Author Topic: Combat Boots policy 2018-CANFORGEN 127/18  (Read 19888 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 226,920
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,954
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Combat Boots policy 2018-CANFORGEN 127/18
« Reply #75 on: August 16, 2018, 23:12:27 »
But how does a unit enforce uniformity of combat boots on parade when the supply system is unable to supply a uniform quantity of said boots? I suppose a large enough unit with a stocked kit shop could say "Change of command parade dress will be in Cadpat with xxx model of tan boot. Those lacking a pair of xxx know where the regimental kit shop is." --- but that's certainly subverting the intent of the recent Canforgen.

I forgot to consider that not all CofC parades are in DEU;  like Dimsum's Sqn, our Sqn CofC recently was in 3B.  I've only done one CofC parade in combats, with FFO but that was in the reserves 20 years ago or something.  I think "parade" and my mind automatically thinks "DEU".
"What a f$$kin' week!" - me, every Monday at about 1130hrs.

Online MJP

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 167,765
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,500
Re: Combat Boots policy 2018-CANFORGEN 127/18
« Reply #76 on: August 16, 2018, 23:55:12 »
Well I can say the 3 Div policy is pretty common sense, we only specified that boots have to be "military in nature" because technically the CANFORGEN would allow cowboy boot etc...

Your assessment and mine off that policy differs.... Mostly in the execution not the intent.
Hope is not a valid COA

Offline Old EO Tech

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 10,435
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 432
Re: Combat Boots policy 2018-CANFORGEN 127/18
« Reply #77 on: August 17, 2018, 00:27:01 »
Your assessment and mine off that policy differs.... Mostly in the execution not the intent.

Well TBH if the sub formations can't follow Div direction there are ways to sort that out....

Online ballz

    ...

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 122,021
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,352
Re: Combat Boots policy 2018-CANFORGEN 127/18
« Reply #78 on: August 17, 2018, 00:43:39 »
There are two parts in that policy that MJP read that are directly related to execution and are a result of overthinking and would actually defeat the intent and whole point of the boot allowance. One of them was quickly scrapped, the other... punching holes in people's boots... remains to be seen what will happen with that. If it goes through, the saving grace of that silliness is that no one will follow it.

And the fact that cowboy boots were being brought up is just another example of overthinking. First of all, if units need a Division Commander to sign a directive to sort that out for them, perhaps they should be employed at McDonald's instead. Secondly, if a soldier is stupid enough to use his allowance on purchasing a pair of cowboy boots, guess what? He still needs a pair of boots for his job that he'll have to pay for himself. For the 1 guy in 10,000 that does that and saves $100 through mischievously claiming cowboy boots, the sum total value of the risks aren't worth the paper the policy will be printed on.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2018, 01:05:15 by ballz »
Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?

Offline Old EO Tech

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 10,435
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 432
Re: Combat Boots policy 2018-CANFORGEN 127/18
« Reply #79 on: August 17, 2018, 01:25:22 »
There are two parts in that policy that MJP read that are directly related to execution and are a result of overthinking and would actually defeat the intent and whole point of the boot allowance. One of them was quickly scrapped, the other... punching holes in people's boots... remains to be seen what will happen with that. If it goes through, the saving grace of that silliness is that no one will follow it.

And the fact that cowboy boots were being brought up is just another example of overthinking. First of all, if units need a Division Commander to sign a directive to sort that out for them, perhaps they should be employed at McDonald's instead. Secondly, if a soldier is stupid enough to use his allowance on purchasing a pair of cowboy boots, guess what? He still needs a pair of boots for his job that he'll have to pay for himself. For the 1 guy in 10,000 that does that and saves $100 through mischievously claiming cowboy boots, the sum total value of the risks aren't worth the paper the policy will be printed on.

I know the punching holes in old boots was not something we supported either.  But we'll see what the commander thinks in the end.  As for cowboy boots, well I would not under estimate how dumb some people can be.  But there are other things in the proposed directive like ensuring CO's don't dictate that unit members have to buy the boots from the Regt Kit shop, and you know that would happen, either officially or not.  So that has to be black and white in the order.

