Help with a picture (Shutterstock type thing, NOT Stolen Valor)
Caucasian soldier in uniform
Anything immediately wrong? I don’t recognize the shoulder DUI or whatever those are called. Anyone else? Someone is looking to use for some event, but wanted me to look at it first.
Category: Politics
I wasn’t in the army, but isn’t his US badge on his lapel listing to starboard?
I agree, the angle does look wrong. I was going to whine about how they didn’t look quite centered, but after looking again decided they looked correct. Nothing else jumps out at me, but it has been a while…
First thing I noticed. Every uniform inspection I ever did, you looked at the disks, because alot of people could just never line them up right. Glad I spent the money on that stupid plastic gauge.
Hey, if it’s stupid but works, then it’s not stupid.
Here’s the info on the “T Arrowhead” pin on his shoulder. Image( http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-saL2-BJOOIo/Tsw4h0y1qsI/AAAAAAAAAlA/scJkcotiDiI/s640/36+Infantry+Division+Insignia+%255B1.5%255D.png ) 36th Infantry Division The 36th Infantry Division (“Arrowhead”), also known as the Texas Division, is a modular division of the United States Army and the Texas Army National Guard. It was activated for service in World War II on 25 November 1940, and was sent overseas in April 1943. It was reorganized in May 2004 from the 49th Armored Division. The 36th Infantry Division was originally activated as the 15th Division, an Army National Guard Division from Texas and Oklahoma. The designation was changed to the 36th Division in 1917, possibly in July. It consisted of the 71st Infantry Brigade (141st and 142nd Infantry Regiments) and the 72nd Infantry Brigade (143rd and 144th Infantry Regiments). The unit was sent to Europe in July 1918 and conducted major operations in the Meuse-Argonne Offensive. The unit was inactivated in June 1919. On 1 May 2004, the 49th Armored Division of the Texas Army National Guard was officially deactivated and the 49th Armored Division was redesignated the 36th Infantry Division. After half a century, the “Fighting 36th” was reactivated to help transform Texas’ military forces into a more mobile and lethal fighting force, committed to helping fight the global war on terrorism and carrying on the proud legacy established by its predecessors. In January 2004, 74 soldiers from Alpha Battery (TAB) 2nd Battalion 131st Field Artillery were activated for federal service in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. In 2005 approximately 100 soldiers of the 36th Infantry Division deployed to Bosnia for Enduring Mission 3 which was a continuation from previous IFOR and SFOR missions. In 2005, over three thousand troops from the 56th BCT, 36th ID deployed to Iraq as part of the largest deployment of Texas troops since World War II. 3/133 FA, 2/142 INF were both awarded Meritorious Unit Citations for their service in Iraq. In 2005–2006, 800 Soldiers of 3d Battalion, 141st Infantry Regiment, 72d Brigade, 36th Infantry Division deployed to Afghanistan for combat operations. The Battalion was attached to the 504th Infantry Regiment of the… Read more »
Oh and here’s the link for that info….
http://militaryinsignia.blogspot.com/2011/11/insignia-of-us-army-infantry-divisions.html
Oh, ok, THAT was what I was looking for.
What is the Green Badge with the 6 sided fort/polygon with the gold star with the bottom bar.
I can’t find that.
/curious.
Regimental affiliation
Trying to remember how regimental affiliation works with combat arms soldiers. The whole “regimental affiliation” thing came about after I left the Infantry and was in either MI or MP and with the support arms its very simple: Each support branch has regimental crest so you wear that.
But IIRC soldiers in combat arms MOS’s would choose an affiliation based (I think) on their first unit of assignment?
Not sure, maybe someone who spent their whole career in a combat arms field can fill us in.
Pretty sure it’s regimental affiliation of current unit of assignment in the combat arms, Martinjmpr. Not 100% positive, though.
You used to have to put in a DA4187 for Regimental Affiliation. If you did NOT have an affiliation, you wore the RDI of your current unit. Non-combat arms only wore their branch RDI.
Under the current regulation change dated 2015, there is no more official regimental affiliation, and ALL Soldiers can wear any previous units RDI as long as it is still on their ERB or they have orders assigned them to said unit.
Also, under the old policy, you could request affiliation with any unit, not just your first or even any that you had been assigned to.
It’s the 36th Infantry Regimental Crest.
Bingo.
http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/Catalog/HeraldryMulti.aspx?CategoryId=3659&grp=2&menu=Uniformed%20Services
Shane is correct – that crest indicates the regimental affiliation of his current unit. There are literally hundreds of them, and unfortunately the official Army source lists the current ones by unit designation only – you have to select each unit’s page to see the image. There are literally hundreds.
http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/Catalog/HeraldryList.aspx?CategoryId=22&grp=2&menu=Uniformed%20Services
Can’t guarantee that that source is complete, but I think it is for current Army/ARNG regiments. I’d guess the crest is probably there somewhere.
Here’s a link to an image of the DUI:
This source indicates a bit more about the unit’s history, and indicates the JMUA is legit due to a deployment to Iraq. Dunno about the 3 PUCs – would have to know the specific unit to which the guy’s assigned and do some in-depth research to vet those. Personal awards and CIB are plausible if the guy deployed when the JMUA was awarded or in another GWOT deployment with the unit.
“…The brigade returned from Iraq in July and August 2010, with A Btry 1-133 FA being the last element to return home.”
That was my unit. None of the troops on that deployment were organic to 1st Battalion. The mix was 1/3 A/B btry 4/133 FA, 1/3 MPs from various MP units and the rest augmentees from around the great state of Texas.
For a few scant months (Nov 98-Apr 99) I was the BN NBC NCO for 1/133 FA.
