For what feels like the 1 millionth time, your unit CAN NOT do this.
*Guide to Awards and Insignia* [https://www.scouting.org/resources/insignia-guide/](https://www.scouting.org/resources/insignia-guide/)
While **wearing the uniform is not mandatory**, it is highly encouraged
*Guide to Advancement* [https://www.scouting.org/resources/guide-to-advancement/](https://www.scouting.org/resources/guide-to-advancement/)
4-2-3-1 Active Participation
Units are free to establish additional expectations on **uniforming**, supplies for outings, payment of dues, parental involvement, etc., but these and any other standards extraneous to a level of activity **shall not be considered in evaluating this requirement.**
8-0-0-2 Boards of Review Must Be Granted When Requirements Are Met
Neither can a board of review be denied or postponed due to issues such as **uniforming**, payment of dues, participation in fundraising activities, etc.
8-0-0-4 Wearing the Uniform—or Neat in Appearance
*It is preferred a Scout be in full field uniform for any board of review*. As much of the uniform as the Scout owns should be worn, and it should be as correct as possible, with the badges worn properly. It may be the uniform as typically worn by the Scout’s troop, crew, or ship. If wearing all or part of the uniform is impractical for whatever reason, the candidate should be clean and neat in appearance and dressed appropriately, according to the Scout’s means, for the milestone marked by the occasion. Regardless of unit, district, or council expectations or rules, **boards of review shall not reject candidates solely for reasons related to uniforming or attire, as long as they are dressed to the above description.** Candidates shall not be required to purchase uniforming or clothing to participate in a board of review.
*Some FAQs about the Scouts BSA board of review*
[https://www.scouting.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/FAQs-with-GTAs-on-boards-of-review.pdf](https://www.scouting.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/FAQs-with-GTAs-on-boards-of-review.pdf)
A Scout cannot fail a board of review for something like **not wearing their uniform** or forgetting their Handbook. The only reason a Scout might not pass a board of review would be if they did notcomplete the requirements as written — no more, no less. (GTA 8-0-1-4 and8-0-1-5)
*Board of Review Guidelines* [https://scouting.org/.../03/Board-of-Review-Guidelines.docx](https://scouting.org/.../03/Board-of-Review-Guidelines.docx)
It is preferred a Scout be in full field uniform for any board of review. As much of the uniform as the Scout owns should be worn. If wearing all or part of the uniform is impractical for whatever reason, the candidate should be clean and neat in appearance and dressed appropriately, according to the Scout’s means.
*Some FAQs about the Scouts BSA board of review*
[https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2024/01/18/some-faqs-about-the-scouts-bsa-board-of-review/](https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2024/01/18/some-faqs-about-the-scouts-bsa-board-of-review/) **A Scout cannot fail a board of review for something like not wearing their uniform** or forgetting their handbook. **The only reason a Scout might not pass a board of review would be if they did not complete the requirements as written — no more, no less.**
*What is a Board of Review? Why do we have them in Scouts BSA?*
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh7a2\_mV4F4&ab\_channel=ScoutingMagazine](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh7a2_mV4F4&ab_channel=ScoutingMagazine) 10:09-10:34that kids get failed but if you'redoing your job right as an adult it should almost never happen **because things like uniforms and Scout book having your Scout book with you uh handbook with you or not having your uniform are not allowed** those are not reasons that you can fail a scout for a board of review only not completing uh the things the requirements as written um is a reason so
Thanks, for reminding me that we were correct in telling the leader they should not have said that to the scout. I apologized to the parents when they returned.
Scouting has gone from a paramilitary organization to "people doing outdoor stuff". There's some old guard folks who have an incredibly different expectation for the program today based on their experiences.
> Scouting has gone from a paramilitary organization to "people doing outdoor stuff".
BSA was never "paramilitary" thanks to West and the YMCA movement. American Boy Scouting (ABS) which paramilitary was a competitor and folded.
Explicitly paramilitary? No. But BSA in the wake of the anti-war movement in the late 60's and 70's *absolutely* took on a quasi-paramilitary dynamic in many troops.
It was less about a reaction to the war than the fact that a lot of dads returning from the conflict became Scout leaders. Same thing happened after WWII.
Veterans make great Scout leaders, but sometimes forget that BSA isn't a military organization.
I think that's right, but I would add the context that the Vietnam anti-war movement villainized returning veterans and there was a harsh backlash to that movement. Many people saw that treatment and countered with an even harder swing against that movement. The BSA at that time was near the front of that anti anti-war movement.
Scouting reflects the community it's in.
If your community has a bunch of kids raised in a military household, they're much more likely given different standards to follow based on that subculture.
You need to go back and read what you wrote. You said that scouting started with paramilitary practices, which is categorically false. Just because your county does something, doesn't mean anything with regards as to what "scouting started as".
> Thats how it started, as a paramilitary organization.
Not here in the U.S. In fact James West was in direct competition with American Boy Scouts (ABS) which very much WAS a paramilitary group. West took a LOT of flack for being "anti military" because, for example, he did NOT want firearms training and military drill.
Eventually West won and the ABS folded.
I guess the question there is the line “as long as they are dressed to the above description.” The question is which part is that line referring to. The rule does say they should be wearing as much of the uniform that they have as is practical.
So the rule has some ambiguity since one place in the rules it says the scout cannot be rejected solely based on uniforming, but then another place it adds a description that adds they should be wearing as much of the uniform as they own.
Frankly I don’t think I ever remember someone showing up without class A for a BoR back when I was a youth, it was just expected and we all did it. But we also were in a heavily military area with a lot of military or retired military parents so maybe that helped people toe that line.
I read it as:
You should wear as much as you own.
You must wear as much as is practical.
So if a scout comes in directly from school and forgot to pack their Class A, then they should try to wear it (but they won’t wear it because they don’t have it). And if it’s not practical to make a trip home on the way to the meeting, then you don’t need to.
I think it might deserve a comment about how we try our best and he should try harder next time, but everyone makes mistakes.
There is no ambiguity.
The verbs used in different sentences are different and that difference matters. The difference is so important that it is described on page 2 of GTA, which is before the table of contents.
"Should" describes a recommended practice. "Shall" describes a rule. If something "should" happen, you may encourage it, but deviations are acceptable. If something "shall" happen, no deviation is permitted (unless you are given specific authorization to do so).
I think it's completely reasonable to argue whether or not the current rule is a good rule, but it's not reasonable to argue about what the rule is. It's also completely reasonable to remind and strongly encourage Scouts to wear the uniform, since uniforms are listed as one of the [methods of Scouting](https://www.scouting.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Scouts-BSA-Aims-and-Methods.pdf).
I think it would be nice to get better clarification from bsa. I think it’s really important for a scout to treat a BOR with respect. Having a full uniform and just deciding not to wear it for a BOR to me does not meet the standard laid out in the GTA and therefore is grounds to defer a BOR, mentor the scout on what’s appropriate and setting a date or time to reconvene.
We have perfect clarity from BSA that a scout cannot fail a BoR for not wearing their uniform. They should do it but they shall not be denied a BoR or a rank for not doing it.
The OP didn't specify what the scout was actually wearing, but I suspect it was something along the lines of tshirt and gym shorts. If the scout was wearing khakis and a polo I could see that as "dressed appropriately".
The scout did not "fail" the BoR over the uniform, it never started. Dress appropriately and we'll respect the time of the volunteers conducting the BoR.
Expecting the scout to come prepared by wearing their uniform was neither "impractical" or beyond his "means".
> The scout did not "fail" the BoR over the uniform, it never started.
Do you want to play semantic games?
8-0-0-2 Boards of Review Must Be Granted When Requirements Are Met also says the BOR may not be "**denied or postponed** due to issues such as uniforming."
"Denied"
"Postponed"
"never started"
So, play it off any way you want it, but the unit was in the wrong.
leader said they would not perform the BOR if the scout was not in their class A. regardless of what words you use, they were prevented doing a BOR until they had the "required" uniform according to the leader. as posted here several times. THIS IS NOT ALLOWED
> The scout did not "fail" the BoR over the uniform, it never started. Dress appropriately and we'll respect the time of the volunteers conducting the BoR.
Yeah, that's a crappy semantic game. A Scout is Trustworthy.
"We didn't fail you, we just suspended the BOR indefinitely" is also a favorite.
What you're talking about is explicitly banned. Period. You can do whatever program you want, but its not Scouting
ok, i now have a better understanding of your meaning. i can see the hassle so to speak of having to take your kid twice, especially depending on what other activities they are in.
i can see it being a thing so that advancemnt work can be done on the meeting night and the BOR being done separate so there is focus on the advancement requirements. though with enought leaders it wouldnt be difficult unless you have a lot of scouts needing BOR at the same time.
that being said, definitely sounds strange compared to the "norm".
We dedicate our 4th meeting of the month to “advancement night”, where we do boards or review and older scouts and leaders are available to sign off requirements as needed.
So while it’s not part of the regular meeting, it is at least on a regular cadence. That said, if a scout wants a board of review sooner than the next advancement meeting, we will schedule one as soon as is feasible
This is exactly what one of our other leaders had suggested almost to the letter and it was not welcomed. It's still a part of the this is how we've always done it crew that we are trying to deal with.
Was in scouts in the 90s - I had a BOR once during a camp out because everyone was there and wanted to get it done. Rarely did we have class a on campouts. Reading Reddit makes me realize just how casual my troop was.
You say casual, I read it as flexible. My two words for the scouts this year are preparation and improvisation. Doing it at summer camp is a great example of improvisation as a means to get something done efficiently
See that's my point we did a few at camp last summer and they had a hissy fit that we didn't do it at the proper place. We didn't see why making the scouts wait until the meetings started back in 2 months time. Ugh, it's hard to explain to the old guard that there are rules for the scouts benefit.
We did many BORs on weekend trips where we had an easy evening planned. If the scout needs a board of review, and the people that need to sit on that board are there and have time, then why not do it. No uniform necessary for something like that (although we did typically wear the uniform during travel time - Friday evenings and Sunday Mornings).
Unless you happen to be in the troop we started in, you're not the only one.
When we were in a large troop, they would put out signup sheets at the regular meeting with slots for SM Conference and BORs the following night.
We've discussed having it on a separate night, but the reason for doing so is we sometimes struggle to have enough committee members at a regular meeting. I'm not sure how adding a second meeting is meant to add increase attendance, so thus far we haven't gone that route.
My troop in the 90s had boards of review on a separate night.You could still have one separately from that if you were ready early.But there was a regularly scheduled board of review outside of meetings
Best practice is be in full uniform.
Having said that, a uniform is not required at all. If the scout is in school clothes, or a sports uniform, or even a Halloween costume, you cannot deny the board of review because of the uniform.
Now, I would absolutely ask them why don’t have it.
>Having said that, a uniform is not required at all.
This ☝️
I know an Eagle Scout (and a good Eagle who truly deserves to be called such... not one just rubber-stamped or pushed through by their parents or whatever). He outgrew his uniform at age 12 (before even earning First Class) and didn't get a new one until the day of his Eagle Court of Honor (it still had the tags on it and no patches that day). He never wore a "Field uniform" (or "Class A") from when he was a Second Class Scout up through his Eagle board of review. He was (and still is) an exceptional Scout.
How would a Halloween costume, or even a sports uniform, meet this part of the requirement?
"If wearing all or part of the uniform is impractical for whatever reason, the candidate should be clean and neat in appearance and dressed appropriately, according to the Scout’s means, for the milestone marked by the occasion. Regardless of unit, district, or council expectations or rules, *boards of review shall not reject candidates solely for reasons related to uniforming or attire*, as long as they are dressed to the above description."
I can certainly understand not requiring a full uniform, because this may present a barrier for a scout with family or financial difficulties, but expecting them to dress appropriately for an important occasion is reasonable and explicitly part of the requirement.
“According to the scout’s means” covers quite a lot.
If they don’t have time to shower and change between soccer practice and the meeting, then they don’t have the means to be clean and neat in appearance.
I'd rather a scout in a baseball uniform that's dirty from him sliding home in the game right before the meeting, than a former scout that quit because he couldn't come to a meeting in his baseball uniform and he chose baseball over scouts.
If you have the means to participate in school or club sports, and have made it to a BOR, you have both the means and the ability to pack a change of clothes in your sports bag.
"According to the scout's means" is intended to address financial and familial disparities, not to give kids an excuse not to do <5 minutes of pre-planning in order to be presentable at an important event.
I would not mind if the scout didn't have time to shower, but I would expect them to bring a change of clothes and change into them. This is not an unreasonable expectation. The BOR is an important event for the scout, and is comprised of adults who are volunteering to support the scout on their advancement journey. As a parent it's important that my kids show respect for their own achievements, and the time and care of the people supporting them.
Yes, and the way to teach that as a committee member is to ask the scout about it at the BOR and suggest it for next time.
This helps them see it not as a test to pass but as a required checkin and interaction.
If “means” is meant to cover financial issues, they should have written the rule that way. Money is just one of many possible means, or "intermediary tools meant to bring about a result."
The means by which I came to the meeting, a car.
The means by which I earned riffle shooting merit badge, summer camp.
The means by which I passed my BOR, I did the work.
It would have been easy for the people who wrote the rule to say "according to the scout's financial means" but they didn't. I am not about to add words to the rules.
Please see the word "should". Not "must", not "shall", but "should be clean and neat...". Certainly check in with the scout, but do not deny them based on their appearance.
To your second point, Scouts is not the only thing going on in kids' lives, nor would we want it to be. Perhaps, by automatically judging a kid on their appearance, you are showing disrespect in your own right?
