Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

And none of those are worn to US Army standard.

 CptJake wrote:
And none of those are worn to US Army standard.

Why? Because they have a Hijab under them? If it's something other than that, please explain how a Hijab would conflict with proper wear of any of those covers.

What is US Army standard for wear of a Kevlar and how does the Hijab in the picture interfere with that any more than a balaclava or a neck gaiter (both of which are authorized)?

You cannot wear a neck gaiter or balaclava with your soft cap or beret. So no, they are not authorized.

I'm quite interest in how you improve headgear wearing standards, do other nations not wear headgear as well as the US?

Does helmet wearing technique actually differ this much between the various branches of helmet wearing institutes?

*At some point in writing this, the sarcasm turned into genuine (albeit still sarcastic) curiosity and I would like to know.

 CptJake wrote:
And none of those are worn to US Army standard.

I can't help but think you've slightly missed the point of this thread.

 CptJake wrote:
You cannot wear a neck gaiter or balaclava with your soft cap or beret. So no, they are not authorized.

They are authorized with a Kevlar, which was what I was specifically referring to when I said "What is US Army standard for wear of a Kevlar and how does the Hijab in the picture interfere with that any more than a balaclava or a neck gaiter (both of which are authorized)?" and as I have stated many times in this thread. Obviously, if a Hijab was to be allowed, the regulations would be modified to allow either the wear of the Hijab with a cover, or the wear of the Hijab in place of the cover (similar to the use of Sikh turbans).

I feel like at this point your argument is boiling down to the tautology of "The Hijab is not authorized in uniform because the Hijab is not authorized in uniform." Other than current regulations (and if we're to have this discussion at all, we are accepting that if the Hijab were to be allowed, it would require a change in regulations, since the Hijab is currently not allowed), how would the Hijab conflict with the proper wear of a cover or a Kevlar?

 CptJake wrote:
And none of those are worn to US Army standard.

The standard is laid down in the uniform regulations, and any difference from those is an exception.

However, the supplementary uniform regulations allow service members to request exceptions on grounds of conscience, and direct the armed forces in general to give serious consideration to making accommodations for these requests, providing they don't prejudice good order, operational effectiveness, etc. (with many provisos and so on...)

From http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/130017p.pdf

(The above does not apply to cadet uniform at The Citadel.)

Whether the provision for exceptions is part of the standard or not, I think is a semantic distinction that should not blind us to the true situation, which is that the US armed forces are slowly becoming more open to different religions.

Nobody's exempted based on religion in the military currently, so I don't know what that means.

Seaward wrote:
Nobody's exempted based on religion in the military currently, so I don't know what that means.

There are several people who are exempted based on Sikhism, under these new regulations.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/12/25/pentagon-defers-to-services-on-letting-sikhs-wear-turbans-beards.html

I am interested to have found out that beards and turbans were banned as recently as 1981.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Seaward wrote:
Nobody's exempted based on religion in the military currently, so I don't know what that means.

There are several people who are exempted based on Sikhism, under these new regulations.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/12/25/pentagon-defers-to-services-on-letting-sikhs-wear-turbans-beards.html

I am interested to have found out that beards and turbans were banned as recently as 1981.

Yeah, I used the wrong word. Prohibited.

Ah yes.

Exactly so, religions are not prohibited. That's why the new regulations give more scope for religious people to be allowed to comply with different aspects of their faith such as wearing a turban or hijab.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Ah yes.

Exactly so, religions are not prohibited. That's why the new regulations give more scope for religious people to be allowed to comply with different aspects of their faith such as wearing a turban or hijab.

Those aren't regulations, they're individual case-specific, and they don't apply to the Citadel.

The matter of whether they are regulations or not is a semantic difference. The effect of the new guidance documentation is to put a duty on the armed forces to give proper consideration to requests for faith based dress exemptions from the normal uniform, and grant them where properly feasible.

As I said earlier, this applies to the regular armed forces, but not to The Citadel.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The matter of whether they are regulations or not is a semantic difference. The effect of the new guidance documentation is to put a duty on the armed forces to give proper consideration to requests for faith based dress exemptions from the normal uniform, and grant them where properly feasible.

If you think that's going to result in hijabs being approved or turbans making it in for anybody but three Sikh doctors who are never going to see a day of combat, I dunno what to tell you. Except that my experience with the American military suggests otherwise.

We still on the Citadel or we now bashing the US Military?

Pictures shown were not US Military.

Citadel stuck to their uniform requirement of no individualism
US Military is a different animal compare to the Citadel.
ETP are made when it is needed for mission as one poster threw up two females wearing Hijabs in either OIF/OEF to avoid a cultural escalation.

Now on here we have as I can see US Military vs non Military to an extent.

Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The matter of whether they are regulations or not is a semantic difference. The effect of the new guidance documentation is to put a duty on the armed forces to give proper consideration to requests for faith based dress exemptions from the normal uniform, and grant them where properly feasible.

If you think that's going to result in hijabs being approved or turbans making it in for anybody but three Sikh doctors who are never going to see a day of combat, I dunno what to tell you. Except that my experience with the American military suggests otherwise.

One of the Sikhs who was approved is a Combat Engineer with a Combat Action Badge.

 Hordini wrote:

Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The matter of whether they are regulations or not is a semantic difference. The effect of the new guidance documentation is to put a duty on the armed forces to give proper consideration to requests for faith based dress exemptions from the normal uniform, and grant them where properly feasible.

If you think that's going to result in hijabs being approved or turbans making it in for anybody but three Sikh doctors who are never going to see a day of combat, I dunno what to tell you. Except that my experience with the American military suggests otherwise.

One of the Sikhs who was approved is a Combat Engineer with a Combat Action Badge.

What exactly do you know about the CAB and how it is earned?

 Jihadin wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The matter of whether they are regulations or not is a semantic difference. The effect of the new guidance documentation is to put a duty on the armed forces to give proper consideration to requests for faith based dress exemptions from the normal uniform, and grant them where properly feasible.

If you think that's going to result in hijabs being approved or turbans making it in for anybody but three Sikh doctors who are never going to see a day of combat, I dunno what to tell you. Except that my experience with the American military suggests otherwise.

One of the Sikhs who was approved is a Combat Engineer with a Combat Action Badge.

What exactly do you know about the CAB and how it is earned?

I'm familiar with the requirements. I would assume you are as well, so I'm not sure why you are asking me. Are we moving the goalposts already, or is this an attempt at appeal to authority?

I can play this game too, if that's what you want. What exactly do you know about the Hijab and how it is worn? How would it conflict with proper wear of a Kevlar or cover if it was approved for wear in uniform? No one has answered that yet with anything other than what essentially boiled down to "Hijabs would conflict with proper wear of Kevlar and covers because the Hijab is currently not approved for wear in uniform."

To be clear, Seaward made the claim that the only Sikh soldiers getting approved for beards and turbans were doctors who would never see combat. But there is a Sikh who is a Combat Engineer who has been awarded a Combat Action Badge who has also been approved, so that would seem to indicate that Seaward's argument isn't completely accurate. What that has to do with what I know about a CAB and why you're asking me, even though you already are well aware of what it is and an explanation of the requirements for the badge are readily available, I don't know.

 Hordini wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The matter of whether they are regulations or not is a semantic difference. The effect of the new guidance documentation is to put a duty on the armed forces to give proper consideration to requests for faith based dress exemptions from the normal uniform, and grant them where properly feasible.

If you think that's going to result in hijabs being approved or turbans making it in for anybody but three Sikh doctors who are never going to see a day of combat, I dunno what to tell you. Except that my experience with the American military suggests otherwise.

One of the Sikhs who was approved is a Combat Engineer with a Combat Action Badge.

What exactly do you know about the CAB and how it is earned?

I'm familiar with the requirements. I would assume you are as well, so I'm not sure why you are asking me. Are we moving the goalposts already, or is this an attempt at appeal to authority?

I can play this game too, if that's what you want. What exactly do you know about the Hijab and how it is worn? How would it conflict with proper wear of a Kevlar or cover if it was approved for wear in uniform? No one has answered that yet with anything other than what essentially boiled down to "Hijabs would conflict with proper wear of Kevlar and covers because the Hijab is currently not approved for wear in uniform."

Okay

One has to be present during an engagement.

III. AWARD ELIGIBILITY

The Combat Action Badge (CAB) may be awarded by any commander delegated authority by the Secretary of the Army during wartime or the CG, U.S. Army Human Resources Command and will be announced in permanent orders.

The requirements for award of the CAB are Branch and MOS immaterial. Assignment to a Combat Arms unit or a unit organized to conduct close or offensive combat operations, or performing offensive combat operations is not required to qualify for the CAB. However, it is not intended to award all soldiers who serve in a combat zone or imminent danger area.
Specific Eligibility Requirements:
May be awarded to any soldier.
Soldier must be performing assigned duties in an area where hostile fire pay or imminent danger pay is authorized.
Soldier must be personally present and actively engaging or being engaged by the enemy, and performing satisfactorily in accordance with the prescribed rules of engagement.
Soldier must not be assigned/attached to a unit that would qualify the soldier for the CIB/CMB.

One can get a CAB if a rocket hits within 100m of you.

As for Hijab in the US Military. One (NCO's) enforce the standards set by AR 670-1. Till then An individual cannot wear a Hijab unless its a ETP concerning mission or there is a change in AR670-1 introducing it into the US Armed Forces. If an individual wears a Hijab and I order her to take it off. Am I the bad guy for slamming her with an Article 15 for disobeying a direct lawful order from me if she does not remove it but stands by her Cultural upbringing?

