GORE Professional

OCP Rollout


The above image is a summary of the changes made to the OCP ACU. Additionally, the US Army will field the new OCP Ensemble in 3 waves to AMCSS beginning July 1st.


131 Responses to “OCP Rollout”

  1. Ian says:

    It’s about time. I just sent it up. Attempting to keep leadership abreast of what is happening 25m out.

  2. Ron says:

    Does this mean it’s being issued? That’s what I read it as, but it doesn’t have accompanying notes.

    • TM says:

      Issued to your local clothing sales store, which will in turn issue the uniform items to you in exchange for your clothing allowance dollars ๐Ÿ™‚

  3. Mohican says:

    And what is going to do Crye Precision? Are they suing the Army?

    • Rob K says:

      Why would you think that Crye would sue over this? That logic is inconsistent with just about everything else posted on SSD in the last year..

    • babola says:

      On the contrary – they’re working with the Army on the new and exciting projects, more than ever.

      Disagreement around MultiCam licensing was just a temporary glitch, more of a bump in a road to Crye Precision’s future as one of the leaders in this area.

  4. badjujuu says:

    Right on SSD! as always we can count on you. Thank you

  5. Matt says:

    Operation Camo Pattern? Operational Camo Pattern?

  6. Dave says:

    Am I the only one who thinks that the shoulder pockets needed to be smaller, not larger?

    • pogie bait says:

      you can thank a certain division with an oversized insignia for that

      • rce says:

        the cav and the 2id, and watch some idiot think he can stack 4 tabs, as long as there is space! you know it’s coming!

        • Seamus says:

          I concur. I for one think a combat uniform should not have pretty patches on them, subdued or not. Not to mention patches that are soooooo large that they function a side armor for soldiers.

          • Jeff says:

            The Marines disagree. I’ll take 2nd AD, 2nd ID or 1st Cav over Coscom any day ๐Ÿ˜›

      • WagenCAV says:

        Hey!! I resemble that remark!
        But in all seriousness it is a bit ridiculous to require that everyone else alter what they’re wearing just so that the backwards riding horsey patch fits with the flag on the right sleeve. Furthermore, the patch didn’t need a full inch anyway. Maybe a 1/4 inch at best. The 2ID patches don’t overhang on the sides that much either. Don’t think it would’ve been too horrible for the Army to require that those Sivisions downsize their patches just a bit

        • Jeff says:

          The new cyber war brigades are going to use the state of California’s map as their SSI to represent silicon valley and that’s easily 1″ more ๐Ÿ˜›

    • Mike says:

      Nope. I think the current size is fine, no need to make them bigger. Oh well, that ship has sailed…

    • badjujuu says:

      I am all for no velcro…but hey, my opinion and $1.49 gets you a cup of joe.

      • Seamus says:

        You know, this whole velcro thing was sold to us as suppose to help save soldiers money but have you seen the coast of patches these days!? Not to mention the absurdity of increasing the size of the shoulder pockets that are already too big to start with. Hell, I will probably get mine altered to shrink them up a bit, if I have too.

        • straps says:

          Yeah, patches are pricey. So buy one. Maybe two–one for field and motor pool, one for garrison. Or better yet, get issued two. The vast majority of personnel out there can get them from their Unit Supply. Unit Patches are actually an organizationally-issued item. Some supply folks hate that we know this because it means they have to do their jobs. Or maybe you won’t be able to spend this year’s uniform allowance on a lift kit. Combat patch, you say? If it’s too much to pay to advertise your experience, don’t wear any. They’re overrated anyhoo, right?

          And you can bet money that the shoulder patch field is sized for a Ranger-qualified 1st Cav person. Which ensures the rest of us can carry a RITR notebook in a pocket large enough to comfortably stow and retrieve it.

          • Jeff says:

            My NG unit supply could only issue 1 over a 10 month period, waiting for the deployment funds for OEF to kick in to cover as many expenses as possible. Indirectly related, they could not afford to issue DUI even the month prior to the December uniform inspection that year.

            I was dismayed to discover 2 military clothing and sales didn’t carry the unit’s DUI for purchase either.

            On the positive side, I had just re-enlisted, so no ASU was issued and I ended up standing around in ACUs while everyone else got gigged.

            It was an eye opener in the sense that I brought my old dress blues, the closest thing to the ASU and over 1/2 the unit asked me what the foreign jump wings were.

            I’m with you on wearing nothing on the ACUs though.

