guidelines for look?
I have 3 kids. Buying my own boots that fit went out the door as soon as I had extra mouths to feed.

 The CAF should not being issuing crap just to say they issued something, basically forcing pers to buy their own. I'm willing to bet the military factor in my pay wasn't set up to compensate for $700 bucks in boots every 2 years.

Proper boots are going to save the CAF lots of cash in medical treatments and VAC claims, but people in DLR/NDHQ who make far more money than me don't understand that yet.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: daftandbarmy on July 03, 2017, 20:49:10
I have 3 kids. Buying my own boots that fit went out the door as soon as I had extra mouths to feed.

 The CAF should not being issuing crap just to say they issued something, basically forcing pers to buy their own. I'm willing to bet the military factor in my pay wasn't set up to compensate for $700 bucks in boots every 2 years.

Proper boots are going to save the CAF lots of cash in medical treatments and VAC claims, but people in DLR/NDHQ who make far more money than me don't understand that yet.

Clearly, you have forgotten that the vital ground in CF clothing procurement is the PQ textile industry, not soldiers' feet ;)
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: ArmyVern on July 03, 2017, 21:09:46
Is there any actual tangible reason this can't be done for boots or is it simply a bunch of dinosaurs that we have to wait out until some common sense gets promoted to the top?

Yeah; just search the site where the reasoning has been posted numerous times over the past 10 years or so (and many times by me personally).
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on July 03, 2017, 22:07:47
I'm sorry, I just need to vent so bare with me....

If cost efficiency were a factor, we wouldn't be where we are today at all.

How long have we been using this mondo-point sizing? I think there is more to a boot "fitting" than just physical dimensions. I can get 6 boots off the shelf that "fit," but some will destroy my feet after only 5km. People don't seem to understand it, and it doesn't help when you've got guys like this guy from DLR trying to solve the problem. I don't know him and I don't want to step on my dick here but I'm going to go out on a limb and say he's probably never been employed beyond a desk based on his comments, unless there is a typo.

I hear this a lot. I have never heard anyone say "your boots look awesome, I want a pair." I have heard questions like "are they waterproof? do they dry out quickly? are they breathable? do they have ankle support? how long did it take to break them in? are they light? etc etc." I know they use "looks" as one of the criteria and this is supposedly based on research that the troops want a good-looking boot, but there are few things I hate more than the suggestion than the reason most people are wearing non-issued boots is simply because they want a cool-looking boot, which insinuates that there is actually no problem with our boots or diminishes the problem to negligible.

Can someone explain how the bra-allowances / issuing of bras work for women? My understanding is its a simply allowance that they get, recognizing that bras are a highly individual thing and all that jazz. Is there any actual tangible reason this can't be done for boots or is it simply a bunch of dinosaurs that we have to wait out until some common sense gets promoted to the top?

Our boots suck, your options are buy your own or wear the crap the CAF gives you.  Unfortunate, but that's the reality.

Going back to black MkIVs is a big step back as far as technology is concerned.  I'm sure I'll still be seeing the same arguments ten years from now on here  :rofl:

Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Eye In The Sky on July 03, 2017, 22:10:29
CAF boots...just like bell-bottoms, hold onto them because they WILL come back in style sooner or later.   ^-^
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on July 03, 2017, 22:45:12
CAF boots...just like bell-bottoms, hold onto them because they WILL come back in style sooner or later.   ^-^

So disco isn't dead?  >:D

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs.hswstatic.com%2Fgif%2Fpodcasts%2Fstuffyoushouldknow-podcasts-wp-content-uploads-sites-16-2014-03-disco600x350.jpg&hash=476f627bf1e820a0be46e58b1c3f5a6a)
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: PuckChaser on July 03, 2017, 23:00:33
Yeah; just search the site where the reasoning has been posted numerous times over the past 10 years or so (and many times by me personally).

