Current Dress Regs

[Furniture]

From Canada.ca

"Is unnatural-coloured hair acceptable in ceremonial orders of dress? And must accessories match the colour of hair?"

Yes, the colouring of hair is permitted in all orders of dress unless it inhibits an operational duty. For example, bright coloured hair may have a negative operational impact during field operations or training. Leaders are invited to discuss with their members to find a simple, suitable accommodation, such as a scarf to cover the hair. Accessories do not have to match the colour of the member’s hair. However, all accessories shall meet safety and operational requirements and not must not discredit the CAF.


Un-fucking-believable. So they decide to keep the shit the our allies hate, but you're not allowed to have more than an inch of beard. These assclowns deserve the implosion of the CAF.

Purple hair is less likely to be an operational and PR problem than bird's nest beards.

Some people can manage to keep a long beard looking professional, many people can't.

 

[PrairieFella]

Purple hair is less likely to be an operational and PR problem than bird's nest beards.

Some people can manage to keep a long beard looking professional, many people can't.

The purple hair was actively pissing off our allies and made them think we're a joke (we are).

 

[Furniture]

The purple hair was actively pissing off our allies and made them think we're a joke (we are).

Was it the colour of hair, or the overall poor implementation of the policy that lead to bird's nest beards, purple hair, and mullets?

 

[dapaterson]

The purple hair was actively pissing off our allies and made them think we're a joke (we are).

The issue is folks without a shred of self respect with their dwarven beards and lack of personal hygiene, looking like they are homeless and shop at an army surplus store.

Those are leadership problems. "Properly clean and groom yourself" was a valid order even under the prior iteration.

 

[PrairieFella]

Was it the colour of hair, or the overall poor implementation of the policy that lead to bird's nest beards, purple hair, and mullets?

It was the purple hair and coloured nails. More conservative countries (see Eastern Europe and the Middle East) and frankly, most of NATO think we look like fucking losers because of some of these bozos.

 

[Fabius]

The problem was not the new regs, it was the underlying assumption of professionalism and the reluctance of leaders to correct individuals who look like hoboes who let themselves go.

The revised regulations are likely to have a limited influence on either of these above points. Especially the second one and that one is the most important.

Despite what regulations say appearance will likely continue to be regarded as a danger space for leaders unless the culture indicates otherwise. This is a first step so I guess we will see.

 

[PrairieFella]

The issue is folks without a shred of self respect with their dwarven beards and lack of personal hygiene, looking like they are homeless and shop at an army surplus store.

Those are leadership problems. "Properly clean and groom yourself" was a valid order even under the prior iteration.

I agree 100%

 

[captloadie]

The purple hair was actively pissing off our allies and made them think we're a joke (we are).

Prove it. Because if there were any actual discussions had at the levels that matter, I'm sure we would have been an about turn.

On deployed operations, its actions that matters.

 

[PrairieFella]

Prove it. Because if there were any actual discussions had at the levels that matter, I'm sure we would have been an about turn.

On deployed operations, its actions that matters.

Sure, I'll ATIP the discussion records, it'll only take 6 months. Let me pull out the remindme bot. I don't tend to record my conversations with peers and superiors who got back from MENA and Latvia lately so I don't have any physical proof on hand.

 

[Maxman1]

From Canada.ca

"Is unnatural-coloured hair acceptable in ceremonial orders of dress? And must accessories match the colour of hair?"

Yes, the colouring of hair is permitted in all orders of dress unless it inhibits an operational duty. For example, bright coloured hair may have a negative operational impact during field operations or training. Leaders are invited to discuss with their members to find a simple, suitable accommodation, such as a scarf to cover the hair. Accessories do not have to match the colour of the member’s hair. However, all accessories shall meet safety and operational requirements and not must not discredit the CAF.


Un-fucking-believable. So they decide to keep the shit the our allies hate, but you're not allowed to have more than an inch of beard. These assclowns deserve the implosion of the CAF.

They were so close.

 

[Furniture]

It was the purple hair and coloured nails. More conservative countries (see Eastern Europe and the Middle East) and frankly, most of NATO think we look like fucking losers because of some of these bozos.

I pointed out before that "purple' hair was an easy catch all for the overall unprofessional look a small minority adopted after the changes to dress regulations.

It's a lot easier to say "they look like clowns with purple hair" than it is to articulate exactly why the combination of people with long hair that was blowing around, people with "dwarven beards", and people who look like they are homeless are unprofessional looking.

I agree 100% with @Fabius. If leaders feel like they will get themselves in hot water for correcting someone's appearance, they won't touch it. As things stand, because there are not clear arcs of fire, people will not put themselves into a position that comes down to personal opinion about professional appearance.

 

[MilEME09]

Sure, I'll ATIP the discussion records, it'll only take 6 months. Let me pull out the remindme bot. I don't tend to record my conversations with peers and superiors who got back from MENA and Latvia lately so I don't have any physical proof on hand.

Talking with people who just came back, it wasn't hair color that made us look bad, it was poor leadership, training, and skirting safety regulations to the point it's only a matter of time until someone is killed. Blaming hair colour's is the easy button to avoid looking at the deeper issues.

 

[Furniture]

They were so close.

Bear in mind, the new regulations aren't out yet. Those are the fall 2022 regulations still.

The CANFORGEN announcing the changes came out this morning, with the amended dress regulations to follow in "early June".

 

[daftandbarmy]

If leaders feel like they will get themselves in hot water for correcting someone's appearance, they won't touch it. As things stand, because there are not clear arcs of fire, people will not put themselves into a position that comes down to personal opinion about professional appearance.

So 'moral cowardice' then?

 

[Furniture]

So 'moral cowardice' then?