            My first experience with that was the CSM at 10th Mtn Div Lightfighter, who didn’t even wear his tabs. I was called into his office one day and his love me wall said it all.

            The 2nd time was at 19th SFG, very few of them wore “bolo” badges as one put it “just the tabs”.

            Lately I’ve noticed several people who’ve returned from a recent deployment who chose not to wear FWS-SSI.

            Personal preference or $ savings?

        • Jeff says:

          Back in 2004, I took issue with the pattern, the Velcro (at the time some of the CQB teams were sporting the Velcro BDUs) and the idea of saving $ for troops. I got a charred backside for my trouble.

          My next target is the ASU and I still have dreams of ridding the Army of the black beret.

          • straps says:

            The ASU is “more” expensive how?

            Much as I would like to have brought back the WWII dress (brown coat, tan pant), I’m liking the collapse of the Class A and Dress Blue into something that NOBODY’S “encouraged” to purchase above and beyond clothing bag items, and needn’t be replaced after PCSing from Hood or Korea due to the permanent damage done by 1st Cav or 2 ID patches.

            I’m with you on the beret. Though it was a crime to take it from the Rangers, they landed on their feet with the tan beret. A properly shaped beret (in any color) doesn’t look half bad with the dress uniform…

            • Jeff says:

              The lime green undershirt (was tan in 1985) for the Class A was crappy.

              But besides the ASU being a 3rd world junta general looking mess, I assume you mean either it’s the same as the Class A but different colors or that 1 uniform is cheaper than 2 but most enlisted below E-7 didn’t have dress blues.

              I guess it depends on if the argument that the one uniform over a service career, is in fact cheaper – dry cleaning, changes, etc. which the Army proposed when it initiated the class A wear out date for 4 QTR 2014.

              The blues served a more formal function and so most soldiers invested more $ into Sta-brite instead of hand polishing or using the standard buttons, badges and thin ribbons than for their greens. Now there’s only 1 choice.

              The Combat Service Identification Badge is more expensive than a Class A SSI and the price to sew it on.

              Some people only tailored their blues for a form fitting look or if they were taking their DA photo. I tailored both for a form fitted look unrelated to the DA photo but in my experience, I seemed to be the exception. So in that regard it doesn’t affect me but it might for others hoping to demonstrate their investment into their career, that their CoC would notice, the board, soldier of the year, etc.

              Or perhaps it’s my simple bias and preference for the WW2 era uniforms.

              I don’t see the resemblance to the civil war era uniforms that the Army claims it’s returning to. No sash, no Stetson (I’m joking) and no above the knee boots or buttons on the chest.

              I’ve noticed the USMC has not bothered to change the fundamental design of their dress uniforms since WW2 and their recruiting, retention and reputation with the pubic seems untarnished.

  7. Steven S says:

    I get “Error 404 – Not Found” when trying to view the PDF.

    • Steven S says:

      Nvm, it started to work somehow

    • Lt M says:

      Same. Google Cache page has the .pdf but the current page only has a .png image of one of the slides.

  8. Mike says:

    Thanks for the info!

    I will confess I am a little confused by the rollout numbers. Upon reading it a second time through though I understand it to mean that these numbers represent the items which will be distributed to MCSS for sale to Soldiers. Correct? It seems to jive/jibe (hehe…) with a phased rollout where not everyone will be able to buy the required number of complete sets during their installations’ “Wave”, and also reflects some items will not be as important to immediately purchase considering legacy UCP ensemble items (t shirts and belts) will be authorized.

    Am I close?

  9. William says:

    OCP = Omni Consumer Products?

  10. Jed says:

    If this is a fielding worksheet, then the way I’m reading it is that only 33% of the Soldiers on any installation are going to be issued uniforms and patrol caps. Only 20% are going to be issued belts and t-shirts…am I the only one that’s seeing this or am I totally missing something and doing my math wrong?

    • Mike says:

      That’s how I read it too, which is why I made my comment above. After mulling it over a little more, however, it seems that what the slide is saying is:

      They are only sending enough OCP ACUs to each installation (per wave) for 33% of the Soldiers to buy them. The same goes for the patrol caps.

      They are only sending enough belts and t-shirts for 20% of Soldiers to buy them…but that’s OK, because legacy ensemble items are authorized for wear until 2018 (i.e. sand-colored t-shirts and belts).

      This would seem to align with a gradual approach to transitioning the Army over a few years vs. dumping enough for every Soldier on every installation to immediately have the opportunity to buy all the uniform components needed to transition.

