Corps bans off-the-shelf body armor - Marine Corps News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Marine Corps Times

Corps bans off-the-shelf body armor

Don’t bother buying your own high-tech body armor. You can’t wear it, according to a Corps-wide message released Tuesday that mandates only government-issued “personal protective equipment.”

The policy shift puts an end to the use of store-bought vests, helmets, eye protection, ballistic plates, flame-resistant clothing, earplugs and anything else that would replace “government tested, approved and issued” gear Marines receive from their supply sections, according to MarAdmin 262/07.

Marines are still allowed to use commercially purchased protective items “in addition to those issued by the government, as long as additions do not interfere with the functionality of approved PPE,” the message states.

In March of last year, the Army issued a similar order amid growing concern among troops that military-issued body armor was inferior to the Dragon Skin vest manufactured by Pinnacle Armor of Fresno, Calif.

Murray Neal, Pinnacle’s chief executive officer, called the Corps’ policy change “disappointing” but said he anticipates Dragon Skin sales will increase as they did when the Army banned it because of public distrust over the government’s motives for banning body armor some believe to be superior.

Murray said he’s heard from many soldiers in Iraq who began wearing their Dragon Skin over or under their government-issued armor after the Army’s policy went into effect.

Now that the Corps has banned off-the-shelf gear as well, Staff Sgt. Taylor Cobb, the Corporals Course curriculum coordinator at Training and Education Command in Quantico, Va., said he’ll buy “a triple large set of cammies” and wear his Dragon Skin armor underneath if he deploys to a combat zone.

“I have the utmost confidence in that piece of gear,” he said.

After spending $2,000 on his Dragon Skin armor, Cobb placed it on a dummy and shot it with a .45-caliber pistol. The armor worked as advertised, so he said he put it on and — get this — shot himself in the stomach on purpose.

“It left a pretty nice bruise, but it didn’t even break the skin,” he said. “It works. But I wouldn’t try that with the [Modular Tactical Vest] the Corps gives. I’m not that trusting.”

Minimum standards for how much government-issued protective gear Marines will wear at any given time will be prescribed by theater commanders, according to the MarAdmin.

This means Marine Corps Forces Central Command’s Lt. Gen. Jim Mattis will make the call for Marines in Afghanistan and Iraq. But the Corps’ policy can be superseded by combatant commanders such as U.S. Central Command chief Adm. William Fallon, who retains authority to re-authorize the wear of commercially available items in lieu of government-issued gear “based on the mission and threat,” said Capt. Jeff Landis, spokesman for Marine Corps Systems Command in Quantico.

“The idea there is to give local commanders the authority to mandate what Marines are wearing into battle and to have flexibility in their mission and what it will take for mission success,” Landis said.

Subordinate commanders retain discretion to require their Marines and sailors to wear more protective equipment than the theater commander requires “based on their estimate of the situation, to include assessments of enemy threat, environmental conditions and the tactical missions assigned to their units,” according to the message.

Commanders who feel that a lower level of protection is appropriate for a given mission “must receive approval” from higher headquarters before ordering their Marines to wear less than the established minimum protection, the message states.

The new policy prohibits commanders from issuing their Marines off-the-shelf protective equipment purchased with unit funds and puts an end to the Corps’ willingness to reimburse Marines who purchased their own commercially available protective equipment individually.

But Marines who bought protective equipment between September 2001 and April 2006 can still be reimbursed as long as they can show that proof their purchase was made during this time, according to MarAdmin 485/05.

In response to complaints from troops, Congress passed an amendment to the defense budget in October 2004 directing the Defense Department to reimburse service members for safety or health equipment they bought or someone else bought on their behalf.

When the program was being considered, Pentagon officials complained that it would be hard to implement and said it would create “an unmanageable precedent that will saddle the DoD with an open-ended financial burden,” according to a Jan. 26 Associated Press report.

Prodded by the legislation, defense officials began the repayment program by releasing a list of reimbursable protective equipment items in 2005.