$100 Million Tattoo Lawsuit

2014-05-01T20:53:05-04:00

A National Guard NCO is suing the Army for $100 Million because he cannot join the 160th SOAR because of his tattoos.

Thoughts?

Kentucky guardsman sues over tattoo rules

10 Years Army Strong for Soldiers and Families

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made May 1 at 2014 8:57 PM

2014-05-01T20:57:46-04:00

That won't go very Far. Not sure if the Feres Doctrine applies but I suspect it does.

Response by MSG Wade Huffman made May 1 at 2014 9:02 PM

2014-05-01T21:02:15-04:00

If his goal is to join the 160th, he has the option of having the tattoo removed; however, I think his real goal is to create some media frenzy and hope for a big payday.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 1 at 2014 9:08 PM

2014-05-01T21:08:20-04:00

This is absolutely silly. He should of joined when he was qualified, if he ever was.

Response by CMSgt James Nolan made May 1 at 2014 9:24 PM

2014-05-01T21:24:41-04:00

Gentlemen, this action does not merit a response. Thumbs down to the troop. Ahhh, to heck with it, it does merit a response. There are certain units that occasionally do things that are out of the normal scope of duties. The joining of those specialty units is completely voluntary and a very exclusive club. Not your ordinary rank and file Soldiers, Sailors Airmen and Marines. Their specialty unit-their rules. This should not be "news" to anyone who has been in for 2-3 weeks. An NCO should absolutely know better. He has brought shame. (this from a guy who has and who likes Tats).

Would he sue them if they said that in order to be selected, you had to be able to do 400 pull-ups and he could only do 100?

That is my thought. Feel free to agree or disagree. Just my opinion.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made May 1 at 2014 9:46 PM

2014-05-01T21:46:54-04:00

Way to make the whole guard look bad. You shouldn't be able to sue the government but this case will get thrown out quick. Tattoos are not a protected class for discrimination. If he really wants the job that bad he can remove the tattoos like I have a few Soldiers doing right now.

Response by SGT Craig Northacker made May 1 at 2014 10:34 PM

2014-05-01T22:34:21-04:00

That's a great way of trying to get in. What a moron. I did not get tattoos because I did not want to give away any intel if I was captured. Besides-what is his ability to join the 160th as an NG? I don't know-just asking on that one.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made May 2 at 2014 12:21 AM

2014-05-02T00:21:57-04:00

I'm trying to figure out how he calculated he should be entitled to $100M in damages. I like his attorney's hyperbolic statement that because he cannot someday apply to be a flight warrant, it means he now "doesn't have a career." And here I sit in my non-career like a chump.

You agreed to join the military in MOS___. You really are not even guaranteed that. I joined with OCS option and if I had washed out of OCS, I would have been given a Needs of the Army E4 slot. The requirements change for various MOSs all the time. It happens (the age max changed for OCS three different times since I've been in). Everyone who was thinking about maybe someday applying under the old rules should not be entitled to sue the Army.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 2 at 2014 1:05 AM

2014-05-02T01:05:30-04:00

Either suck it up buttercup or take the tattoo off and then join active duty...assuming he meets qualifications.

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made May 2 at 2014 1:13 AM

2014-05-02T01:13:36-04:00

I guess he's a little soar about the whole thing lol.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 2 at 2014 1:16 AM

2014-05-02T01:16:21-04:00

As an NCO he should know better. Regardless of him being National Guard or not, he is still a soldier, a Non-commissioned Officer in the United States Army which requires him to follow the rules and regulations set forth by the Army. He has no rights on this issue. As an NCO, I've been taught to know that everything will not go your way and be prepared to adjust fire with any mission, tasking or daily duty. There's no way this NCO, did not hear about the new AR 670-1 coming out and its new policy on tattoos. This NCO should have joined 160th a long time ago. Nice try bub, but his case is going to be thrown out