 Jihadin wrote:

One can get a CAB if a rocket hits within 100m of you.

As for Hijab in the US Military. One (NCO's) enforce the standards set by AR 670-1. Till then An individual cannot wear a Hijab unless its a ETP concerning mission or there is a change in AR670-1 introducing it into the US Armed Forces. If an individual wears a Hijab and I order her to take it off. Am I the bad guy for slamming her with an Article 15 for disobeying a direct lawful order from me if she does not remove it but stands by her Cultural upbringing?

Yes, CAB awards can be somewhat loosely awarded, it all depends on the command (and whether or not some powerpoint ranger major wants one)...


For the record, I agree with you... As it stands now, 670-1 prohibits the wear of a hijab. But... what I See Hordini asking is, aside from the regs, how would a hijab interfere with the wear of headgear? As in, let's suppose in a hypothetical that on May 15th, Big Army and SMA put out a memo stating "670-1 has been amended to allow the wear of hijab and other religious/cultural headgear, provided it does not interfere with the wear of other required headgear."

As far as I can see, if the reg was amended to allow it, there really isn't anything to prevent the proper wear of a kevlar/PC, etc. It really isn't any more thick of a cloth than a yarmulke is.

 Jihadin wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The matter of whether they are regulations or not is a semantic difference. The effect of the new guidance documentation is to put a duty on the armed forces to give proper consideration to requests for faith based dress exemptions from the normal uniform, and grant them where properly feasible.

If you think that's going to result in hijabs being approved or turbans making it in for anybody but three Sikh doctors who are never going to see a day of combat, I dunno what to tell you. Except that my experience with the American military suggests otherwise.

One of the Sikhs who was approved is a Combat Engineer with a Combat Action Badge.

What exactly do you know about the CAB and how it is earned?

I'm familiar with the requirements. I would assume you are as well, so I'm not sure why you are asking me. Are we moving the goalposts already, or is this an attempt at appeal to authority?

I can play this game too, if that's what you want. What exactly do you know about the Hijab and how it is worn? How would it conflict with proper wear of a Kevlar or cover if it was approved for wear in uniform? No one has answered that yet with anything other than what essentially boiled down to "Hijabs would conflict with proper wear of Kevlar and covers because the Hijab is currently not approved for wear in uniform."

Okay

One has to be present during an engagement.

III. AWARD ELIGIBILITY

The Combat Action Badge (CAB) may be awarded by any commander delegated authority by the Secretary of the Army during wartime or the CG, U.S. Army Human Resources Command and will be announced in permanent orders.

The requirements for award of the CAB are Branch and MOS immaterial. Assignment to a Combat Arms unit or a unit organized to conduct close or offensive combat operations, or performing offensive combat operations is not required to qualify for the CAB. However, it is not intended to award all soldiers who serve in a combat zone or imminent danger area.
Specific Eligibility Requirements:
May be awarded to any soldier.
Soldier must be performing assigned duties in an area where hostile fire pay or imminent danger pay is authorized.
Soldier must be personally present and actively engaging or being engaged by the enemy, and performing satisfactorily in accordance with the prescribed rules of engagement.
Soldier must not be assigned/attached to a unit that would qualify the soldier for the CIB/CMB.

One can get a CAB if a rocket hits within 100m of you.

As for Hijab in the US Military. One (NCO's) enforce the standards set by AR 670-1. Till then An individual cannot wear a Hijab unless its a ETP concerning mission or there is a change in AR670-1 introducing it into the US Armed Forces. If an individual wears a Hijab and I order her to take it off. Am I the bad guy for slamming her with an Article 15 for disobeying a direct lawful order from me if she does not remove it but stands by her Cultural upbringing?

Nobody is suggesting that soldiers should just start wearing Hijabs, and there was never, at any point in this thread, any subtext, suggestion, implication, or indication otherwise. It is clear to everyone in this thread that if soldiers were to be allowed to wear the Hijab, there would have to be a change to regulations. The imaginary scene in which you give someone an article 15 for wearing a Hijab in violation of regulations is not something that anyone in this thread was suggesting as a course of action.

Nobody is saying female Muslim soldiers should be able to just start wearing Hijabs without a change in regulations. It's currently not allowed. If someone in this thread suggests that it should be allowed, what that means is, "regulations should be changed so that it should be allowed." Otherwise it's not allowed. Most of us are arguing from a position of good faith. I thought for the most part that you did too, but I'm seriously beginning to wonder if you are trolling or just deliberately being obtuse.