I just looked back to find some of those posts, and the reasoning you gave was political. Politics is a cop-out reasoning when the Colonels and GOFOs in NDHQ won't fight for what is right. Politics doesn't stand up to a few strong-willed individuals that have been entrusted with a high enough rank to make those changes. Boots cannot be such a sacred cow that no one can fight up against it. Look at what happened with Mefloquine. Enough political weight came to bear by the media and Canadian public and a positive change was made. Do we really have to fight for our feet on CBC, or can someone in the puzzle palace demonstrate at least one of the principles of leadership and sort this mess out? Its almost like we need the Mark Norman of boots to come to the rescue...
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Eye In The Sky on July 03, 2017, 23:19:33
So disco isn't dead?  >:D

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs.hswstatic.com%2Fgif%2Fpodcasts%2Fstuffyoushouldknow-podcasts-wp-content-uploads-sites-16-2014-03-disco600x350.jpg&hash=476f627bf1e820a0be46e58b1c3f5a6a)

You mean you don't have your boots, disco, leather, side-zip from Logistik yet??  The ones that go with your pants, DEU, short/tight and sweater, CF, knit, too small for the At Home and Jnr Ranks Christmas Dinners?   :prancing:

To top it all off...Yukon hat!
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: SupersonicMax on July 04, 2017, 00:25:36
I have 3 kids. Buying my own boots that fit went out the door as soon as I had extra mouths to feed.

 The CAF should not being issuing crap just to say they issued something, basically forcing pers to buy their own. I'm willing to bet the military factor in my pay wasn't set up to compensate for $700 bucks in boots every 2 years.

Proper boots are going to save the CAF lots of cash in medical treatments and VAC claims, but people in DLR/NDHQ who make far more money than me don't understand that yet.

Having this as an option would still be better than no option.  We don't pay a dime for work clothes.  Generally, for equivalent civilian jobs, we make a lot more than others that have to buy clothes for work.  700$ every 2 years is hardly unreasonable.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Simian Turner on July 04, 2017, 08:09:53
Proper boots are going to save the CAF lots of cash in medical treatments and VAC claims, but people in DLR/NDHQ who make far more money than me don't understand that yet.

PC, can you define what you consider to be "proper boots"? 

Medical treatments and VAC claims seldom result from the boots that CAF members' currently wear, they result from the things that soldiers are required to perform, by their change of command or the tactical situation. Think of all of these situations and try to find one boot that meets them all.  Running 12 miles around the airfield in Lahr one morning per week in the old Greb boots was something that MOs told COs was destroying soldiers' back, knees, ankles and soles; however, the COs knew better.  I think any of the footwear offered in supply, except those wonderful shiny short-lived garrison boots, are far superior to those Grebs with harden soles.  I found SWATs to my comfortable and paid out of my own pocket for black and brown versions later in my career, once allowed.  I found a US Army surplus store near Bethesda Maryland that sold them for about U$75.  When it came time for forced marching (BFT or whatever) rather than office lounging, I preferred the issue boots.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: PuckChaser on July 04, 2017, 16:31:58
PC, can you define what you consider to be "proper boots"? 

Simple, really. Proper boots are commercially viable in size/style that someone in the US military who has an option for their footwear would buy. Its a boot that is designed to be as light as possible while not wearing out, that's breathable, and has proper ankle support. The boots should also be in common commercial sizing instead of the garbage mondo point system.

The LOTB produced a SWAT clone which was only good for walking around in an office until the boots stitching started coming apart (as mine did). The previous CWWB produced a boot that was a hockey puck in the cold, wet weather it was designed to be in. The MkIV weighs a metric ton for no good reason. Mk3s were good boots, standard commercial boot sizing, but wholly out of date technology. There are many successful military boot manufacturers out there, but we're scared of MOTS products and are constantly reinventing the wheel on something so simple like footwear. Belleville, Rocky, Oakley, Hanwag, Lowa just to name a small few make excellent boots that have millions of miles of military use in the designs.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: ballz on July 04, 2017, 18:45:37
PC, can you define what you consider to be "proper boots"?

By the looks of it, DLR sure can't. Hence the argument for something that provides the individual with flexibility / choice. I don't even care for a boot allowance, I'd be happy with 5-6 different boots that everyone can pick. Just buy them off the shelf at a wholesale price from reputable brands and stop with this B.S. statement of requirements stuff and paying big $$$ for a company who has never made boots to produce crappy ones.

Medical treatments and VAC claims seldom result from the boots that CAF members' currently wear, they result from the things that soldiers are required to perform, by their change of command or the tactical situation. Think of all of these situations and try to find one boot that meets them all.

This is an argument for not having everyone wear the same boot. People in different jobs will naturally prefer different boots based on what they face day-to-day, just like different jobs will require a different tac-vest. Given the ability to choose a boot that fits your requirements the best will most certainly cut down on the injuries you sustain while performing your duties.