Alternatively, poorly defined regulations that leave a lot of ambiguity as to the standard, create a mess that we shouldn't expect MCpls and Sgts to have to figure out.

If the big bosses that make the rules are too afraid to specify what is correct, why should we expect people who have less authority and top cover than them to specify what is "professional".

 

[MilEME09]

Alternatively, poorly defined regulations that leave a lot of ambiguity as to the standard, create a mess that we shouldn't expect MCpls and Sgts to have to figure out.

If the big bosses that make the rules are too afraid to specify what is correct, why should we expect people who have less authority and top cover than them to specify what is "professional".

Agreed, part of the problem to is we need a team to clean up ACIMS. So many old versions of a lot of manuals being used as reference which leads to troops getting mixed messages.

 

[dapaterson]

Agreed, part of the problem to is we need a team to clean up ACIMS. So many old versions of a lot of manuals being used as reference which leads to troops getting mixed messages.

The IM disaster that is DND CAF. Rather than linking to the authoritative version, create a local copy that does not get updated.

Or, if you do link, the DWAN site, SharePoint site or shared drive will be remapped, renamed or abandoned and the authoritative version becomes a Long Range Patrol and Training Squadron (aka 404). (A little IT / RCAF humour.)

 

[CountDC]

A part of the dress regs that appears to be forgotten or ignored the most is:

"Commanders at all levels shall ensure that personnel under their command, whether environmentally or extra-environmentally employed, are dressed in accordance with these instructions"

Some of the new message is simply clarifying or slight changes. Hair that extended below the top of the shoulder is already supposed to be secured back but no one has been enforcing it. Beards already had a restriction based on op requirements and safety.

Have to agree the problem has been that no one wanted to be the person that enforced it and deal with a harassment complaint or redress. I don't understand why though as that is part of being a leader, dealing with the negatives. If not sure they could always ask upwards on the chain of command thus giving themselves coverage they may want. I once was threatened with a redress and I simply informed them to go ahead. Guess I am just an old ass as if I have a cpl not meeting standards I correct their supervisor (shit does still run downhill in my chain of command).

 

[Jarnhamar]

A part of the dress regs that appears to be forgotten or ignored the most is:

Ignored like commanders ignored soldiers wearing their helmet chin straps properly when people started growing viking beards.

 

[KTown Cowboy]

Nothing on the app. Can you post the text?

UNCLASSIFIED

REFS: A. A-DH-265-000/AG-001 CANADIAN FORCES DRESS INSTRUCTIONS
B. DAOD 1000-7 POLICY FRAMEWORK FOR MILITARY PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
C. QR AND O 17.02 PERSONAL APPEARANCE
D. QR AND O 17.03 BEARDS AND MOUSTACHES

1. 
   
2. THIS MESSAGE ANNOUNCES AMENDMENTS TO THE CANADIAN FORCES DRESS INSTRUCTIONS, CHAPTER 2 (REF A). AS PREVIOUSLY COMMUNICATED, CHANGES AND ADJUSTMENTS TO REFERENCE A ARE CYCLICAL TO ENSURE ONGOING RELEVANCE
3. 
   
   
4. SINCE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF REFERENCE A IN THE FALL OF 2022, RELATED FEEDBACK HAS BEEN COLLECTED TO DETERMINE IF THE CHANGES STOOD TRUE TO THEIR ORIGINAL OBJECTIVE OF REFLECTING A POSITIVE CAF IMAGE, ALLOWING CAF MEMBERS TO SHOW THEIR TRUE SELVES WHILE MAINTAINING SAFETY, OPERATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS, INCLUSIVITY, AND REFLECTING SOCIETAL NORMS AS KEY PRINCIPLES
5. 
   
   
6. BASED ON A BROAD SET OF FEEDBACK AND OBSERVATIONS RECEIVED, THE INFORMATION LED TO A REVIEW OF SOME ARTICLES INTRODUCED IN 2022. AS SUCH, THE FOLLOWING CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE:
   
   1. 
      
   2. HAIR WILL BE REQUIRED TO BE TIED BACK AWAY FROM THE FACE IF IT FALLS BELOW THE LOWER PART OF THE COLLAR AT THE NAPE OF THE NECK
   3. 
      
      
   4. HAIR ACCESSORIES WILL BE BLACK OR SIMILAR TO AN INDIVIDUAL MEMBER S HAIR COLOUR
   5. 
      
      
   6. FACIAL HAIR IS RESTRICTED TO A MAXIMUM LENGTH/BULK OF 2.5 CENTIMETRES (1 INCH) AND
   7. 
      
      
   8. LANGUAGE RELATED TO GROOMING STANDARDS HAS BEEN CLARIFIED, AND ILLUSTRATIONS OF VARIOUS HAIR STYLES AND PERMITTED HAIR, AND FACIAL HAIR HAVE BEEN ADDED AND UPDATED IN THE CAF DRESS INSTRUCTIONS
7. 
   
   
8. THESE ADJUSTMENTS WILL COME INTO FORCE 2 JULY 2024
9. 
   
   
10. THE FULL DETAILS OF CHANGES AT REF A WILL BE PUBLISHED IN EARLY JUNE 2024
11. 
    
    
12. DETAILED COMMUNICATIONS PRODUCTS WILL BE DISTRIBUTED TO THE CHAINS OF COMMAND IN EARLY JUNE 2024 AND FAQS WILL BE POSTED HERE
13. 
    
    
14. COMMANDERS OF COMMANDS, TASK FORCE COMMANDERS AND FORMATION COMMANDERS STILL RETAIN THE AUTHORITY TO APPLY LIMITED AND FOCUSED CONSTRAINTS WITHIN THEIR JURISDICTION BASED ON UNIQUE TACTICAL CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS