Profession of Arms | Soldier Systems Daily Soldier Systems Daily

Archive for the ‘Profession of Arms’ Category

New Tactical Advisor Readiness Program Sets The Bar

Sunday, January 31st, 2021

JOINT BASE LEWIS MCCHORD, Wash. – Advisors from 5th Security Force Assistance Brigade took part in an intensive test of their physical fitness and tactical expertise in the inaugural Tactical Advisor Readiness Program assessment at Joint Base Lewis McChord, Washington, Jan. 21, 2021.

“We trust teams, filled with great Non-Commissioned Officers, to build and sustain mastery of the fundamentals of combined arms warfare in garrison, so that these teams can operate alone as our ambassadors in foreign countries,” 5th SFAB Commanding General, Brig. Gen. Curtis Taylor said.

SFAB teams are designed to be highly-modular and independently deployable in configurations ranging from 4-12 personnel depending on the advisory function of the team such as logistics, communications, maneuver, medical, engineering or field artillery.

“The TARP is where we bring our teams together to compete against one another so that we can reward our very best and validate our training,” Taylor said.

The TARP event began at 6:30 a.m. on a dark and rain-soaked Vanguard Field where 5th SFAB NCOs like C Company, 2nd Battalion, 5th SFAB’s 1st Sgt. Anthony Fuentes, took on a challenging physical training event designed to test the stamina and strength of his team.

“I started an all-volunteer 5 a.m. team train up event the day we received the concept of operations for the TARP event,” Fuentes said. “We used the TARP CONOP as an objective and built our team mission statement with key tasks each team member had to hit for us to be successful.”

The day continued with a timed ruck march which led to an obstacle course; followed by multiple stations which included an SFAB Advisor knowledge test followed by lanes testing weapon assembly and disassembly, treating a casualty, operating tactical communications equipment, call for fire, and a lay out of all required equipment.

It was Fuentes team, Battalion Advisor Team 520, that outlasted the other teams from across the brigade at the end of the day.

“It’s hard to build a team when isolated in a hotel room during COVID-19 restrictions or during large scale exercises,” Fuentes said. “We just needed to focus on bettering each other, and this event allowed us to do that.”

The 5th SFAB will send its first teams into the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command’s Area of Operation in the coming weeks. This monthly TARP event becomes increasingly critical in preparing Advisors for a challenging operational environment.

“Across the formation today, I saw young sergeants leading their team in hard PT, shouldering the load when the litter got too heavy and serving as subject matter experts for their team on the communication lane.” Taylor said. “I have great confidence that these superb NCOs will represent our Army and our Nation with pride across the Indo-Pacific.”

One of these young sergeants was Sgt. April Mullins, a maintenance advisor and wheeled vehicle mechanic from 3rd Squadron, 5th SFAB.

“During the TARP event, I realized that while we are great as a team, we also need to know how to do things on our own when our teammates are absent,” Mullins said. “This really showed us that we need to train to know each other’s job as well as we know our own.”

This was part of the Commanding General’s intent during the development of this first TARP event, as Taylor emphasized that SFABs are built on a foundation of autonomy and accountability.

The task of putting this together, fell to 3rd Squadron, 5th SFAB Operations Sgt. Maj. Thomas Wrinkle.

“We modeled the event after an Expert Infantry Badge/Expert Soldier Badge/Spur Ride competition and included all of the units within 5th SFAB to execute,” Wrinkle said. “We chose events that would allow the teams to operate as a team and also test them as individuals.”

The winning team received recognition from Brig. Gen. Taylor and the 5th SFAB’s senior enlisted advisor, Command Sgt. Maj. Robert Craven at a ceremony later that day. The monthly winning team will also have their team’s achievement enshrined in unit folklore with their team number engraved on a unit trophy.

Until then, NCOs will continue to train their teams beginning with 90 minutes of hard PT every morning preparing for next month’s TARP event and any mission that lies ahead.

By MAJ William Leasure, 5th Security Force Assistance Brigade Public Affairs

Posted in Army, Guest Post, Profession of Arms | 3 Comments »

The Baldwin Files – The Fighting Load Continuum Part 4

Saturday, January 30th, 2021

This is the fourth and probably final installment of this series. Not that I have said everything there is to say on the subject, but I judge that I have said enough to get small unit leaders started on the right track. In this segment, I will be discussing leader tools already in use or available like Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), inspections, and rehearsals that can be either enablers or obstacles to effective combat load management – depending on how they are used or misused. Establishing unit SOPs, conducting systematic inspections, arranging appropriate rehearsals, and aggressively managing the load, of soldiers, teams, and unit vehicles, is leader business. More experienced senior NCOs and Officers have to take charge, set the example, and provide guidance and supervision. Smart leaders certainly do not let the burden fall on individual soldiers and our junior and least seasoned leaders to figure out by blind trial and error the best possible practices.