I found SWATs to my comfortable and paid out of my own pocket for black and brown versions later in my career, once allowed.  I found a US Army surplus store near Bethesda Maryland that sold them for about U$75.  When it came time for forced marching (BFT or whatever) rather than office lounging, I preferred the issue boots.

I'm confused about what your thoughts are on this whole thing at this point.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Simian Turner on July 05, 2017, 01:14:29
I'm confused about what your thoughts are on this whole thing at this point.

I asked the question about "proper boots" as I have no concept of what is considered as 'proper footwear' for an Infantryman patrolling in Latvia or Iraq or even Wainwright today.

Since I retired 4 years, my thoughts at this point are: Thank God I can wear whatever I want on my feet or nothing at all on my feet. My feet are size 7 with a FF width.  I have a box in my garage of at least 6 different issue and non-issue boots/shoes, the only ones I ever felt comfortable in were the SWATS.  During my 29+ years of service, I can say comfort was seldom a consideration when I went to the Supply section.  Everything was too large or too small, and like the Grumpy Old Man in the SNL sketches of long ago, "That's the way it was, and we liked it! We loved it!"
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Pickle Rick on July 13, 2017, 22:02:23
Any reason why we are going back to a black boot instead of staying with brown? 
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: LunchMeat on July 13, 2017, 22:13:31
Any reason why we are going back to a black boot instead of staying with brown?

Probably the Secret RSM Society met and decided that black is back because they want troops to have blackened and polished boots in garrison, again.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: PuckChaser on July 13, 2017, 22:27:37
I don't think Binrat said they were black, just pimped out MkIVs. Can be made out of a brown leather.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Pickle Rick on July 13, 2017, 22:43:27
I don't think Binrat said they were black, just pimped out MkIVs. Can be made out of a brown leather.

Ack, I think I got the black colour in my head from reading the Toronto Star article and the photo they used and the below quote from the last page

I've heard from a reliable source that the CAF will be returning to Black Mk 4 leather combat boots except they'll come with vVbram soles and speed laces. And of course will be the only authorized boots to wear   ;D
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: BinRat55 on July 14, 2017, 07:45:21
I don't think Binrat said they were black, just pimped out MkIVs. Can be made out of a brown leather.

Or even a nice purple-ish blue for the flyboys! (and girls... flygirls too!)
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Eye In The Sky on July 16, 2017, 21:28:49
that's not the colour I want...can I order different ones?  Purple-blue won't go with my crew patch or my eyes dammit.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Jarnhamar on July 24, 2017, 07:39:32
Random weird question but speaking of non-issued boots does anyone own and find Lowa mountian boots or Lowa desert elites pull their socks down?

I know, first world problems.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: daftandbarmy on July 25, 2017, 01:48:31
Random weird question but speaking of non-issued boots does anyone own and find Lowa mountian boots or Lowa desert elites pull their socks down?

I know, first world problems.

I've got a pair of Lowa 'Combat' boots. They are awesome.. full stop.
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: RocketRichard on July 25, 2017, 14:18:55
I have the Lowa Uplander. Great for the field and load bearing, in addition RSM and adj friendly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: BinRat55 on July 25, 2017, 18:08:37
I have the Lowa Uplander. Great for the field and load bearing, in addition RSM and adj friendly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, that would depend on the RSM - not all are created equal. Adj has literally nothing to do with boots. Unless you are talking about a Warrant Officer (WO/Adj)...
Title: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: RocketRichard on July 25, 2017, 18:12:37
Well, that would depend on the RSM - not all are created equal. Adj has literally nothing to do with boots. Unless you are talking about a Warrant Officer (WO/Adj)...



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Eye In The Sky on July 26, 2017, 01:45:16
Adjts generally have something to do with lots of stuff and act on lots of stuff their commanders deem important.  Boots/dress stuff could be one of those things, after all the Authorizing sig on things like Wing DIs is the Wing Comd officially as an example.   :2c:
Title: Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
Post by: Tcm621 on July 26, 2017, 16:26:21
Well, that would depend on the RSM - not all are created equal. Adj has literally nothing to do with boots. Unless you are talking about a Warrant Officer (WO/Adj)...
The Adj often fills a lot of  the RSM role for officers. While most RSMs will dress down jnr officers when required, it isn't technically allowed. So the CO will often charge the Adj to ride herd on on the subalterns. The assumption being anyone over the rank of major wouldn't require any such herding.