      • Seamus says:

        I think you are correct. I think Uncle Sam learned a thing or too in the roll out for ACU. However if I know CSMs this WILL be mandatory ASAP lest be be seen as “not motivated enough.” Likewise on the other side of post another CSM will ensure that the new uniform is forbidden from wear until everyone has a pair and the unit uniform can be standardized, which will take years since there are not enough uniforms to go around.

  11. ME says:

    What happened to the .pdf? And really, the question is will 1 JUL be the initial authorized date?

    Thanks SSD, glad to see some actual movement toward making this happen.

  12. pnshr71 says:

    The waves and the items across the top or for planning purposes to stock the Military clothing and sales. The waves are for store stockage to be purchased, not for issue. It does not stock every location to get every soldier a full set. As the initial stocks run out, more will be backfilled once people start buying this stuff and they have more captital to get more uniforms. This is just the initial volley. At least thats my understanding of it.

  13. babola says:

    So as far as the pants changes are concerned, we’ve done full circle and prettu much back to BDU features with extra calf pocket and angled cargo pocket flap. Hmm…

    • Sgt. Rick Mullholand says:

      Strange how things work isn’t it. The more you change things the more they look the same.

      It’s 2015 and uniform pants have come a long way (just look at Crye and Massif) from BDUs of the 80es…but no, not for our military, the seem to be hooked on vintage.

      What’s the bet we’ll soon se a reintroduction of the veberable og-170 jungle fatigues from the 60es?

      • Jeff says:

        Those lasted 20 years? The ACUs will last 14 years.

        My unit at Ft. Bragg was one of the last ones authorized to wear the OG-107s in the 80s. I have just one crappy picture of myself tying my boots wearing them.

    • SSD says:

      These are basically ACUs

      • babola says:

        I know, but these are now much closer to BDU pants (all buttons, no velcro, no waistband drawstring, no knee protector pockets) than they are to original ACU pants introduced in 2005.

        Wouldn’t you agree?

        • SSD says:

          No, the BDU didn’t have lower leg pockets or slanted thigh pockets.

      • Seamus says:

        I disagree with you SSD, here is why:

        1) After reports of the crotch of the ACU pants ripping DA had to revert back to the old “BDU style” of sewing the crotch
        2) Velcro closures of cargo pockets wore out too soon so they reverted back to BDU style buttons instead of velcro to the cargo pocket (along with buttons on shirt sleeves)
        3) Now they are eliminating the velcro knee pad (and elbow pad) pockets and reverting back to a double reinforced knee similar to the BDU
        4) Additionally they are getting rid of the string closure which was an advancement over the dual pull tab closure of the BDU (personally I would prefer some elastic similar to a 5.11 pant-but that is just me)

        Seems to me that the much hailed advances of the ACU pant have slowly fallen to the wayside in favor of readopting of features that were present on the old BDU pant. The only differences between the newest generation of pants and the BDU pants are the angle of the cargo pocket, the presence of the lower leg pocket and the absence of the pull tabs on the waist band.

        Sounds like these pants are closure to the original BDU than the original ACU.

    • Jeff says:

      I wonder if we never went digital, the new ASU dress uniform and black beret and those funds were instead spent on training, where we’d be now?

      • SSD says:

        The beret was negligible and probably before your time.

        • Jeff says:

          I’ve had 2 huge breaks in service.

          If you mean Vietnam era LRSD then yes, if you mean Shinseki authorizing it, then no.

          Appreciate your time in sharing all this info, correcting misinformation and your insights.

  14. The Stig says:

    Thanks Eric! I should have searched your future posts instead of just the past ones, and I would have found the info.

  15. tirod says:

    So, I’m reading the modifications and the overall result will be a lot more of the BDU and less of the ACU.

    Less Velcro is good, I don’t have to cut it off. It’s got less effective life than goretex.

    The mods make it easy to see what is old and what is new for a wearout date. There may not be rush to make them unwanted but every generation of uniform has it’s cutoff. IIRC something about the button tabs on the BDU waistline being non grata after a certain point. They largely got used in the field only after that.

    • SSD says:

      I’m not seeing these BDUs mods you guys keep talking about. What are they?

      • babola says:

        SSD, take a pair of BDU/DCU pants and compare with the latest changes to be adopted to current ACUs…you’ll see that these new “ACUs” are now much closer to original 1980 design BDUs than original ACUs introduced in 2005.