During every phase of the process, good leaders emphasize appropriate attention to detail (positive leadership technique) while avoiding the pitfall of inappropriate micromanagement (negative leadership technique). Admittedly, it can sometimes be challenging to recognize the difference or the line between the two. Let us start with SOPs. Keep in mind, at best, SOPs serve only to codify a unit’s pre-planned intentions or reactions to various generic combat situations. Simple, expedient drills or checklists to be employed when there is no time to do detailed planning. Therefore, at a minimum, SOPs always have some value as a baseline or starting point from which to make adjustments. Still, SOPs and doctrinal “school solutions” are just guidelines and not straitjackets. Realistic and specific mission analysis can and should be applied to validate or invalidate the general assumptions contained in SOPs in relation to pending missions.

Consequently, I have found that SOPs can be better and more functional tools for units if they are constructed and employed as relatively simple descriptive guides to action rather than applied as overly detailed prescriptive dictates. I suggest reviewing the Standing Orders for Roger’s Rangers circa 1759 as a classic example – albeit outdated. Rest assured, encyclopedic tomes burgeoning with minutia will not be read, remembered, nor followed when a mission goes south in the middle of the night in a driving rainstorm. If your unit SOP is thicker than the Ranger Handbook because it tries to cover every conceivable contingency, I suggest dedicating some smart soldiers to the task of trimming it down to a more useful size. Then, validate that leaner SOP by applying it consistently during all of the unit’s subsequent realistic training evolutions.

Even then, do not fall in love with your SOP. Even the best SOPs developed in garrison – like tactical plans – rarely survive unchanged after the first real-world contact with the enemy. Despite that reality, humans tend to cling to the familiar, and individual egos are often invested in how existing unit SOPs have been established and applied. Moreover, leaders may be inclined to extrapolate neat combat scenarios in SOPs that they would prefer to fight on paper and in training. Rather than the realistically messy and unpredictable engagements one might not want to even contemplate but are more likely to face. I know, changing on the fly is hard; but it is something a leader must be prepared to do – and do well. Real war is like that. Bottom line, Moses did not bring your SOP off a mountain on a stone tablet. Be prepared to adjust or even discard an SOP if it is not applicable to the situation at hand.

Inspections naturally complement and dovetail with unit SOPs. Ideally, inspections should always be approached as a team event and should be mission-focused, thorough but quick, and impersonal. No egos involved. Inspections – done right – are not gotcha drills. Properly conducted inspections should be designed to help the unit expediently find and correct issues before those issues become hazards to mission success. For people who have spent time in an Airborne unit, the Jumpmaster Personnel Inspection (JMPI) would be recognized as a good example of what a sound inspection protocol should look like. Granted, some units have a bad habit of padding the time required for the entire pre-jump process, but JMPI itself is rarely anything but efficient and effective.

This would be a good time to talk about uniformity. Again, JMPI provides a good template in my professional opinion. In JM School – at least when I went through in the early 80s – we practiced the prescribed inspection sequence over and over and over again. For the first several days no deficiencies were intentionally rigged onto the jumpers. That was so that we could work on our precision first. Speed would come naturally over time. Most importantly, it also meant that we learned by repetition what right looked and felt like. That way, when deficiencies were eventually introduced in the jumpers we JMPIed, those issues jumped out at us, were called out with the correct nomenclature, and could be subsequently corrected expeditiously.

The inspections by every JM were uniformly conducted; likewise, parachutes are identically packed by Riggers and then donned in a uniform manner by jumpers. That is true of static line as well as HALO parachutes and JMPI. Is uniformity absolutely essential? Not necessarily; a parachute is actually a very simple apparatus. As long as the activating system is properly assembled and functional, gravity and air pressure will do the rest. The parachute itself can be “trash packed” – as is not uncommon with some civilian skydivers – and still probably work. But even for civilians, a reserve parachute, packed by a certified rigger, is usually required as a mandatory back up. However, unlike a civilian jumper, the military jumps as a means of infiltration, not for recreation. Mistakes do not just affect one individual.

In Airborne units, a JM is an NCO or Officer with other leadership duties. However, during pre-jump and JMPI, he or she acts as a technical expert whose focus is on one narrow but important subset of the mission – the insertion phase. As we all know, other technical experts like mechanics, medics, communicators, and armorers, all do specific pre-operational inspections and have their own important roles in getting a unit ready for a mission. Getting every jumper out of the aircraft and onto the dropzone safely is raison d’être for the JM. Indeed, in static line, mass tactical jumps, the drop altitude may be so low that a reserve might not have time to fully inflate if the primary has been improperly rigged or otherwise fails. Therefore, I would say the level of attention to detail for military parachute operations is fully justified. And, in the case of JMPI, uniformity ensures that the inspection process does not take undue time away from other critical pre-mission tasks like rehearsals for actions on the objective.