Offline Big Spoon

  • New Member
  • **
  • 3,365
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 42
Re: Combat Boots policy 2018-CANFORGEN 127/18
« Reply #80 on: August 17, 2018, 06:39:22 »
Oxfords, grey wool socks, multicam pants, patrol blue tunic with DEU shirt and tie, and wide-brimmed CADPAT bushcap.  Outdoors when it's sunny and 33 degrees Celsius... in the shade.


That sounded exactly like change parade to me.

Offline garb811

  • MP/MPO Question Answerer
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 88,895
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,648
Re: Combat Boots policy 2018-CANFORGEN 127/18
« Reply #81 on: August 17, 2018, 10:42:26 »
...  But there are other things in the proposed directive like ensuring CO's don't dictate that unit members have to buy the boots from the Regt Kit shop, and you know that would happen, either officially or not.  So that has to be black and white in the order.
[rant]
What in the ever loving frig?!  This is why the system bogs down and why the troops in some organizations have no faith in the chain of command.  Punching holes in boots?  Why, are worried that there is going to be a massive fraud perpetrated by the troops recycling the same busted up pair of boots?  The entitlement is not unlimited, the max is 1 pair a year at a whopping $340.  If there is someone who feels the need to recycle the pair of boots, the impact is going to be so miniscule that the time and effort being wasted on a Div directive will make it look like peanuts. 

The Comd of 3 Div is worried his COs are going to "order" the troops to buy boots at the kit shop so there has to be a directive in place to ensure that doesn't happen?  Is he similarly concerned about COs ordering female troops to buy their bras from the Regt'l kit shop?  What about COs who might ban the troops from bringing in their own lunches and snacks? If they want to eat, they have to buy from the Regt'l canteen!  If that is truly a concern about the COs in 3 Div, that they are so morally and ethically bankrupt that they would order that to happen, there should be a whole bunch of firings going on.

The CANFORGEN was clear, effective 15 Aug, troops have the entitlement within the broad guidelines published, and here it is, 17 Aug and 3 Div is still ******* around trying to get a totally unnecessary Div directive published.  And, of course, being the Army, if Div publishes a directive, that means Bde is going to feel the need to publish a directive, which means the units are going to feel the need to publish a written directive...  It's going to be next FY before the poor Pte at the coalface is given the thumbs up to go and buy some boots and by that point the directives will be so confining that there is only going to be one boot that fits the requirements.

As for troops misusing the allowance...  Stop treating the troops as kids.  If you catch someone abusing it, there are ample avenues in place to deal with that without layering on a thousand minor and inconsequential safeguards that do nothing but force subordinates to waste time and energy.  Perfect example about how we go on and on about "mission command" and then communicate to our more junior leaders that we really don't trust them.  If we can't trust a CO to get it right on the issue of a $340 boot allowance, how in the hell do we trust them to lead a BG in combat?
[/rant]

Online ballz

    ...

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 122,021
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,352
Re: Combat Boots policy 2018-CANFORGEN 127/18
« Reply #82 on: August 17, 2018, 11:43:47 »
And I quickly regret making that post. While it can be frustrating, I suppose the purpose of having staff is to have a large pile of considerations and through consultation having the garbage ones filtered out while what is good remains. The Comd hasn’t even seen it yet and I’ve already seen one of the bigger issues tossed out pretty quickly and another consideration that never even made it to the draft. There is nothing to say any of the problems identified aren’t being addressed by equally or more competent people and it will be a better policy given all the consultation, so it’s a little early for criticism, purely mea culpa on that one.

The CANFORGEN did need clarification at some level, it even discussed that Chain of Command guidance would be required, etc. I actually wish they would have waited until they had an approved boot list, because this Phase 1 thing is unnecessary for the one extra week it would take to make an approved list.