Expectations are not judgments. I do not think that setting an expectation that scouts come prepared is disrespectful. The GTA itself says this:
"Regardless of unit, district, or council expectations or rules, *boards of review shall not reject candidates solely for reasons related to uniforming or attire*, as long as they are dressed to the above description."
So the GTA itself says that not being attired to the above description IS grounds to reject a BOR.
That being said, I certainly would not advocate canceling a BOR over it, and would talk to the scout about being more prepared in the future. I never SAID I thought it was grounds to deny a BOR.
You're one of those power tripping leaders that are killing scouting. Enjoy sucking the fun and fulfillment and enjoyment kids get out of scouting. You'll ruin it for a generation.
wow, get over yourself. I never said I would fail someone for a uniform. I'm having a philosophical conversation about expectations. If a kid showed up for a BOR looking sloppy, we'd talk to them about it and move on. But no, I don't think that expecting scouts to be prepared is a power trip. What an insane take.
That's not what you said though, is it? You said your expectations were that they should be at BOR in uniform. In my troop BORs were done either before or after meetings, so that being in uniform was already expected, or if you weren't in uniform, it was already a known and understood reason why.
>In my troop BORs were done either before or after meetings, so that being in uniform was already expected
My troop did RORs on outings...I had my BOR for Star Scout while canoeing down a river (in a bathing suit, a dirty t-shirt and a PFD with uncombed hair and no shoes)... my BOR for Life was at summer camp sitting around a campfire in a troop "class B" t-shirt. These aren't "job interviews" or high-pressure formal exams... they're friendly check-ins, they're casual conversations.
An expectation is not a requirement, though, is it. As a troop, we EXPECT them to be in uniform, and I don't think that's unreasonable. If they showed up out of uniform, we'd talk about the expectations and move on with the BOR. Please show me me where I ever said that not being in uniform was a reason to actually deny a BOR. My point about it being reasonable to expect a kid to bring a change of clothes if coming from a game wasn't that if he didn't, he should fail. It was that, as a teen, some planning and preparation for an important event is an appropriate developmental expectation, and so it would therefore be appropriate to suggest that he do so next time. If it wasn't an appropriate expectation, it wouldn't be right to mention it to the kid. Adults sometimes have unreasonable expectations of what kids can or should do. Those are not requirements, but they can influence how we respond to their behavior. You may feel that this is too much to ask of a teen, and that's fine. Having a different view about that does not make me a power tripper. You seem really eager to pick a fight over things I never said.
Because we can have conversations about related things? A conversation about rules might lead to a wider discussion about troop culture, expectations, and how to model or encourage the behavior we hope to instill in our scouts.
As a parent you can teach your own kids to behave this way, support them and expect this of them.
Not every scout has you as a parent, and the board of review is not where you get to set extra expectations.
You've never done a BoR on a campout? Most of my unit is also in sports, sometimes in order to even make it to the meeting to have their BoR we are lucky if they take their cleats/skates off.
And yeah sometimes they smell. As all teenagers do at various times. I can't imagine saying sorry kid, we are not going to do this BoR tonight because PU, you smell ripe and are still wearing your hockey gear.
What is killing scouting is the "adult" volunteers who have to make everything be about their way or the highway. And willfully disregard written rules. And just as guilty are the leaders who know better and let them keep doing whatever they want.
If a leader in my unit tried to pull this, I would have the COR drop them like it's hot. (And as a matter of fact I have)
On a campout, clearly expectations of clean and neat would be different. I don't think teenagers being smelly at any time should be an issue that affects advancement...they're teenagers.
I think all of you are overreacting. I never said a kid should be failed. I was responding to a statement about expectations and interested in having a philosophical discussion about expectations. I don't think failure to prepare is the same thing as "not having the means". That being said, if a kid showed up sloppy to a BOR, we'd talk to them about it and move on. You're making a lot of assumptions.
I'm not adding anything. I've never not passed a scout on their BOR, and unless they did something blatantly disrespectful, I never would. That being said, I would absolutely ask a scout where their uniform was and encourage them to wear it the next time. If you read my posts, I never advocated for failing anyone. I was talking about what reasonable expectations are, not dictating what should happen at a BOR.
I think as adults in scouting, we should set a good example, and have high expectations of the kids, which we then support them in meeting. Kids will be at different capability levels due to many factors, and we need to meet them where they are....in my mind that doesn't mean that the EXPECTATIONS change, but we work with kids wherever they are to get to the point of meeting them. Obviously that would not happen by refusing a BOR over a uniform. But I also feel it's a disservice to kids, maybe especially the ones who need more support, to not hold the expectations as a goal or treat them like we believe they are capable of meeting them.
My point about the sports uniform is that if a kid showed up disheveled and sweaty, I'd ask about it. If he said "oh I just came from practice/a game", I'd thank him for coming after a tiring event and acknowledge that he's really busy, then suggest that next time, he pack a change of clothes when getting his things ready in the morning before school. This kind of coaching and modeling has made a difference for my son, because kids always hear it better from a non-parent, and is, in my mind, one of the best parts of scouting...the chance to work with non-related adults who care about you, believe in you, and can hold you accountable in supportive ways when it matters.
Authoritarian adults will always go against regulations and make the uniform the excuse to exert their authority. The first troop my sons and I were in made the uniform the center of all discipline. The SM threatened to remove rank for anyone who didn’t have all their patches correct and up to date. Other adults harassed boys they didn’t like by yanking out shirttails then demanding they tuck in the shirt repeatedly until they “showed respect for the uniform.” The same ones would yank up pant legs for “sock inspections.” This was done in troop formations for maximum humiliation.
My sons became one of the targets. I read the regs and followed them by contacting the council with my concerns. The council was shockingly unconcerned and claimed it was an important safety issue. “Nobody would send a kid onto a football field without a helmet,” was what the district representative told me. I pointed out that the uniform provided no physical protection from adults who believed they could make up the rules. He asked me why we wanted to be in scouts if we hated the “traditions.”
We had to change troops. I decided to not file a formal complaint when adult harassment became malignant toward my sons so I could focus on moving forward instead of trying to fight troop leadership who had already decided their only problem was me and my sons. The council was shockingly unconcerned over my or other parents’ complaints about the abusive adults.
The council finally took action the month after we left when an adult lost a leg and sustained severe brain injuries during a repelling camp out. The SM stepped down and several adult quit when informed they would have to abide by BSA policy.
My sons made Eagle. I doubt they will continue the tradition with their kids.
Sorry for the rant. My scouting experience was so positive and my sons’ wasn’t. It’s sad how so many adults believe they are saving the world by becoming abusive toward young men. I know from my conversations around our council that many believe it their duty insert themselves in place of parents they believe have the “wrong” values.
GTA says class A uniform is not required.
Having said that, class A uniform is heavily encouraged, and many units will not allow a scout to attend a BoR without it unless there are extenuating circumstances.
This is one of the cases where there is a very real disconnect between what GTA says and what actually happens in the real world.
I'm not taking a side either way, just pointing out facts.
There is nothing wrong with having a learning discussion about uniforms and their purpose during a BOR. That happens all the time, but not used to turn him away with the BOR approval.
BOR’s are not tests.
>There is nothing wrong with having a learning discussion about uniforms and their purpose during a BOR
Sure, talk about it... uniforming is one of the methods of Scouting but it is not one of the requirements for advancement (which is itself another method of Scouting). One can fully advance without ever fully uniforming.
No, there's not. Like I said, I'm pointing out facts. It cannot be disputed that the GTA says a uniform is not required, and it also cannot be disputed that some units will not allow a BoR without a Class A.
You’re right, there is a problem. Not one that should just be accepted because “that’s what troop ### has always done” but one that should be immediately corrected and the proper way coached. This frankly is a big part of the job of the commissioner staff, and they need to be on top of it… especially if they serve a unit that is a known problem.
Both statements are true. However, as OllieFromCairo states, under current rules, the side that says that a uniform isn't required is correct and the other side isn't.
I think there can be legitimate disagreement about whether the current national policy on this issue is good policy, but, for the reasons stated by OllieFromCairo, we're obligated to follow the current policy, whether or not we like it.
[8.0.0.4](http://8.0.0.4) Wearing the Uniform—or Neat in Appearance
It is preferred a Scout be in full field uniform for any board of review. As much of the uniform as the Scout owns should be worn, and it should be as correct as possible, with the badges worn properly. It may be the uniform as typically worn by the Scout’s troop, crew, or ship. If wearing all or part of the uniform is impractical for whatever reason, the candidate should be clean and neat in appearance and dressed appropriately, according to the Scout’s means, for the milestone marked by the occasion. Regardless of unit, district, or council expectations or rules, *boards of review shall not reject candidates solely for reasons related to uniforming or attire*, as long as they are dressed to the above description. Candidates shall not be required to purchase uniforming or clothing to participate in a board of review.
[https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/33088.pdf](https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/33088.pdf)
It has been a year, but I still get PO'd about the guy on my daughter's Eagle board that said my daughter's uniform was disgraceful:
* Her shirt was untucked (which is permitted, especially with some of the cuts of the adult uniform shirts that are not made to be tucked).
* Her pants were not official (She wore third-party olive green pants like almost every female Scout leader I've ever met)
* She was wearing Chucks (you know, like the ones worn by the girl in the [official uniform inspection sheet](https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/510-784(23)-Scouts-Uniform-Inspection-Sheet.pdf)).
It wasn't so much that he was wrong, but he was angrily insistent. And it ruined my daughter's experience.
That is kind of confusing part it states "as much of the uniform as the scout owns" then "if wearing all parts of the uniform are impractical " I don't see how it could every be impractical if you know you are going for a BOR pack it? I don't agree with not having it but if I was on the board I'd certainly have a talk with the scout. We are all busy my scout master came right form his small business to meetings and always had his uniform. As scouts we should be proud to wear our uniform for all occasions needed and appropriate to wear. I would question him on "be prepared" and his scout spirt.
I don't think most troops do atleast not in my area. But I can not say I have ever seen anyone show up for a BOR without a Class A. I get it everyone is busy but have some for site. Scouts promise to live by the oath, law, slogan and promise. Be prepared should mean something. Every one forgets its hard to say without knowing the kid but if it happens more then once I'd say he needs a talking too lol
It's not confusing at all.
The first few sentences use the word "should". The sentences at the end use the word "shall". Deviations are permitted when words like "should" are used. Deviations are forbidden when words like "shall" are used. This is explained in the second box on page 2 of GTA.
Yes I get there are exceptions and devotions. He SHOULD wear it. I'd it's really impossible I get it. I would never say do not do or pass a BOR for no uniform. At the same time unless it was a last min call the the scout then I see no reason why he could not have planed ahead knowing he was going for a BOR and packed his uniform if he came form another location. I wouldn't even care if he tucked it into athletic shorts but having the uniform would show the responsibility and respect for the occasion. Again we do not get all the information here but if it was a simple lack of forsite or planing of the scout and not a last min thing I would want to know why the scout didn't have his uniform since based on the post he did own one and just didn't bring it.
I think you misread this, it's saying "If wearing all or part of the uniform is impractical" that the scout should at least be presentable (neat and clean), aka it's 1) acknowledging some or even all items of the uniform are impractical in some situations: like you can't wear the scout belt over those pre-belted pants, there may be a physical or environmental impediment to wearing a part of the uniform, or when the BOR is being held during any Class B/non-Class A activity. All of that focuses on 2) reducing barriers to both scouts and adult leaders allowing them to focus on the BOR content (the scout's development) versus what amounts to the scouts' family dynamic or budget restraints or access to a scout shop or luck of the weather or timing or whatever else. I'd also add as an addendum that the official uniforms do not look neat and tidy on all bodies, perhaps they will adjust and expand the options some day, but particularly for items as hit or miss like the unfortunate cut of the women's uniform pants? I would absolutely push back as an adult volunteer if someone told me that I can't wear my own neat and activity-appropriate women's green pants, or frankly the older men's BSA pants, because the BSA women's uniform pants are expensive and currently impractical.
On the whole though - It's not about any sort of dismissal of the uniform it's about the program making a point to avoid allowing the physical uniform to be more important than the child in it.
We have held BORs for scouts during swim testing meetings where scouts were dressed "appropriate for the activity" in their bathing suits and towels, Scoutbook in hand, fully prepared, full of scout spirit and proud to represent scouting.
No I completely understand the point of how it's wrote. But to my point if you know you are going to meet for a BOR. From how it was wrote another location, not a hey let's do this BOR real quick. The scout knew he was going for a BOR I believe he should have brought his uniform. I understand they are cases that would be excusable. In the curcimstance described I would be upset that the scout having a uniform chose not to bring it. Like I said we don't know all the background of the situation. If it was last min call then hey no biggy. Buy if the scout chose not plan ahead and just didn't bring it when he knew ahead of time that's different. Again I wouldn't say don't do it either or not even don't pass him but it would definitely be a topic of conversation in the BOR for me.
Fair, I see what you mean about having the conversation: at that point you're just trying to figure out if the scout needs support to present in ideal uniform - in either obtaining a uniform or preparedness. I just don't even know if that conversation needs to be part of the BOR, per say and would have to be a case by case basis - I could see asking as a check in casually before, at some point during (we try to let scouts know/practice everything they'd eventually need to do at an Eagle BOR,for example outdoor code, even though it isn't a requirement at lower levels and I would count a uniform expectation reminder in that same category if I know the scout needs support in that area). But because the adults aren't going to be able to make a judgement on practicality it just seems like a circular argument: the scout should be prepared in uniform when it is practical to expect the scout to be prepared. The BOR shall pass the scout regardless of uniform if the scout is otherwise prepared. I feel like it is clearly written to reduce barriers (where scouts rely on parents for uniform availability or cleanliness, the scouts progress isn't penalized) and to protect against unsavory behavior by adults (determination of what is considered a neat and tidy hairstyle for ethnic minorities for example, is equally not allowed to penalize the scout!).
