WASHINGTON — New changes to grooming and appearance standards are slated to take effect next month, as part of the Army’s commitment to improve the wellbeing of all Soldiers.
Army senior leaders approved several upcoming grooming and appearance modifications, said Sgt. Maj. Brian Sanders, senior enlisted leader of Army G-1’s uniform policy branch.
The announcement will be followed by an all-Army activities message that will take effect late February and will supersede the standards outlined in the grooming and appearance chapter of Army Regulation 670-1 until the next scheduled revision.
“This is one of the many facets of putting our people first and recognizing who they are as human beings,” he said. “Their identity and diverse backgrounds are what makes the Army an ultimate fighting force.”
The changes originated from a panel of 17 Soldiers — 15 women and two men — who assessed a list of proposed grooming and appearance modifications connected to the professional appearance, health and wellness, diversity, and inclusion of Soldiers.
The panel included Soldiers from all components, representing a cross-section of ranks, units, ages, cultural backgrounds, career fields and races. The process also included two Army dermatologists, an Army psychologist, and an Army equal opportunity advisor as subject-matter experts, who provided medical or EO knowledge to back the panel’s findings.
The push to change the Army’s grooming standards proves that the force is evolving and making a concerted effort to make everyone feel included, said Master Sgt. Quintana Mitchell, the uniform policy NCO for G-1.
“I use the analogy, ‘If you look good, you feel good — and if you feel good, you perform [well],” Sanders said. “If I am in the Army long enough, it would be nice to see how these changes have improved productivity … and make Soldiers perform better.”
Minimum hair length
One of the updates will authorize no minimum hair length for all personnel, to include making it an optional style for female Soldiers. Under the current policy, a Soldier’s hair length can be no shorter than 1/4 inch from the scalp unless otherwise exempt due to a medical condition or injury.
Panel findings determined that females attending Ranger, Special Forces, or Sapper training were often encouraged to cut their hair to abide by health and hygiene recommendations while training in an austere environment, Sanders said.
If the Soldier were to washout or graduate from training, their hair was often below the 1/4 inch minimum length requirement and outside Army regulations.
Multiple hairstyles
Soldiers will also be authorized to wear multiple hairstyles as long as it maintains a neat and professional appearance, and if the hairstyle doesn’t impede the use of headgear or other equipment, Sanders said.
Under the current standard, Soldiers are allowed to braid, twist, lock, or cornrow their hair if they are uniform and no greater than 1/2 inch in width. Individuals must also have appropriate size and spacing between each braid, cornrow, twist, or lock, and are authorized one distinct type of hairstyle at one time. The updated standard removes the constraints of dimension requirements.
By eliminating some of the restrictions, Soldiers will now have more flexibility, all while keeping it within the confines of professionalism, Mitchell said. Further, having a choice to wear multiple hairstyles will allow female Soldiers more ways to secure their hair so that it can fit appropriately under their headgear.
Ponytails
Female Soldiers with medium-length hair will have the option to wear a ponytail if the individual’s hair length or texture prevents them from securing it into a tight bun, Sanders said. A medium-length hairstyle must extend more than 1 inch from the scalp and cannot exceed the lower edge of the collar in all uniforms.
Under the new policy, medium-length ponytails are only authorized for wear on the back of the scalp and cannot exceed the head’s width or interfere with the proper wear of a Soldier’s headgear.
The updated standard will also allow females with long hair the option to wear a ponytail while wearing an Army Combat Uniform during physical training, or while wearing tactical headgear during tactical training or combat operations. The Army defines long hair as a length that extends beyond the collar. Army standards require this hairstyle to be neatly and inconspicuously fastened above the collar’s lower edge.
“We can’t tell a Soldier to cut their hair so their helmet can fit,” Sanders said. “We can still allow a female Soldier with longer hair to put into a long ponytail and tuck it in their ACU top so they can still conduct their mission.”
Dermatologists involved in the review process provided critical input tied to the updated ponytail policy, Sanders said. The authorized wear of a medium-length ponytail could lower an individual’s risk of hair loss, reduce scarring, or decrease the likelihood of migraine headaches caused by repeatedly pulling hair into a tight bun.
The lack of hairstyle options as a result of a Soldier’s hair length or texture can often stress an individual as they try various techniques and devices to secure their hair to maintain a neat appearance, Mitchell said.
Hair highlights, root growth
The Army plans to authorize the wear of highlights if it presents a natural appearance and is not a prohibited color, Sanders said. Further, if a Soldier decides to color or highlight their hair, root growth of a different color should not exceed 1.5 inches of the original color.
“Some Soldiers develop natural highlights,” Sanders said. “We cannot assume that a Soldier’s hair should be a specific color” based on their complexion.
Under the current regulation, Soldiers are only authorized to dye, tint, or bleach their hair. The color of their hair must also be uniform and not detract from their professional appearance. Unauthorized pigments include, but are not limited to, purple, blue, pink, green, orange, bright red, and fluorescent or neon colors.