Response by SSG Rodney Farrar made May 2 at 2014 1:30 AM

2014-05-02T01:30:10-04:00

It's a volunteer unit on both ends It’s the only unit that I've seen that can kick you out for having an alcohol related incident and I don’t mean just a DUI I mean any incident and I do mean just charged not found guilt we had a guy get a beat down when he was drunk and ended up in the hospital he got booted as soon as he got back to work he never even had a charge for anything. If they don’t want him because he has tattoos it's there prerogative.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made May 2 at 2014 2:58 AM

2014-05-02T02:58:09-04:00

Though I don't really agree with the Tattoo Policy, I think he's shooting himself in the foot for bringing the lawsuit... Even if he wins (regardless of payout) and the policy is overturned, he'd still be shunned by extreme operators of the 160th, where integrity and personal character are for more than just lines on an advancement eval. AS to the policy... does having tattoos make you any less effective at doing the job?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 2 at 2014 3:13 AM

2014-05-02T03:13:01-04:00

Hes not going to accomplish anything except waste his time and money. Am I upset about not being allowed to be a Warrant now...hell yes.. Did I choose to serve...hell yes. Remarks complete.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 2 at 2014 5:18 AM

2014-05-02T05:18:10-04:00

Good luck with that one. The policy was most likely reviewed by several levels of JAG. I imagine before it was put in place. As long as it is applied across the board I don't think there is anything to be done if you don't like it. Most he's going to accomplish is tick off a few people.

Response by MAJ Dallas D. made May 2 at 2014 8:03 AM

2014-05-02T08:03:02-04:00

Amazing, the culture of "I am owed something" continues. This is a guy just looking for attention and $

Response by COL Randall Cudworth made May 2 at 2014 8:11 AM

2014-05-02T08:11:16-04:00

For those comments amounting to "what difference does it make", that sentiment can be applied to almost any personal grooming policy. Does having a 'fad' haircut make you any less effective? How exactly is the shaving of your initials in your haircut going to make you less of a soldier/airman/marine/sailor? Why does florescent orange nail polish prevent you from doing what you need to do? Etc...

As CSM Chandler stated when commenting on the tattoo policy, "The Army is a profession, and one of the ways our leaders and the American public measure our professionalism is by our appearance".

Response by SGT Steven Dvorak made May 2 at 2014 9:06 AM

2014-05-02T09:06:52-04:00

Although is like to have a sleeve or tattoos as much as many of my friends. I've had the fortitude to NOT do it because of the impact I know would have on career progression and aspirations. If he held himself to the same standard, he wouldn't be in this position. And crying about an issue he holds no ground on, is a poor display of leadership to lower enlisted and NCOs all around.

Response by LTJG Robert M. made May 2 at 2014 10:04 AM

2014-05-02T10:04:36-04:00

Like it or not, there still exists a stigma regarding Tattoo's, in the military and especially in the corporate world. I have witnessed individuals being excluded from opportunities and turned down for positions in interviews due to body art.

Response by SSgt Gregory Guina made May 2 at 2014 11:01 AM

2014-05-02T11:01:06-04:00

Interesting thought process this guy and his attorney have. I am really sick and tired of all the damn frivilous lawsuits. This is a waste of time and the fact that a judge is going to have to spend some time on it is a waste of money. Can we (taxpayers) sue him to recoup the costs of this mess.

On another not since I am a Marine and don't really know the Army reg nor want to read it for myself I saw this in the article and was wondering if it is an accurate statement?

"Under the new regulations, any soldier with tattoos is barred from seeking a promotion to warrant officer or commissioning as an officer."

Is that true?

Response by SSG Mark Ives made May 2 at 2014 2:38 PM

2014-05-02T14:38:59-04:00

Having come from the Army ('78 - '91) where any exposed tattoos were against regulation, I think his lawsuit is ridiculous. I didn't keep up on why the Army changed the regulation 670-1 allowing tats (keeping up with the times, getting more people to join, etc), but IMHO, I think that DA has shot themselves in the foot with allowing tats in the first place. The officer corps needs to maintain a professional image and tats go against that. I'm from another era, but believe regulations/standards were made for a reason. My tattoos are scar tissue!