Guidelines are usually in place for a reason, they don't stop anyone from meeting or asking for the ideal readiness. They stop misuse/imbalance. Our SM has a funny saying about being a veteran, basically that there are militaries that actively fight wars and militaries that are trained to be militaries - the first type are just as much in uniform but put a lot more time and emphasis on skill development and communication and other things that keep people alive in the field, and only the second type put active emphasis on tertiary pants cuff and shirt collar infractions, lol. Having a uniform rule that lists the ideal and allows equal autonomy in dismissal of the ideal when it comes to advancement, ironically keeps scouting far more uniform (in the figurative sense).
I think the GTA def needs to be clarified on this. If they meant you can't deny a BOR for any reason related to uniform they should update it to end after "boards of review shall not reject candidates solely for reasons related to uniforming or attire" Period. But... they have a comma there: ", as long as they are dressed to the above description"
To some this reads if they are NOT dressed to the above description, then rejecting a BOR is acceptable.
I believe the GTA here is trying to establish a "by no fault of their own" statement, similar to Eagle extensions. If through no fault of their own the scout is not in uniform, but is clean in appearance - they shall not be denied. If the uniform is in Dad's car and dad is stuck at work and can't get the uniform to the Scout - that's not grounds for denying a BOR. If you know full well the Scout owns a uniform and they choose to just not wear it - that is not to the above description.
The text is definitely ambiguous. I hope it receives some attention in the 2024 revision.
Yes this is definitely what I am saying if they know and chose not to wear it. Idk if I'd say no to the BOR or even fail but I think it definitely be a topic in the BOR
You skipped the part where it says “impractical” I would take impractical to mean things like coming straight from a school function or sports ball game/practice.
Put the uniform in the car and change right before the COH. The lateness (which should have been notified in advance) will be excused if the scout is demonstrating that they were prepared.
I mention the lack of uniform components to every scout every time I see it. They need to know we notice and care, especially the older scouts.
It cannot be required. You can ask the Scout about their uniform. But you can't fail a kid for not wearing it, and you can't deny them a BOR.
Yes, this happens all the time, because Troop Committees routinely go rouge - they are untrained and don't consult the Guide to Advancement. They want to do what they want to do.
The Scout must be neat and clean.
Is the separate night for the convenience of the scout and their family, or some rule the committee made? For the scout makes sense, we've done that.
A scout need not be in uniform to have a BoR. A uniform is not even required
Separate night because that's how it's been done. Will not entertain having it earlier before the meetings. Parents have complained about having to make special trips when everything's already busy. Have had scouts not be able to attend because of other things such as sports or other obligations. Some of us have expressed our concern for this so far there have not been any exceptions made for anyone.
The only questions that matter are
1. What does official documentation from BSA say?
2. What is best for the youth?
IMO setting BoRs on different nights from troop meetings imposes a burden on youth and families that can delay receiving recognition for their accomplishments. What is on the other side of the ledger (if anything)? "We've always done it this way" is rarely a sufficient reason.
And truly scouting rounds out a person. Being that the special night is a burden on other activities is not good. Our troop meets Sundays to avoid conflict with sports and other activities. We tell our youth that scouting is not the only thing you do, and if there is a conflict, you can come late, not in uniform, if possible.
We've met scouts for SMCs on nights other than our meeting night and at alternative locations because the scout has completed all requirements and needed the conference. I don't see why troops make things difficult for the youth.
>Separate night because that's how it's been done
Doing something because (a) it's good for the Scout is good.
Doing something because it's (b) good for the leaders or (c) convenient for the committee or (d) easier on the parents or (e) just how it's always been done... is bad.
The rules say uniform is not required. That does not end the inquiry. While the uniform is not required, why aren't scouts encouraged to wear the uniform? Is anyone leading by example? Put another way, why is not wearing the uniform an issue at all?
Our scoutmaster was frequently late. And he rarely work scout pants. His uniform was incomplete. He was away for a few months (he is retired). While the SM was away, the senior ASM showed up 15mins early to everything, had 100% compete uniform and always wore the pants. In two months, our troop uniform compliance went up from 60% to 95%+. Scouts came early. Partially complete uniforms got filled up. Why? Scouts follow those who set the example. We did not have uniform checks or stuff like that. The senior ASM showed up and set an example. It helped that the other ASMs did the same.
The debate over wearing class A at a BofR shouldn't be a debate at all as the GTA is clear. Uniform is not required. However, let us review the [aims and methods of scouting](https://www.scouting.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Scouts-BSA-Aims-and-Methods.pdf). Uniform is one of the methods:
>**Uniform** – The uniform makes the Scout troop visible as a force for good and creates a positive youth image in the community. Scouting is an action program, and wearing the uniform is an action that shows each Scout’s commitment to the aims and purposes of Scouting. The uniform gives the Scout identity in a world brotherhood of youth who believe in the same ideals. The uniform is practical attire for Scout activities and provides a way for Scouts to wear the badges that show what they have accomplished.
If a scout doesn't wear his uniform to the BofR, that isn't his or her failure, it is a failure of the adults, SM, ASM, Committee, etc. who are not using the methods of scouting. If we are delivering a program directed to the aims of scouting and employing the methods, uniform being one of the methods, the scouts should be wearing the uniform and refusing the BofR because of no uniform does not reflect on any failure of the scout (as per GTA) but instead should be seen as a failure of the adult leadership to deliver the program using the methods. Turning against the scout and making him change compounds the failure of leadership and obscures the work needed to use the methods to achieve the aims.
We're not talking about a scout that is regularly not in uniform. We're referring to a one time thing that was a schedule conflict where said scout was made to leave and change. The debate was that this was incorrect on the individual who told the scout to leave.
The scout in question is usually in full class A every meeting, which is what we ask of our scouts and we don't have any issues with them not showing up in class As.
We only found out scout was told to leave when he was next up and nowhere to be found.
We would have addressed the uniform issue but not make the parent drive home.
We tend to have our BORs on meeting nights, but sometimes things happen. It certainly depends on the availability of the committee / adults.
Also, there tends to be a "rush" of requests before a troop CoH. The committee will often open up another non-meeting date so that the scouts can complete and receive their rank in time for the ceremony.
Even though not mandatory by BSA at large it is highly recommended. This is because it is a more formal thing in scouting. And I will preface this with my next point, I am the SPL of my troop so most of the time I plan if a meeting is more suited in class A’s or not. But even if we aren’t wearing class A’s for the meeting, normally during the summer, I still tell my scouts to wear class A for BoR and Scoutmaster Conferences.
Not unusual at all. Your Eagle BoR can be up to 2 years after you turn 18. Unless you register as a leader, you can't wear the uniform to the BoR. And even if they were registered in a position with a troop, it wouldn't be the youth uniform anyway, which means they can't wear the sash either.
It is a small percentage but it happens. Which is why the GtA is written how it is written. In the last 2 years I know of three scouts who turned in their paperwork and shipped out to boot camp within 24 hours. Their boards waited until they returned. Care to guess how they were dressed for their board?
I know of at least one past EBoR in my district that was done over Zoom or FaceTime or some such while the Eagle candidate was at AIT after Marine boot camp. They were in their barracks dressed in cammies. They passed.
I guess in the context of someone getting a delayed BoR as an adult, such as in boot camp then requiring a uniform doesn't make sense. And I guess that is why the rule is written that way. OTOH, I would expect any 14-18 year old sitting on a board to be given every means an opportunity of having a uniform as possible.
When I was going for eagle we had several practice boards of reviews and a very formative thing was said to me during one of them. "There is no way the district representative is going to tell the two old ladies on the troop committee that he thinks knew you since you were twelve that he is going to fail you. You will pass this board, these practice sessions are where you earn it."
I've come to realize that applies to many things in life. I've had certain of my martial arts belts that I didn't feel I've earned on the day of grading and it made me work harder to earn the next one. Certain formalities in promotions that I took more seriously **because** no one would fail you for screwing them up so I knew it was up to me to rise to that standard so I could feel like I earned my achievement.
Is it really so hard for a scout to dress in his class A 5 times during his entire scouting career? (Not including eagle). It’s not like they do a BOR every other month.
I get that the rule book says what it says, I just don’t understand why so many people defend it so vehemently.
First, it's a "Field Uniform" not a " Class A."
Secondly, I know many Scouts who have advanced far and have been exemplary Scouts who never had a uniform (which is only 1 of 8 methods of a Scouting and is not 1 of any requirements for advancement, which is itself another method).
It was standard in our troop that you must be in full class A for BOR. There would be some leeway given to scouts up to First Class, but all of them knew the expectation and we never had to turn any scout away. It helps that our troop required class A for all meetings from Labor Day to Memorial Day. "Class B" all summer long
Different night? I'm an actual Advancement Coordinator and I schedule the boards of review. Frankly I just need to know when I can get adults who are qualified and able to do boards and if that's going to be on a different night vs the regular meeting night - then that's when it is going to be. My BOR schedule is completely driven by the following:
1) Avoiding doing boards DURING the Troop meeting. I hate pulling a scout out of a meeting.
2) When the scout is available.
3) When the adults are available.
2 & 3 basically have equal weight. As a last resort I will do it during a meeting.
Usually this means we are doing boards in the hour before the regular meeting.
Regarding uniform? It isn't required. I ask that scouts wear their most complete uniform if they can but I make it clear that it is more important that they are presenting themselves neatly. I've had to talk more than one adult down on this one including my committee chair more than once. In fact he says 'It's his opinion' and I tell him his opinion doesn't matter, the guide to advancement does.
I do encourage the uniform AND I LOVE IT when a scout wears their sash because they I can more easily ask about merit badges because the board members can see what they have.
The leader was incorrect about it being required and not allowing the BOR to proceed. But it is appropriate for the leader to help guide the scout for what is best and in this instance that might have meant being prepared and ready to represent themselves well in a BOR. Units should set clear expectations about when a uniform should be worn and I believe a full Class A uniform should be an expectation for any Board of Review, Court of Honor, etc. There are always exceptions but use these moments to learn and grow together as a unit. That will serve the youth best in the long run.
tbh, i'd only ever **think** class a would be condsidered "required" or "very heavily ecouraged" for a for a COH. but thats just maybe. that would depend on location really.
My son’s troop makes an announcement the week before and in the email blast the week of a CoH to remind to wear full uniform.
If a Scout shows up in their baseball uniform or regular clothes, they get to participate just like anyone else. And no word is said, at least in public.
For the question of the BoR, we ask why if the Scout is not in uniform, remind the Scout to have their full uniform (including book) for BoR, and then continue on with the board.
We also have a very young troop, so most have very little practice with a BoR. It’s a teaching moment, not a penalizing moment.
I said maybe. Wouldnt actually make it a requirement. My perspective is from having been a scout 20 years ago. Things have changed since then. to give context about the COH , is because its an award ceremony, it would seem as though it would be much more highly encouraged to wear class a. but also dependent on what the scout is able to wear as a uniform. i have a preference, but is by no means any reason for me to deny a scout any awards they have earned.
this isnt the military or a military school/ academy. these are kids / young adults be aware of that fact
Wrong patrol patch, current rank patch, and anything else out of place or not up to date. current. It was an empty threat but I really tried to comply with the BSA's and the troop's rules. I used a lot of superglue for temporary fixes because the troop's obsessive uniform policy was the center of their disciplinary culture.
That troop had so many silly rules like caps and hats had to be BSA or have a BSA patch affixed. Any other logo was strictly forbidden because "kids get into fights over logos on hats. As silly as that sounds, some adults would make kids take off a non-scout logo cap on a hike in the summer on a 100+ degree day, justifying it by "the rules..." Literally, they would say the uniform wasn't more important than the scout, but a scout who didn't respect the uniform, would never have respect anything.
I used a lot of superglue in attempt to keep my boys out of the SM's and uniform bully's wrath. It was a toxic group of adults. To make it worse, nothing was written down so It was near impossible to follow the rules. Everything was adhoc depending on which SM or ASM was angry at any given time.
One meeting was time limit given. It wasn't carried out, so maybe the district exec actually did their job and reigned in the raging SM in that circumstance. It was nuts.
Hopefully. Our troop from what I remember didn't have such a policy. But most scouts had their uniforms "up to date" usually within a couple of meetings of a COH. The meeting immediately after the COH didn't count in this time frame. Iirc our were sat or Sundays and meetings were Mondays. Even then. It would only be mentioned to the scout to have new rank and such. The scouts who were tuned in to keeping up their uniforms and their parents made the changes fairly quickly. The less motivated scouts not so much. But it wasn't held against them.
A sad thing about the obsession with "the rules," was that the kids, when left to solve their own problems, would pull together and help each other get properly outfitted.
Our troop, virtually all affluent, single child families, couldn't understand what a financial burden their uniform rules were. They kept a uniform closet of used items so there would "be no excuses." Like everything else, adults in charge of maintaining the closet would deny the kids and adults they didn't like access to the uniforms.
I'm still shocked after more than a decade since my sons got their eagles and aged out that there was such a culture of cruelty in that troop sustained completely by the adults.
And guide to advancement and Boy Scouts of America say that that is not a reason or justification for failing denying postponing or delaying a board of review.