  16. CAVStrong says:

    Maybe I’m a little dense but on the ACU Change slide in the legend it lists
    Army Combat Uniform
    Army Combat Uniform-Alternate

    What’s the alternate? Also it was night time in my part of the world and didn’t see the PDF did I miss anything important there?

    • CAVStrong says:

      Oh also obligatory follow up…….bookends?

      Sorry but I’ve grown satisfied with this uniform decision, now I am interested to see what we do with expanding our OCP family. I still think the one pattern solution was a terrible idea and it seems to me like the army determined to stick with that plan.

    • dude says:

      ACU-A is an alternate (non-NATO sized) tailoring pattern. Initially conceived for use as an alternate cut for women, all Soldiers may wear it if it fits better.

  17. James says:

    Any ideas on how a bunch of Air Force bases made the wave 3 lists?

    • Fly On the Wall says:

      There are frequently substantial US Army contingents (BN-) on Air Force and Navy installations, especially that serve as schools or joint headquarters. I’ve been stationed at Army, Navy, and Air Force installations during my career and I’ve needed stylish clothes at each one. A couple hundred Soldiers at a remote USAF installation hundreds of miles from the nearest Army installation is a pretty good economic and customer service argument for AAFES.

      • Jeff says:

        In Florida, there really are no “Army” bases. CENTCOM is at MacDill AFB in Tampa and Camp Rudder is on Eglin AFB. 7th group is in Miami by Homestead AFB.

        In California the only Army posts are NTC in the Mohave desert and DLI in Monterey. So the AGR or reservists and recruiters all over the state would need to go to AAFES if they don’t wait for issue or have supply issues at their unit (which I know they do)

    • Fly On the Wall says:

      There are frequently substantial US Army contingents (BN-) on Air Force and Navy installations, especially that serve as schools or joint headquarters. I’ve been stationed at Army, Navy, and Air Force installations during my career and I’ve needed stylish clothes at each one. A couple hundred Soldiers at a remote USAF installation hundreds of miles from the nearest Army installation is a pretty good economic and customer service argument for AAFES.

    • Brett says:

      For example, here at Eglin AFB we have the 7th SFG and Camp Rudder for 3rd phase of the Ranger School. Plus there are Army types coming and going all of the time at Hurlbert Field.

  18. Darrel says:

    Shoulder pockets seem like a good idea. Much more similar to PCU L5 and similar designs, which is a proven design. The plain Mandarin color is very similar to the MCCUU. The simplified trousers seem like a win in general. They should consider elastic cargo pocket openings and elastic waistbands. Aside from being flammable, I can’t see any negatives to it. I have MCCUU trousers that are eight years old that the elastic has not worn out on. Whatever they are using, it definitely works long term.

    Of course, they are not trying to look like Marines, and we’re not trying to look like them either. I still don’t understand the merits of wearing rank dead center of the chest. It is not a natural point that you should be looking at. You should keep your head straight and be looking at their face, where collar rank is naturally close by. I’m not trying to sound like a SgtMaj, but collar rank, sewn or pin-on, looks sharper and more appropriate for a garrison uniform.

    • Bert says:

      “I still donโ€™t understand the merits of wearing rank dead center of the chest.”

      I think it’s a NATO thing. A lot of our allies put the rank there.

      • CAVStrong says:

        I honestly think it’s a US thing that a lot of our Allies are copying. If you look at it most of our Allies Rank insignia are still designed to worn on the shoulder or collar and they look strange on the middle of the chest.

        The simplicity of our rank insignia makes it kind of work.

      • Ab5olut3zero says:

        Just as many have it on shoulders and collars as well- Bundeswehr, Turkey, etc. not to mention the rest of our US Services- Navy, Marines, Air Force. I agree it looks much more professional on the collar and allows you to look someone in the eye instead of at their chest.

    • Jeff says:

      I’m just wondering what happens in 2018, the period congress mandated all services to wear the same uniform.

      • CAVStrong says:

        My guess….nothing…. I betting that that either won’t be enforced or it will be changed prior to implantation.

      • SSD says:

        There is no such stipulation. It was dropped.

        • Jeff says:

          Wow, okay, thanks for the info.

          With sequestration in 2013 and on the table earlier this year, once I saw the headline “congress….” I had assumed it was a done deal. Thanks for clearing that up.