Of course, a demand for uniformity must be based on actual mission needs – not on conformity for conformity’s sake. More on that later. Rehearsals are more comprehensive, but serve much the same purpose as relatively static inspections like JMPI. Properly done, rehearsals are essentially dynamic inspections by unit leadership of the team in action. I will say that again. rehearsals are dynamic inspections. A unit will always have limited time between planning and mission execution. Therefore, rehearsals have to be prioritized. Usually, those essential “actions on the objective” tasks I mentioned earlier are done first. For bigger units like battalions and above, a large scale sandtable of the objective area and a “walk through, talk through” format is often the most practical option. Future virtual systems will digitize the process and allow leaders to avoid congregating on the battlefield but I expect these types of rehearsals will still be important.

Smaller units, say company and below, likely will use a sandtable as well, but will also need to do individual and small-unit physical rehearsals of critical actions. I will use one movie reference to illustrate a fictional critical action that required priority rehearsal. As readers may recall, in The Dirty Dozen, Jimenez was the only raider who was supposed to climb the rope. Yet, every one of the dozen had to practice scrambling up the rope. Why? Because destroying the antenna on top of the chalet, and shutting down communications, was mission essential. After all, Jimenez might get killed before he got a chance to make that climb. As fate would have it, he did die and someone else made that ascent and completed that task in his place. A leader identifies those tasks – large and small – that require physical rehearsals. In turn, the leader makes sure those rehearsals are conducted to standard and as close to a “full mission profile” i.e., as realistically as time and resources will allow.

In a unit that takes training seriously, just about everything that is done in training constitutes a rehearsal. Think of first aid training. If units are doing it routinely to standard as gaged by technical experts like medics, leaders can have confidence that soldiers have the skills to do buddy and self-aid and casualty evacuations, and need not dedicate any additional time to those critical tasks before a real mission. Likewise, it pays dividends for units to consider Ruck Marches as rehearsals rather than just Physical Training events. Certainly, physical conditioning is one perfectly valid goal of the exercise; it just need not be the sole or even primary event focus. Instead, always make the extra effort to carry the real items or realistic dummy substitutes whenever possible. Think about adding time, distance, and difficulty (complex terrain), to the march rather than simply carrying the same prescribed weight over the same course every iteration.

Consider incorporating additional tactical load carriage tasks like casualty carries to the event, but do not just practice carrying notional casualties. Rather, use the opportunity to rehearse the hasty redistribution of combat loads (IAW unit SOP) within the small unit necessitated by that casualty(s). Consider having soldiers build a travois or cart with pre-positioned scraps to move a casualty longer distances. I have attached a picture (below) of some dummy load examples for those that might not be familiar with the concept. Along the left, are the “store-bought” or commonly issued training versions of a radio, grenades, and M4 magazine. Frankly, these are not often found outside of schoolhouses and centrally-run events like Expert Infantry Badge testing. Most units simply do without and, therefore, significantly short change the realism of their training.

However, with a little effort and imagination, suitable substitute training aids can be manufactured. Take for example the item at the top of the picture. A casual observer might just see a piece of a utility pole. It is that. I see a close enough approximation of a Javelin anti-tank missile. In fact, taking it a step further, I have been considering trying my hand at chainsaw sculpting and carving myself a Carl Gustav out of it. Am I suggesting that units could whittle themselves a 1:1 scale replica of a Recoilless Rifle? Yes, yes, I am. Why not? It would not have to be secured in an Armsroom. Moreover, appropriate diameter and lengths of PVC or galvanized pipe can be hacked to stand in for 84mm, 81mm, 60mm rounds, or even Bangalore Torpedoes.

Granted, people not building their own house may not have residual building material lying around like I do. However, scrap lumber and plumbing bits like these can be found on any building or demolition site every day. Contractors have to haul this stuff away all the time. If a unit offered to take some away for training purposes, I am sure that could be worked out at no cost to anyone. I have done it myself. In any case, with a little work on my table saw I was able to quickly produce a wooden radio, M4 magazine substitutes, claymore mine, blocks for 5.56 and 7.62 bandoleers, and blocks of C4 (drilled for simulated priming). If the empty bandoleers are not available, some can be fabricated from old ACU/BDU shirt sleeves. A claymore bag can be made from a pants leg. It really is not that hard.

Here are some other load management tips. Spend time training on basic fieldcraft and “survival” skills. Troopers and units need to be able to live with relative safety and comfort in the field. That means practice constructing at least hasty fighting positions and effective sleeping shelters. Individual soldiers need to know how to get the most out of their issue multi-layer clothing systems. If they have experience and confidence in their clothing that creates opportunities to leave non-mission essential clothing items behind and lighten that load. Moreover, soldiers will be able to get more quality rest – if not actual sleep – when the tactical situation permits. That, in turn, sustains the fighting strength of the unit in the longer term.

Sadly, this is a point of failure for a lot of units and it highlights uniformity and conformity gone wrong. Unit SOPs – and some lazy leaders – have a bad habit of dictating the exact items a soldier brings to the field. Then demanding that everyone wear the identical uniform regardless of the level of activity. If soldiers are properly trained, each should be able – with minimal supervision – to meter their own core temperatures by adding or subtracting layers as appropriate for their level of activity and metabolism. In a temperate zone, the risk is that a soldier will learn the hard way, spend an uncomfortable night, and do better the next time. Of course, if environmental conditions are more extreme, leaders may need to be more prescriptive about what is carried and worn. However, uniformity of a formation or unit should not ever be a factor or goal in these kinds of decisions in the field.