The only listed reason in order to fail someone at a border review is if there is evidence that the scout did not complete an advancement requirement
https://www.scouting.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/FAQs-with-GTAs-on-boards-of-review.pdf
A Scout cannot fail a board of review for something like not wearing their uniform or forgetting their Handbook. The only reason a Scout might not pass a board of review would be if they did notcomplete the requirements as written — no more, no less. (GTA 8-0-1-4 and8-0-1-5)
At our troop I remind the adults that they can’t deny a board of review because of uniform, but, here is the clincher, the youth set their own boundaries and often don’t ask for their board if they forgot their uniform and want to show up prepared and looking good. The self imposed “rule” is on their own accord…I think it is more where we all should be getting to. Of course we also should leave the scouts with the why…showing up to a job panel looking sharp is always preferred to not, but more importantly showing up is better than not showing up at all.
While not mandatory, Class A is highly encouraged for BoR's in our unit. When a scout requests a BoR, they are reminded that Class A is appropriate. If a scout arrives in an incomplete uniform, we try to help them complete it before beginning. So, it they are missing a neckerchief, we ask why, and then either get them a replacement (if they don't have one), or give them a loaner (if they forgot). We have a closet full of old shirts which we will also offer if they don't have a shirt to wear. Most frequently, the issue for us is pants, because teens grow like weeds. We just offer a quick, "Where are your uniform pants?" The answer is almost always, "I outgrew them and we haven't had time to get new ones yet." Our response is, "Okay, get them when you can. We have some extras in the closet if you want to take some home to try on." Then they get their BoR. We would never send a scout home to fix a uniform issue.
Back in 1999 when I had my BoR, (coming up on my 25th anniversary on the 4th!) I was told that I HAD to have my Class A and have every last piece of it be official and in good shape.
Wasn't hard to do as that's how I typically rolled anyways, but that was the standard laid out.
Seems the official regs aren't as restrictive.
> HAD to have my Class A and have every last piece of it be official and in good shape.
Requiring a $150 investment to get a BoR is unScoutlike and restrictive.
Also it's a Field Uniform, not a "Class A."
Don’t be pedantic. The only time I’ve heard the Field Uniform referred to as anything other than a Class A was here on Reddit. Old habits die hard.
As youths we were always expected to be in uniform. I remember my mom complaining about uniform costs way back then but it was the expectation and we complied.
Don’t be mad at me, I’m not necessarily saying that’s how it should be, just saying how it was.
My son’s pack is encouraging everyone to at least have the top and neckerchief at meetings. I often wear off brand olive pants and have sent my son to meeting in similar fashion.
As for the current situation of uniform costs, the uniforms that my son and I both wear were bought used except for my pants. I paid less for all the other pieces combined than those pants. It’s all official and fine.
Don’t know how restrictive it truly is to buy used clothing to look the part, my son’s regular clothing is often more expensive than the used uniform he wears to meetings and events.
Son’s pack also has a supply of donated uniform parts. I gave my sons old blue pants to the pile as I wanted to keep his blue top for the memories. When he outgrows his current tan top and olive pants I’ll likely turn them in to the pile or resell.
There’s always ways to do it without investing $150.
Besides, it’s not like the boys choir my son is in which costs $200 per month. They have a uniform also and it’s more expensive than a Scout one. There is no used option.
Scouting has gotten more expensive but it’s the most “bang for the buck” of all the activities he is in.
Uniforming is one of the methods of Scouting but it is not one of the requirements for advancement (which is itself another method of Scouting). One can fully advance without ever fully uniforming. Also one can "uniform" (build group identity) without buying any of the official apparel from BSA National Supply.
A nice pair of shorts and a good cheap Activity Uniform t-shirt (a troop "class B") can suffice. Heck, in many countries just wearing a neckerchief with your "street clothes" is enough to be considered in uniform.
Forcing Scouts to dress up in a full official "Class A" field uniform (a pressed shirt with all the patches, official pants, Scout belt, official socks, sash, dress shoes, etc) like they're putting on a suit and tie for a formal job interview or court hearing is not a method of the program.
You 100% show up for your BoR in Class A every single time. There is no exception to this. Would you show up to a job interview not dressed appropriately?
> Would you show up to a job interview not dressed appropriately?
A Board of Review is not a job interview.
[No, an Eagle Scout board of review is not a job interview](https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2018/11/07/an-eagle-scout-board-of-review-isnt-a-job-interview-its-a-celebration/)
[It is not, notes Scouts BSA national program chair Angelique Minett, a job interview, retest or examination, or any other kind of challenge of the Scout’s knowledge.](https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2024/01/18/some-faqs-about-the-scouts-bsa-board-of-review/)
The Guide to Advancement states the purpose of a Board of Review:
> Its purpose is to determine the quality of the Scout’s experience and decide whether the requirements for the rank have been fulfilled.
It is *not* like a job interview. It's more like quality assurance. Are the Scout's experiences in the troop positive? What could be improved? Have all rank requirements been properly signed off?
Not taking a side one way or the other in this comment, but this could also be considered part of "Be Prepared". I.E. you know you have a BoR, put your class A in your backpack so you have it and can change after tutoring.
EDIT: Geez guys. It must be end times when someone points out how a scout can do something to properly prepare for a known situation and people downvote that person for having the audacity to suggest that scouts should...Be Prepared.
So would you have told the scout to return home and change. That's my point and you can always address the being prepared part. Which I am sure would have been asked of why scout was not in class A when it is preferred at BoR. We don't punish them for not being prepared. Which is what we feel like happened.
Personally, no. I follow the GTA and would not deny a BoR based on lack of Class A, but I would mention it to the scout and ask why they aren't in uniform when they know it's expected.
Would I prefer they do that? Yes. I might even suggest it.
But failing them for a BOR is against the rules. And if BOR members can't live A Scout is Obedient, why should we expect Scouts to?
I thought I would never say this, but the BSA has really softened up on requirements. All of the hard work I did and life values I learned form that, will never be achieved today.
Some of the kids in my Troop didn't even own a full Class A uniform. This was back in the 80s. Some of them did every BoR in jeans.
Somehow, it was ok then. Its still ok, now.
It's not about "being soft". The Guide to Advancement exists to prevent \*arbitrary rules\* promulgated by individuals who claim "it was better in my day". Maybe it was better. Maybe those are rose-tinted glasses. Regardless, now there is one set of rules, and these guide us to being better Scouters and delivering a better program for \*all\* youth.
I've hired people not dressed appropriately. I've hired two young people who showed up at the interview, with their babies, after their sitters cancelled on them - figured they needed the job, and demonstrated that they wanted it.
As an adult, I think the most important part of the Oath is to be kind.
Being kind has nothing to do with it. If they are not dressed appropriately for an interview. That is an early indication that they do not have respect for the company or position. I had a guy show up in ripped pants and I turned him straight around. Showing up with kids, I understand. Showing up in clothes that are no appropriate fort the work place is completely different.
this is what one would logically think, but its not what is required of them.
edit: ok so all i said is i understand the logic not that i endorse it. GENERALLY speaking one would logically think the less experienced would not know the nuances of uniforms , whereas , a more experience scout would be able to better UNDERSTAND what could be seen as a level of dress matching up to what is happening. I never said that they would be required to do as such. This is understanding the point of the argument, not saying that it is to be applied
My litmus test would be if a uniform change could be facilitated without delaying advancement.
In this case the Scout did own a uniform, but he chose not to wear it for reasons. However, the family lived close enough that they could take their Scout home, let him get into uniform, and still complete his board of review in the same session as everyone else? He wasn’t forced to buy a new uniform or had his advancement postponed?
What if the Scout left his class A his parents car in the parking lot? Would the inconvenience of going to get his shirt out of the car constitute a policy violation?
> My litmus test would be if a uniform change could be facilitated without delaying advancement.
And my litmus test would be what does Boy Scouts of America guide to advancement say?
answer: https://www.reddit.com/r/BSA/comments/1ch2f64/debate_over_scout_wearing_class_a_for_regular_bor/l1zp2ny/
The board must be held and may not be denied or delayed or postponed
Eh, I don’t see how my test doesn’t comply with the guidelines. Scouts aren’t delayed in advancing nor are they required to buy a uniform. But we get the uniform on them if we can. How is that violating the word or spirit of the guidelines?
What about the example of the class A shirt that is accidentally left in a car that is still in the parking lot? Is it a guideline violation for the scout to take 10 minutes to get it out of the car and put on the shirt for the BOR? Doesn’t that comply with the guidelines that state the uniform should be worn?
If the scout’s advancement was delayed to the next month I would agree there was a violation.
You are delaying or postponing that board more than one second due to uniforming you were out of compliance
> 8-0-0-2 Boards of Review Must Be Granted When Requirements Are Met
> Neither can a board of review be **denied or postponed** due to issues such as uniforming, payment of dues, participation in fundraising activities, etc.
> Why do you think 8-0-0-4 was included?
I know exactly why.
Because even after 8-0-0-2 was put in starting in 2011, leaders were STILL trying to stop scouts from BORs due to uniforming (8-0-0-4)
The original 8-0-0-2 said
> A Scout cannot be denied this opportunity. When he
believes he has completed all the requirements, including
a Scoutmaster conference, it is up to the unit leader
and committee to assure a board of review is held. "Scoutmasters, for example, do not have authority to expect a boy to request one, or to “defer” him, or to ask him to perform beyond the requirements in order to be granted one"
Despite the CLEAR language of 8-0-0-2 and 8-0-0-4, some folks tried to play semantic games, similar to what you are suggesting. So this point was edited as 8-0-0-2 to make it even clearer.
> Neither can a board of review be **denied or postponed** due to issues such as **uniforming**, payment of dues, participation in fundraising activities, etc.
And yet we will have people such as yourself trying to twist the wording into a pretzel.
By forcing the scout to run home or to a car to get the uniform, the board is **postponed** and arguably **denied** that scout.
I mean how much clearer does this need to get?
> Neither can a board of review be **denied or postponed** due to issues such as **uniforming**, payment of dues, participation in fundraising activities, etc.
You didn’t address why 8-0-0-4 was included in the guidelines. You tried to addressed why 8-0-0-2 was revised to counteract 8-0-0-4. Why stress that a uniform should be worn? Or if it is impractical to wear a uniform that a scout should be neat in appearance? I’m not pretzeling those words into the guidelines.. they are right there. If those words should be ignored, why not just remove them from the guidelines?
I know you didn’t like my example of what if a Scout leaves his class A in a car that is still onsite. You think any delay greater than 1 second is too much and the Scout should not retrieve his shirt. How about another example, what if a Scout was wearing an inappropriate t-shirt? Can we at least make him turn that shirt inside out prior to a BOR?
It’s almost as if we’re supposed to be teaching these young men and women to properly present themselves, but that those lessons shouldn’t be used to the extreme or to prevent a Scout from advancing or otherwise enjoying the scouting program.
It's not that hard to wear uniform and to make it look good.
Unless there is a financial reason that a scout is not in uniform, they should be in uniform for their board of review, the patches should be correct, and the uniform complete.
We're giving way too much grace in scouting due to feelings.
Does this mean it needs to be the military and we have strict uniform inspections like one of the posters talked about above? Bear socks are checked and adults are basically harassing kids about their uniform? No.
However, does it show kids pride in their appearance if they're wearing the uniform correctly and proudly? Absolutely.
If the Scouts have pride in their uniform, the way they look, the way they dress, it'll help a self-confidence, it'll help with other aspects of their life.
It's insane to me that this is even a discussion.
Scout lead.
At the end of the day it really comes down to what the troop feels about it.
Should the scout be in uniform? I absolutely think the scout should be in uniform.
However, at the end of the day it needs to come down to what the troop thinks.
Totally not ok. Our troop always says that if your in your class A then then you should be in real shoes (not crocs or flipflops) but that if your not in class A then your ok
For what feels like the 1 millionth time, your unit CAN NOT do this. *Guide to Awards and Insignia* [https://www.scouting.org/resources/insignia-guide/](https://www.scouting.org/resources/insignia-guide/) While **wearing the uniform is not mandatory**, it is highly encouraged *Guide to Advancement* [https://www.scouting.org/resources/guide-to-advancement/](https://www.scouting.org/resources/guide-to-advancement/) 4-2-3-1 Active Participation Units are free to establish additional expectations on **uniforming**, supplies for outings, payment of dues, parental involvement, etc., but these and any other standards extraneous to a level of activity **shall not be considered in evaluating this requirement.** 8-0-0-2 Boards of Review Must Be Granted When Requirements Are Met Neither can a board of review be denied or postponed due to issues such as **uniforming**, payment of dues, participation in fundraising activities, etc. 8-0-0-4 Wearing the Uniform—or Neat in Appearance *It is preferred a Scout be in full field uniform for any board of review*. As much of the uniform as the Scout owns should be worn, and it should be as correct as possible, with the badges worn properly. It may be the uniform as typically worn by the Scout’s troop, crew, or ship. If wearing all or part of the uniform is impractical for whatever reason, the candidate should be clean and neat in appearance and dressed appropriately, according to the Scout’s means, for the milestone marked by the occasion. Regardless of unit, district, or council expectations or rules, **boards of review shall not reject candidates solely for reasons related to uniforming or attire, as long as they are dressed to the above description.** Candidates shall not be required to purchase uniforming or clothing to participate in a board of review. *Some FAQs about the Scouts BSA board of review* [https://www.scouting.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/FAQs-with-GTAs-on-boards-of-review.pdf](https://www.scouting.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/FAQs-with-GTAs-on-boards-of-review.pdf) A Scout cannot fail a board of review for something like **not wearing their uniform** or forgetting their Handbook. The only reason a Scout might not pass a board of review would be if they did notcomplete the requirements as written — no more, no less. (GTA 8-0-1-4 and8-0-1-5) *Board of Review Guidelines* [https://scouting.org/.../03/Board-of-Review-Guidelines.docx](https://scouting.org/.../03/Board-of-Review-Guidelines.docx) It is preferred a Scout be in full field uniform for any board of review. As much of the uniform as the Scout owns should be worn. If wearing all or part of the uniform is impractical for whatever reason, the candidate should be clean and neat in appearance and dressed appropriately, according to the Scout’s means. *Some FAQs about the Scouts BSA board of review* [https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2024/01/18/some-faqs-about-the-scouts-bsa-board-of-review/](https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2024/01/18/some-faqs-about-the-scouts-bsa-board-of-review/) **A Scout cannot fail a board of review for something like not wearing their uniform** or forgetting their handbook. **The only reason a Scout might not pass a board of review would be if they did not complete the requirements as written — no more, no less.** *What is a Board of Review? Why do we have them in Scouts BSA?* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh7a2\_mV4F4&ab\_channel=ScoutingMagazine](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh7a2_mV4F4&ab_channel=ScoutingMagazine) 10:09-10:34that kids get failed but if you'redoing your job right as an adult it should almost never happen **because things like uniforms and Scout book having your Scout book with you uh handbook with you or not having your uniform are not allowed** those are not reasons that you can fail a scout for a board of review only not completing uh the things the requirements as written um is a reason so
Thanks, for reminding me that we were correct in telling the leader they should not have said that to the scout. I apologized to the parents when they returned.