Oh, the good old days…
In March, 2004, A-Troop, 1/124 Cavalry, 49th Armored Division/36th Infantry Division, Texas Army National Guard also deployed to Iraq.
I’m more trying to figure out the shoulder insignia, I can’t find that one.
Dude has a 509th crest on his beret flash.
DUI on the beret should match the DUI on the shoulder boards. That uniform is not authorized to wear after 1 OCT of this year
Yeah the carpet doesn’t match the drapes here. If he’s in 36th ID (which the shoulder crests seem to indicate) then that’s the crest that ought to be on his beret as well.
Also, 509th (Gingerbread men) is an Airborne unit and should be on a maroon beret. AFAIK 509th is part of the JRTC OPFOR at Fort Polk, LA.
Finally, if he is part of Division HQ (it’s very common for a division HQ DUI to be a miniature version of the division’s SSI) then I don’t believe he would be authorized the blue cord or discs since I think he has to be at Brigade level or below in order to rate those. I may be wrong about that, not sure but merely being an 11-series MOS is not enough, you have to be in a certain kind of slot.
The jump wings on the viewers left appear crooked. The beret does not look like it is being worn correctly with the right side being up so high.
If he was formerly in an airborne unit (which the 509th crest would seem to indicate) then that would explain the beret. Right or wrong, a lot of airborne types wear their berets like that.
Where’s his name tag?
3 PUCs? That’s my only issue.
36th ID was a well decorated unit from WWII and fought in several parts of the ETO (in fact I think 36th was in Africa, Italy and France/Germany.) 3 PUCs might have been possible.
For the Army, unit awards on the uniform get complicated. They’re based not only on unit lineage but also on personal permanent authorization. You wear the unit awards applicable for both.
Many WWII PUCs were awarded to specific elements and/or task forces vice entire divisions. (E.g., one Bn or Regiment might be awarded one, while its sister units did not.) Plus, units assigned to a division change over time. So not all elements of the 36th ID may be authorized the same unit awards based on WWII lineage.
Plus, unit awards are also authorized for permanent wear by an individual if the individual was assigned to a unit during the period of award. So what an individual wears is a combination of those due to unit lineage and those due to personal permanent authorization.
Don’t think any 36th ID elements received a PUC in Iraq – but one reportedly did receive a JMUA. If he was assigned to that unit while deployed, he wears the JMUA permanently – plus those applicable to his current unit of assignment due to unit lineage. The unit lineage awards come off when he changes units, to be replaced by those (if any) of his new unit.
You really have to know an individual’s current unit of assignment and his assignment history to sort all of that out.
I would have to question the mix of CIB, JMUA, and Iraq medal with no star.
I can’t find any of the 36th ID Infantry units being awarded the JMUA. Elements were awarded a MUC on one tour and the ASUA on another, the lack of either on the uniform seems fishy to me.
The JMUA is awarded for being in the “joint unit” at which time the individual wouldn’t have been eligible for the CIB (he would have been CAB eligible).
The JMUA authorization doesn’t flow down to service specific components (this is somewhat different from how the Army dispenses with unit awards which include the sub-ordinate units).
No nametag. US brass out of alignment. Beret should be level across the forehead.
Were you ever at Bragg? Half the berets you would see along Gruber road were worn just like that (cocked up on the left side th the “ear flap.”)
Reg or not, it was a common practice long before the black beret became standard Army wide. 😉
I believe the question was what’s wrong with this picture.
you both have a point but, in a DA Photo your not going to do the Airborne Slide like this clown if you want to get promoted LMAO ,,,,,,,
As a member of the E-4 mafia he’s at least two promotions away from going in front of a paper board.
Also AFAIK DA photos are taken sans headgear (at least mine was back in ’96 last time I had one) and are full length (the better to keep the fat bodies from getting promoted.)
Bottom line, that’s not an official DA photo, it’s somebody’s “hooah” photo for his family.
good point I can barely see the photo I’m on my phone Lol…
DA photos are still taken uncovered.
It seems like he should have more ribbons for having been deployed to OIF. I am thinking of the blue & white stripy one with “M” device.
He may have been on AD when he served in Iraq. 😉
Also, no GCM which means he served less than 3 years AD (or else he got into trouble…) If he was mobilized for 1 years a an RC soldier he would have been auth’d a GCM too.
I have 2 years AD Army and 8 in the ARNG plus 10 in the USAFR and I only have 1 GCM.
Never gave a damn for awards. Just liked doing my job.
ok the brass as you said that s ate up am I seeing two regimental crest on him ??? the one above the right jacket pocket and beret ????? I can’t see it well for a minute I thought it was 2CR out of Germany
k I’m wrong I stand corrected
The guy is wearing the 36th Infantry crest on his shoulder, but has a 509th Crest on his beret. The 509th has two units on active duty, the 1st and 3rd Battalions; one being at Fort Polk, LA and the other at Fort Richardson, AK. The only airborne battalion in the Texas National Guard is the 1st Battalion(Airborne), 143rd Infantry Regiment.
OK, I just looked up his regimental affiliation: 36th Infantry Regiment (NOT to be confused with 36th Infantry DIVISION.) According to Wiki, 36th Infantry regiment was originally constituted in Texas but except for a short period of time in the 9th Division, the 36th has generally been assigned to Armored divisions and for a while was known as the 36th Armored Infantry Regiment. It was once a part of 3AD and is currently part of 1AD, headquartered at Fort Bliss.