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made May 3 at 2014 10:59 AM

2014-05-03T10:59:22-04:00

I believe his law suit must be approved by a judge. He can still file, but I think the case has to pass some sort of judicial review. I without any tattoos, but I have always wants "SPQR" on my left upper arm because I love ancient Rome. I do support the Army's tattoo policy even if I don't think soldiers should be judged for non racist, extremist, and sexist tattoos. I am an obedient and loyal leader, and I must follow and obey the regulations. Maybe in twenty years or when society accepts tattoos a little better the Army might change it's mind.

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made May 3 at 2014 11:01 AM

2014-05-03T11:01:08-04:00

So, you wanted to join the nightstalkers, and decided this only after the new uniform policy was released...bet it waon't be the last time that line is used

Response by MSG Sean Milhauser made May 3 at 2014 11:12 AM

2014-05-03T11:12:16-04:00

I certainly hope, for the sake of common sense, this ludicrous lawsuit is thrown out. Absolutely ridiculous that this is even an issue. I read the article from the AP. His lawyer made a comment (paraphrasing here)... "you've got this regulation you read about on Facebook, and you don't have a career."

Seriously?? He "doesn't have a career"? Isn't that a bit over the top? Now, I'm not saying here that I agree nor disagree with the new regulatory guidance. My point is, where does this US Army Reserve NCO get off thinking he has any justification for suing for $100 million, or even $100?? Where did he or his lawyer even come up with this amount??

On another note, how does he even know he would make it through the course?? He could be accepted because of his tattoo, then perhaps fail out of the course for some other reason. To say he "doesn't have a career" is ridiculous. This NCO still has a career in the Army Reserve. But like in life in general, "sh** happens", and you have to adjust fire and move on.

Response by CPT Daniel Walk, M.B.A. made May 3 at 2014 4:10 PM

2014-05-03T16:10:25-04:00

He will never demonstrate actual or future damages. He is left with suing for punitive damages...I wish him the best. This will not make it past the first gates.

When it comes to tattoos there are two things to consider. First, I think it is commonly recognized the new tattoo policy is a force management tool. Given all options to promote and progress its workforce, the Army is choosing those people who have minimal or no tattoos.

Second, and this is only my view, if you have a bunch of tattoos on your body while you have credit card, automobile, and various other kinds of non-tax-deductible debt, you have a distinct inability to prioritize scarce resources. Your decision making only views short-term gratifications.

Tattoos are an observable way to draw distinctions. In the legal climate of our current society, observable and quantifiable distinctions are safest. This is especially true when you start putting people into smaller and smaller groups where their decisions have greater impact.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 3 at 2014 8:26 PM

2014-05-03T20:26:19-04:00

This lawsuit basically asserts that everyone has a right to be in the Army. If this were to go through, it would open the door to Congress and courts determining the eligibility for service, instead of the branches of service determining their own best requirements for service.
Also, this guy completely played it up. There is no reason he had to leave Active Duty to become a pilot. There's a very good chance he wouldn't have even made the cut for the 160th as a pilot.

Response by SFC Cornelius Walsh made May 7 at 2014 10:57 PM

2014-05-07T22:57:50-04:00

So are all of us tattooed heathens getting a cut of the $100 Mil??

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 10 at 2014 10:41 AM

2014-05-10T10:41:55-04:00

Its a constitutional right to apply for a position you no longer qualify for? Regardless of the pettiness of the Policy changes?
True the Policy might not have any basis other than a subjective perspective on the appearance of permanent marking of the body. But, as the Leaders of a large organization is it not their prerogative, nay, their DUTY to embrace and enforce policy that will help their professional image?
Having a bone to pick with the change of policy is not grounds for suit for something that such policy affects a small percentage of those that policy actually is intended for.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made May 21 at 2014 11:13 AM

2014-05-21T11:13:44-04:00

I wish him luck... not because he deserves any money, but because ANYTHING that could potentially cause a relook of the tattoo policy is a positive in my book.