If this continues to happen with this unit or others, don't hesitate to pull your DE / DC into the loop as well
Preach.
It's amazing how often this topic seems to come up....
Some leaders power trip. BSA is pretty decentralized, so Troops can fall prey to every whim a leader has unless there is push back.
Scouting has gone from a paramilitary organization to "people doing outdoor stuff". There's some old guard folks who have an incredibly different expectation for the program today based on their experiences.
> Scouting has gone from a paramilitary organization to "people doing outdoor stuff". BSA was never "paramilitary" thanks to West and the YMCA movement. American Boy Scouting (ABS) which paramilitary was a competitor and folded.
Explicitly paramilitary? No. But BSA in the wake of the anti-war movement in the late 60's and 70's *absolutely* took on a quasi-paramilitary dynamic in many troops.
It was less about a reaction to the war than the fact that a lot of dads returning from the conflict became Scout leaders. Same thing happened after WWII. Veterans make great Scout leaders, but sometimes forget that BSA isn't a military organization.
I think that's right, but I would add the context that the Vietnam anti-war movement villainized returning veterans and there was a harsh backlash to that movement. Many people saw that treatment and countered with an even harder swing against that movement. The BSA at that time was near the front of that anti anti-war movement.
It was never paramilitary
Half my county is employed by the Navy. ymmv
That has literally nothing to do with your previous comment in any way.
Scouting reflects the community it's in. If your community has a bunch of kids raised in a military household, they're much more likely given different standards to follow based on that subculture.
You need to go back and read what you wrote. You said that scouting started with paramilitary practices, which is categorically false. Just because your county does something, doesn't mean anything with regards as to what "scouting started as".
Thats how it started, as a paramilitary organization.
> Thats how it started, as a paramilitary organization. Not here in the U.S. In fact James West was in direct competition with American Boy Scouts (ABS) which very much WAS a paramilitary group. West took a LOT of flack for being "anti military" because, for example, he did NOT want firearms training and military drill. Eventually West won and the ABS folded.
So what you're saying is that part of the origin of American scouting was paramilitary.
> So what you're saying is that part of the origin of American scouting was paramilitary. NOT BSA scouting.
"Scouting has gone from a paramilitary organization to people doing outdoor stuff." That was the original comment. Scouting. Not BSA.
I guess, but I don't think we've really got "old guard" from a group that folded over a century ago
Read into the word scout
Can we pin this comment or add it to a FAQ?
I guess the question there is the line “as long as they are dressed to the above description.” The question is which part is that line referring to. The rule does say they should be wearing as much of the uniform that they have as is practical. So the rule has some ambiguity since one place in the rules it says the scout cannot be rejected solely based on uniforming, but then another place it adds a description that adds they should be wearing as much of the uniform as they own. Frankly I don’t think I ever remember someone showing up without class A for a BoR back when I was a youth, it was just expected and we all did it. But we also were in a heavily military area with a lot of military or retired military parents so maybe that helped people toe that line.
I read it as: You should wear as much as you own. You must wear as much as is practical. So if a scout comes in directly from school and forgot to pack their Class A, then they should try to wear it (but they won’t wear it because they don’t have it). And if it’s not practical to make a trip home on the way to the meeting, then you don’t need to. I think it might deserve a comment about how we try our best and he should try harder next time, but everyone makes mistakes.
There is no ambiguity. The verbs used in different sentences are different and that difference matters. The difference is so important that it is described on page 2 of GTA, which is before the table of contents. "Should" describes a recommended practice. "Shall" describes a rule. If something "should" happen, you may encourage it, but deviations are acceptable. If something "shall" happen, no deviation is permitted (unless you are given specific authorization to do so). I think it's completely reasonable to argue whether or not the current rule is a good rule, but it's not reasonable to argue about what the rule is. It's also completely reasonable to remind and strongly encourage Scouts to wear the uniform, since uniforms are listed as one of the [methods of Scouting](https://www.scouting.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Scouts-BSA-Aims-and-Methods.pdf).
I think it would be nice to get better clarification from bsa. I think it’s really important for a scout to treat a BOR with respect. Having a full uniform and just deciding not to wear it for a BOR to me does not meet the standard laid out in the GTA and therefore is grounds to defer a BOR, mentor the scout on what’s appropriate and setting a date or time to reconvene.
We have perfect clarity from BSA that a scout cannot fail a BoR for not wearing their uniform. They should do it but they shall not be denied a BoR or a rank for not doing it.
In fact the reply I got from national on this is they intend a clarification in the upcoming GTA specifically because this is currently ambiguous.
agree to disagree
There is nothing ambiguous at all. Please, go look up the definition of "should". You clearly don't know what it means.
As someone with a decade of experience in regulatory affairs, these rules are far from clear and conflict with each other. A scout is courteous…
That video is the best BoR training I have ever seen. Every BOR member should be required to watch it.
The OP didn't specify what the scout was actually wearing, but I suspect it was something along the lines of tshirt and gym shorts. If the scout was wearing khakis and a polo I could see that as "dressed appropriately". The scout did not "fail" the BoR over the uniform, it never started. Dress appropriately and we'll respect the time of the volunteers conducting the BoR. Expecting the scout to come prepared by wearing their uniform was neither "impractical" or beyond his "means".
> The scout did not "fail" the BoR over the uniform, it never started. Do you want to play semantic games? 8-0-0-2 Boards of Review Must Be Granted When Requirements Are Met also says the BOR may not be "**denied or postponed** due to issues such as uniforming." "Denied" "Postponed" "never started" So, play it off any way you want it, but the unit was in the wrong.
Once again my man, preach!
leader said they would not perform the BOR if the scout was not in their class A. regardless of what words you use, they were prevented doing a BOR until they had the "required" uniform according to the leader. as posted here several times. THIS IS NOT ALLOWED
> The scout did not "fail" the BoR over the uniform, it never started. Dress appropriately and we'll respect the time of the volunteers conducting the BoR. Yeah, that's a crappy semantic game. A Scout is Trustworthy. "We didn't fail you, we just suspended the BOR indefinitely" is also a favorite. What you're talking about is explicitly banned. Period. You can do whatever program you want, but its not Scouting
8.0.0.2 “A board of review shall not be…postponed due to issues such as uniforming”
disagreeing about the nights of the BOR , the mandate for uniform, or both?
Both, I think we're probably the only unit that does it on a separate night in the country.
ok, i now have a better understanding of your meaning. i can see the hassle so to speak of having to take your kid twice, especially depending on what other activities they are in. i can see it being a thing so that advancemnt work can be done on the meeting night and the BOR being done separate so there is focus on the advancement requirements. though with enought leaders it wouldnt be difficult unless you have a lot of scouts needing BOR at the same time. that being said, definitely sounds strange compared to the "norm".
We dedicate our 4th meeting of the month to “advancement night”, where we do boards or review and older scouts and leaders are available to sign off requirements as needed. So while it’s not part of the regular meeting, it is at least on a regular cadence. That said, if a scout wants a board of review sooner than the next advancement meeting, we will schedule one as soon as is feasible
This is exactly what one of our other leaders had suggested almost to the letter and it was not welcomed. It's still a part of the this is how we've always done it crew that we are trying to deal with.
Was in scouts in the 90s - I had a BOR once during a camp out because everyone was there and wanted to get it done. Rarely did we have class a on campouts. Reading Reddit makes me realize just how casual my troop was.
You say casual, I read it as flexible. My two words for the scouts this year are preparation and improvisation. Doing it at summer camp is a great example of improvisation as a means to get something done efficiently
See that's my point we did a few at camp last summer and they had a hissy fit that we didn't do it at the proper place. We didn't see why making the scouts wait until the meetings started back in 2 months time. Ugh, it's hard to explain to the old guard that there are rules for the scouts benefit.
We did many BORs on weekend trips where we had an easy evening planned. If the scout needs a board of review, and the people that need to sit on that board are there and have time, then why not do it. No uniform necessary for something like that (although we did typically wear the uniform during travel time - Friday evenings and Sunday Mornings).
Unless you happen to be in the troop we started in, you're not the only one. When we were in a large troop, they would put out signup sheets at the regular meeting with slots for SM Conference and BORs the following night.
You probably aren't.
Nope. Not the only unit. We schedule ours a different night than the meetings.
We've discussed having it on a separate night, but the reason for doing so is we sometimes struggle to have enough committee members at a regular meeting. I'm not sure how adding a second meeting is meant to add increase attendance, so thus far we haven't gone that route.
My troop in the 90s had boards of review on a separate night.You could still have one separately from that if you were ready early.But there was a regularly scheduled board of review outside of meetings
Best practice is be in full uniform. Having said that, a uniform is not required at all. If the scout is in school clothes, or a sports uniform, or even a Halloween costume, you cannot deny the board of review because of the uniform. Now, I would absolutely ask them why don’t have it.
>Having said that, a uniform is not required at all. This ☝️ I know an Eagle Scout (and a good Eagle who truly deserves to be called such... not one just rubber-stamped or pushed through by their parents or whatever). He outgrew his uniform at age 12 (before even earning First Class) and didn't get a new one until the day of his Eagle Court of Honor (it still had the tags on it and no patches that day). He never wore a "Field uniform" (or "Class A") from when he was a Second Class Scout up through his Eagle board of review. He was (and still is) an exceptional Scout.
How would a Halloween costume, or even a sports uniform, meet this part of the requirement? "If wearing all or part of the uniform is impractical for whatever reason, the candidate should be clean and neat in appearance and dressed appropriately, according to the Scout’s means, for the milestone marked by the occasion. Regardless of unit, district, or council expectations or rules, *boards of review shall not reject candidates solely for reasons related to uniforming or attire*, as long as they are dressed to the above description." I can certainly understand not requiring a full uniform, because this may present a barrier for a scout with family or financial difficulties, but expecting them to dress appropriately for an important occasion is reasonable and explicitly part of the requirement.
“According to the scout’s means” covers quite a lot. If they don’t have time to shower and change between soccer practice and the meeting, then they don’t have the means to be clean and neat in appearance.
I'd rather a scout in a baseball uniform that's dirty from him sliding home in the game right before the meeting, than a former scout that quit because he couldn't come to a meeting in his baseball uniform and he chose baseball over scouts.
If you have the means to participate in school or club sports, and have made it to a BOR, you have both the means and the ability to pack a change of clothes in your sports bag. "According to the scout's means" is intended to address financial and familial disparities, not to give kids an excuse not to do <5 minutes of pre-planning in order to be presentable at an important event. I would not mind if the scout didn't have time to shower, but I would expect them to bring a change of clothes and change into them. This is not an unreasonable expectation. The BOR is an important event for the scout, and is comprised of adults who are volunteering to support the scout on their advancement journey. As a parent it's important that my kids show respect for their own achievements, and the time and care of the people supporting them.
Yes, and the way to teach that as a committee member is to ask the scout about it at the BOR and suggest it for next time. This helps them see it not as a test to pass but as a required checkin and interaction.
If “means” is meant to cover financial issues, they should have written the rule that way. Money is just one of many possible means, or "intermediary tools meant to bring about a result." The means by which I came to the meeting, a car. The means by which I earned riffle shooting merit badge, summer camp. The means by which I passed my BOR, I did the work. It would have been easy for the people who wrote the rule to say "according to the scout's financial means" but they didn't. I am not about to add words to the rules.
You're nit picking now, which is what kills scouting
Please see the word "should". Not "must", not "shall", but "should be clean and neat...". Certainly check in with the scout, but do not deny them based on their appearance. To your second point, Scouts is not the only thing going on in kids' lives, nor would we want it to be. Perhaps, by automatically judging a kid on their appearance, you are showing disrespect in your own right?
Expectations are not judgments. I do not think that setting an expectation that scouts come prepared is disrespectful. The GTA itself says this: "Regardless of unit, district, or council expectations or rules, *boards of review shall not reject candidates solely for reasons related to uniforming or attire*, as long as they are dressed to the above description." So the GTA itself says that not being attired to the above description IS grounds to reject a BOR. That being said, I certainly would not advocate canceling a BOR over it, and would talk to the scout about being more prepared in the future. I never SAID I thought it was grounds to deny a BOR.