So my question would be: How is a former paratrooper currently assigned to 36th ID somehow affiliated with a mech infantry regiment? Again I have to confess my ignorance on how “regimental affiliation” works, can a soldier just flip through a book and find a cool DUI and say “yeah, I want that one” and pin it on? Or does he have to have some actual connection to the unit in order to ‘affiliate’ with it?
Elements of the 36th ID deployed during OIF a number of times. I’m guessing the guy left active duty and did one of those deployments.
Pretty sure the rest of his uniform is consistent with that – except for the 509th crest on his beret. Can’t answer for that; he should be wearing his current unit crest there, not a previous one (assuming he was previously assigned to the 509th while on AD).
Dunno about current policy for nametag for formal (DA) or formal occasions/photos, though. Seems to me you took it off for some of those, but I can no longer recall for sure (been over a decade now for any of those for me) and policy might have changed since anyway. And as noted above, if the photo was taken after 1 Oct of this year the uniform is not authorized.
Not sure I’d recommend this photo for use in an article as an example of what “right looks like”, regardless. As has previously been noted, the beret is badly crooked; the jump wings are crooked; the unit crest on the beret appears to be the wrong one; and there’s no name tag (might or might not be wrong). And his tie looks like crap, too.
Nitpicking the uniform is out of my lane, but “Caucasian soldier”? Doesn’t look Caucasian to me (unless you classify Hispanic as Caucasian).
White people all look the same, amirite? 😀
As a white guy, I resent the term “caucasian.” I am NOT Caucasian. I’m a Celtic-Teutonic hybrid, thank you very much.
Every time somebody calls me “Caucasian,” my reply is, “Do I look like a fucking Russian to you? Because I don’t have ANY even remotely Slavic features. Except maybe my blue eyes, but they ain’t even the Slavic shade of blue.”
Calling me “Caucasian” is like pulling the “Chinese or Japanese?” crap on a Korean.
I like to tell folks I’m a Western European Anglo Saxon Islander.
Anglo-Saxon islander? Our heriditary enemies! I won’t hold it against ya, though. 🙂
Russians would look at you kinda funny when you said that, too. Not really all that many Russians in the Caucasas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Caucasus-ethnic_en.svg
How about “Honky-American?” 😀
Hispanic loosely refers to the language a person speaks, The Spanish went all over the world, and did some mingling. Guam, Phillipines, Spain (in Europe), North America, South America etc… All have Hispanic People. Funny thing is I speak better Spanish than most of the Hispanics in my family.
There are three recognized racial classifications; Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid. Hispanics are typically either Caucasoid or Negroid.
Iraq Campaign Medal with no star(s)? Is that legit?
Pretty sure that with campaign ribbons the ribbon itself is the first award and subsequent awards are designated by stars.
In fact, I believe that is the general rule for all awards: The ribbon or medal is the first award and subsequent awards are designated by “devices”, campaign stars, OLCs (Oak Leaf Clusters), numbers, etc.
So an ICM with no stars could indicate a single tour in the sandbox.
Also no star on his NDSM indicates he did not start serving until after 9/11. Those of us who served before 9/11 during the first Gulf War period wear the NDSM with a star indicating two awards.
ICM with a service star denotes one campaign phase served. This is different than the rules for say a DSM.
Negative. Campaigns have been defined for OIF (happened somewhere between 2007 and 2009, as I recall; not positive). The ICM is no longer worn sans campaign stars.
Same is true for the ACM, at about the same time frame.
Was kinda pissed when that happened, actually, since I had to go put stars on mine. Getting those on straight is rather a pain. (smile)
So then the uniform could be correct if it dates to a period prior to the designation of campaign phases, say circa 2006 – 2008?
What is the story on this photo anyway?
From ChipNASA’s post above: ” In 2005, over three thousand troops from the 56th BCT, 36th ID deployed to Iraq as part of the largest deployment of Texas troops since World War II. 3/133 FA, 2/142 INF were both awarded Meritorious Unit Citations for their service in Iraq.”
My guess is that this photo dates from some time around that period which would be before the campaign stars were designated for the ICM.
Possible. The photo’s metadata says it was taken 19 Oct 2015 – but that’s from the photo posted to Shuttercock. It also gives the source as Adobe Photoshop, so I’d guess the original metadata was likely overwritten.
My revised guess as to why there’s no name tag would be that the name tag was removed using Photoshop in an attempt to keep the guy’s identity private. That would account for both the recent date (19 Oct) and the source of the photo (as identified in the photo’s metadata) being Photoshop.
Don’t know about the Army but my last tour was 2010-2011. So I was there for transition from Freedom to Dawn. I was also on deployment with I-MEF 2003-2004 so from that I have 4 stars.
LIBERATION OF IRAQ/19 MAR 2003 – 1 MAY 2003
TRANSITION OF IRAQ/2 MAY 2003 – 28 JUN 2004
IRAQI GOVERNANCE/29 JUN 2004 – 15 DEC 2005
NATIONAL RESOLUTION/16 DEC 2005 – 9 JANUARY 2007
IRAQI SURGE/10 JANUARY 2007 – 31 DECEMBER 2008
IRAQI SOVEREIGNTY/1 JANUARY 2009 – TO BE DETERMINED
Iraq Sovereignty ended 30 Sep 2010. New Dawn started 1 Oct 2010. Thats two stars right there.
For ICM and ACM you have to have at least one star with the award
Deployed to Iraq before the campaign phase service stars were a thing would be my guess. I wore the ICM without stars until I found out we were authorized a service star even if we only deployed during one phase. I have two by the way.
Yeah all that above and it immediately fails the portrait test because the US flag is on the wrong side.
The US flag shall always be positioned to the flag’s own right. When hung like a banner the star field shall always be on its own right.
Only exception to star field rule is when flag is draped on coffin.