Likewise, as I mentioned in an earlier segment, time spent teaching soldiers how to properly use and get maximum utility out of their issued weapons can provide additional opportunities to lighten the load. Soldiers who have confidence in their ability to hit what they aim at will be less inclined to carry unwarranted amounts of ammunition or to waste ammunition spraying and praying. The unit should have even more confidence in the skills of their teammates selected to man crew-served weapons. It is extremely helpful for the rifle squads to have the chance to see the machinegunners, anti-tank gunners, and mortar crews engaging targets in live fire action as often as possible. That is true even in support units. For best results, gunners manning weapons on assigned vehicles in any unit should be the best trained and experienced available on those guns.

In conclusion, a leader always needs to consider the human animal when planning and managing combat loads. We are nature’s ultimate generalists. Whether by design or adaptation we are one of the few omnivores on the planet. Humans are capable of consuming and processing nutrients from almost anything and everything any other species can use for food. That gives us more survival options and greater range than any critter that is constrained to be only a herbivore or carnivore. Consequently, despite being inherently ill-suited to withstand extremes of heat, cold, altitude, and pressure, we have successfully adapted ourselves to live and thrive in the most austere environments of this world and beyond. Humans are certainly not fleet of foot as the cheetah, or as powerful as our simian cousin the gorilla, we cannot climb trees like a chimpanzee, nor are we natural swimmers like a dolphin. Yet, we can run fast enough, are strong enough, can climb high enough, and can swim well enough to compete successfully with all those more specialized animals in their domains. Generalization is our strength.

However, the physiological compromises that make us multifunctional animals also make us vulnerable. We stand fully erect to see danger or game farther away. Our feet and legs are well suited to walking long distances – unencumbered – in search of food. However, the small bones of the feet are relatively fragile and our joints are prone to damage from overuse or overloading. We are simply not optimized to carry extra weight for any distance. When we put a 100-pound rucksack or equivalent weight on our backs, it is an unnatural act that routinely results in stress injuries – often with permanent impacts. Unfortunately, combat demands that we do just that. That is a fact that we, as leaders, are not going to be able to change. Therefore, leaders must do everything they can to mitigate the unavoidable negative consequences of carrying a combat load. Remember, carrying a load is never the mission, it is always the means to an end, not an end in and of itself.

I do not expect there will be any technological solution anytime soon. Getting your soldiers the latest ruck that SOF is using is not going to change that reality either. I have seen the strongest soldiers in the world, with the latest and greatest gear, humbled by an overloaded ruck – even the “coolest” commercial versions. A leader may not be able to lighten the load appreciably on any given mission; but, can – at least – make sure soldiers only carry what is absolutely necessary and then only for as brief a period as possible. Note the Willie and Joe cartoons above. I suggest leaders internalize the spirit of Willie’s advice on the left, or risk overloaded soldiers making their own decisions and leaving a trail of abandoned gear behind as they struggle to move forward. Lots of American units have experienced that in previous wars – and it can happen again. I said in Part One of this series that there is no magic solution to managing the problems of excessive combat loads. Yet, good leadership can make any situation better. Good leadership is as close to magic as we are likely ever going to get.

-De Oppresso Liber!

LTC Terry Baldwin, US Army (Ret) served on active duty from 1975-2011 in various Infantry and Special Forces assignments. SSD is blessed to have him as both reader and contributor.

Posted in Guest Post, Load Carrying, Profession of Arms | 11 Comments »

More on the Army’s Grooming and Appearance Update

Thursday, January 28th, 2021

Army announces new grooming, appearance standards

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

Posted in Army, Guest Post, Profession of Arms | 37 Comments »

US Army Updates Grooming Standards

Tuesday, January 26th, 2021

Revised Army regulation and grooming standards support diversity, equity and inclusion and people first priority

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army has announced major revisions to Army Regulation 670-1, Wear and Appearance of Army Uniforms and Insignia, which will include guidance on wearing the new Army Green Service Uniform and several other key changes. In addition, the Army is also revising its grooming standards to support its People First priority and diversity and inclusion efforts.

“The Army must continue to put people first by fostering a culture of trust that accepts the experiences and backgrounds of every Soldier and civilian,” said Lt. Gen. Gary Brito, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel. “Our diverse workforce is a competitive advantage, and the Army must continue to offer fair treatment, access and opportunity across the force.”

The new version of AR 670-1 will go into effect Feb. 24. Major changes include implementation of the AGSU, clarified policy on breastfeeding or pumping in uniform, authorization for breastfeeding/pumping Soldiers to wear an optional undershirt, implementation of the Improved Hot Weather Combat Uniform, and full transition to the Operational Camouflage Pattern — removing references to the Universal Camouflage Pattern.