You're one of those power tripping leaders that are killing scouting. Enjoy sucking the fun and fulfillment and enjoyment kids get out of scouting. You'll ruin it for a generation.
wow, get over yourself. I never said I would fail someone for a uniform. I'm having a philosophical conversation about expectations. If a kid showed up for a BOR looking sloppy, we'd talk to them about it and move on. But no, I don't think that expecting scouts to be prepared is a power trip. What an insane take.
That's not what you said though, is it? You said your expectations were that they should be at BOR in uniform. In my troop BORs were done either before or after meetings, so that being in uniform was already expected, or if you weren't in uniform, it was already a known and understood reason why.
>In my troop BORs were done either before or after meetings, so that being in uniform was already expected My troop did RORs on outings...I had my BOR for Star Scout while canoeing down a river (in a bathing suit, a dirty t-shirt and a PFD with uncombed hair and no shoes)... my BOR for Life was at summer camp sitting around a campfire in a troop "class B" t-shirt. These aren't "job interviews" or high-pressure formal exams... they're friendly check-ins, they're casual conversations.
Honestly, that would be a much better way to do it too
An expectation is not a requirement, though, is it. As a troop, we EXPECT them to be in uniform, and I don't think that's unreasonable. If they showed up out of uniform, we'd talk about the expectations and move on with the BOR. Please show me me where I ever said that not being in uniform was a reason to actually deny a BOR. My point about it being reasonable to expect a kid to bring a change of clothes if coming from a game wasn't that if he didn't, he should fail. It was that, as a teen, some planning and preparation for an important event is an appropriate developmental expectation, and so it would therefore be appropriate to suggest that he do so next time. If it wasn't an appropriate expectation, it wouldn't be right to mention it to the kid. Adults sometimes have unreasonable expectations of what kids can or should do. Those are not requirements, but they can influence how we respond to their behavior. You may feel that this is too much to ask of a teen, and that's fine. Having a different view about that does not make me a power tripper. You seem really eager to pick a fight over things I never said.
>An expectation is not a requirement, though, is it. If it's not, then what are we doing here in a discussion about requirements?
Because we can have conversations about related things? A conversation about rules might lead to a wider discussion about troop culture, expectations, and how to model or encourage the behavior we hope to instill in our scouts.
As a parent you can teach your own kids to behave this way, support them and expect this of them. Not every scout has you as a parent, and the board of review is not where you get to set extra expectations.
My point is that the BSA rules set an expectation of being clean and neat, that's not something I'm making up.
You've never done a BoR on a campout? Most of my unit is also in sports, sometimes in order to even make it to the meeting to have their BoR we are lucky if they take their cleats/skates off. And yeah sometimes they smell. As all teenagers do at various times. I can't imagine saying sorry kid, we are not going to do this BoR tonight because PU, you smell ripe and are still wearing your hockey gear. What is killing scouting is the "adult" volunteers who have to make everything be about their way or the highway. And willfully disregard written rules. And just as guilty are the leaders who know better and let them keep doing whatever they want. If a leader in my unit tried to pull this, I would have the COR drop them like it's hot. (And as a matter of fact I have)
On a campout, clearly expectations of clean and neat would be different. I don't think teenagers being smelly at any time should be an issue that affects advancement...they're teenagers. I think all of you are overreacting. I never said a kid should be failed. I was responding to a statement about expectations and interested in having a philosophical discussion about expectations. I don't think failure to prepare is the same thing as "not having the means". That being said, if a kid showed up sloppy to a BOR, we'd talk to them about it and move on. You're making a lot of assumptions.
Correct. They are set rules. You’re adding to them. You ought not do that.
I'm not adding anything. I've never not passed a scout on their BOR, and unless they did something blatantly disrespectful, I never would. That being said, I would absolutely ask a scout where their uniform was and encourage them to wear it the next time. If you read my posts, I never advocated for failing anyone. I was talking about what reasonable expectations are, not dictating what should happen at a BOR.
Oh good. That’s reasonable.
I think as adults in scouting, we should set a good example, and have high expectations of the kids, which we then support them in meeting. Kids will be at different capability levels due to many factors, and we need to meet them where they are....in my mind that doesn't mean that the EXPECTATIONS change, but we work with kids wherever they are to get to the point of meeting them. Obviously that would not happen by refusing a BOR over a uniform. But I also feel it's a disservice to kids, maybe especially the ones who need more support, to not hold the expectations as a goal or treat them like we believe they are capable of meeting them. My point about the sports uniform is that if a kid showed up disheveled and sweaty, I'd ask about it. If he said "oh I just came from practice/a game", I'd thank him for coming after a tiring event and acknowledge that he's really busy, then suggest that next time, he pack a change of clothes when getting his things ready in the morning before school. This kind of coaching and modeling has made a difference for my son, because kids always hear it better from a non-parent, and is, in my mind, one of the best parts of scouting...the chance to work with non-related adults who care about you, believe in you, and can hold you accountable in supportive ways when it matters.
Sports uniforms if clean, could meet this requirement.
Authoritarian adults will always go against regulations and make the uniform the excuse to exert their authority. The first troop my sons and I were in made the uniform the center of all discipline. The SM threatened to remove rank for anyone who didn’t have all their patches correct and up to date. Other adults harassed boys they didn’t like by yanking out shirttails then demanding they tuck in the shirt repeatedly until they “showed respect for the uniform.” The same ones would yank up pant legs for “sock inspections.” This was done in troop formations for maximum humiliation. My sons became one of the targets. I read the regs and followed them by contacting the council with my concerns. The council was shockingly unconcerned and claimed it was an important safety issue. “Nobody would send a kid onto a football field without a helmet,” was what the district representative told me. I pointed out that the uniform provided no physical protection from adults who believed they could make up the rules. He asked me why we wanted to be in scouts if we hated the “traditions.” We had to change troops. I decided to not file a formal complaint when adult harassment became malignant toward my sons so I could focus on moving forward instead of trying to fight troop leadership who had already decided their only problem was me and my sons. The council was shockingly unconcerned over my or other parents’ complaints about the abusive adults. The council finally took action the month after we left when an adult lost a leg and sustained severe brain injuries during a repelling camp out. The SM stepped down and several adult quit when informed they would have to abide by BSA policy. My sons made Eagle. I doubt they will continue the tradition with their kids.
Sorry for the rant. My scouting experience was so positive and my sons’ wasn’t. It’s sad how so many adults believe they are saving the world by becoming abusive toward young men. I know from my conversations around our council that many believe it their duty insert themselves in place of parents they believe have the “wrong” values.
You are illustrating another important point. If we choose to not follow either the GTA or the GTSS sooner or later it will bite
GTA says class A uniform is not required. Having said that, class A uniform is heavily encouraged, and many units will not allow a scout to attend a BoR without it unless there are extenuating circumstances. This is one of the cases where there is a very real disconnect between what GTA says and what actually happens in the real world. I'm not taking a side either way, just pointing out facts.
There is nothing wrong with having a learning discussion about uniforms and their purpose during a BOR. That happens all the time, but not used to turn him away with the BOR approval. BOR’s are not tests.
>There is nothing wrong with having a learning discussion about uniforms and their purpose during a BOR Sure, talk about it... uniforming is one of the methods of Scouting but it is not one of the requirements for advancement (which is itself another method of Scouting). One can fully advance without ever fully uniforming.
I agree there is a huge disconnect. I'm on the side of the Scouts and the Guide to Advancement.
There’s a clear side here though. We have a guide to advancement and we say at every meeting “a scout is obedient”
No, there's not. Like I said, I'm pointing out facts. It cannot be disputed that the GTA says a uniform is not required, and it also cannot be disputed that some units will not allow a BoR without a Class A.
You’re right, there is a problem. Not one that should just be accepted because “that’s what troop ### has always done” but one that should be immediately corrected and the proper way coached. This frankly is a big part of the job of the commissioner staff, and they need to be on top of it… especially if they serve a unit that is a known problem.
Both statements are true. However, as OllieFromCairo states, under current rules, the side that says that a uniform isn't required is correct and the other side isn't. I think there can be legitimate disagreement about whether the current national policy on this issue is good policy, but, for the reasons stated by OllieFromCairo, we're obligated to follow the current policy, whether or not we like it.
Yes, that's essentially exactly what I said.
[8.0.0.4](http://8.0.0.4) Wearing the Uniform—or Neat in Appearance It is preferred a Scout be in full field uniform for any board of review. As much of the uniform as the Scout owns should be worn, and it should be as correct as possible, with the badges worn properly. It may be the uniform as typically worn by the Scout’s troop, crew, or ship. If wearing all or part of the uniform is impractical for whatever reason, the candidate should be clean and neat in appearance and dressed appropriately, according to the Scout’s means, for the milestone marked by the occasion. Regardless of unit, district, or council expectations or rules, *boards of review shall not reject candidates solely for reasons related to uniforming or attire*, as long as they are dressed to the above description. Candidates shall not be required to purchase uniforming or clothing to participate in a board of review. [https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/33088.pdf](https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/33088.pdf)
It has been a year, but I still get PO'd about the guy on my daughter's Eagle board that said my daughter's uniform was disgraceful: * Her shirt was untucked (which is permitted, especially with some of the cuts of the adult uniform shirts that are not made to be tucked). * Her pants were not official (She wore third-party olive green pants like almost every female Scout leader I've ever met) * She was wearing Chucks (you know, like the ones worn by the girl in the [official uniform inspection sheet](https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/510-784(23)-Scouts-Uniform-Inspection-Sheet.pdf)). It wasn't so much that he was wrong, but he was angrily insistent. And it ruined my daughter's experience.
That sucketh. I have had nothing but negative feedback about the female uniforms.
That is kind of confusing part it states "as much of the uniform as the scout owns" then "if wearing all parts of the uniform are impractical " I don't see how it could every be impractical if you know you are going for a BOR pack it? I don't agree with not having it but if I was on the board I'd certainly have a talk with the scout. We are all busy my scout master came right form his small business to meetings and always had his uniform. As scouts we should be proud to wear our uniform for all occasions needed and appropriate to wear. I would question him on "be prepared" and his scout spirt.
We have never worried about pants, except when the Scout is working at camp, NYLT, or a jambo.
I don't think most troops do atleast not in my area. But I can not say I have ever seen anyone show up for a BOR without a Class A. I get it everyone is busy but have some for site. Scouts promise to live by the oath, law, slogan and promise. Be prepared should mean something. Every one forgets its hard to say without knowing the kid but if it happens more then once I'd say he needs a talking too lol
It's not confusing at all. The first few sentences use the word "should". The sentences at the end use the word "shall". Deviations are permitted when words like "should" are used. Deviations are forbidden when words like "shall" are used. This is explained in the second box on page 2 of GTA.
Yes I get there are exceptions and devotions. He SHOULD wear it. I'd it's really impossible I get it. I would never say do not do or pass a BOR for no uniform. At the same time unless it was a last min call the the scout then I see no reason why he could not have planed ahead knowing he was going for a BOR and packed his uniform if he came form another location. I wouldn't even care if he tucked it into athletic shorts but having the uniform would show the responsibility and respect for the occasion. Again we do not get all the information here but if it was a simple lack of forsite or planing of the scout and not a last min thing I would want to know why the scout didn't have his uniform since based on the post he did own one and just didn't bring it.
I think you misread this, it's saying "If wearing all or part of the uniform is impractical" that the scout should at least be presentable (neat and clean), aka it's 1) acknowledging some or even all items of the uniform are impractical in some situations: like you can't wear the scout belt over those pre-belted pants, there may be a physical or environmental impediment to wearing a part of the uniform, or when the BOR is being held during any Class B/non-Class A activity. All of that focuses on 2) reducing barriers to both scouts and adult leaders allowing them to focus on the BOR content (the scout's development) versus what amounts to the scouts' family dynamic or budget restraints or access to a scout shop or luck of the weather or timing or whatever else. I'd also add as an addendum that the official uniforms do not look neat and tidy on all bodies, perhaps they will adjust and expand the options some day, but particularly for items as hit or miss like the unfortunate cut of the women's uniform pants? I would absolutely push back as an adult volunteer if someone told me that I can't wear my own neat and activity-appropriate women's green pants, or frankly the older men's BSA pants, because the BSA women's uniform pants are expensive and currently impractical. On the whole though - It's not about any sort of dismissal of the uniform it's about the program making a point to avoid allowing the physical uniform to be more important than the child in it. We have held BORs for scouts during swim testing meetings where scouts were dressed "appropriate for the activity" in their bathing suits and towels, Scoutbook in hand, fully prepared, full of scout spirit and proud to represent scouting.
No I completely understand the point of how it's wrote. But to my point if you know you are going to meet for a BOR. From how it was wrote another location, not a hey let's do this BOR real quick. The scout knew he was going for a BOR I believe he should have brought his uniform. I understand they are cases that would be excusable. In the curcimstance described I would be upset that the scout having a uniform chose not to bring it. Like I said we don't know all the background of the situation. If it was last min call then hey no biggy. Buy if the scout chose not plan ahead and just didn't bring it when he knew ahead of time that's different. Again I wouldn't say don't do it either or not even don't pass him but it would definitely be a topic of conversation in the BOR for me.