But what do I know …
FAIL due the flag position.
That jumped out at me, too. I can’t ever remember seeing an “official” photo with a flag like that. Why would someone want to use an out-of-date photo like that anyway? Even so, there are certainly better ones out there.
For official (DA) photo, there is no flag and no beret. This is most likely a public affairs photo, probably for a hometown-hero news release? Perhaps a Walmart-photo-studio photo for personal use?
If it’s Army bling and flair, I’m lost, but if there is no nametage, there’s a reason for keeping the sitter anonymous. I would ask if the flash on the beret should be more upright? Otherwise, he resembles the A.J. Squaredaways I used to know.
Caucasian? No. Hodge-podge.
It all depends on what unit he is currently assigned to.
If he is in the NG, he could be assigned to either Div Hq or one of the two T-patch wearing BCTs (56th or 72nd). If so, he has the correct crest on his shoulder.
That said, he would not be authorized the 509th crest on his beret.
He was probably AD first and deployed to Iraq with the 36th infantry, assigned to 1 AD at the time. He transitioned to the NG and is either a division or HHC brigade Soldier, therefore would wear those DUI on his shoulder but authorized to wear 36th as his regimental affiliation as well as the infantry disks. Prob never wore his beret on AD because it was and is stupid, but thinks the 509th crest is some sort of universal airborne thing because he wore the 506th for his jump school photo…
507th. 😉
Correction, 507th ‘Down to Earth’. Fat fingers. Either way, he’s wrong. He wouldn’t have worn any of those on a black beret- and the only Airborne unit in Texas ARNG is 1-143
This is NOT a DA photo (those are full figure, no hat, no flag). It is a yearbook or some such type thing, and he is doing what every black beret wearing troop does to try to make it look cool.
if it is a stock picture from shutterstock, it may not even be a real troop. it may be like the bad stock photos they use at gieco or any other company that sells to service members.
I think it’s legit. There are too many details that are correct and that fakers almost always get wrong.
Just the shape of the beret tells me it’s real – most non-Army types completely blow that one (as I said above, while the beret is not “book correct” it is commonly worn this way, especially in airborne units.) The beret also appears to be shaped and shaved, something else that fakers rarely do.
The awards are in the correct order and don’t appear to be embellished or excessive.
According to one of the other commenters here, 509th had a battalion in Alaska, which could account for the overseas ribbon and also the 509th crest on the beret. In fact, if the 509th in Alaska is not on jump status anymore then the black beret with the generic Army flash might be the correct headgear for the 509th.
In that case, the explanation for the main discrepancy (the mis-matched DUI on his beret and on his shoulder loops) could be as simple as: Got to his new unit with the TX NG and never got around to putting his NG crest on his beret.
Final note re: Beret: It was common practice when I was in to affix the crest to the beret by pushing the pins of the crest in and then bending the pins inward, as using the “clasps” often didn’t work. In such a situation, the DUI cannot be used again, as the pins will break if they are straightened out.
I’m too lazy to check, but are his ribbons in the right order? I didn’t realize anything was lower than the “got out of basic” army service ribbon.
Top row L-R ARCOM, Nation Def, OIF campaign
2nd row, L-R, not sure, thanks for joining, Overseas Service ribbion
opps, forgot, checked a chart, overseas is lower than “thanks for joining” and the one I couldn’t ID is GWOT service, so he’s got that right as he can’t wear the GWOT expeditionary if he’s only been to Iraq. Order seems ok.
Except the service is only authorized for participation in certain stateside direct support to GWOT missions. It is actually uncommon in an E4 these days.
However, given he is wearing the no longer authorized green uniform he may be a discharged veteran and served in a direct support job years ago.
When my unit was mobilized in 2004 everybody who was mobilized got the GWOTSM. Everyone. Without exception.
When they were processing our DD-214’s after we came back, I pointed out to the S1 that the description of the GWOTSM specifically stated that it was for stateside service and not for an overseas deployment like ours, and that since we rated (and were awarded) the GWOTEM (Expeditionary Medal) we should NOT rate the GWOTSM (Service medal.)
I even pointed it out to them in the reg.
And they pointed me to a memo (not sure from where) that stated very simply that any soldiers that deployed to the combat theater received BOTH the GWOTEM and the GWOTSM. Period. So we got both.
My point being that sometimes even the “professionals” who are supposed to know what they are doing get this stuff wrong.
Did I rate a GWOTSM? Not by my understanding of the intention and the purpose of the award, which was to award active service in CONUS that supported the GWOT.
Did I wear it on my uniform? Yes, because I have orders for it and it is on my DD-214. Hey, I’m just an NCO, if Big Army says I was awarded a GWOTSM even when I tried to point out that our deployment didn’t qualify, who am I to say otherwise?
The GWOTSM has basically become a second NDSM.
(sigh) So much for “leaving for good”.
Once again, Lars the Infallible is, well, full of it. See the GWOTSM section of the following from DA G1:
https://www.hrc.army.mil/site/active/tagd/awards/faqs.pdf
Bottom line: if the guy had 30 consecutive/60 nonconsecutive days on active duty (other than for training) any time after 11 September 2001, it’s a virtual certainty that he rates the GWOTSM. Virtually all Active Component soldiers are deemed to qualify (Bn Cdr’s call, but I’m reasonably sure it’s still pretty much automatic), and best I can tell the vast majority of USAR/ARNG troops who get called to active duty on Federal orders for periods of >30 days are called to serve ISO GWOT operations. About the only folks who don’t qualify are USAR/ARNG personnel who don’t have the requisite 30/60 days duty on active duty, plus those few who get called to active duty for non-GWOT support missions. It’s essentially the “I served on AD after 9/11” medal.
