It was the U.S. Army, 1971, Ft. Leonard Wood Mo. Thought the standards may have changed in the interim. Had I served in the U.K. military, I would have been stripped of my citizenship. There are just a few occasions where foreign service was allowed, probably for reasons of getting experienced pilots etc. in return. (wandering a bit there, but it fills in the picture ) 
Well, I didnât know your nationality, so it couldâve been pretty much any army, right?
You guys were still using the M1 helmet, right? I wonder whether with the new helmet the requirements/regulations for hair, etc, have changed, tooâŠ
I donât see how they would make too much of a difference, but you never know.
I donât know if it was a formal regulation or just applied in practice, but in the Australian army it used to be, and maybe still is, that sunburn which interfered with performance of a soldierâs duty was regarded as a self-inflicted wound and the soldier was punished accordingly. The reason apparently was that sunburn was an avoidable injury.
Thatâs amazing. I wonder how many people were put under arrest for sunburn.
And the fact that itâs Australia weâre talking about just adds to the irony! :mrgreen:
Itâs so easy to get sunburnt here, and everywhere in our region, that it needs to be avoided.
It doesnât take much of a burn to make wearing a shirt uncomfortable and carrying a pack near unbearable, which renders a soldier fairly ineffective. You could do that damage in as little as 20 or 30 minutes under the right (or wrong) conditions.
A really bad case can require hospitalisation, which renders a soldier completely useless and ties up medical resources with an avoidable injury.
Out of professional curiosity, I found the relevant current Australian military law provision.
DEFENCE FORCE DISCIPLINE ACT 1982 - SECT 38
Malingering
(1) A defence member is guilty of an offence if, with intent to make or keep himself or herself unfit for duty or service, the member: (a) injures himself or herself or causes or permits himself or herself to be injured; or (b) by act or omission, causes himself or herself to suffer from a sickness or disability or prolongs or aggravates a sickness or disability from which he or she is suffering.
A necessary element of the offence is to do it âwith intent to make or keep himself or herself unfit for duty or serviceâ, but at unit rather than court martial level that requirement wouldnât necessarily be observed, especially in the field.
It was always my understanding that it didnât matter how or why you got sunburned, you were going to be in trouble for it if you couldnât perform your duty.
The US appears to have a similar but narrower offence. http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/ucmj/blart-115.htm
It still is in the US Army I believe. One could receive anything from an Article 15 (minor fine) up to a courts martial depending on severityâŠ
Although sunburn didnât necessarily mean automatic punishment as I had it timesâŠ
Which?
Sunburn?
Or automatic punishment? 
No problem Schuults, Yep, Iâm a plain old mutt American, we did use the steel pot in those days, tho being a tanker, we had the fiberglass cvc helmet when in vehicle.(but that was after Basic training) Its like R.S. says, any avoidable situation that could result in one being unable to perform their duty would be punishable, if in combat, then it would be the worse for the defaulter as the stakes are far higher, lives depending on your ability to function. The general charge was âdamaging Govât property without authorizationâ (Thats what the D.I. threatened me with if I got burned etc.) And as Nick says, it isnt an automatic process, usually these types of thing were dealt with using the Art. 15 non judicial punishment, a fine, extra duty, lose a stripe, things like that, depending on the situation, and what trouble resulted. But its the self inflicted part, whether purposely, or accidentally done that is the sticking point.
I had sunburn a few times on leave. And I was very often self-punishingâŠ
Any trip to the infirmary resulting from sun-poisoning I assume would have led to at least a warning, and probably nonjudicial punishment on the second transgression in the peacetime, all-volunteer US Army of the 1990sâŠin addition to what has been stated on the subject by RS* and Tankgeezer, I would also assume the govât could also bring charges of malingering if they really wanted to be vindictiveâŠ
Or the Sgt. in his tender mercy prescribes therapeutic activities, may give you the job of carrying a couple hundred sandbags on those crispy shoulders,An I.V. of single malt may be needed, or life may quickly ebbâŠ
One thing, I got a personal post inspector right now, not amusing at all.
A personal post inspector? As in âcensorshipâ? Or what is that guy doing?
As in post office, or posting here?
I took PKâs âpostâ to be a firm upright, which could well justify his personal inspection of it.
My personal post ( should I say âpostingâ ?) inspector is here and is cuts, I dont why know but the guy seems to have an special interest on me.
I hope there is nothing sexual involvedâŠbecause in that case i will be REALLY pissed.
It really pisses me off that our anti gun political scum will say anything if it makes guns look bad. Donât let truth stand in the way of a good story. Here is the truth if anyone cares to read.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/04/02/myth-percent-guns-mexico-fraction-number-claimed/
Firstly, nothing can âmake guns look badâ as they are very sexy and alluringâŠ
Secondly, Iâm not sure what the point of the story is. Albeit, I only did a cursory reading, but it seems to be saying that indeed 90% of guns submitted to the US Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) enforcement agency by Mexican authorities were traced to sources in the US. Theyâre point of contention is that most weapons recovered at crime scenes werenât. But so what?
