Sgt. Major of the Army Raymond Chandler III recently issued guidance to help clarify the Army’s position on commercial-off-the-shelf combat boots. “There has been misunderstanding with the ALARACT Message 140/2007 with leaders in interpreting which COTS boots are authorized and which are not,” Chandler wrote in a document that was posted on Facebook’s Army NCO Support page. “My intent is to add clarity to the ALARACT message giving leaders a better understanding of which boots are authorized for wear and why.” There are many COTS boots that meet Army guidelines, Chandler wrote. “Some examples of these items include, but are not limited to, the Belleville Model 390, the 8-inch Danner Desert TFX, the 8-inch Oakley S.I. Assault Boot as well as many other more traditional Army tan combat boot styles. The purpose of listing these items here is to give examples of styles that fall within the guidelines and authorization as optional to wear,” Chandler wrote. Program Executive Office Soldier and U.S. Army Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Center do not have a certification process for boots.

AR 670-1 and ALARACT messages provide guidance on what approved standards industry uses to manufacturer boots that are authorized for wear. Here’s what to look for, according to Chandler: “The Army authorizes COTS boots as long as they are between 8 to 10 inches in height and made of tan rough side out of cattle hide leather, with a plain toe, and with a soling system similar in color to the tan upper materials. The soling materials cannot exceed two inches in height, when measured from the bottom of the outsole, and cannot extend up the back of the heel of the boot or over the top of the toe.” “The exterior of the upper boot cannot contain mesh but must be constructed of all leather or a combination of leather and non-mesh fabric. Boots with metal or plastic cleats in the bottom of the soles and sewn-in or laced-in zippers or velcro inserts are not authorized.” “There are other leathers, such as pigskin, that do not meet the performance criteria of cattle hide.

Cattle hide leather is more durable, and provides better performance in combat over pigskin. Soldiers should be aware that some companies sell ‘Warrior Leather” which is a common-use name for pigskin leather.” “Rubber and polyether polyurethane are the only outsole materials authorized. Rubber and polyether polyurethane are the only outsole materials that currently meet the need for durability and traction on surfaces in multiple environments and temperature ranges, other materials, which may be of a lighter weight, do not meet soldiers performance standards.” PEO Soldier and NSRDEC establish high quality standards for both the end items and component materials going into our combat boots, according to Chandler. Current Army footwear is designed to be durable and provide the functionality needed by soldiers in current and potential future operational environments. This process ensures that soldiers have functional boots (the NSN ones) to accomplish their mission. PEO Soldier and NSRDEC maintain a close relationship with the footwear buyers at AAFES to ensure they are not buying anything for MCSS that does not meet the Army Uniform requirements, he said.

The individual soldier is responsible for buying authorized boots that meet Army requirements. Leaders have the responsibility of ensuring optional footwear meets Army requirements, Chandler wrote.husqvarna 50cc backpack blower AR 670-I, Appendix E requires all soldiers to have one pair of each of the Clothing Initial Issue (CII) Bag item boots. cheap nike brasilia 6 xl backpackThis requirement includes both the Army Combat Boot (Hot Weather) and the Army Combat Boot (Temperate Weather). samsonite wanderpacks laptop backpack 44 cmAny optional footwear discussed above that unit commanders authorize does not relieve soldiers of their requirement to possess one pair of each of CII boots.Here's another section from the novel (Fobbit) on which I've been working this week. 

This is fiction--combat-zone satire--but it's not too far off the mark of what I saw during my eleven months in Iraq.  (P.S. Don't try e-mailing CSM Tupplewhite; there is no such person) To: DIV NCO Leadership Group Subject: Notes from Command Sergeant Major Tupplewhite As discussed at this morning’s weekly CSM meeting, we—the CG and I—have certain expectations of our enlisted Shamrock Division when deployed to a combat zone and, to date, those expectations have not been fully met, let alone exceeded.  I already ripped you guys a new one at this morning’s meeting, so I won’t thrash you again here.  Not my purpose or intent.  This is simply what I already gave you, but this time in written format.  This topic is brought up repeatedly and was addressed by the Commanding General during the morning update today.  Uniform standards are not being enforced by our leaders and are clearly visibly lacking in the soldiers we see walking around this FOB.  And not just here, mind you. 

The majority of soldiers I observe in my visits all around Iraq display multiple violations of AR 670-1 and governing uniform policies. Just a few examples off the top of my head:The standard for uniforms sleeves is down.  There is nothing from any reg in Sham Div that authorizes the wear of the uniform with sleeves up, so where the soldiers are getting this idea from I don’t know.  Sure it’s hot out there.  Unauthorized eyewear is clearly defined in AR 670-1.  It says, and I quote: “Conservative prescription and nonprescription sunglasses are authorized for wear when in a garrison environment…Soldiers may not wear lenses with extreme or trendy colors, which include, but are not limited to, red, yellow, blue, purple, bright green, or orange.  Lens colors must be traditional gray, brown, or dark green shades.”  I don’t want to see one more pair of hippie-flower-child, John-Lennon-style glasses. I will personally rip them off the soldier’s face and stomp them to death in the dirt beneath my boot.