Since most USAR/ARNG units who deployed to the CENTCOM AOR did a 30-day “workup” prior to deploying, a deployment would qual their soldiers for both the GWOTSM and the ACM/ICM/GWOTEM, depending on precisely where deployed. An individual replacement who went thru CRC at Bliss or Benning might not, though.
Hondo, you have to have served for in support of a designated GWOT operation. Not just on active duty. If commanders are handing these out for “serving on active duty” after 9/11 then they are wrong.
Authorized operations. And you should have orders ASSIGNING you to support these operations.
AIRPORT SECURITY OPERATIONS (ASO) – September 27, 2001 – May 31, 2002
NOBLE EAGLE (ONE) – September 11, 2001 – TBD
ENDURING FREEDOM (OEF) – September 11, 2001 – December 28, 2014
IRAQI FREEDOM (OIF) – March 19, 2003 – August 31, 2010
NEW DAWN (OND) – September 1, 2010 – December 31, 2011
INHERENT RESOLVE (OIR) – June 15, 2014 – TBD
FREEDOM’S SENTINEL (OFS) – January 1, 2015 – TBD
I take it back Hondo. I just checked with some AD friends and the way this medal is being awarded changed a few years ago so that it is being handed out for just serving, but not all commanders are doing it. It is really hit or miss. Many soldiers just started putting it on.
Really messy implementation since the medal has specific listed support operations authorized for the award.
I was on active duty when this was only for specific named operations and that is still how the criteria is written.
My apologies. I am not sure, however, that soldier wearing it for simply serving on active duty are in accordance with the award criteria. Commander’s discretion I guess.
Lars, you are confusing the GWOT Service Medal, which is a gimme with the GWOT Expeditionary Medal, which requires a deployment to an area that does not have its own campaign medal.
Not really. The GWOTSM technically requires serving on active duty “in support of the GWOT” in other than a training status for 30 days consecutive/60 days nonconsecutive. However, from the award’s creation until sometime in 2004, ALL active duty service was deemed by DA to be “in support of the GWOT” (the G1 awards FAQ I cited indicates that clearly). Sometime in 2004, this blanket authorization ended and it became a Bn Cdr’s call regarding whether a unit’s mission was ISO GWOT. As far as I can tell, most elected to deem their unit’s activities “ISO GWOT” in some way and awarded it to their troops.
For reservists, it’s almost always a “no brainer”. Most USAR/ARNG mobilizations/VOLAD tours long enough to qualify have been ISO one of the above GWOT operations, whether stateside or OCONUS. And most unit deployments to the CENTCOM AOR included a 30-day “trainup” in CONUS prior to going, so that alone qualified anyone who didn’t already have it for the GWOTSM (pre-deployment trainup is considered ISO whatever operation to which the unit is deploying vice ADT).
A few folks recalled to active duty might miss out. Folks deploying to fill individual vacancies in the CENTCOM AOR who did their prep at one of the CRCs technically might not qualify – CRC was only 2 to 3 weeks, as I recall. Ditto people who were recalled to active duty to deploy/serve in support of the Balkans or for a humanitarian mission not connected with the GWOT. But they still might get awarded the GWOTSM anyway during outprocessing, as Martinjumpr pointed out in a previous comment.
Bottom line: the GWOTSM is essentially little more than a “I served on active duty after 9/11” medal.
The spacing does not look right for his rack, EIB, and badges. The rack should be 1/8th inch above pocket flap, looks almost flush.
The EIB should 1/4 inch above the rack. Looks almost flush.
The marksmanship and wings should be 1/4 inch below the rack. So 1/8 inch below the bucket flap. They look to be the correct 1/4 below the ribbons but since the ribbons are flush the badges are too low. It should be 1/8th between pocket flap and ribbon, and 1/8 between pocket flap and badges.
That is how it looks to me. Hard to tell distances from a picture though.
Since we’re being pedantic it’s a CIB not an EIB. 😉
Oops. I had scrolled down to post and forgot which one he was wearing.
Not that I clicked on the image and saw a bigger version things are more clear.
The ribbons do not look right, too close to the pocket flap, the CIB is definitely flush and needs to be raised up.
The badges actually look about 1/8 inch below the pocket flap, so if the ribbons are nudged up they look to be correct.
If this is for a currently serving soldier the green uniform is no longer authorized as of 1 October.
NO SHIT, SHERLOCK!
Larsie-poo, do you hear that? Yes, it’s your Mommy calling for you to come up out of the basement, she thinks you’ve been a good little boy today and she has a nice warm enema all ready for you, GOOD BOY!!
Not many soldiers are necessarily aware of the green end date. And since it was only a few weeks ago I am not sure that the information falls into the “no shit sherlock” category.
Of course I would expect nothing less from you. You prove yourself time and time again to be the most moronic regular on this board.
Whatsa matter, pookums, your Mommy give you a lukewarm enema?
Mary Walker wore what she wanted. Cool story.
Out of curiosity, Lars, whatever happened to you being “done” with TAH? You were *quite* dramatic about it at the time (and the time before that, and the time before that), so perhaps you’ll understand my puzzlement as to why you’re suddenly back (again) as if nothing ever happened (again).
He has come back transformed, refreshed, a new … uh … person:
Many times I think that Al Franken was channeling his true inner self when he did “Stewart” and yes, I picture Lars the Rudy-poo as being just like that!!
I have been avoiding replying to any comments about anything political, controversial, or subjective.
Which has taken some restraint given the stupid shit I see in the comment section by a few on a daily basis. A notable standout for complete asshattery is A Proud Infidel.