And yes, clearly you can get a CAB for being in an engagement in which the enemy misses you. Are we going to start examining everyone with a CIB, CAB, or CAR to determine who was in "real" combat or not? I don't think that really has anything to do with the point. I get it, not all engagements are created equal. That doesn't change the fact that someone with a CAB has, by definition, been involved in an engagement of some sort.

CIB = Combat Infantry Badge = earned in direct engagement with the enemy = is not the same as a EIB = Expert Infantry Badge = Series of tasks passed on first time go to earn the EIB

CAB and CAR are the same. Orders are written and the Badge/award is entered into an 201 file.

If the hijab was a religious garment then changes will be made. Hijab is a cultural item and not view as the same way as a Shik turbin. That individual wears a under piece under his Kevlar which is the same as the one he wears under his turbin.

Is the Hijab being viewed as a Religious piece?

 Jihadin wrote:
CIB = Combat Infantry Badge = earned in direct engagement with the enemy = is not the same as a EIB = Expert Infantry Badge = Series of tasks passed on first time go to earn the EIB

CAB and CAR are the same. Orders are written and the Badge/award is entered into an 201 file.

If the hijab was a religious garment then changes will be made. Hijab is a cultural item and not view as the same way as a Shik turbin. That individual wears a under piece under his Kevlar which is the same as the one he wears under his turbin.

Is the Hijab being viewed as a Religious piece?

No one said anything about an EIB so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.

Culture and religion are very often intertwined. I think that the Hijab is both a cultural and religious item depending on the context, and I think it would be difficult to argue that it's purely one or the other. To the Muslim women who want to wear it though, I think it certainly qualifies as a religious item, similar to the Sikh articles of faith.

 Hordini wrote:

Culture and religion are very often intertwined. I think that the Hijab is both a cultural and religious item depending on the context, and I think it would be difficult to argue that it's purely one or the other. To the Muslim women who want to wear it though, I think it certainly qualifies as a religious item, similar to the Sikh articles of faith.

I agree that it is contextual... I mean, for a woman from KSA or Iran or other Muslim majority nations, where the hijab, burqa and other garments are the norm, it's more cultural than religious (despite there being justification through religious texts)

For a Muslim woman in the US, it very likely is a religious statement and is worn in pretty much an exclusively religious context. There are a couple of young Muslim women in my religion class right now, they both wear the hijab daily. For them it's quite clearly a statement of religious faith.

As there as many awards and decoration concerning the US Military that has been brought up
How many versions of the Hijab are there.
The headgear worn by Sikh are called Dastar

 Jihadin wrote:
CIB = Combat Infantry Badge = earned in direct engagement with the enemy = is not the same as a EIB = Expert Infantry Badge = Series of tasks passed on first time go to earn the EIB

CAB and CAR are the same. Orders are written and the Badge/award is entered into an 201 file.

If the hijab was a religious garment then changes will be made. Hijab is a cultural item and not view as the same way as a Shik turbin. That individual wears a under piece under his Kevlar which is the same as the one he wears under his turbin.

Is the Hijab being viewed as a Religious piece?

The revised not regulations aren't restricted to things you think are religious.

More information on this point can be found in the revised not regulations.

 Jihadin wrote:
As there as many awards and decoration concerning the US Military that has been brought up
How many versions of the Hijab are there.
The headgear worn by Sikh are called Dastar

I suppose it would depend on what you considered a "version." If you're thinking of the Niqab and the Burka, those are all different from the Hijab. If you just mean different versions as in different cloths, colors, etc, then there are of course a wide variety.

If the regulations were changed to allow the Hijab, it would make sense that they would approve only a few specific versions like they did for the Sikh soldiers. I believe they currently have an ACU and black version, depending on what uniform they're wearing. For the Hijab, I'm guessing there would probably have to be a garrison and field version, and perhaps a PT version as well.

How does this not boiling down to letting anyone wear anything with the uniform? Let native americans wear the feathered head piece, let anyone wear cap, scarf, jewelry or anything else. If hijab can be allowed for religious reasons, certainly anything else can. Ahd im sure men also are allowed to wear hijabs then.

Baxx wrote:
How does this not boiling down to letting anyone wear anything with the uniform? Let native americans wear the feathered head piece, let anyone wear cap, scarf, jewelry or anything else. If hijab can be allowed for religious reasons, certainly anything else can. Ahd im sure men also are allowed to wear hijabs then.

The same way any different options for any different uniform or gear items are allowed and it doesn't boil down to letting everything be allowed. There would still be regulations, even if the current regulations were to be modified. Just because some things are allowed doesn't mean everything is allowed.

How often do we make exceptions? Is there a point where a line is drawn or does a military or military academy have to allow for any ones individual belief system to be represented physically? I don't really know the answer but it seems to be coming down to every thing is ok versus nothing is ok and I don't think it is that simple.

Since anecdotal evidence is being tossed around my cousin and his wife are Muslim but she (and their daughter) never wear a hijab.