Dress Regulations - The Minimum Standard?

[Quote]

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

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

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

May wiser heads prevail.  :2c:

 

[PuckChaser]

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

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

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

 

[Quote]

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

To quote one example:

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

 

[PuckChaser]

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

 

[Haggis]

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

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

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

 

[Fishbone Jones]

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

To quote one example:

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

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

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

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

Choose what hill you want to die on 

 

[George Wallace]

Yes the CF Dress Instruction is the minimum standard. 

:

Minimum standard.

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

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

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

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

 

[Haggis]

:

Minimum standard.

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

 

[Jarnhamar]

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

Choose what hill you want to die on 

Awesome, quoted for truthiness.

 

[brihard]

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

 

[cupper]

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

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

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

 

 

[chrisf]

The standard is the standard.

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

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

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

 

[The_Falcon]

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

 

[Nfld Sapper]

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

Underwear parade?  ;D

 

[OldSolduer]

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

It's unenforceable.

 

[Shamrock]

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

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

The answer is a resounding maybe.

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

 

[SupersonicMax]

A sig Op:  well said.

 

[jpjohnsn]

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

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

The answer is a resounding maybe.

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

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

 

[Shamrock]

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

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