2
2
0
Tattoos
Policy
Lawsuit
Responses: 42
2
2
0
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......
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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!
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
100% true. And I don't buy the argument that people did not know about this prior to getting visible tattoos.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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
(2)
(0)
SFC William Swartz Jr
He's currently in the NG and wouldn't meet the new standards if he was able to come back onto AD.
(1)
(0)
Suspended Profile
Please expand on the soldiers getting tattoos removed to stay in SGT Eashman. We are grandfathered, so who is removing to "stay in"?
SSG (Join to see)
Gentlemen,
SSG Goicoechea hit the nail right on the head. The reason why I said soldiers are getting their tattoos removed in order to stay in is because I know a couple of soldiers that are trying to go Warrant. And from I've heard from them, the tattoo policy is enforced to the letter of the law. We've all heard the saying "You can add to it, you just can't take away from it," time and time again. Well the same applies with the tattoo policy. Grandfathered in or not, its up to the committee at WOC or in the case of the NG soldier the committee for 160th to decide whether his application will be accepted or not. And just how SSG Goicoechea said in his response, it sucks but that's the policy
SSG Goicoechea hit the nail right on the head. The reason why I said soldiers are getting their tattoos removed in order to stay in is because I know a couple of soldiers that are trying to go Warrant. And from I've heard from them, the tattoo policy is enforced to the letter of the law. We've all heard the saying "You can add to it, you just can't take away from it," time and time again. Well the same applies with the tattoo policy. Grandfathered in or not, its up to the committee at WOC or in the case of the NG soldier the committee for 160th to decide whether his application will be accepted or not. And just how SSG Goicoechea said in his response, it sucks but that's the policy
(1)
(0)
COL Randall Cudworth
Understand that there has always been a subjective part of uniform policies as well. You must meet what the new regulations state to remain in compliant with the regulation. But, as we all know, there is a large difference between being compliant with a policy/regulation and how you are viewed by others.
For instance, assume you have tattoo that is now grandfathered in. As SGT Eashman pointed out, that doesn't mean that a board (entrance, promotion, etc) won't have an unfavorable opinion of what they see when they look at your photograph.
Consider the ASU uniform. The wear-out date for the old Class A uniform is at the end of this FY, but do you really think anyone on a promotion board is going to look on your record favorably if they see you in that photo?
Bottom line - the Army is getting smaller (again). Anytime the force gets smaller, more attention is paid to the 'discriminators' in order to reduce the pool of consideration -- promotion, retention, applications for WOC, etc.
For instance, assume you have tattoo that is now grandfathered in. As SGT Eashman pointed out, that doesn't mean that a board (entrance, promotion, etc) won't have an unfavorable opinion of what they see when they look at your photograph.
Consider the ASU uniform. The wear-out date for the old Class A uniform is at the end of this FY, but do you really think anyone on a promotion board is going to look on your record favorably if they see you in that photo?
Bottom line - the Army is getting smaller (again). Anytime the force gets smaller, more attention is paid to the 'discriminators' in order to reduce the pool of consideration -- promotion, retention, applications for WOC, etc.
(0)
(0)
3
2
1
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.
(3)
(1)
SGT Craig Northacker
Our government is made up of a lot of folks who create policies and regs that violate law. The VA and DoD have specialized in ignoring law over the years and hiding behind the can't sue the feds doctrine. This allows bad decisions to dominate and hurt veterans, their families, and the rest of the country as well. It is essential that our government be held accountable.
(4)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Robert...I will admit the whole national guard was a little overboard but the rest is right. There is no right to tattoos and it isn't, nor should it ever be, a protected class.
(2)
(0)
SSG Carl Keene
SGT Northacker,
While I agree with your post overall, I believe we differ in opinion on the government being held accountable for a soldiers voluntary decision to place ink on a part of his body that happens to now disqualify him for a posting of his liking. As MAJ Telesco said, have them removed. $100 Million? Where does that number come from? Seems frivolous to me.
While I agree with your post overall, I believe we differ in opinion on the government being held accountable for a soldiers voluntary decision to place ink on a part of his body that happens to now disqualify him for a posting of his liking. As MAJ Telesco said, have them removed. $100 Million? Where does that number come from? Seems frivolous to me.
(2)
(0)
SGT Craig Northacker
You all express some pretty solid thoughts-my references above were not to the point of tattoos justifying a lawsuit. To me that is utter nonsense for a lot of reasons - not the least of which is you don't need a problem in a tightly knit unit. It is with respect to the day to day problems with inappropriate policies that hurt veterans and their families, or unnecessarily hurt soldiers on active duty. And as Major Telesco aptly pointed out - this is NOT a defined civil rights issue.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google