“The Army has maintained a longstanding tradition of Soldiers presenting a clean and professional appearance,” said Sgt. Maj. Mark Anthony Clark from the Army’s Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (G-1). “A professional appearance is an outward manifestation of the pride they have in themselves and in service to our country.”

New grooming standards, which will be reflected in a forthcoming memo (ALARACT), will also go into effect in February. Approved revisions include optional wear of earrings, lipstick and nail colors for women and clear nail polish for men. Earrings will remain unauthorized in field environments, combat-related deployments or locations where access to normal hygiene is not available.

Approved hairstyle changes include no minimum hair length for female Soldiers, allowing multiple hairstyles at once (i.e. braiding, twists or locs). Soldiers will be able to wear ponytails if unable to form a bun, and may wear long ponytails while conducting physical training, in the combat uniform or when female Soldiers wear equipment such as, but not limited to, combat helmets.

“In an effort to stop hair damage and loss stemming from hairstyles like the bun, the Army approved healthier hairstyle options that are more inclusive of various natural styles,” said Clark.

Soldiers will also be allowed to have a uniform hair color blend (also known as highlights) as long as it presents a natural appearance. However, purple, blue, pink, green, orange, bright red, fluorescent or neon colors, and some others will be prohibited.

In addition, the revised regulation will not contain potentially offensive language used to describe several hairstyles – for example, “Mohawk, eccentric, faddish, Fu Manchu, dreadlock” – which will be replaced with alternative verbiage.

“We are continuously assessing our policies to identify areas for improvement, then implementing policies that demonstrate our commitment to ensuring all Soldiers feel as though they are valued members of the Army team,” said Brito. “We know that actions speak louder than words when it comes to inclusivity and equity within our ranks, and we believe that the changes we announced today are one example of policies that put our people first.”

By U.S. Army Public Affairs

Editor’s note: Here is the link to the updated DA PAM 670-1

Posted in Army, Guest Post, Profession of Arms | 16 Comments »

Public Service Announcement: TC 3-20.0 IWTS & the Blank Run

Saturday, January 23rd, 2021

The Army published the updated TC 3-20.0 Integrated Weapons Training Strategy (IWTS) on the 18th of June, 2019 based on training lessons learned accumulated over the preceding 18 years of continuous combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. While for the civilian sector 18 months is plenty of time for implementation of new policies and procedures, the Army generally takes three to five years for full implementation and socialization (there are still NCOs who don’t know the changes to the 2016 revision of TC 3-22.9 Rifle and Carbine regarding the shot process, but I digress.) This article is purely to serve as a means to help boost awareness of the changes to the Integrated Weapons Training Strategy so that leaders at all levels can best adapt existing policies to fall in line with new Army doctrine.

The major change to the IWTS regarding Live Fire Exercise (LFX) progression is the addition of Table V Fire Control Exercise (FCX) to Squad/PLT/Co tables which serve to replace the traditional blank iteration that would occur prior to a “live” iteration. Instead, blank rounds are last used during Table IV Field Training Exercise (FTX). While this change initially seems to increase risk during training, it actually reduces risk as the progression of tables, if followed properly, will improve proficiency in individuals and small teams through increased repetition of tasks. Additionally, the 75th Ranger Regiment learned, “the blind hit live fire is safer than live fire on rehearsed terrain.”1 This finding supports the IWTS’s implementation of Table V FCX instead of a blank iteration on the maneuver range itself.

Speaking with members of the MCOE’s Weapons and Gunnery Branch at Building 4 on Fort Benning, GA, the implementation of Table V (FCX) serves to reduce logistical complication of multiple ammunition DODICs, provide an additional repetition using live ammunition, and reduce bad habits that are often seen during blank runs. The IWTS describes the FCX as, “a course of fire using training ammunition on an authorized live-fire facility. This table trains basic skills at a reduced tempo to enable proper leader and Soldier execution of the skills… This table includes the execution of critical skills in a live environment under live-fire conditions. Table V is commonly the first training event where the element employs its weapons with full caliber training ammunition, within a combat-realistic scenario and targetry to a required performance measure and standard…” While Table V could (in theory) serve as the “blank run” for those who are more resistant to change, to do so would be getting away from the original intent of the change itself.

The 75th Ranger Regiment’s lessons learned identified having the blank run be on an offsite objective of similar scale and target array/training objectives but different terrain greatly improved the training value of their Live Fire. The Regiment noted that, “Although the concept and scheme of maneuver remained constant, each progressive iteration demanded effective communication. Rangers moderated the pace of movement and target engagement to match their reduced situational awareness. Likewise, leaders matched their decision tempo to their reduced level of understanding. A “sight unseen” scenario completely strips the typically choreographed maneuver sequence and communication, and leadership are stressed to a whole new degree. Clean and concise communication governs the tempo and lethality of the assault.” With this in mind, the change to Table IV (FTX) is justified as it provides the offsite blank iteration prior to Tables V and VI.