My problem with all of this isnât so much the guns that go South, but of the coke that goes North and ends up in US/Canadian noses, which funds the drug violence and the guns going SouthâŠ
But donât pretend there is no issue here, because there isâŠthe death rates of Mexicans killed in the drug wars down there is appallingâŠ
My point isâŠFienstein made it sound like 90% of the guns used in mexican violence are from the USA and that is not the truth. AND THAT PISSES ME OFF
California Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Democrat) said at a Senate hearing: âIt is unacceptable to have 90 percent of the guns that are picked up in Mexico and used to shoot judges, police officers and mayors ⊠come from the United States.â
The fact is, only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S.
Whatâs true, an ATF spokeswoman told FOXNews.com, in a clarification of the statistic used by her own agencyâs assistant director, âis that over 90 percent of the TRACED firearms originate from the U.S.â A big difference than 90% come from the United States.
A large percentage of the guns recovered in Mexico do not get sent back to the U.S. for tracing, because it is obvious from their markings that they do not come from the U.S.
As has been discussed elsewhere on the board Iâm not a fan of gun laws as liberal as Americaâs but if thatâs what Americans want then good luck to them. (Admittedly, if I was in America I rather like the idea of playing with a small military arsenal, but I donât think that is a good idea for people less responsible and more immature than me. )
So far as the Mexican situation is concerned, what does it matter where the guns come from?
How can anyone seriously think that stopping any more guns crossing the Rio Grande would stop the drug wars in Mexico?
If ever there was an outstanding argument for the proposition that guns donât kill people but people with guns kill people then the Mexican drug wars have to be at the top of the list.
Anyway, they can do enough damage without guns.
Thereâs a peaceful aura about the lifeless faces lined up on the video, death having drained the tension from their cheeks, their eyes wide shut above thick mustaches and square jaws. But as the shot pans out, the horror of their end is revealed: The dead menâs heads have been roughly hacked away from their torsos, which the camera finds hanging upside down across the room on meat hooks, their blood draining away onto white floor tiles. âThis is your responsibility for not respecting the deals you have made with us,â reads a handwritten note in Spanish by the decapitated heads.
The sickening footage was posted on YouTube after 12 headless bodies were dumped onto two ranches in Mexicoâs southeastern Yucatan peninsula last week. Police identified the victims as local drug dealers, saying five were decapitated while alive but that the rest had been dismembered after first being strangled or beaten to death. A police sweep netted three suspects allegedly arrested while carrying bloodied axes and machetes. The suspects were alleged to have been members of the ultra-violent drug gang the Zetas, indicating the atrocities may have been the latest act of terror in the relentless turf war over Mexicoâs billion-dollar smuggling routes. Police also claimed the killings may have had a ritual dimension, after searching the suspectsâ houses and finding shrines to âThe Holy Death,â a Grim Reaper figure venerated by many Mexican criminals.
The biggest mass beheading in recent history caused widespread revulsion in Mexico but little surprise. Decapitations have become as commonplace in the increasingly vicious narco turf battles as stabbings are in London. During August alone, gangsters hacked off 30 craniums across the country â adding to the total of almost 200 beheadings in 2008 so far. Heads have been stuck on crosses, shoved into iceboxes and left in car trunks along with snakes.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1839576,00.html
The discovery of a dozen decapitated bodies scattered across a city in Mexico has become the latest symbol of the terrifying price this country is paying for drug consumption in America.
Nine of the corpses were found on a busy street in Chilpancingo, an hourâs drive from the tourist resort of Acapulco, yards from where the Governor of Guerrero state was later to participate in a religious procession.
A bag containing their heads, some gagged with tape, was found nearby, with a sign declaring: âFor every one of mine you kill, I will kill ten.â Three more decapitated bodies were found later in a village outside the city.
Eight of the victims, some of whose bodies showed evidence of torture, were identified as soldiers from a local army base. âThey are trying to scare the military,â the Defence Ministry said. Mexican security forces have suffered scores of deaths in the two years since President CalderĂłn deployed up to 40,000 troops in a domestic war against drugs.
The number of people killed in Mexico through violence related to organised crime has doubled this year to 5,300 â more than the entire US death toll from the Iraq war â as cartels battle against each other for control of a $15 billion (ÂŁ10 billion) annual drugs trade and ruthlessly murder those who fail to pay or are accused of betrayal.
The gruesome tactic of beheading is used to spread fear among the security forces and their informants. Two headless corpses were found on the same boulevard in Chilpancingo on December 7 with a note reading: âSoldiers who are supposedly fighting crime, and they turn out to be kidnappers. This is going to happen to you.â
A gunfight in October resulted in the arrest of Eduardo Arellano FĂ©lix, the head of the Tijuana cartel. Others, including the Sinaloa cartel, are now embroiled in a battle for control of the territory.
A particularly violent weekend last month resulted in 36 deaths in Tijuana, including nine men found decapitated â three of whom were policemen with their badges stuck in their mouths.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5385913.ece