However, I did not think adding input to help a soldier fix a uniform for an event would be much of an issue. I think the fact that I once had a brief stint in the Texas guard and for some reason have a sense that this soldier may be wearing this uniform for a memorial service caused me to comment when I should have just moved on.
You can find plenty of stupid shit in the mirror, Lars, so you might be careful flinging rocks in that particular house of glass. But that’s beside the point.
The point is your demonstrable inconsistency, and some might even say dishonesty.
Whatever, I demonstrate whatever most discredits me in your eyes.
I like the website, I like John. So I still read it. I stopped participating in the discussions because the politics, ignorance, bigotry, and stupidity that is prevalent among many of the posters I find to be a complete shiteshow.
I am “done” with that bullshit. It was an aggravating waste of time.
You mean you change your story to make yourself look good in your own eyes, Lars. Lots of folks at TAH express left-leaning opinions and are valued as members of the community. You, on the other hand, have frequently gone out of your way to come off as a self-righteous douche, then cry foul when you’re treated accordingly. Sorry if the truth hurts.
Nonsense. Many pile onto other left leaning, even a few centrist posters. C. Long is a very respectful centrist/sometimes left leaning poster and his posts draw asshats like moths to flame. Most of the left leaning posters just move on or keep quiet because it is not worth the effort.
You don’t seem to see it, but it is a very clear well established pattern.
Sure, this board “accepts” a few”, if you perceive them as sufficiently “respectful”.
However, for the most part, right wing posters can be complete douchebags on a relentless basis with no social backlash on the board.
It is basic low cognition in-group /out-group behavior, but I would not expect less from some members of this board.
Let me remind you, we are all rascists too!
And for every example you throw out there, I can offer 8 or 9 that prove it to be the exception.
Here’s the deal, Lars. You’ve been such an insufferable blowhard asshole that you’ve pissed away any and all credibility on pretty much any subject. You did it to yourself. If you can’t admit that to yourself, that’s your problem.
“C. Long is a very respectful centrist/sometimes left leaning poster and his posts draw asshats like moths to flame.” Yes, rather like senators who loathe one another referring to one another as “the distinguished gentleman from ______.” I would rather that someone express himself genuinely and dispense with the vacuous superficiality. Of course, my response assumes the truth of your statement regarding Clong. The fact is, there is strong evidence to the contrary.
Just brainstorming?
LC might be a better example.
Still: IMO C. Long does a more-or-less reasonable job of supporting his arguments when challenged. He also doesn’t exude arrogance and a belief in his own infallibility.
I agree. LC has a well deserved rep here for listing to port (I always remember port is left b/c both have four letters) but w/o the grating delivery.
Who, precisely, is this fellow “John” you claim you like?
If you’re talking about the site’s owner – geez, at least have the freaking courtesy to spell the man’s name correctly. He spells his first name Jonn – not “John”.
One would think a grad school student who is, you know, expected to be of normal or better intellect, be able to read for content, and to notice pertinent details would only make that mistake for a brief time. You’ve been here far longer than a “brief time” – yet you keep making that same mistake.
You’rd done with that bullshit?
And yet, Lars, you repeatedly respond to it. If you’d stop being a pompous ass, you might get fewer deflationary zingers.
“I have been avoiding replying to any comments about anything political, controversial, or subjective.
Which has taken some restraint given the stupid shit I see in the comment section by a few on a daily basis.”
There is so much packed into those two sentences. I’ll just keep my reply very brief: LITHIUM, TAKE SOME.
You crack me up, Lars! Look at the vapid cranial flatulence you’ve emanated on TAH in the past, and you’re still more confused than a busload of blindfolded lesbians in a fish market AS TO why you still get pounced on and chewed up here? I think you’re denser than depleted uranium!
I can’t believe all of you have missed the most glaring omission: This soldier is not wearing a reflective belt.
I’m ashamed of you all.
He might be, Top. We can’t see his waistline in that photo. (smile)
Hondo,
You may be on to something… My experience in Afghanistan was that the soldiers wore them diagonally, like a sash.
Me? As an obstinate Marine MSgt, I wore it around my waist UNDER my utility blouse. I couldn’t fathom the idea of carrying a sidearm to protect against a potential threat and at the same time wearing a reflective belt so the enemy could easily target me from far away.
When I was there, if I recall correctly both around the waist and diagonally were common. Don’t recall either being prescribed as “the one and only” way, outside of maybe unit formations (which were pretty rare).
Been a while, so my memory might be off. But I don’t think so.
And yeah, I thought having people wear reflective belts in a combat zone was a freaking stupid idea – for the exact same reason you did.
Exactly what was the purpose of those reflective belts, in the first place?
All they did was turn troops into targets, easy to find in the dark. Whoever it was that came up with that idea should have been keelhauled.
Ostensibly, safety. Apparently senior leadership felt the troops couldn’t be trusted to watch for on-base vehicular traffic.
I’m sure a few did get hurt/killed that way in-theater over the past decade or so. After all, “there’s (at least) one in every crowd”. But IMO it was an eminently stupid overreaction to mandate them on-base in Iraq and Afghanistan. All they did was make it easier for any potential infiltrator/sniper, and I can’t see that they added significantly to safety.
On Bagram it was written into the base motor vehicle regulations that all personnel would wear reflective belts after dark. Being as Bagram was considered an Air Force installation, they made the rules (despite the CG of RC East , an Army 2-star being the senior commander aboard the base). During my time, it was CJTF-101, commanded by the CG of the 101st Airborne Division.
