Well any owner that is hiring based on a haircut is pretty stupid but hell the army now has a sergeant major whose biggest concern is sideburns
As with anything, it's not just the single thing, it's that the person in question, it's just a question of your judgement. If you went to a promotion board, I don't think it's unreasonable to
expect that your sideburns be withing 670-1. I don't consider that a small thing. I consider that your willingness to comply with regulations in general. If you don't want to do that,
you probably don't need to be in a position that requires enforcing standards. I personally don't think compliance with grooming standards is that difficult, but maybe that's just me.
In my time in the Army there were always exceptions to the rule, but "Looks good, is good" generally applied. Overweight and sloppily dressed soldiers generally didn't care
about keeping their areas clean or neat. They also tended not to care about PT or maintainance either. Were all the sharp looking soldiers superguys? No, not hardly, but
the former example far outweighed the latter.
If a job came down to the same qualifications, the same everything, and the choice was between a guy that had an appearance that was in line with the organization that
I was trying to build, and one that openly defied my wish for him to conform to that look, I'm going to go ahead and hire the guy that is on board with my concept and
vision rather than the guy that won't.
ETA; I assume you're talking about SMA Chandler. I read the 08 December 670-1 update, and I think it's long overdue. I don't think it's unreasonable for soldiers to be
disciplined on and off duty. Not like it's a new concept.