“The emphasis is on natural hair colors,” Mitchell said. “It doesn’t necessarily have to be a color that is typically seen on a certain ethnic group. It just has to be a natural hair color” that presents a neat and professional image.
Optional wear of earrings with ACU
Female Soldiers will soon be authorized to wear earrings with their ACU. Earrings can either be screw-on, clip-on, or post-type earrings in gold, silver, or diamond and must be unadorned and spherical without exceeding 6 mm or 1/4 inch in diameter.
Pearl earrings are not authorized with the ACU, Sanders said. Females are currently authorized to wear earrings when wearing their service, dress, mess, and evening mess uniforms.
Individuals will not be allowed to wear earrings in a field environment or during a combat-related deployment, or in locations where access to regular hygiene is limited.
“Our identity is important,” Sanders said. “If we care about people first and the Soldier as a whole, we have to care about the many aspects to who they are as well. This is a small, but significant change that positively impacts a considerable size of our force.”
Additional colors of lipstick, nail polish
Along with supporting a Soldier’s identity, the Army approved the use of additional colors of lipstick and nail polish, including the wear of clear nail polish by male Soldiers. Females also have the option to wear an American manicure, a two-tone nail style that maintains a natural appearance.
“Some male Soldiers in certain occupation specialties rely on their hands, which are under constant bombardment while working with tools or harsh chemicals,” Sanders said. “A male Soldier would take this opportunity to keep their nails protected.”
According to the updated policy, extreme colors and nail shapes, such as a coffin, ballerina, and stiletto nails, are prohibited while in uniform or on duty in civilian clothes. Unauthorized pigments include, but are not limited to, purple, blue, pink, green, orange, bright red, and fluorescent or neon colors.
Offensive wording change, updated imagery
Another update will remove and replace potentially offensive and weaponized words and phrases, such as “Mohawk, Fu Manchu, dreadlock, eccentric, and faddish,” Sanders said.
Army officials are currently replacing phrases of concern with alternative verbiage to provide increased clarity and guidance about a Soldier’s professional appearance based on safety, good order, and military bearing — instead of relying on the phrase at the discretion of the commander.
“This is how we shift the culture and embrace forward thinking,” Sanders added. “It is time to dig deeper and use our lexicon and vocabulary to describe what is authorized and what does not conform to a professional military appearance, good order and discipline.”
The updated standard will also include a link to imagery and videos to provide Soldiers with specific examples of proper grooming and appearance standards, Sanders said. Current images are too vague, outdated, and leave too much room for interpretation without adequate guidance.
“Pictures speak 1,000 words,” he said. “We won’t be able to capture every grooming and appearance standard, but we will be able to categorize them to equip Soldiers at all levels” with the information needed to ensure regulatory standards are being realized in a fair and inclusive way that is easily understood across the force.
By Devon Suits, Army News Service
This policy is clearly sexist because it distinguishes between MALES and FEMALES. With the approval of transgender service and upholding individual gender preference, there should only be ONE standard – man buns or women buns no more – pony tails for all! Ugh.
disagree with it all you want’ just don’t use the word “dreadlock” while disagreeing. That word is WEAPONIZED.
I agree, males are only specifically mentioned once. Clearly sexist.
I’m glad to see they were very diverse with a 15 to 2 split, (somehow unnoticed by the equal opportunity subject matter expert). Nice to see that with pressing topics such as this and climate change, the DoD is keeping us all safe and focused on war fighting.
On a quick side note, how does one environmentally friendly JDAM a target?
Operational Mullet Pattern would solve all the issues listed above and below for all “identities”.
“We can’t tell a Soldier to cut their hair so their helmet can fit,”
Since when can you not tell a Soldier to get a hair cut? We tell male Soldiers to get hair cuts all the time! Also, if this is the route we are going then I want to be able to maintain a beard while in uniform.
The argument against beards is that they interfere with the proper use of a Promask. So that’s a harder sell and why you regularly saw bears on Soldiers prior to WWI.
The bigger question I’d like to ask is since when are high cut combat helmets actually authorized outside of certain organizations? I love when the Army posts official pictures of Soldiers in off the shelf plate carriers or helmets and the BN or BDE CSM tells me I have to wear an IOTV…
The promask beard argument is not relevant stateside, unless training (which might happen once a year) or in a chemical response type unit. I understand no beards in a combat zone. But we are already letting Soldiers have beards because of skin conditions or religious reasons.
I agree with your picture and nonstandard gear complaint.
The promask beard argument is not valid stateside, unless conducting training with a promask (which might happen once a year) or in a chemical response type unit. I understand combat zone requirements as well. But we are already allowing beards for Soldiers with skin conditions and religious reasons.
I also agree about using nonstandard gear in official pictures.
The real reason is that few men can actually grow beards.
#truth LOL
“It’s better look good than to feel good; and you look marvelous!”
Slippery slope … LOL. Man-buns, Woman-buns …just buns.
Why are there “female” uniforms and “male” uniforms, why not just one? In fact why have a uniform at all?
Earrings and nose-rings for all!
Why only clear nail polish for dudes WTFO! Ha, LOL!