  19. ayyy says:

    Goddam wave 3 fuck you fort Leonard wood

  20. xdarrows says:

    The changes to the ACU’s construction are mostly quite good and indicative that the Army eventually heard enough complaints of the same sort that they finally implemented these.

    Clearly, there are other improvements that could/should be made to bring the Army’s uniform (i.e., the uniform of the premier land combat force on the planet) truly into the 21st century and on par with the best of COTS offerings.

    Among these, I would propose:
    – Elastic waist (as mentioned by “Seamus” and “Darrel”)
    – Elastic in the cargo pockets (mentioned by “Darrel”)
    – Zipper fly (I’ve never had a problem with the zippers on many, many pairs of tactical pants that I’ve worn just as hard as BDUs or ACUs)
    – Reshape thigh cargo pockets (see Crye Field Pants or Navy NWU Type 2/3)
    – Finally eliminate the calf pocket (cost savings versus actual use and utility)
    – Finally eliminate all Hook/Pile Tape (Velcro) as a cost savings (material & construction) in the ACU and the patches (non-Velcro patches are cheaper, even with sewing included)
    – BDU or NWU 2/3 chest pockets

    More importantly, the 8″-10″ restriction on authorized boots should be clearly expanded to include boots in the 5″-8″ range … permitting the wear of a wide range of improved and advanced COTS footwear that provide far better performance and comfort that most of the available Army-style boots on the market.

    Now that the collar has been adjusted … perhaps we can assist with SHARP by moving the rank from the center of the chest back to the collar (and perhaps get our branch insignias back).

    • WagenCAV says:

      I agree with most of what you’re saying except for the calf pockets. Those are the ones I utilize the most. Mag in one tourniquet in the other. Guys who dip seem to appreciate those pockets as well????

      • SGT Rock says:

        +1 for the tourniquet placement in the calf pocket. That’s standard SOP in my PLT.

        • WagenCAV says:

          I see it now. Thanks. Had me worried for a sec, since while most of the proposed changes aren’t bad, I see this uniform as being very pogue friendly overall. Figured some pogue somewhere couldn’t understand the need to actually close and secure a pocket properly since his pockets are simply for show. Maybe the uniform isn’t that way but simy has that appearance since MSG Owen’s set is so pressed and new looking in the photos.

      • babola says:

        Same thoughts when it comes to cargo pockets. The Crye-style pockets may look cooler but only have 2/3 of capacity than BDU/ACU triple-fold ones.

        I have worn both and can attest.

        ACU cargo pockets are essentially what defines an ACU pants and don’t need changing. If anything I would like them to be positioned a little higher on a thigh, not so much toward the knee.

      • AbnMedOps says:

        Hmm. Reshape the calf pocket so that a dip can won’t fit. My contribution to oral health.

    • AbnMedOps says:

      +1 on the collar rank and branch insignia. But last time I suggested that I got shouted down.

  21. chris says:

    i cannot wait to get down with some OCP. i got a new set i brought home with the tags still on them. very excited.

  22. Mac says:

    The internal knee pad pockets are smart! Do not remove them!

    • Jeff says:

      I have to admit, the knee & elbow pockets are the only thing I liked about the ACU when I re-enlisted after the BDU wear out date. They work for me but then I’m showing my age.

  23. BehindBinos says:

    What was so wrong with knee pockets? Wanna go back to awful sweaty skate protectors? Or we are not supposed to take a knee anymore, as itยดs too difficult with all that crap one has to carry, and just sit in the vehicles?

  24. WagenCAV says:

    Is that only a single button on the cargo pocket?

    • Rob says:

      Two buttons are visible on the cargo pocket. It was more apparent in the original PDF.

    • babola says:

      Most likely all three buttons (2 main and 1 expansion button) are still there. The brief doesn’t say anything about removing any of the buttons, just Velcro tabs.

  25. babola says:

    So this was the last nail in the coffin for the much talked about ACP pants?


    I guess the whole thing fell through after failed negotiations around licensing MultiCam between Crye (designer and maker of ACP) and the Army in late 2012?

    Shame, I actually prefer many aspects of the ACP.

    • WagenCAV says:

      The PEO Soldier presentation regarding the Soldier Protective System still demonstrated pants with but in knee pads. The Army also issued small test numbers of ACPs in UCP. So perhaps there’s still hope.

      • WagenCAV says:

        Meaning the the ACP isn’t necessarily tied to the camouflage pattern

        • babola says:

          Let’s hope. While the original contract with Crye P. broke down, there’s no reason for the collab to continue and Crye is used in a designer capacity only, in the future, unrelated to the particular camo pattern.

          • WagenCAV says:

            Roger that. I think Massif or Propper was the primary manufacturer for the issued versions of those pants. I have two sets still and think they had Massif tags on them when RFI gave them to me. Crye was solely the inspiration for the FR model but the pants weren’t the Crye combat pants that Tier I guys get issued through their “Spear Gear” chain.

            • WagenCAV says:

              I’ll have to check the inside tags

              • Moshjath says:

                I had two pairs of the Massif Army Combat pants in OCP issued to me through RFI in April 2014 prior to my latest deployment, along with four of the army combat shirts. They fit a bit tighter than corresponding ACU cut trousers. Along with the pants, we drew a pair of Crye Precision kneepad inserts that integrated nicely into the pants. The whole setup worked well for dismounted operations. The one downside was they seemed to lose color pretty quickly.

        • WagenCAV says:

          SSD, do you have any insure into the future of the ACP?

          • WagenCAV says:

            Insight. Damn autocorrect

          • SSD says:

            ACP will be rolled into SPS. The Army is deep into it over patent infringement on Crye’s knee pads.

            • WagenCAV says:

              Didn’t know that knee pads were the issue.
              What about manufacturing the pants? Is it Massif or Propper?

  26. Glorybound32 says:

    JB-MDL (aka Fort Dix) AAFES said they are anticipating getting OCP in AUG/SEPT. We tried begging them to put a few sets aside but they didn’t bite.

  27. Uniform223 says:

    I don’t have worry about wearing these but I like the changes over the ACU. Velcro and draw string on the cargo pockets were a terrible idea to begin with.

    • Brett says:

      My cat thinks the drawstring on the pockets are the best cat toy ever invented by man.

  28. armypa82 says:

    Guess who’s going to be camping out at Clothing Sales on June 30th like a turd? This guy ^

  29. 25yearcareersoldier says:

    I just received that pdf and it is Daegu not Taegu. Also, blackening out due to OPSEC? You must be a freaking idiot. Anybody can get any military size organization via google. If you cannot find out how many Soldiers are in a division, then you must have the same intellect as the dweeb that runs this site.

    He says he served 20 years in uniform but only was a first-termer. Eric the Poser.

    • SSD says:

      Why would someone call himself a poser?

      • 25yearcareersoldier says:

        My name is not Eric. SSD (you) are the poser.

        • SSD says:

          Well, you really told me off with your anonymous self. Nothing screams legitimacy like a made up name.

          Perhaps you’d like to elaborate for us regarding my posing. I just spent the past two days at SOFIC talking to 100s of people I served with over the course of my 21 years in the military. In fact, I may have run into at least one person I was in Taegu with.

          • 25yearcareersoldier says:

            My gripe is the way that you engage your readership. If you are rude and condescending to them in the way you respond to some posts, then I would not want to do any business of the gear you are selling on your website. My suggestion is either to refrain from responding to readers if you do not know how to.

            In earlier posts, you did not state you served 21 years. Were you in when the current ACU in or a Gulf war vet? Wait, you never served in combat, right?

            • SSD says:

              You mean like when I engage shit for brains numb nuts like you who are too stupid to realize that I don’t sell anything on SSD?

              I don’t talk about my service because SSD is not about me. Never has been, never will be.

    • armypa82 says:

      Bro, give it a rest. When you come to another person’s website, you’re, in essence, entering their house. SSD can run this however he wants to – if he was bad at running it, he wouldn’t have the readership that he has nor would he have all these vendors chomping at the bit for ad space on his site. If he does a crappy job, don’t worry – readership will drop off and he’ll fall flat on his face. If you have disagreements, I’d advise trying to be less troll and more of a professional. Hell, exercise the damn decorum befitting your senior rank at which you left the military – don’t sound like a PFC throwing a hissy-fit.

  30. 25yearcareersoldier says:

    And it is no longer called Taegu, it is now Daegu. Look it up. If you ever in Camp Carroll, I would love to meet you in person. I think you’re pretty hot and would love for you to butter my toast.

  31. 25yearcareersoldier says:

    I’m an obsessive masturbator.

    • 25yearcareersoldier says:

      I’m afraid to give you my real name because I’m under investigation by CID for crimes against nature.

      • Ab5olut3zero says:

        Wow. Way to kill a thread and piss all over the rest of us trying to glean legitimate information. Thanks. No Abrams engine heater for you.