I don’t doubt for a second that across the country CO’s, probably more so through their RSMs, would limit people to buying at the Unit kit shop. Some of this might have been out of being morally bankrupt, some of it may be out of good intentions that were poorly thought out. Good intentions being to ensure simplicity and some level of control. The CANFORGEN / FAQ specifically directs that an approved list will not be used, and as you can see from posters above, some places have done that regardless. There really is no geographic area that is immune to a serious lack of reading comprehension skills. Other places are pushing out a “pre-approved” list i.e. you’re not limited to these boots, but FYI they are “pre-approved” and I happen to think that’s a good idea.
Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?

Offline garb811

  • MP/MPO Question Answerer
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 88,895
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,648
Re: Combat Boots policy 2018-CANFORGEN 127/18
« Reply #83 on: August 17, 2018, 12:35:07 »
Sorry, not buying it.  Comd CA's staff has already worked this problem and presented him with a solution that he is comfortable assuming the risk on.  While not perfect, the intent is clear and is enough to launch on.

Has 3 Div pushed direction down to subordinate units that pers are not to proceed with purchases?

Offline Hamish Seggie

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 229,632
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,367
  • This is my son Michael, KIA Afghanistan 3 Sep 08
Re: Combat Boots policy 2018-CANFORGEN 127/18
« Reply #84 on: August 17, 2018, 12:58:49 »
How difficult does this have to be? Just wondering
Freedom Isn't Free   "Never Shall I Fail My Brothers"

“Do everything that is necessary and nothing that is not".

Offline Loch Sloy!

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 970
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 63
Re: Combat Boots policy 2018-CANFORGEN 127/18
« Reply #85 on: August 17, 2018, 13:00:19 »
"Has 3 Div pushed direction down to subordinate units that pers are not to proceed with purchases?"

Yes. Pre-approval is required prior to purchase and then confirmation that the boots are GTG prior to wear. See below for excerpts from the actual directive.

Quote
Prior to purchasing combat boots, members will obtain a CF 52 claim form from their OR (included at Annex A is the CA issued CF 52, with Unit Authorization procedure on reverse.  Note that in subsequent years beyond initial purchase, unit OR staff will annotate the form with the date of the last claim purchase).  The member then presents their boots to be replaced to their chain of command (minimum rank Sgt) to determine if replacement is required – if so, their chain of command will sign authorizing the purchase based on need and condition of existing boots, marking them as having been replaced by an obvious cut to or whole punch to the tongue.

Quote
Once purchased, members will present new boots (unworn) to their chain of command (minimum rank Sgt, normally the same individual who authorized replacement) who will confirm the boots meet CANFORGEN/unit requirements and annotate the revers of the claim, unit authorization portion, that boots meet the CANFORGEN and unit requirements.  (If the chain of command does not agree that the boots meet the CAF/unit requirement, the individual has the option to return the unworn boots since the expense will not be claimable, and purchase another style/pair that do – same claim form can still be used).
Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who kept their swords.
--Ben Franklin

Offline cld617

  • Member
  • ****
  • 4,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 132
Re: Combat Boots policy 2018-CANFORGEN 127/18
« Reply #86 on: August 17, 2018, 13:09:29 »
I'm almost glad I wasn't covered by this canforgen, because being out of pocket and just going to buy what I want seems like significantly less stress than the hurdles some are setting up.

Offline kratz

    Back into the Fall routine.

  • Float, Move, Fight
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 266,363
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,361
Re: Combat Boots policy 2018-CANFORGEN 127/18
« Reply #87 on: August 17, 2018, 13:14:24 »
Where does the need for this directive come from?

Quote
...marking them as having been replaced by an obvious cut to or whole punch to the tongue.

As discussed earlier, the boots are being subsidized. If I pay more than the subsidized amount, the CA does not automatically own the boots.
So how do they explain the need to cut, or put holes in my boots?

I understand the process, if compared to issued ankle parade boots. But those ankle boots are 100% owned and issued via CAF clothing.
With this CANFORGEN, these combat boots are not wholly owned by the CA.
Quote from: Pipe *General Call*
"Tanning Stations on the flight deck"


Remember, this site is unofficial and privately owned. The site benefits from the presence of current members willing to answer questions.