Understandably, this is a significant change that will require the redirection of the Army’s bureaucratic momentum to overcome existing institutional inbreeding when it comes to live fire training. Unfortunately, many of the leadership positions that need to support these changes in order to allow the Army to properly implement it are rarely at the levels where these LFX progressions commonly occur. It is the Colonel to General Officer population and their staffs at both Brigade and echelons above brigade that need to embrace and fully support this new doctrine if any meaningful changes are to occur in a timely manner.

Below is an example of a squad level progression as well as provided the descriptions of each table as listed in the training circular.

Squad LFX Progression Example:2

(1) Crawl:

a. Table I (SOP), “is a pre-live-fire, hands on performance, and written evaluation of weaponry tasks, characteristics, capabilities, and function in a live environment. It verifies the Soldier’s abilities to perform critical tasks, understand how the unit operates tactically as the mission requires, and employ the weapons and systems safety during training and tactical operations as part of the element… Soldiers must demonstrate proficiency on individual tasks, skills, and knowledge through testable (written) and performance (hands-on) evaluation. Table I is a pre-requisite to any live-fire training with the element.” 3

b. Table II (STX-V), “is a simulations based demonstration of performance of employing the element to its primary capabilities. It is the culminating evaluation of the small team or squad after completing the element’s appropriate simulations training strategy. Table II is a replication (simulation) of the element’s supporting collective tasks (small teams and squads), or their live-fire qualification course (crew platforms and mortars). It provides a measured demonstration of performance before any live-fire event for the element.”4

(2) Walk:

a. Table III (STX), “is a live environment, hands-on training event utilizing training aids and devices, and may include the use of blank ammunition, pyrotechnics, and battle effects simulators. This event trains and evaluates the element’s ability to execute critical tasks using their organic weapons, systems, and equipment, during day and limited visibility conditions, and while operating in a CBRN environment.”5

(3) Run:

a. Table IV (FTX), “is a live environment where dismounted small teams and squads conduct an externally evaluated FTX using TADSS and training and evaluation outlines for all supporting collective tasks. It includes the use of blank ammunition, pyrotechnics, and battle effects simulators, as well as an appropriately trained and equipped opposing force… Table IV is the squad’s [Collective Task Proficiency (CTP)] evaluation that is used to determine the company’s overall CTP metric. This table includes the execution of critical skills in a live environment… prepares the element to employ their weapons and systems against the most common threat scenarios using prescribed targetry or opposing forces to a required standard.”6

b. Table V (FCX), “is a course of fire using training ammunition on an authorized live-fire facility. This table trains basic skills at a reduced tempo to enable proper leader and Soldier executions of the skills… This table includes the execution of critical skills in a live environment under live-fire conditions. Table V is commonly the first training event where the element employs its weapons with full caliber training ammunition, within a combat-realistic scenario and targetry to a required performance measure and standard…”7

c. Table VI (LFX), “uses full caliber training ammunition on an authorized life-fire facility or safety certified training area that assesses a squad’s tactical employment and lethality proficiency…”8

While the changes to some of the tables seems drastic, their successive building upon previous tables will both increase proficiency at both individual and collective levels, and reduce risk associated with conducting what amounts to a blind live iteration during the FCX. Additionally, there is nothing saying that leaders cannot still conduct TEWTs and “dry” safety walks of the lanes with subordinate echelons prior to.

These changes will simultaneously increase the training value of all training events in a LFX progression and increase safety during tables utilizing live ammunition. By adapting to the new training doctrine the Army can remain the premier land warfare organization within the Department of Defense and best prepare its Soldiers, NCOs, and Officers for the next war.

CPT Daniel Vazquez is a 2013 graduate of Norwich University’s Corps of Cadets and has a B.A. in history. Commissioned as an Infantryman in 2013, he has served in both Infantry and Stryker Brigade Combat Team formations. He is currently serving as a Rifle Company Commander in an IBCT Infantry Battalion.

Footnotes:

1 Live Fire Training as a Building Block to Readiness and Leader Development document can be found on the 75th Ranger Regiment’s Lessons Learned MilSuite page. (CAC Enabled) https://www.milsuite.mil/book/groups/75th- ranger-regiment-lessons-learned

2 TC 3-20.0 Integrated Weapons Training Strategy, Chapter 8-2, Table 8-2.

3 TC 3-20.0 Integrated Weapons Training Strategy, Chapter 8-2, Para 8-7 & 8-8.

4 TC 3-20.0 Integrated Weapons Training Strategy, Chapter 8-3, Para 8-9.

5 TC 3-20.0 Integrated Weapons Training Strategy, Chapter 8-4, Para 8-11.

6 TC 3-20.0 Integrated Weapons Training Strategy, Chapter 8-5, Para 8-13 & 8-14. 7 TC 3-20.0 Integrated Weapons Training Strategy, Chapter 8-6, Para 8-15 & 8-16 8 TC 3-20.0 Integrated Weapons Training Strategy, Chapter 8-7, Para 8-17

Posted in Guest Post, Profession of Arms, Training | 3 Comments »

USAF to Allow Longer Braids, Ponytails, Bangs for Women

Friday, January 22nd, 2021

As an outcome of the 101st Air Force uniform board, Air Force women will be able to wear their hair in up to two braids or a single ponytail with bulk not exceeding the width of the head and length not extending below a horizontal line running between the top of each sleeve inseam at the under arm through the shoulder blades. In addition, women’s bangs may now touch their eyebrows, but not cover their eyes.