Response by SSG William Sutter made May 24 at 2014 5:07 PM

2014-05-24T17:07:03-04:00

This brings many questions into play. If having tattoos would even have an impact into how well a Soldier performs, what about weight control? If someone is muscle bound so much that they have to get taped and in turn fail tape even though they are not fat. Or if they perform above and beyond and they are fat, do we kick those out and keep the barely performing Soldiers? The Army considered getting rid of 600-9 several years ago and they still haven't done that. The only thing I can say is that if the Army has a standard, it our jobs as NCOs to enforce the standard, not question it. I could have sworn that included in the contract that we signed it said we couldn't sue the Army. So this suite makes me wander.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made May 24 at 2014 8:11 PM

2014-05-24T20:11:07-04:00

The Army had its standards before he joined. If he doesn't like them, tough. There are a number of regs that limit what units or groups you can work with. They can be changed any time the Army wants. Needs of the Army......

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made May 25 at 2014 12:40 AM

2014-05-25T00:40:09-04:00

Well, I'm seeing comments about grooming and the policies in general. The way I see it, think of it like basic training. We're meant to look and act a like right? To be one whole team in the battle. Sure some of the rules are a little annoying to express individuality, but that's not why we're here. We're not here to be individuals, we're here to be soldiers.

Response by Col Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 9 at 2014 10:41 AM

2014-06-09T10:41:45-04:00

I think we are missing some details. If I heard correctly, it sounds like the Army recently changed the rules on appearance to include tattoos, jewelry, hair styles etc. My question is, did he have the tattoo prior to the rule change? If so, that's wrong. You don't change the rules halfway through the game. But if you do, you need to enforce the rules for everyone, not just a select few. On the other hand, if he got the tattoo after the rule change, that's stupidity on his part and the lawsuit should be dropped.

IMHO, as long as they are in good taste and can be covered by uniform (except of course PT gear), and don't hinder/distract the mission, let it go. There are bigger fish to fry.

Response by MSG Wade Huffman made Jun 9 at 2014 10:56 AM

2014-06-09T10:56:50-04:00

I believe that the soldier in question is just trying to turn a fast buck and get his 15 minutes of fame. I also believe the law suit will go nowhere.

Response by CPT Zachary Brooks made Jun 9 at 2014 12:04 PM

2014-06-09T12:04:03-04:00

I do not see how policies can be changed for individuals currently serving. Implementing as a new policy makes sense to me, but changing existing statues for existing solders (essentially changing what they agreed to against their will) seems to be a bit on the not right side.

Its kind of like when Congress proposed getting rid of pensions for all with less than 18 years in. You cannot change a benefit promised to a soldier after they have already signed a contract.

I'll be interested to see what happens.

Response by MSG Floyd Williams made Jun 9 at 2014 1:35 PM

2014-06-09T13:35:38-04:00

We know the U.S. Armed Forces implement changes all the time and we have to adapt to change if we like it or not. But this particular change on tattoo's policy show be for prospects trying to enlist, and those who are already in shouldn't get any more tattoo's. If an individual leaves the military and decides to try to reenlist isn't eligible until he or she have the tattoo's removed. I guess the majority of the changes our military go through probably don't make sense, but everyone must abide to the policies, and there is a choice suffer the consequences or get discharged.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 16 at 2014 5:39 PM

2014-06-16T17:39:47-04:00

Congrats on your promotion SGM Quick. Since you asked for thoughts and since I'm laid up with a bum leg, here goes. This is one that has boggled my mind since I've been in, what does a professional Soldier look like? When it was BDU's, was it the starched, pressed uniform with the highly polished black boots and being trim & fit that made us professional or how we did our jobs in our MOS and what every Soldier is supposed to know in their individual & collective tasks? Was it a combination of all that? I can tell you I knew some Soldiers that were the epitome of clean cut, trim & fit Soldiers but when it came to their MOS and soldierly stuff, sometimes it missed its mark. Did that make them unprofessional Soldiers?

I don't have tattoos, could have I gotten them, yes I could've. (I will now when officially retired in another month) However there was always a stigma of "that's not professional looking". I often hear that tattoos are a 'distractor' to the uniform, like the ASU, because it doesn't reflect the professionalism of our force.

SMA Chandler stated, "The Army is a profession, and one of the ways our leaders and the American public measure our professionalism is by our appearance. Wearing of the uniform, as well as our overall military appearance, should be a matter of personal pride for all Soldiers."