Offline garb811

  • MP/MPO Question Answerer
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 88,895
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,648
Re: Combat Boots policy 2018-CANFORGEN 127/18
« Reply #88 on: August 17, 2018, 13:16:42 »
Wow, that Directive contradicts the actual CANFORGEN and FAQ...

Quote
a. PRIOR TO PURCHASING CBT BOOTS, INDIVIDUALS MUST ESTABLISH A LEGITIMATE NEED FOR A NEW PAIR OF BOOTS AND THIS NECESSITY MUST BE AUTHORIZED BY THE INDIVIDUALS CHAIN OF COMMAND. REFS C AND E PROVIDE ADDITIONAL GUIDELINES FOR THIS DETERMINATION. INDIVIDUALS ARE RESPONSIBLE TO PURCHASE A CBT BOOT THAT MEETS THE ABOVE SELECTION CRITERIA. NON-COMPLIANT BOOTS WILL NOT BE REIMBURSED.

Quote
19. Do I have to bring my old boots in before I can buy another pair?

No. However, members are not expected to buy boots if they do not have a genuine need for them. Prior to purchasing combat boots, individuals must first confirm that they have a legitimate need for a new pair of boots, and this requirement must be accepted by their chain of command.  Furthermore, all members who are covered by the applicable scale of issue are responsible to always have two pairs of serviceable combat boots.

I further note that the requirement to record when the last reimbursement was made is superfluous, as the policy states quite clearly that the entitlement is per FY.  So, in essence, if I have two pairs of clapped out boots, I can buy one replacement set on 31 March and the second on 1 April and be reimbursed for both, if my entitlement is 1 pair a year.

Is there a directive stating worn bras must be brought in for inspection prior to new bras being purchased, with an obvious cut or whole <sic> punch made to one of the cups as well?  Asking for a friend.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2018, 13:20:51 by garb811 »

Online Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 120,575
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,584
Re: Combat Boots policy 2018-CANFORGEN 127/18
« Reply #89 on: August 17, 2018, 13:18:18 »
Where does the need for this directive come from?

As discussed earlier, the boots are being subsidized. If I pay more than the subsidized amount, the CA does not automatically own the boots.
So how do they explain the need to cut, or put holes in my boots?

I understand the process, if compared to issued ankle parade boots. But those ankle boots are 100% owned and issued via CAF clothing.
With this CANFORGEN, these combat boots are not wholly owned by the CA.

Maybe it has to do with CF issued boots.  Troop shows his CAF boot and why he needs a replacement.  ie tread worn, falling apart etc. 
Optio

Offline Loch Sloy!

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 970
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 63
Re: Combat Boots policy 2018-CANFORGEN 127/18
« Reply #90 on: August 17, 2018, 13:21:13 »
The requirement to punch the tongue seem a little far fetched but it makes some sense if the goal is to limit unnecessary boot purchases; the entitlement isn't simply 1pr /yr (or 2 or 3) it is one per interval "as required". Otherwise theoretically the whole section could present Cpl Bloggins' clapped out brothel creepers as justification for new boots. But if that is the reason it does seem to show a lack of faith in the troops by the CofC...

I actually don't think the procedure in the directive is terribly cumbersome, but only because someone had the good sense to delegate the authorization authority down to the Sgt. level. Sect commanders are likely the best people to make these calls anyway.
Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who kept their swords.
--Ben Franklin

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 302,111
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,103
Re: Combat Boots policy 2018-CANFORGEN 127/18
« Reply #91 on: August 17, 2018, 13:22:18 »
Quote from: Loch Sloy


Prior to purchasing combat boots, members will obtain a CF 52 claim form from their OR (included at Annex A is the CA issued CF 52, with Unit Authorization procedure on reverse.  Note that in subsequent years beyond initial purchase, unit OR staff will annotate the form with the date of the last claim purchase).  The member then presents their boots to be replaced to their chain of command (minimum rank Sgt) to determine if replacement is required – if so, their chain of command will sign authorizing the purchase based on need and condition of existing boots, marking them as having been replaced by an obvious cut to or whole punch to the tongue.

