For decades, the Navy has had a love-hate relationship with its uniforms and the way Navy leaders implement and manage changes to them. There have been many uniform successes over the years, but also a few misfires; from gender-neutral items that were really not, fire-retardant clothing that was anything but, and multiple iterations of shipboard uniforms including the ill-fated “blueberry” camouflage that made the wearer invisible both on a terrazzo deck and, unfortunately, in the ocean. Every few years a new uniform concept is researched and tested in the fleet, but where do the ideas for these changes originate and how does the fleet get a cut into that process?
The Uniform Board
There has long been a formal uniform board tasked with the responsibility of managing the additions and changes to the Navy seabag. NAVADMIN 031/24 introduced a broad range of changes to uniform policy, one of the most significant updates in years. However, it also raised questions into how uniform governance is carried out. How are these issues selected from the myriad recommendations coming from the fleet? What is the process to get an item before the board, what items were rejected, and what is the selection process to determine what makes the cut? The current process can make changes happen, but it lacks transparency, efficiency, consistency, and fleet representation.
The current uniform change submission process is detailed in the United States Navy Uniform Regulations (NAVPERS 15665J). It outlines a process in which Navy personnel may make uniform or uniform regulation change recommendations via their chain of command to the Navy Uniform Matters Office. Recommendations are to be submitted in letter format and should reflect Navy-wide application with an eye toward standardization and uniform policy reduction. Uniform change proposals must be endorsed via cover letter by each endorsing echelon, with the final endorsement including subject matter expert contact information. Favorably endorsed proposals are then submitted to the Navy Uniform Matters Office.
For personnel assigned to fleet units, uniform and uniform regulation change proposals shall be evaluated and endorsed by their unit commanders, then forwarded through the chain of command up to the type commander (TyCom) N1, and then to the fleet commander N1, with the fleet commanders tasked to perform a final screening and endorsement prior to final forwarding to the Navy Uniform Matters Office. Uniform proposals not endorsed favorably at any level will not be accepted by the office.
The Issues
Unfortunately, the path a recommendation takes to the uniform board is administratively cumbersome and fraught with peril. Say a young sailor or junior officer in the fleet has a great idea for a uniform improvement. He or she has a practical, experience-based, and peer-sanctioned proposal to present. He or she then works up the courage to route their proposal through the levels of gatekeepers (myriad of staff officers, front offices, and senior enlisted leaders and flag officers) outlined in the instruction, any of which may or may not have the desire or time to entertain it. In current form, any proposal needs about a dozen “yes” votes, but a single “no”, or loss of paperwork during routing, at any level can kill it.
However, there is another process to solicit fleet input: Uniform Matters surveys, which strive to gather information from the fleet in 2024. The issue with surveys is that sailor input is no longer part of that process once the surveys are finished.
There are also questions of transparency regarding who actually serves on the uniform board. It is not clear whether there is an application process or if these are key fleet billets whose position description includes membership on the board. It is not clear who selects the members and what criteria and fleet representation is membership based on. Unfortunately, the list of uniform board members is currently not published and leads one to wonder how diverse panel membership is and whether a good mix of warfare communities and gender, racial, ethnic, and religious constituents are represented. One author recalls an anecdote from a senior Navy leader, where the decision on the table was whether pantyhose should still be required for females. Halfway through the brief, he realized that all eight people at the front table briefing him on the topic were male. He turned to two female officers and one female chief on the couch at the edge of the briefing room, and asked, “If you had a choice, would you wear pantyhose?”
Her response was, “I’m not my mother, so, no, if I was not required, I would never wear these things.” The policy was changed on the spot.
Communication by the board is also a bit of a mystery. There is a “hot button” to submit questions on the MyNavyHR website, but no schedule is published for the board, and no direct fleet input is solicited by the board itself. Once a proposal makes it through the process, a NAVADMIN message is released with a list of changes, but often with little explanation as to the background or the process by which uniforms or uniform regulations were selected for update. There is also no visibility or explanation regarding why proposals were rejected. Transparency is the first step to building trust in the process.
A final point: speed to fleet. The typical cradle-to-grave process of uniform and uniform regulations policy outlined in the instruction is far too slow. At a Joint Women’s Leadership Symposium in 2022, a young female Marine asked a senior panel if black tights could be worn at command physical training. “The guys all maneuver to get a peek up my shorts” she told the General Eric Smith, the Commandant of the Marine Corps. “It’s embarrassing!”
It took two years for the policy to change. This is too long for something that could be changed within a matter of hours, especially when communicated directly to the service chief. On the other hand, there have been instances when the Secretary of the Navy or Chief of Naval Operations simply adjusted a policy on the spot after hearing fleet feedback at an all-hands call, such as pockets for women’s dress uniforms after the Association of Naval Service Officers and the National Naval Association (ANSO/NNOA) meeting in May 2024. Well-presented and fleet-endorsed proposals can and have been implemented quickly.
Looking Forward
The following recommendations would preserve the rigor of the process, while improving both transparency and the openness of ideas.
1. Increase transparency by publishing the schedule for the uniform board. Host quarterly boards to discuss ideas and an annual board to make final decisions on each item.
2. Increase transparency by broadcasting the board’s deliberations. Alternatively, publish the official minutes.
3. Increase fleet representation by creating venues for direct fleet input such as in-person focus groups or video conference calls. Review inputs for a full presentation at the next board.
4. Increase transparency by publishing a list of all ideas and the arguments for and against so that all sailors can view the process.
5. Increase transparency and fleet representation by publishing the list of board members and ensuring the board comprises a mix of diverse backgrounds.
6. Increase transparency. When a NAVADMIN message is released, provide an issue paper with the detailed background, source, and disposition of each item.
7. Provide incentives to recognize individuals whose ideas are submitted and approved. A Flag Letter of Commendation from the Chief of Naval Personnel would be an excellent start.
8. Increase transparency, efficiency, and fleet representation by creating a website (e.g., a page on MyNavyHR) associated with all the current uniform regulations and pictured examples, where personnel can view the latest minutes, working ideas, rejected ideas, etc., and submit their own recommendations to the board. Eliminate the levels of endorsement bureaucracy and opportunities for gate keepers to shut down ideas.
9. Increase fleet representation by establishing diversity requirements for the board to ensure that all ranks and genders are represented as well as racial diversity. It would behoove the board to include sailors who have experienced pregnancy as well.
This is not a “people” issue but a “process” one; good people are working on these issues every day but there is room for improvement. Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Lisa Franchetti’s “Get Real, Get Better” approach is supposed to empower her people to find and fix problems—and innovate—at their level, from the deckplates to senior leaders. It also expects Navy leaders to reward ownership and ingenuity, and to help remove barriers and accelerate the Navy’s warfighting advantage by unleashing its people, not by burdening them with extra requirements, policies, or bureaucracy. The uniform board governance process is an ideal way to put this approach into action. Uniforms are a critical part of the military, and they must be safe, functional, comfortable, professional, and reflect the fleet that wears them. Needed changes should be fostered through a modern and flexible governance structure and change process that best represents the Navy it serves.