As a side note, then BGEN Milley was the DCS-O; he always had Marine Corps trivia for the night time JOC Battle Major, a USMC Maj. As the night JOC NCOIC, one of my duties became researching BGEN Milley’s question while the Major briefed him, then slipping the answer to the major before BGEN Milley retired for the evening. Yes, THAT GEN Milley, now US Army Chief of Staff. If memory serves, his father was a Markne who landed on Iwo Jima (but don’t quote me on that… It was 6 years ago).
*Marine
Stupid tiny iPhone keyboard.
Duh, he’s a member of the E-4 mafia, he’s out shamming somewhere getting his picture taken for the girls back home while the privates do all the work.
So here’s what I ‘read’ on the good SPC’s uniform: 1. He served a single stint on active duty that was less than 3 years (no GCM.) He went to jump school, likely right after basic training. 2. He was in an 11-series MOS (Infantry blue cord, discs.) 3. He may have been in the battalion of the 509th that is located in Alaska or the one that is at Fort Polk. Both are airborne units and this could account for him wearing his beret with the “airborne slant” instead of IAW AR-670-1. 4. Although he never made E-5, he was squared away enough to get sent to Air Assault school. 5. Some time during his active service, he deployed for a tour in Iraq. Without seeing what patch he wears on his right sleeve it would be hard to say which one, but he probably did not deploy to Iraq out of a Reserve Component (RC) unit because there is no RC Mobilization ribbon. During that deployment he was awarded the ICM and also the CIB meaning he must have been assigned to an infantry unit in brigade level or lower. 6. It appears that some time after his AD stint he joined the TX NG and was assigned to some element of the 36th Inf. Div. 7. As for the Unit awards (above the right pocket), it’s already been pointed out that this can be hard to decode because unit awards can either be individual or they can be awarded to the unit. If he was in a unit that was awarded the PUC when he was in it, and then later joined a unit that had been awarded 2 PUCs previous to his service, then the 3 PUCs he’s wearing would be correct. Anything else is speculation but aside from some 1SG-level nitpicking about his US lapel disc being turned (it’s on a swivel so this can happen) or quibbles about whether his jump wings are crooked or whether he has the right spacing on his ribbons, nothing jumps out at me that says “fake!” about this… Read more »
He is not a fake. I do not think that was ever the reason for the post. It was a request for corrections because he plans to wear this at a function.
Larsie-parsie-puddin’-tame, do you TRY your damnedest to be that dense, or does it come to you naturally? Look at the headline on this thread, Rudy-poo! I honestly think your Mommy gave you one too many enemas before bedtime and it washed a big chunk of your brain away!!
Stop trying so hard to troll me, you are just coming across like a complete asshat.
So API is trolling. You earned it.
Lars I thought you were done with us forgood ???
Larsie-poo, I prefer to think of myself as a “Dickweed”, and you push my “Be an Asshole” button every time you come here with your vapid cranial flatulence. You remind me of some of the biggest dildoheads I ever served with, one was a neo-hippie always proseletyzing vegetarianism who decided to shave with a Ladies’ epillator and had his face bandaged for a week, he was almost as dense as you!
In case anyone is curious about regimental affiliation, DA PAM 670-1, par. 21-24a clarifies it: “a. Authorization. AR 670–1 authorizes insignia used to represent regimental affiliation to consist of either the RDI or DUI. A Soldier’s Regimental affiliation using an RDI is based on a Soldier’s branch/corps/special branch as determined by PMOS or specialty. A Soldier’s Regimental affiliation using a DUI is based on a unit in which the Soldier is serving or previously successfully served. Soldiers may wear the RDI for their affiliated regiment or may wear the DUI for a unit in which they are serving or have previously successfully served based off their assignment history as indicated in their personnel record.”
D: thanks – I was unaware that combat arms types were authorized to wear past unit RDIs (I thought it had to be current regimental affiliation).
Learn something new daily.
Just a few more observations:
1. He needs to take an additional half step forward to his razor.
2. Clip the nose hair in left nostril.
3. Button retainer clip on left breast pocket is visible.
4. Top button hole on jacket has frayed edges (Irish penants).
5. Jacket gig line is crooked.
Dam, I’m glad I was in the Navy and we fall under US NAVY & MARINE Corps uniform reg’s. The one thing is sometimes with Ground sailors is if they worked with or were attached to Marine unit’s at the time of awards other than that it is keep it simple stupid. You Army guy’s have to much shit. WOW much respect but I don’t need non of that shit… I did do a special Augmentee tour with a Army Joint Task Force only Army thing I received was CAB. Did not convert to CAR because I wanted to say that I had some Army shit and already had a CAR.
I’m with you Chief. I was gonna say the same thing but I found it best to stay out of the discussion.
Marines are either fucked up or they aren’t, so we don’t have to worry about regimental crests and such.
What makes it difficult is that the Army uniform board suffers from severe ADD and unlike the Marines, they feel the need to make never-ending “improvements” to the service uniform (that are unnecessary, that nobody asked for and that nobody wanted.)
That explains things like the black beret, the regimental DUI (Distinctive Unit Insignia) on the chest as well as on the shoulder loops, etc.
I was Army my entire time, and I STILL envy the USMC when it comes to uniforms, they found what works and LEFT IT ALONE versus every General coming along with a bucket of bright ideas changing something every damned year!!
Yeah. I really wish someone would convince the Mafia to put out a contract on the “Good Idea Fairy”. Then maybe we’d see far less uniform churn for all the services (even the USMC occasionally monkeys with their field uniforms – MARPAT isn’t that much older than the ACU, as I recall).
And it would save the US taxpayer literally billions.