Once purchased, members will present new boots (unworn) to their chain of command (minimum rank Sgt, normally the same individual who authorized replacement) who will confirm the boots meet CANFORGEN/unit requirements and annotate the revers of the claim, unit authorization portion, that boots meet the CANFORGEN and unit requirements.  (If the chain of command does not agree that the boots meet the CAF/unit requirement, the individual has the option to return the unworn boots since the expense will not be claimable, and purchase another style/pair that do – same claim form can still be 


That sounds retarded. So now random any trade Sgts+ are the authority on whether boots are worn out enough to warrant replacement?

Kratz you beat me to it. Good luck putting holes in someone's $500 Lowas.
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Loch Sloy!

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 970
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 63
Re: Combat Boots policy 2018-CANFORGEN 127/18
« Reply #92 on: August 17, 2018, 13:26:18 »
Quote
Is there a directive stating worn bras must be brought in for inspection prior to new bras being purchased, with an obvious cut or whole <sic> punch made to one of the cups as well?  Asking for a friend.

 :rofl: Coffee hit my keyboard...
Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who kept their swords.
--Ben Franklin

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 254,210
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,094
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Combat Boots policy 2018-CANFORGEN 127/18
« Reply #93 on: August 17, 2018, 13:30:41 »
That sounds retarded. So now random any trade Sgts+ are the authority on whether boots are worn out enough to warrant replacement?

Kratz you beat me to it. Good luck putting holes in someone's $500 Lowas.

It could bring to life a whole new entrepreneurial spirit in the CAF as soldiers with worn out boots flog them on various Air Softer websites as 'Operationally Proven Combat Footwear'.

A smart kid could even set up his/ her own website or something.... just sayin'  :whistle:
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline garb811

  • MP/MPO Question Answerer
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 88,895
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,648
Re: Combat Boots policy 2018-CANFORGEN 127/18
« Reply #94 on: August 17, 2018, 13:31:13 »
The requirement to punch the tongue seem a little far fetched but it makes some sense if the goal is to limit unnecessary boot purchases; the entitlement isn't simply 1pr /yr (or 2 or 3) it is one per interval "as required". Otherwise theoretically the whole section could present Cpl Bloggins' clapped out brothel creepers as justification for new boots. But if that is the reason it does seem to show a lack of faith in the troops by the CofC...

I actually don't think the procedure in the directive is terribly cumbersome, but only because someone had the good sense to delegate the authorization authority down to the Sgt. level. Sect commanders are likely the best people to make these calls anyway.
But the whole point is the National level has explicitly stated that there is absolutely no requirement to bring in the old boots for inspection, let alone there being a requirement to physically damage the boot. This is someone sending the message that even though the Comd CA trusts the troops won't abuse the process, "they" don't and therefore they are going to be treated as children.

I'd be more concerned about some enterprising Sgt being a dick and totally destroying the boot because "they are being replaced so you can't wear them again, ever!" notwithstanding the fact that just because the boots aren't fit for the field anymore, it doesn't mean they are totally dead and can't be used around the yard or whatever.

Offline LogOLife

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 2,690
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 51
Re: Combat Boots policy 2018-CANFORGEN 127/18
« Reply #95 on: August 17, 2018, 13:39:11 »
"Has 3 Div pushed direction down to subordinate units that pers are not to proceed with purchases?"

Yes. Pre-approval is required prior to purchase and then confirmation that the boots are GTG prior to wear. See below for excerpts from the actual directive.

I don't think I can accurately express how happy I am that the 3 Div direction does not apply to me. What a ridiculous system. I was responsible for coming up with my unit's direction and all that was required was to weed out the stuff people don't care about (phase 2 and 3) and summarize the important parts so that folks can go buy some boots. It's really not that difficult.