Fair, I see what you mean about having the conversation: at that point you're just trying to figure out if the scout needs support to present in ideal uniform - in either obtaining a uniform or preparedness. I just don't even know if that conversation needs to be part of the BOR, per say and would have to be a case by case basis - I could see asking as a check in casually before, at some point during (we try to let scouts know/practice everything they'd eventually need to do at an Eagle BOR,for example outdoor code, even though it isn't a requirement at lower levels and I would count a uniform expectation reminder in that same category if I know the scout needs support in that area). But because the adults aren't going to be able to make a judgement on practicality it just seems like a circular argument: the scout should be prepared in uniform when it is practical to expect the scout to be prepared. The BOR shall pass the scout regardless of uniform if the scout is otherwise prepared. I feel like it is clearly written to reduce barriers (where scouts rely on parents for uniform availability or cleanliness, the scouts progress isn't penalized) and to protect against unsavory behavior by adults (determination of what is considered a neat and tidy hairstyle for ethnic minorities for example, is equally not allowed to penalize the scout!). Guidelines are usually in place for a reason, they don't stop anyone from meeting or asking for the ideal readiness. They stop misuse/imbalance. Our SM has a funny saying about being a veteran, basically that there are militaries that actively fight wars and militaries that are trained to be militaries - the first type are just as much in uniform but put a lot more time and emphasis on skill development and communication and other things that keep people alive in the field, and only the second type put active emphasis on tertiary pants cuff and shirt collar infractions, lol. Having a uniform rule that lists the ideal and allows equal autonomy in dismissal of the ideal when it comes to advancement, ironically keeps scouting far more uniform (in the figurative sense).
I think the GTA def needs to be clarified on this. If they meant you can't deny a BOR for any reason related to uniform they should update it to end after "boards of review shall not reject candidates solely for reasons related to uniforming or attire" Period. But... they have a comma there: ", as long as they are dressed to the above description" To some this reads if they are NOT dressed to the above description, then rejecting a BOR is acceptable. I believe the GTA here is trying to establish a "by no fault of their own" statement, similar to Eagle extensions. If through no fault of their own the scout is not in uniform, but is clean in appearance - they shall not be denied. If the uniform is in Dad's car and dad is stuck at work and can't get the uniform to the Scout - that's not grounds for denying a BOR. If you know full well the Scout owns a uniform and they choose to just not wear it - that is not to the above description. The text is definitely ambiguous. I hope it receives some attention in the 2024 revision.
Yes this is definitely what I am saying if they know and chose not to wear it. Idk if I'd say no to the BOR or even fail but I think it definitely be a topic in the BOR
You skipped the part where it says “impractical” I would take impractical to mean things like coming straight from a school function or sports ball game/practice.
Put the uniform in the car and change right before the COH. The lateness (which should have been notified in advance) will be excused if the scout is demonstrating that they were prepared. I mention the lack of uniform components to every scout every time I see it. They need to know we notice and care, especially the older scouts.
It cannot be required. You can ask the Scout about their uniform. But you can't fail a kid for not wearing it, and you can't deny them a BOR. Yes, this happens all the time, because Troop Committees routinely go rouge - they are untrained and don't consult the Guide to Advancement. They want to do what they want to do. The Scout must be neat and clean.
Is the separate night for the convenience of the scout and their family, or some rule the committee made? For the scout makes sense, we've done that. A scout need not be in uniform to have a BoR. A uniform is not even required
Separate night because that's how it's been done. Will not entertain having it earlier before the meetings. Parents have complained about having to make special trips when everything's already busy. Have had scouts not be able to attend because of other things such as sports or other obligations. Some of us have expressed our concern for this so far there have not been any exceptions made for anyone.
The only questions that matter are 1. What does official documentation from BSA say? 2. What is best for the youth? IMO setting BoRs on different nights from troop meetings imposes a burden on youth and families that can delay receiving recognition for their accomplishments. What is on the other side of the ledger (if anything)? "We've always done it this way" is rarely a sufficient reason.
And truly scouting rounds out a person. Being that the special night is a burden on other activities is not good. Our troop meets Sundays to avoid conflict with sports and other activities. We tell our youth that scouting is not the only thing you do, and if there is a conflict, you can come late, not in uniform, if possible. We've met scouts for SMCs on nights other than our meeting night and at alternative locations because the scout has completed all requirements and needed the conference. I don't see why troops make things difficult for the youth.
>Separate night because that's how it's been done Doing something because (a) it's good for the Scout is good. Doing something because it's (b) good for the leaders or (c) convenient for the committee or (d) easier on the parents or (e) just how it's always been done... is bad.
The rules say uniform is not required. That does not end the inquiry. While the uniform is not required, why aren't scouts encouraged to wear the uniform? Is anyone leading by example? Put another way, why is not wearing the uniform an issue at all? Our scoutmaster was frequently late. And he rarely work scout pants. His uniform was incomplete. He was away for a few months (he is retired). While the SM was away, the senior ASM showed up 15mins early to everything, had 100% compete uniform and always wore the pants. In two months, our troop uniform compliance went up from 60% to 95%+. Scouts came early. Partially complete uniforms got filled up. Why? Scouts follow those who set the example. We did not have uniform checks or stuff like that. The senior ASM showed up and set an example. It helped that the other ASMs did the same. The debate over wearing class A at a BofR shouldn't be a debate at all as the GTA is clear. Uniform is not required. However, let us review the [aims and methods of scouting](https://www.scouting.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Scouts-BSA-Aims-and-Methods.pdf). Uniform is one of the methods: >**Uniform** – The uniform makes the Scout troop visible as a force for good and creates a positive youth image in the community. Scouting is an action program, and wearing the uniform is an action that shows each Scout’s commitment to the aims and purposes of Scouting. The uniform gives the Scout identity in a world brotherhood of youth who believe in the same ideals. The uniform is practical attire for Scout activities and provides a way for Scouts to wear the badges that show what they have accomplished. If a scout doesn't wear his uniform to the BofR, that isn't his or her failure, it is a failure of the adults, SM, ASM, Committee, etc. who are not using the methods of scouting. If we are delivering a program directed to the aims of scouting and employing the methods, uniform being one of the methods, the scouts should be wearing the uniform and refusing the BofR because of no uniform does not reflect on any failure of the scout (as per GTA) but instead should be seen as a failure of the adult leadership to deliver the program using the methods. Turning against the scout and making him change compounds the failure of leadership and obscures the work needed to use the methods to achieve the aims.
We're not talking about a scout that is regularly not in uniform. We're referring to a one time thing that was a schedule conflict where said scout was made to leave and change. The debate was that this was incorrect on the individual who told the scout to leave. The scout in question is usually in full class A every meeting, which is what we ask of our scouts and we don't have any issues with them not showing up in class As. We only found out scout was told to leave when he was next up and nowhere to be found. We would have addressed the uniform issue but not make the parent drive home.
We tend to have our BORs on meeting nights, but sometimes things happen. It certainly depends on the availability of the committee / adults. Also, there tends to be a "rush" of requests before a troop CoH. The committee will often open up another non-meeting date so that the scouts can complete and receive their rank in time for the ceremony.
Nothing, and I repeat, NOTHING, ruins the scouting experience more than adults on power trips.
Even though not mandatory by BSA at large it is highly recommended. This is because it is a more formal thing in scouting. And I will preface this with my next point, I am the SPL of my troop so most of the time I plan if a meeting is more suited in class A’s or not. But even if we aren’t wearing class A’s for the meeting, normally during the summer, I still tell my scouts to wear class A for BoR and Scoutmaster Conferences.
My BOR was held on a completely different date, so that the panel could focus exclusively on me and my interview.
Are you telling me I could pass my Eagle Board of Review without a uniform?
Yes, it's not required. Highly unusual but you can.
Not unusual at all. Your Eagle BoR can be up to 2 years after you turn 18. Unless you register as a leader, you can't wear the uniform to the BoR. And even if they were registered in a position with a troop, it wouldn't be the youth uniform anyway, which means they can't wear the sash either.
But how often does that happen. Most Eagle boards I've sat are not that far out.
It is a small percentage but it happens. Which is why the GtA is written how it is written. In the last 2 years I know of three scouts who turned in their paperwork and shipped out to boot camp within 24 hours. Their boards waited until they returned. Care to guess how they were dressed for their board?
I know of at least one past EBoR in my district that was done over Zoom or FaceTime or some such while the Eagle candidate was at AIT after Marine boot camp. They were in their barracks dressed in cammies. They passed.
Yeah, that makes sense
I guess in the context of someone getting a delayed BoR as an adult, such as in boot camp then requiring a uniform doesn't make sense. And I guess that is why the rule is written that way. OTOH, I would expect any 14-18 year old sitting on a board to be given every means an opportunity of having a uniform as possible. When I was going for eagle we had several practice boards of reviews and a very formative thing was said to me during one of them. "There is no way the district representative is going to tell the two old ladies on the troop committee that he thinks knew you since you were twelve that he is going to fail you. You will pass this board, these practice sessions are where you earn it." I've come to realize that applies to many things in life. I've had certain of my martial arts belts that I didn't feel I've earned on the day of grading and it made me work harder to earn the next one. Certain formalities in promotions that I took more seriously **because** no one would fail you for screwing them up so I knew it was up to me to rise to that standard so I could feel like I earned my achievement.
Is it really so hard for a scout to dress in his class A 5 times during his entire scouting career? (Not including eagle). It’s not like they do a BOR every other month. I get that the rule book says what it says, I just don’t understand why so many people defend it so vehemently.
First, it's a "Field Uniform" not a " Class A." Secondly, I know many Scouts who have advanced far and have been exemplary Scouts who never had a uniform (which is only 1 of 8 methods of a Scouting and is not 1 of any requirements for advancement, which is itself another method).
It was standard in our troop that you must be in full class A for BOR. There would be some leeway given to scouts up to First Class, but all of them knew the expectation and we never had to turn any scout away. It helps that our troop required class A for all meetings from Labor Day to Memorial Day. "Class B" all summer long
You should 100% be wearing it if it is a standard meeting night. If it isn’t who cares as long as you are dressed presentably
Different night? I'm an actual Advancement Coordinator and I schedule the boards of review. Frankly I just need to know when I can get adults who are qualified and able to do boards and if that's going to be on a different night vs the regular meeting night - then that's when it is going to be. My BOR schedule is completely driven by the following: 1) Avoiding doing boards DURING the Troop meeting. I hate pulling a scout out of a meeting. 2) When the scout is available. 3) When the adults are available. 2 & 3 basically have equal weight. As a last resort I will do it during a meeting. Usually this means we are doing boards in the hour before the regular meeting. Regarding uniform? It isn't required. I ask that scouts wear their most complete uniform if they can but I make it clear that it is more important that they are presenting themselves neatly. I've had to talk more than one adult down on this one including my committee chair more than once. In fact he says 'It's his opinion' and I tell him his opinion doesn't matter, the guide to advancement does. I do encourage the uniform AND I LOVE IT when a scout wears their sash because they I can more easily ask about merit badges because the board members can see what they have.
The leader was incorrect about it being required and not allowing the BOR to proceed. But it is appropriate for the leader to help guide the scout for what is best and in this instance that might have meant being prepared and ready to represent themselves well in a BOR. Units should set clear expectations about when a uniform should be worn and I believe a full Class A uniform should be an expectation for any Board of Review, Court of Honor, etc. There are always exceptions but use these moments to learn and grow together as a unit. That will serve the youth best in the long run.
tbh, i'd only ever **think** class a would be condsidered "required" or "very heavily ecouraged" for a for a COH. but thats just maybe. that would depend on location really.
My son’s troop makes an announcement the week before and in the email blast the week of a CoH to remind to wear full uniform. If a Scout shows up in their baseball uniform or regular clothes, they get to participate just like anyone else. And no word is said, at least in public. For the question of the BoR, we ask why if the Scout is not in uniform, remind the Scout to have their full uniform (including book) for BoR, and then continue on with the board. We also have a very young troop, so most have very little practice with a BoR. It’s a teaching moment, not a penalizing moment.
I said maybe. Wouldnt actually make it a requirement. My perspective is from having been a scout 20 years ago. Things have changed since then. to give context about the COH , is because its an award ceremony, it would seem as though it would be much more highly encouraged to wear class a. but also dependent on what the scout is able to wear as a uniform. i have a preference, but is by no means any reason for me to deny a scout any awards they have earned. this isnt the military or a military school/ academy. these are kids / young adults be aware of that fact
Our first troop’s SM threaten to claw back earned rank for “improper” patches.
What did they consider as improper patches
Wrong patrol patch, current rank patch, and anything else out of place or not up to date. current. It was an empty threat but I really tried to comply with the BSA's and the troop's rules. I used a lot of superglue for temporary fixes because the troop's obsessive uniform policy was the center of their disciplinary culture. That troop had so many silly rules like caps and hats had to be BSA or have a BSA patch affixed. Any other logo was strictly forbidden because "kids get into fights over logos on hats. As silly as that sounds, some adults would make kids take off a non-scout logo cap on a hike in the summer on a 100+ degree day, justifying it by "the rules..." Literally, they would say the uniform wasn't more important than the scout, but a scout who didn't respect the uniform, would never have respect anything. I used a lot of superglue in attempt to keep my boys out of the SM's and uniform bully's wrath. It was a toxic group of adults. To make it worse, nothing was written down so It was near impossible to follow the rules. Everything was adhoc depending on which SM or ASM was angry at any given time.
Jesus, that's nuts. Like how out of date for rank and insignia was too much for them?
One meeting was time limit given. It wasn't carried out, so maybe the district exec actually did their job and reigned in the raging SM in that circumstance. It was nuts.
Hopefully. Our troop from what I remember didn't have such a policy. But most scouts had their uniforms "up to date" usually within a couple of meetings of a COH. The meeting immediately after the COH didn't count in this time frame. Iirc our were sat or Sundays and meetings were Mondays. Even then. It would only be mentioned to the scout to have new rank and such. The scouts who were tuned in to keeping up their uniforms and their parents made the changes fairly quickly. The less motivated scouts not so much. But it wasn't held against them.