Yeah, but my opinion is that the Army’s pampered perfumed Princes of the Pentagon shot themselves thinking that the USMC had just one-upped them on field uniforms thus they came up with the grey “pajamas” with a pattern that rumor still says was rejected by the USMC, but It WILL camouflage you the moment you lay down on a pile of freshly crushed gravel!
We can thank Shinseki for the black beret – that fiasco was his “bright idea” (when the CSA announces something, the Uniform Board ain’t gonna say no).
Otherwise, complete agreement.
I didnt think you were up after the street lights came on.
I do usually turn in far earlier than this. Tonight’s unusual, and I’ll likely pay for that tomorrow. (smile)
Oh, the Air Force is even worse. So afraid of looking too much like the Army (gotta justify their 65-year existence somehow, ya know) that they end up looking like bus drivers. And then there are the proposed uniforms that look like an Air Force blue version of the Marine Corps dress uniform. . .
Texas national guard
TSO said “someone is looking to use for some event, but wanted me to look at it first.” So I’m thinking that this photo will be included in some kind of display or montage and maybe the person wanted to make sure it was a picture of an actual US soldier and not a faker or otherwise inauthentic photo.
In that case I think the answer is that from all outward appearances it is an authentic photo of a real US soldier with a few minor errors, the most glaring of which is that the beret crest ought to match the ones on the shoulder loops.
Yeah, I first posted based on the small blog image. But once I clicked on it and saw the larger image, and have had time to look at it longer, I would recommend this image not be used.
There really is too many errors on this uniform. All are small and easily fixed but they are everywhere.
Without more information on the context of the intended use I am not sure how much it matters how correct the uniform is.
Come on now, I miss reading your posts.
This site is full of bad seeds. The whole lot of them. Especially that Proud Infidel guy. Not to mention Ex-PH2, she can just run off the rails sometimes. You don’t even want to get me started on HOBO, he could market purple Kool Aid and the rest of them would gulp it down.
Gun Nutz, Jesus Freaks, Climate Change Deniers, and its all run by some Liquored up Prepper with a mail box fetish that claims he loves me.
I just come here because I have perfected the art of being a social outcast and my dog orders me to post something.
Come on L. Taylor, give them hell. If you start drinking the Kool-Aid it might help. Happy thoughts my friend.
You invoked my name, Davehardass. You will pay for that.
You are just upset because I like Mr Taylor. You ultra right wing gun toting religious zealots need a little guidance now and then.
He just gets a little too passionate about being right. Maybe you could try being a little more nurturing.
By the way, I like Mayo on my sandwich, not sure about Mr Taylor.
Wasn’t it some democratic congresscritter a few years ago who posted a picture on his/her official web page about “supporting the troops” and the “troops” in question were obviously from another country?
That may be the sort of situation that TSO’s friend or acquaintance was trying to avoid.
More than once, actually. The one that stands out in particular was the banner featuring the Russian surface action group.
Granted, those graphics were made by some kid in the basement of a low-rent ad agency, but you’d think the legislators in question would have better quality control than that.
Faker6 says he’s definitely not Spetznatz Caucasus BCT. Hope that helps.
It was the DNC that chopped a Canadian Soldier in 2006.
http://z3.invisionfree.com/Political_Deathmatch/ar/t2956.htm
I emailed them about the gaffe.
If I recall correctly, that’s not the only such gaffe the jackass party leadership has made recently. As I recall, they’ve also used photos of Russian warships and foreign aircraft (not positive about the latter) in their
propagandapromotional materials while representing them to be US military.So glad my service ended when the last ribbon possible on any serviceman’s(or serviceperson for all you gals out there) rack was the Vietnam Campaign Medal.
Way too complicated nowadays to try and figure out what is what and what goes where if you haven’t been in for at least the past 20 years.
Welcome to the “Old Farts Club” if you know what I’m talking about.
@ CLAW 131, Et Alii:
That’s why I keep my trusty ol’ 1970 edition of “THE NCO GUIDE”.
With that book, I’m able to know about how everything is to be done – – – or rather, how everything USED to be done away back in the day when you and I were young.
By the way, my copy of the 1998 hardbound book, “STOLEN VALOR”, by B. G. Burkett and Glenna Whitley arrived from Amazon today.
I think I bought their very last copy.
Another book that I rely on as a reference is “VIETNAM ORDER OF BATTLE”, by Shelby Stanton.
Guess what?
I just now learned that Shelby Stanton was a FAKE, an Army historian claiming lots of “stolen valor” decorations, but who, in fact, had never been in Viet Nam.
Mox nix.
Those books don’t do me much good right now, because I’m in Utah, and the books are at my sister’s house in Virginia.
Someone claiming to be Stanton actually came onto the old Paratrooper.net message board blasting the book and defending Stanton’s claims. Got very heated before he left the forum. This was shortly after the book came out, IIRC, circa 1999 or 2000, maybe 2001.
That’s why the major awards vendors (and many others) have “rackbuilder” pages. (smile)
I’m just wondering why he is wearing the Greens when the ASU was issued to ARNG units at least a year ago?
Just a guess but maybe it’s because the ASU sucks donkey balls and is by far the worst uniform the US Army has ever come up with?
If I ever have to wear a uniform (as a retiree there are some circumstances where it’s appropriate) it will be my greens.
Actually the real answer is that from the lack of campaign stars on the ICM the photo probably dates from several years back.
Why the F does an infantry soldier have a such an unkempt mop of shit on top of his grape like that.
Cut your fuckin’ hair troop….or I will….
Harbor Freight has a good deal on a set of Barber Clippers, can I buy a set and send it to you? That kid DOES kinda look like a hippie with a moldy pizza crust draped on his head!!