2
2
0
Tattoos
Policy
Lawsuit
Responses: 42
18
18
0
SSG (ret) William Martin
Military Police Soldiers or at least the experienced ones seem to have an out of the world sense of humor because we deal with a lot of unbelievable stuff when it comes to dealing with the general public and other Soldiers. Maybe I am desensitized.
(0)
(0)
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".
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".
(11)
(0)
COL Randall Cudworth
Don't fall into the mistake of assuming that the "uniform" is only the ACU. While that may be the uniform you spend the most time in, Soldiers wear many different uniforms in the performance of their duties - Combat, Service, Mess, and Physical Training. Tattoos that are below the elbow or the knee are still visible when wearing summer APFT.
The complaints I'm hearing about the 'new' tattoo policy are almost verbatim of those when the prohibition against tattoos visible when Class As are worn was put in place back in early 2000s (2002? I know it was before OIF).
I say 'new' because the majority of the prohibitions go back to that policy. The Army had loosened the policy up about ten years ago and started allowing tattoos on the back of the necks, hands, etc. as long as they were conservative, weren't racial, sexist, etc.
As to your tone about soldiers that were good enough then, but not now, you imply that we are putting out those soldiers that aren't in compliance with the new policy. That is not correct. Everyone that currently has visible tattoos are grandfathered in and will have the tattoos recorded in their records. If they get NEW tattoos that aren't in compliance and don't have them removed, then they will be separated.
The complaints I'm hearing about the 'new' tattoo policy are almost verbatim of those when the prohibition against tattoos visible when Class As are worn was put in place back in early 2000s (2002? I know it was before OIF).
I say 'new' because the majority of the prohibitions go back to that policy. The Army had loosened the policy up about ten years ago and started allowing tattoos on the back of the necks, hands, etc. as long as they were conservative, weren't racial, sexist, etc.
As to your tone about soldiers that were good enough then, but not now, you imply that we are putting out those soldiers that aren't in compliance with the new policy. That is not correct. Everyone that currently has visible tattoos are grandfathered in and will have the tattoos recorded in their records. If they get NEW tattoos that aren't in compliance and don't have them removed, then they will be separated.
(2)
(0)
SSG (ret) William Martin
Sir, if the Army ever changes the APFU shorts to "silkies" as in short running shorts there might need be a change to tattoo policies that state no tattoos below the mid thigh.
(1)
(0)
COL Randall Cudworth
Possibly, but trying to anticipate "what if" scenarios regarding our ever changing uniform policies is beyond my level of prognostication.
(0)
(0)
CPT Lawrence Cable
COL Randall Cudworth - Now I am about the only ex-grunt (enlisted) I know that has absolutely no ink, but my cynical opinion of the tattoo regulations is that we tighten the standards every time we do a draw down and then find that it eliminates a large section of the demographics from which we recruit and relax them. How do you intend to maintain strength when tattoos are now far more socially acceptable across a wide range of society that used to frown on them? I personally don't have a problem with the regulations above the wrists, below the neck and none of the face, which is what the Navy allows, but if we expect to recruit in the current social climate/demographics, we are going to have to suck it up and allow those with tattoos on the arms and legs.
(0)
(0)
10
10
0
Either suck it up buttercup or take the tattoo off and then join active duty...assuming he meets qualifications.
(10)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Actually now with this new policy in place, those trying to go from Guard to Active are ineligible
(1)
(0)
8
8
0
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.
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.
(8)
(0)
SFC William Swartz Jr
Well stated maam, I too was curious as the $100 million in damages, I do not think that he would have been able to earn that amount as a WO at any point in his career....smfh on that one!
(2)
(0)
SPC Christopher Smith
I believe the 100 mill comes from a shotgun blast approach, throw a big number and collect whatever you can. I'm assuming this guy is looking for a settlement of some sort rather than actually get the 100 mill.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
If so, his attorney is not worth anything. Nothing makes a frivolous lawsuit appear more frivolous than making an unsubstantiated claim of "damages." That is the type of thing you'd expect from a person with no law background representing him/herself.
Many private employers have grooming standards (Disney for example) and since the rules are made up by the company, are not discriminatory in nature (as defined by EO - and the Army already has exceptions to EO), and are uniformly applied, there is no legal cause of action. I would like to see the case law cited in the suit.
Many private employers have grooming standards (Disney for example) and since the rules are made up by the company, are not discriminatory in nature (as defined by EO - and the Army already has exceptions to EO), and are uniformly applied, there is no legal cause of action. I would like to see the case law cited in the suit.
(2)
(0)
6
6
0
5
5
0
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.
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.
(5)
(0)
SPC Tom DeSmet
There can be requirements not anticipated by all soldiers. Like you said, it's an exclusive club. Comply or move on. Great response CMSgt.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
This is absolutely silly. Â He should of joined when he was qualified, if he ever was.
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
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.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google