Online ballz

    ...

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 122,021
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,352
Re: Combat Boots policy 2018-CANFORGEN 127/18
« Reply #96 on: August 17, 2018, 13:47:56 »
I am 100% against punching a hole in the boot for numerous reasons i.e. I need to have more than one pair of boots, the whole point of a boot allowance was to get rid of the one-for-one exchanges, the member owns the boot not the Queen, etc.

That said, talking about clarity here... The FAQ says no you don't need to bring them in, the CANFORGEN says "MUST ESTABLISH A LEGITIMATE NEED FOR A NEW PAIR OF BOOTS AND THIS NECESSITY MUST BE AUTHORIZED BY THE INDIVIDUALS CHAIN OF COMMAND"

Someone please explain how the Chain of Command can do that without looking at the boot?

Furthermore... does a CO have to go to his Bde Comd to have his boot inspected and the "necessity" authorized? Etc.






Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?

Offline LogOLife

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 2,690
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 51
Re: Combat Boots policy 2018-CANFORGEN 127/18
« Reply #97 on: August 17, 2018, 13:57:15 »
That said, talking about clarity here... The FAQ says no you don't need to bring them in, the CANFORGEN says "MUST ESTABLISH A LEGITIMATE NEED FOR A NEW PAIR OF BOOTS AND THIS NECESSITY MUST BE AUTHORIZED BY THE INDIVIDUALS CHAIN OF COMMAND"

Someone please explain how the Chain of Command can do that without looking at the boot?

"Sgt I have one pair of purchased boots from last FY. I'd like to buy a second pair and use my current ones as my backups as it is always a good idea to have two pairs of appropriate boots for courses, exercises, deployments etc. Can I go get a second pair so that I don't have crappy issued ones?"

"Why yes Cpl good foresight and explanation. Go get a second pair and keep your old ones as backups."

That was easy.

Offline kratz

    Back into the Fall routine.

  • Float, Move, Fight
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 266,363
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,361
Re: Combat Boots policy 2018-CANFORGEN 127/18
« Reply #98 on: August 17, 2018, 13:59:44 »
A member's CoC authorizes a myriad of items, actions ect...daily (weekly...).

Does a CoC have to visually see soldiers board the plane on TD? Replace his bra? or wash a vehicle?

Authorize does NOT have to equate to visually determine.
 
Quote from: Pipe *General Call*
"Tanning Stations on the flight deck"


Remember, this site is unofficial and privately owned. The site benefits from the presence of current members willing to answer questions.

Offline garb811

  • MP/MPO Question Answerer
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 88,895
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,648
Re: Combat Boots policy 2018-CANFORGEN 127/18
« Reply #99 on: August 17, 2018, 14:01:12 »
I am 100% against punching a hole in the boot for numerous reasons i.e. I need to have more than one pair of boots, the whole point of a boot allowance was to get rid of the one-for-one exchanges, the member owns the boot not the Queen, etc.

That said, talking about clarity here... The FAQ says no you don't need to bring them in, the CANFORGEN says "MUST ESTABLISH A LEGITIMATE NEED FOR A NEW PAIR OF BOOTS AND THIS NECESSITY MUST BE AUTHORIZED BY THE INDIVIDUALS CHAIN OF COMMAND"

Someone please explain how the Chain of Command can do that without looking at the boot?

Furthermore... does a CO have to go to his Bde Comd to have his boot inspected and the "necessity" authorized? Etc.
I dunno, maybe trusting the troop isn't going to lie to you about needing a new pair of boots?  I guess maybe I'm looking at things a bit differently than some; after all, I have Cpls who come in, gun up, grab a set of keys and hit the road for 12 hours without me constantly wondering if I can trust them to act in accordance with their training, ethics and values. 

When I find out they aren't, at that point I take action.  I don't presuppose that I need to babysit everyone simply because someone "might" do something wrong.  Again, the difference between treating soldiers like adults as opposed to children.