A sad thing about the obsession with "the rules," was that the kids, when left to solve their own problems, would pull together and help each other get properly outfitted. Our troop, virtually all affluent, single child families, couldn't understand what a financial burden their uniform rules were. They kept a uniform closet of used items so there would "be no excuses." Like everything else, adults in charge of maintaining the closet would deny the kids and adults they didn't like access to the uniforms. I'm still shocked after more than a decade since my sons got their eagles and aged out that there was such a culture of cruelty in that troop sustained completely by the adults.
That's unacceptable
[удалено]
Failed as in not starting or failing because of the uniform not being worn? Both are not allowed.
You personally feel that way, but has no actual bearing on passing the BOR
You can only fail a BoR for not meeting the requirements as written. The unwritten vibes of u/eddietwang are completely irrelevant.
And guide to advancement and Boy Scouts of America say that that is not a reason or justification for failing denying postponing or delaying a board of review. The only listed reason in order to fail someone at a border review is if there is evidence that the scout did not complete an advancement requirement https://www.scouting.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/FAQs-with-GTAs-on-boards-of-review.pdf A Scout cannot fail a board of review for something like not wearing their uniform or forgetting their Handbook. The only reason a Scout might not pass a board of review would be if they did notcomplete the requirements as written — no more, no less. (GTA 8-0-1-4 and8-0-1-5)
At our troop I remind the adults that they can’t deny a board of review because of uniform, but, here is the clincher, the youth set their own boundaries and often don’t ask for their board if they forgot their uniform and want to show up prepared and looking good. The self imposed “rule” is on their own accord…I think it is more where we all should be getting to. Of course we also should leave the scouts with the why…showing up to a job panel looking sharp is always preferred to not, but more importantly showing up is better than not showing up at all.
While not mandatory, Class A is highly encouraged for BoR's in our unit. When a scout requests a BoR, they are reminded that Class A is appropriate. If a scout arrives in an incomplete uniform, we try to help them complete it before beginning. So, it they are missing a neckerchief, we ask why, and then either get them a replacement (if they don't have one), or give them a loaner (if they forgot). We have a closet full of old shirts which we will also offer if they don't have a shirt to wear. Most frequently, the issue for us is pants, because teens grow like weeds. We just offer a quick, "Where are your uniform pants?" The answer is almost always, "I outgrew them and we haven't had time to get new ones yet." Our response is, "Okay, get them when you can. We have some extras in the closet if you want to take some home to try on." Then they get their BoR. We would never send a scout home to fix a uniform issue.
Back in 1999 when I had my BoR, (coming up on my 25th anniversary on the 4th!) I was told that I HAD to have my Class A and have every last piece of it be official and in good shape. Wasn't hard to do as that's how I typically rolled anyways, but that was the standard laid out. Seems the official regs aren't as restrictive.
> HAD to have my Class A and have every last piece of it be official and in good shape. Requiring a $150 investment to get a BoR is unScoutlike and restrictive. Also it's a Field Uniform, not a "Class A."
Don’t be pedantic. The only time I’ve heard the Field Uniform referred to as anything other than a Class A was here on Reddit. Old habits die hard. As youths we were always expected to be in uniform. I remember my mom complaining about uniform costs way back then but it was the expectation and we complied. Don’t be mad at me, I’m not necessarily saying that’s how it should be, just saying how it was. My son’s pack is encouraging everyone to at least have the top and neckerchief at meetings. I often wear off brand olive pants and have sent my son to meeting in similar fashion. As for the current situation of uniform costs, the uniforms that my son and I both wear were bought used except for my pants. I paid less for all the other pieces combined than those pants. It’s all official and fine. Don’t know how restrictive it truly is to buy used clothing to look the part, my son’s regular clothing is often more expensive than the used uniform he wears to meetings and events. Son’s pack also has a supply of donated uniform parts. I gave my sons old blue pants to the pile as I wanted to keep his blue top for the memories. When he outgrows his current tan top and olive pants I’ll likely turn them in to the pile or resell. There’s always ways to do it without investing $150. Besides, it’s not like the boys choir my son is in which costs $200 per month. They have a uniform also and it’s more expensive than a Scout one. There is no used option. Scouting has gotten more expensive but it’s the most “bang for the buck” of all the activities he is in.
Uniforming is one of the methods of Scouting but it is not one of the requirements for advancement (which is itself another method of Scouting). One can fully advance without ever fully uniforming. Also one can "uniform" (build group identity) without buying any of the official apparel from BSA National Supply. A nice pair of shorts and a good cheap Activity Uniform t-shirt (a troop "class B") can suffice. Heck, in many countries just wearing a neckerchief with your "street clothes" is enough to be considered in uniform. Forcing Scouts to dress up in a full official "Class A" field uniform (a pressed shirt with all the patches, official pants, Scout belt, official socks, sash, dress shoes, etc) like they're putting on a suit and tie for a formal job interview or court hearing is not a method of the program.
You 100% show up for your BoR in Class A every single time. There is no exception to this. Would you show up to a job interview not dressed appropriately?
> Would you show up to a job interview not dressed appropriately? A Board of Review is not a job interview. [No, an Eagle Scout board of review is not a job interview](https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2018/11/07/an-eagle-scout-board-of-review-isnt-a-job-interview-its-a-celebration/) [It is not, notes Scouts BSA national program chair Angelique Minett, a job interview, retest or examination, or any other kind of challenge of the Scout’s knowledge.](https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2024/01/18/some-faqs-about-the-scouts-bsa-board-of-review/)
Review Guide to Advancement 8-0-0-2 Boards of Review Must Be Granted When Requirements Are Met and 8-0-0-4 Wearing the Uniform—or Neat in Appearance
A Board of Review is not a job interview.
The Guide to Advancement states the purpose of a Board of Review: > Its purpose is to determine the quality of the Scout’s experience and decide whether the requirements for the rank have been fulfilled. It is *not* like a job interview. It's more like quality assurance. Are the Scout's experiences in the troop positive? What could be improved? Have all rank requirements been properly signed off?
I 100% disagree, do your best. In this instance he had just came straight from being tutored after school and did not have time to return home.
Not taking a side one way or the other in this comment, but this could also be considered part of "Be Prepared". I.E. you know you have a BoR, put your class A in your backpack so you have it and can change after tutoring. EDIT: Geez guys. It must be end times when someone points out how a scout can do something to properly prepare for a known situation and people downvote that person for having the audacity to suggest that scouts should...Be Prepared.
So would you have told the scout to return home and change. That's my point and you can always address the being prepared part. Which I am sure would have been asked of why scout was not in class A when it is preferred at BoR. We don't punish them for not being prepared. Which is what we feel like happened.
Personally, no. I follow the GTA and would not deny a BoR based on lack of Class A, but I would mention it to the scout and ask why they aren't in uniform when they know it's expected.
Would I prefer they do that? Yes. I might even suggest it. But failing them for a BOR is against the rules. And if BOR members can't live A Scout is Obedient, why should we expect Scouts to?
A Scout is Obedient. That applies to BoR members who ignore the Guide to Advancement.
I thought I would never say this, but the BSA has really softened up on requirements. All of the hard work I did and life values I learned form that, will never be achieved today.
Some of the kids in my Troop didn't even own a full Class A uniform. This was back in the 80s. Some of them did every BoR in jeans. Somehow, it was ok then. Its still ok, now.
Was never OK for my Troop. It shows a lack of leadership within the troop.
Not following the guy to advancement is a great way to show leadership
It's not about "being soft". The Guide to Advancement exists to prevent \*arbitrary rules\* promulgated by individuals who claim "it was better in my day". Maybe it was better. Maybe those are rose-tinted glasses. Regardless, now there is one set of rules, and these guide us to being better Scouters and delivering a better program for \*all\* youth.
I've hired people not dressed appropriately. I've hired two young people who showed up at the interview, with their babies, after their sitters cancelled on them - figured they needed the job, and demonstrated that they wanted it. As an adult, I think the most important part of the Oath is to be kind.
Being kind has nothing to do with it. If they are not dressed appropriately for an interview. That is an early indication that they do not have respect for the company or position. I had a guy show up in ripped pants and I turned him straight around. Showing up with kids, I understand. Showing up in clothes that are no appropriate fort the work place is completely different.
For a job interview, I'm working with kids who are desperately poor. They need the job in order to be able to have appropriate clothes.
Maybe for scout, tenderfoot and 2nd class. It would be mentioned about wearing a uniform. For the other ranks it’s kinda of expected.
this is what one would logically think, but its not what is required of them. edit: ok so all i said is i understand the logic not that i endorse it. GENERALLY speaking one would logically think the less experienced would not know the nuances of uniforms , whereas , a more experience scout would be able to better UNDERSTAND what could be seen as a level of dress matching up to what is happening. I never said that they would be required to do as such. This is understanding the point of the argument, not saying that it is to be applied
My litmus test would be if a uniform change could be facilitated without delaying advancement. In this case the Scout did own a uniform, but he chose not to wear it for reasons. However, the family lived close enough that they could take their Scout home, let him get into uniform, and still complete his board of review in the same session as everyone else? He wasn’t forced to buy a new uniform or had his advancement postponed? What if the Scout left his class A his parents car in the parking lot? Would the inconvenience of going to get his shirt out of the car constitute a policy violation?
> My litmus test would be if a uniform change could be facilitated without delaying advancement. And my litmus test would be what does Boy Scouts of America guide to advancement say? answer: https://www.reddit.com/r/BSA/comments/1ch2f64/debate_over_scout_wearing_class_a_for_regular_bor/l1zp2ny/ The board must be held and may not be denied or delayed or postponed
Eh, I don’t see how my test doesn’t comply with the guidelines. Scouts aren’t delayed in advancing nor are they required to buy a uniform. But we get the uniform on them if we can. How is that violating the word or spirit of the guidelines? What about the example of the class A shirt that is accidentally left in a car that is still in the parking lot? Is it a guideline violation for the scout to take 10 minutes to get it out of the car and put on the shirt for the BOR? Doesn’t that comply with the guidelines that state the uniform should be worn? If the scout’s advancement was delayed to the next month I would agree there was a violation.
You are delaying or postponing that board more than one second due to uniforming you were out of compliance > 8-0-0-2 Boards of Review Must Be Granted When Requirements Are Met > Neither can a board of review be **denied or postponed** due to issues such as uniforming, payment of dues, participation in fundraising activities, etc.
Why do you think 8-0-0-4 was included?
> Why do you think 8-0-0-4 was included? I know exactly why. Because even after 8-0-0-2 was put in starting in 2011, leaders were STILL trying to stop scouts from BORs due to uniforming (8-0-0-4) The original 8-0-0-2 said > A Scout cannot be denied this opportunity. When he believes he has completed all the requirements, including a Scoutmaster conference, it is up to the unit leader and committee to assure a board of review is held. "Scoutmasters, for example, do not have authority to expect a boy to request one, or to “defer” him, or to ask him to perform beyond the requirements in order to be granted one" Despite the CLEAR language of 8-0-0-2 and 8-0-0-4, some folks tried to play semantic games, similar to what you are suggesting. So this point was edited as 8-0-0-2 to make it even clearer. > Neither can a board of review be **denied or postponed** due to issues such as **uniforming**, payment of dues, participation in fundraising activities, etc. And yet we will have people such as yourself trying to twist the wording into a pretzel. By forcing the scout to run home or to a car to get the uniform, the board is **postponed** and arguably **denied** that scout. I mean how much clearer does this need to get? > Neither can a board of review be **denied or postponed** due to issues such as **uniforming**, payment of dues, participation in fundraising activities, etc.
You didn’t address why 8-0-0-4 was included in the guidelines. You tried to addressed why 8-0-0-2 was revised to counteract 8-0-0-4. Why stress that a uniform should be worn? Or if it is impractical to wear a uniform that a scout should be neat in appearance? I’m not pretzeling those words into the guidelines.. they are right there. If those words should be ignored, why not just remove them from the guidelines? I know you didn’t like my example of what if a Scout leaves his class A in a car that is still onsite. You think any delay greater than 1 second is too much and the Scout should not retrieve his shirt. How about another example, what if a Scout was wearing an inappropriate t-shirt? Can we at least make him turn that shirt inside out prior to a BOR? It’s almost as if we’re supposed to be teaching these young men and women to properly present themselves, but that those lessons shouldn’t be used to the extreme or to prevent a Scout from advancing or otherwise enjoying the scouting program.
It's not that hard to wear uniform and to make it look good. Unless there is a financial reason that a scout is not in uniform, they should be in uniform for their board of review, the patches should be correct, and the uniform complete. We're giving way too much grace in scouting due to feelings. Does this mean it needs to be the military and we have strict uniform inspections like one of the posters talked about above? Bear socks are checked and adults are basically harassing kids about their uniform? No. However, does it show kids pride in their appearance if they're wearing the uniform correctly and proudly? Absolutely. If the Scouts have pride in their uniform, the way they look, the way they dress, it'll help a self-confidence, it'll help with other aspects of their life. It's insane to me that this is even a discussion.
So would you have made the scout leave and put on the uniform prior to allowing his BoR?
Scout lead. At the end of the day it really comes down to what the troop feels about it. Should the scout be in uniform? I absolutely think the scout should be in uniform. However, at the end of the day it needs to come down to what the troop thinks.
Totally not ok. Our troop always says that if your in your class A then then you should be in real shoes (not crocs or flipflops) but that if your not in class A then your ok