Nowhere in AR 670-1 does it authorize the use and wear of bandanas tied, pirate-fashion, to the soldier’s skull.  The Kevlar helmet has undergone extensive testing and meets exacting design standards to fully soak up whatever sweat our soldiers emit.  From now on, I’m calling these Don’t-Rags.  Soldiers will continue to disobey orders and ignore uniform standards simply because first sergeants (or any sergeants for that matter) and company commanders choose to make them up as they go along.  Or is it that you’re just purposely choosing not to fulfill your contract not just with America but with the sons and daughters of our great country?  Look in the mirror and ask yourself:  Do I really truly achieve high levels of professionalism each and every day, or am I just happy “doing my own thing”?  Are you a “Toe-the-Liner”?  Which is it, Sergeant?  Will you choose Rigorous Discipline or Sloppy Standards? 2. Acts of Indiscipline.  We are all senior leaders and we should be farther ahead in some cases than we are. 

The division has settled down into steady-state operations and that’s our focus now (combat ops).  It is our duty to ensure Soldiers fully understand standards of conduct.  And yet, every day the CG and I receive reports from staff leadership indicating otherwise. Let me give you a little example, a little tidbit which came to our attention during a staff briefing just yesterday.  This is what G-2 briefed, and I quote: “Good morning, sir.  Yesterday at zero-nine-hundred hours, adjacent to Baghdad International Airport, we discovered an abandoned shed which we have since dubbed ‘The Love Shack.’  Inside, we found several blankets, used condoms and empty beer cans.  We placed the shed under observation for the remainder of the day and at twenty-one-hundred hours last night, our efforts paid off when we caught a Special Forces sergeant first class and a specialist—one male, one female—entering the shack with backpacks.  Upon search and seizure, we discovered those knapsacks contained blankets, pillows, candles and one paperback book [The Greatest Love Sonnets of Shakespeare], but no other contraband. 

We took both individuals into custody.” I don’t know about you, but I call that “sufficient evidence indicating intent to violate General Order Number Two.”  Especially that Shakespeare book.  I mean, who in the good goddamn would carry around something like that if it wasn’t for policy-violating behavior? I won’t say anything more on this subject except this (and, ladies please pardon my bluntness):  Tell your goddamn soldiers to keep their peckers in their pants.The Shamrock Division has had an average of one negligent discharge per day ever since we rolled into town.  This epidemic of sloppy inattention is entirely unacceptable.  The latest incident involved a lieutenant teaching one of his soldiers how to load an M-249 machine gun…here in our Life Support Area.  The lieutenant apparently thought he had the weapon on half-cock, but it turned out it was on full-cock and, in the process of teaching the soldier what to do, the gun fired.  The round went into a nearby trailer and landed on the floor without hurting anybody. 

Well, guess who that trailer belonged to?  That’s right, Sergeants: yours truly.  I am now taking that near-death round and am making a necklace out of it.  I will wear it every day for the rest of my days here in theater as way of reminding us of our higher calling as NCOs to rise above sloppy indiscipline.  That lieutenant’s just lucky he’s a lieutenant, and that’s all I’m gonna say about that. I’m one of the lucky ones.  Since January, we’ve had 14 fatalities due to negligent discharges.  I’ll bet those 14 individuals are now wishing their fellow soldiers had thought to check whether or not that selector switch was on SAFE.I cannot believe I’m even having to type those words while deployed to a combat zone, but the sad fact is that we have a problem with illegal consumption here in Sham Div.  The evidence speaks for itself. Not too long ago, word reached my ears that a certain battalion commander ordered an inspection of his companies’ milvans, connexes and quadcons because he suspected they were harboring alcohol. 

This was prompted by the fact that one of his soldiers—a staff sergeant for God’s sake!—had showed up for guard duty inebriated to the gills.  They traced the trail of booze back to his humvee where they found empty vodka bottles rattling around in the back.  The NCO (a disgrace to our chevrons, in my opinion) later confessed he’d been getting the liquor from one of the civilian contractors (trust me, that individual has since been fired and is on his way back to the United States where just punishment will be meted out).  Upon further investigation, the battalion commander discovered that the NCO (I can hardly bear to call him that) had been storing the alcohol in his connex.  He’d even gone so far as to build a false wall in the connex and hide the booze behind it. This is a sad state of affairs, indeed.  We are here in Iraq to fight the evil of terrorism, not the demon of alcohol.  I understand that some of our soldiers may have been struggling with addictions even before we left Fort Stewart and that by being over here in the desert, the word “dry” takes on a whole other meaning for them.