These new changes will be effective upon publication of the new standards in Air Force Instruction 36-2903 in February.

“As I outlined in Action Order A: Airmen, this decision is a commitment to supporting the Airmen We Need and sustaining the culture and environment of excellence that will continue to make the Air Force an attractive career choice for Airmen and families,” said Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown, Jr. “I’m thankful for the feedback and research conducted from a number of women leaders, the Women’s Initiative Team, the Air Force uniform board, and our joint teammates.”

The Air Force uniform board convened virtually in November 2020 to discuss ideas sourced from Airmen across the Air Force who participated in a dress and appearance crowdsourcing campaign. Participants on the board included 19 diverse Airmen of various ranks from across the major commands and headquarters directorates.

The board reviewed all ideas including a recommendation from the Air Force’s Women’s Initiative Team. Thousands of women across the Air Force provided feedback to the Women’s Initiative Team, stating constraints to hair grooming standards resulted in damage to hair, migraines and in some cases, hair loss. The detailed work done by the Women’s Initiative Team to research and support the recommendation was greatly appreciated by the uniform board.

“In addition to the health concerns we have for our Airmen, not all women have the same hair type, and our hair standards should reflect our diverse force,” said Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force JoAnne S. Bass. “I am pleased we could make this important change for our women service members.”

In addition to addressing issues associated with personal health and hair loss, adjusting female hair standards supports ongoing efforts to address diversity and inclusion in the ranks. Earlier this year and in her role leading the Defense Department’s Diversity Board, then-Secretary of the Air Force Barbara M. Barrett played a prominent role in supporting these types of adjustments to ensure a more inclusive culture in the services.

The Air Force chief of staff approved the policy after considering feedback from the force, the uniform board recommendation, and the professional image and standards of the Air Force and U.S. military.

“We remain committed to removing barriers to service,” said Lt. Gen. Brian Kelly, Air Force deputy chief of staff for manpower, personnel and services. “In an all-volunteer force, we want fully qualified volunteers who are representative of the nation to see us as a great opportunity to maximize their talent and serve.”

Members must adhere to current occupational safety, fire and health guidance, and mishap prevention procedures emphasizing when and how to mitigate the potential for injury from hair of varying lengths around machinery, equipment, power transmission apparatus or moving parts. Airmen are encouraged to reach out to their safety office for assistance in analyzing any potential hazards, as applicable.

Another idea considered by the board related to beard wear for men. Unlike with women’s hair standards, there are no known health or hair loss issues associated with current male grooming standard compliance. As such, the Air Force plans to continue under the current male grooming standards without adjustments. Beards are currently permitted in conjunction with medical exceptions such as shaving waivers or for approved religious accommodations.

At this time, Guardians will adhere to the female grooming standards of the Air Force. Eventually, the U.S. Space Force will develop its own policy.

Numerous other ideas from the board are still under consideration for implementation and will be released in the future. For more information, consult AFI 36-2903 Dress and Appearance.

Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs

Posted in Air Force, For the Ladies, Guest Post, Profession of Arms | 4 Comments »

Air Force Establishes Significant Evolution in Foreign Area Officer Career Field

Tuesday, January 19th, 2021

ARLINGTON, Va. (AFNS) —

The Department of the Air Force announced Jan. 15, the opportunity for U.S. Air Force officers to voluntarily transfer into an internationally-focused core career field beginning spring 2021.

Since 2005, the Foreign Area Officer program has organized and trained select Air Force officers to be language-enabled, culturally astute, and operationally relevant regional experts.

More than 800 officers are currently certified as FAOs, filling a critical role in providing essential support to the National Defense Strategy by engaging foreign military leaders and government officials to build partner capability and capacity.

The restructuring of the FAO program is part of the Air Force’s broader reorientation toward great power competition. The recommendation that emerged from an Air Force cross-functional team’s year-long study was to establish the FAO career field as a strategic core career field while retaining operational relevance.

Until now, the Air Force FAO program operated as a secondary career field, alternating assignments between FAO and the officer’s core Air Force specialty code, or AFSC. This presented a key challenge in managing FAOs as strategic assets.

“Focusing FAO development on International Airmen skills and experiences, rather than challenging officers to hit milestones in two career fields, is more important than ever to increase awareness in our current strategic context with both our allies and partners and in the joint community,” said Kelli Seybolt, deputy under secretary of the Air Force, international affairs.