So let me break it down sesame street style: so if you have tattoos, you are less of a professional and thereby detracting from the image of the Army as to someone who doesn't have tattoos. Tattoos are the measure of a person by which our leaders and the public view our professional appearance. How did this measure come about? Was there any data compiled, polls, etc? I think all Soldiers do have pride in their uniform and have come across some joe's in my time that sometimes took the 'wash & wear' tag in their ACUs a little too literal. I don't think for a moment that those Soldiers with tattoos have any less pride than those without. As for overall military appearance, well hypothetically, would SGM Quick's robust cross-fit appearance be more professional than perhaps my lean, marathon runner appearance?

I think there's a perception that tattooed Soldiers are a secondary class and I don't like to say this but it is about the 'color of your skin'. Trust me, as a former leader, I get the whole tattoo policy, standards etc. When it comes down to delivering direct & deliberate fire upon the enemy, I am sure’s hell not going to ask you about your religion or if your tattoos are in line with policy before I jump in the foxhole with you.

Disclaimer humor: The opinions and views expressed by me are not necessarily the opinions and views of the RP community. As a member of RP, I am allowed to share my view points and opinions on this forum so long as they pass the common sense test and not under prescription meds like I am now. If you are offended by my content, I apologize in advance.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 1 at 2014 10:07 PM

2014-11-01T22:07:50-04:00

Stuff like this drives me crazy. It is a privilege to serve in the Army. It is not a right. The Army doesn't owe you a career. Maybe I should sue because I can't get back into the Regular and I am stuck in the Guard. He just wants attention. He is just a diva. You have to get released from the Guard first.

It is about professionalism. You can look to an major corporation and see what professionals look like. There has to be an expectation of appearance. We keep on eroding the expectations of the Army. We are suffering for it.

Response by SSG Jim Foreman made Nov 11 at 2014 4:53 PM

2014-11-11T16:53:22-05:00

I think the lawsuit is a waste of military time. But I believe everyone that was in prior to the new policy should have been grandfathered in. I don't know if this guardsman truly wants to be a pilot or just wants a couple bucks. If he wanted to be a pilot what was he waiting for?

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Nov 11 at 2014 5:16 PM

2014-11-11T17:16:46-05:00

Here's my propose change to the new tattoo policy: tattoos will not be visible when wearing the gas mask and in MOPP 4.

Response by WO1 Private RallyPoint Member made May 22 at 2015 10:38 PM

2015-05-22T22:38:20-04:00

Wow maybe I should sue for them not allowing me to reclass and be apart of the regiment.

Response by MAJ Ron Peery made May 25 at 2015 6:29 PM

2015-05-25T18:29:21-04:00

If he was a Maori warrior, I could see making an exception. Lawsuits like this one are frivolous, and the people who file them need to be removed from service.

Let's face it, 160th SOAR is a very exclusive club. Standards are not negotiable. When I was a cadet, I was SMP in the 12th SFGA. When I received my commission in 1982, I was told that I could stay in SF as a SGT or accept my commission as a 2LT, but because of my eyesight (nearsighted) I could not be an officer in SF. I was disappointed, to say the least. It made little sense to me. Why should my poor eyesight be okay if I was enlisted, but not as an officer? Still, it wasn't about me. It was just the standard. Sometimes you just have to suck it up and march on.

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Oct 1 at 2017 9:22 AM

2017-10-01T09:22:15-04:00

So just to close this out... There never was a case justification...turns out, the SM was never bard from applying to Active duty, or submitting a warrant officer packet, or then further, later, applying to TF160th
Had he read the new policy and regulation he would have known he was grandfathered in under the new regs announced. He had no tattoos at the time that were of a type that were outright banned (extremest, vulgar, face, ect)
A search of the Kentucky docket where the case was filed results in no case action at all, meaning it likely was tossed and never adjudicated at all.
http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2014/07/army_seeks_dismissal_of_100_mi.html

Army seeks dismissal of $100 million suit filed by tattooed soldier

The Army is asking a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit filed by a Kentucky National Guard soldier who claimed the service's new anti-tattoo policy hurt his chances of advancement.