Lipstick … sure, why not?
SMH
White males need not apply. That panel sure is interesting.
From the article: “We can’t tell a Soldier to cut their hair so their helmet can fit,” Sanders said.
Why YES … YES WE COULD. That would have been the most fair option … to eliminate all hair styles which require a device and to ensure that all hairs are all cut to fall no lower than the bottom of the ear lobe FOR EVERYONE.
Yup, and I really do love the “we can tell them” THEY ARE IN THE MILITARY it is all about being told what to do. snowflakes
Quarter pounders all around, regardless if male or female. There, I fixed your haircut standards Big Army. Now everyone is equal.
hear, hear!
This shit has gotten out of control. Smh.
I think if women are going to serve in combat units, they should be required to have the same hair requirements as men. If it’s long enough for someone to grab it and pull it during combatives, it’s too long. That’s a straight up safety issue. But, then again, so is having someone in an isolated OP who is trans and doesn’t have an adequate supply of home therapy.
“Another update will remove and replace potentially offensive and weaponized words and phrases, such as “Mohawk, Fu Manchu, dreadlock, eccentric, and faddish,” Sanders said.
Army officials are currently replacing phrases of concern with alternative verbiage…
“This is how we shift the culture and embrace forward thinking,” Sanders added. “It is time to dig deeper and use our lexicon and vocabulary….”
SJW talking points like this entering Army manuals is the real story here.
I had a Mohawk on active duty while deployed. But I also had a beard and was in a SOF support unit. So, I don’t know if that mattered, or if it was because we cut eat others hair and my SMG cut mine. To be funny he gave me a Mohawk and I wasn’t allowed to fix it until we rotated back to the states!
I’m sure this will be lost on those moved to piss on the new regs: https://i.imgur.com/6UbatfK.jpg
It’s a sad day in the United States Army. Since when is 15 to 2 an unbiased number? Please explain the logic in that. I hope that the US Military is actively reading these comments. They would find that most individuals do not agree with the way it is currently being ran. The standard should be, “are you a competent war fighter” and if not you need to meet the standard or be removed. Not, “do I look good”. Also, how come there is no mention of men’s standards (outside of nail polish!). I believe we have as a nation forgotten what equal opportunity is. Men, of all race, especially the alpha male type are never mentioned or considered. These are the backbone of our fighting force and the archetype that has won the wars for us in the past. To often nowadays we cater to making people feel better, not to the issue at hand which is to better our fighting force by making them more lethal. Leaders need to get their heads screwed on straight and quit being political. This is the military, not Washington. Peoples feelings come second to being an effective force to protect our great nation.
Anyone getting in a twist with this has clearly never worked with the Dutch… I had a Dutch driver in Iraq. He had a full beard, dreadlocks (every Rastafarian I’ve ever met has called them this) and a big diamond stud ear ring. It was hillarious watching SNCOs heads exploding whenever we went onto a US camp, especially as the Dutch wore the same desert camo!
They also have a union. Btw, using the term dreadlock is now a micro aggression.
How can that be a micro aggression when they are called that because long ago the people that had them were great warriors and you dreaded seeing them hence the term dread -locks, because if you did see them you would die in battle against them. Just saying BTW.
The US Army has stated that are going to have to come up with another term for Dreadlock. Ask them.
What are you Eric, a fucking parrot? Get a backbone MAN!
I’m pointing out what the Army has said for those who missed the significance. Eventually, everyone realizes how ridiculous the trip down the rabbit is. The sooner, the better.
Don’t worry everyone! Comrade Uncle Joe will fix everything with a swipe of his pen!
What an absolute waste of time and resources. This does zero to make better warfighters or build unit cohesion. Is Big Green’s new mission to be a place for people to express their individuality and social experiments? Give me a break.
Standards were established for good reasons. They were focused on achieving the mission and how that mission is was best served by war fighters. You want to go express yourself? Go join the local social or gardening club. It’s not about you. It’s about the unit.
I would love to see the garbage reasoning that somehow this makes the unit “better”. Really? How’s that?
I was called every name in the book and got my ass kicked along the way. In the end it not only made me better as a person, but more important to the mission it made US better as a fighting unit. We were all in it TOGETHER. Every one of us, warts and all. There wasn’t anything we would not do for each other. Now they are pausing that all away and we are lesser for it.
/rant
“I hope that the US Military is actively reading these comments. They would find that most individuals do not agree with the way it is currently being ran. The standard should be, “are you a competent war fighter” and if not you need to meet the standard or be removed. Not, “do I look good”.”
100% agree but methinks that is the point. They are actively changing the armed forces, one micro aggression at a time. And it looks like they’re succeeding..
I retire from active service this year.
Have fun with this shit, guys.
It’s only gonna get worse.
This is why I could never go active duty. I may be a scrub weekend warrior but I only have to deal with this lunacy one weekend a month. What a bunch of wankers…Now I have to go see if I can find some clear nail polish…
Why on earth was there minimum hair length?
This can be corrected in a second.
Either everyone have the same standard, or go back to an only male Army.