This strategic core career field will now be a Secretary of the Air Force International Affairs-managed AFSC, 16F or 16Z, to better cultivate professional development with a strategic international perspective. Within this new core AFSC, FAOs will be poised for more efficient utilization to meet Air Force strategic needs and will compete for promotion advancement within a single developmental category of professional FAO peers.

Continued operational relevance will be achieved through “FAO-minded” Intervening Operational Tours in each FAO’s original AFSC that sustains the various operational skillsets of each specialty and enhances Air Force strategic international engagement interests within those fields. It presents an increased return on FAO investment to provide deepened regional expertise and requires less in terms of training, sustainment, and manpower to support FAO development. Restructure of the FAO program, and increased primary emphasis in FAO development, will reduce the required inventory for FAOs from other AFSCs by approximately 30%.

“The United States Air Force FAO career field has been improving tremendously over the past decade,” stated Col. Lawrence E. Pravecek, FAO career field manager. “With the changes in the officer promotion system, now is the perfect time to take the next step in managing the development of our international experts. The choice to request transfer into the FAO Core AFSC will be a personal decision. All of us volunteered to serve, and now we ask for volunteers to help build a new AFSC that is tailor-made to provide the internationally-minded officers that our nation needs.”

For those already certified as FAOs or in the FAO training pipeline, applications for transfer to 16F or 16Z as their new core AFSC will begin early 2021. At that time, all eligible personnel will receive a direct email from the Air Force Personnel Center announcing the opening of the application window and providing directions to submit their applications online. FAOs who do not volunteer to transfer will remain in their current AFSC, while maintaining 16F as a secondary AFSC.

Air Force Reserve Component members will be notified by the AF Reserve or Air National Guard regarding ARC-specific processes. For questions/feedback, send email to the FAO Program Workflow Box at SAF.IAPA.IAS.Program.Workflow@us.af.mil.

For FAO resources, visit www.milsuite.mil/book.groups/air-force-ias.

For ARC programs, visit www.milsuite.mil/book/groups/arc-international-affairs-specialist-program.

By Jill Marie Diem, Secretary of the Air Force, International Affairs

Posted in Air Force, Guest Post, Profession of Arms | Comments Off on Air Force Establishes Significant Evolution in Foreign Area Officer Career Field

This Is My Squad: Forging Leadership Skills Through the Squad Leader Development Course

Tuesday, January 12th, 2021

“This Is My Squad,” an initiative of Sgt. Maj. of the Army Michael A. Grinston, aims to build more cohesive units across the Army and empower noncommissioned officers with the leadership skills to anticipate issues and address them early on. The Army Resilience Directorate’s contribution to TIMS is the Squad Leader Development Course, which aims to advance this initiative by giving squad leaders the opportunity to critically reflect on their leadership style and learn to employ evidence-based leadership skills. Leaders who understand their leadership philosophy, know their Soldiers, and live the Army Values can forge cohesive Army units that are strong and resilient in the face of any challenge.

SLDC facilitators will guide squad leaders to craft their personal leadership philosophy focusing on the areas of commitment, trust, and developing others. A personal leadership philosophy can increase leader consistency and effectiveness. It provides a plan for value-based action, which can be particularly helpful in challenging moments or at tough decision points. A personal leadership philosophy, particularly when shared with others, can improve relationships. It allows others to understand a leader’s values, priorities, approach to decision-making, and expectations. During this two-day course, squad leaders discuss doctrine from Army Doctrine Publication 6-22 and research from the field of human performance, organizational psychology, and positive psychology to highlight the impact and importance of squad-level leadership behaviors. During the course, Soldiers discuss effective leader behaviors in different components of leadership to include character, motivation, trust, and developing others. The intent of the course is to motivate students to identify, adopt, and internalize leadership behaviors outlined in doctrine and supported by research. R2 Performance Experts delivered SLDC as a pilot from Dec. 1-2 to 24 squad leaders that make up Grinston’s TIMS Leadership Panel. On Dec. 3, the TLP provided feedback to R2’s Curriculum Development Team on the course content and design so organizers can make improvements before making the course available to all squad leaders.

ARD requested that the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research conduct a longitudinal evaluation of SLDC to determine the effectiveness of the training in improving squad leader knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors that foster unit trust and exemplify ethical leadership. In partnership with R2 Performance Experts at Fort Riley, Kansas, it is anticipated that SLDC will be delivered to squad leaders with the 1st Infantry Division in March 2021. Half of the participating squad leaders will be randomized to receive SLDC training as part of the evaluation. The other half will be assigned to a wait-list control group to receive training following the completion of the evaluation. Soldiers receiving SLDC will complete surveys before training, following training, and at follow-ups scheduled over two months after the training. Surveys are designed to assess Soldier’s pre-training knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors and offer Soldiers the opportunity to provide feedback regarding the training.

By Piers Kowalski, Laura Kirschner, Ian Gutierrez, and Susannah Knust, Ph.D., Army Resilience Directorate

Posted in Army, Guest Post, Profession of Arms | 3 Comments »