2
2
0
Tattoos
Policy
Lawsuit
Responses: 42
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
MSG(P) Michael Warrick
The Soldier should of been grandfather in prior to the new policy taking affect.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
I agree Sir. I myself have several tattoos. They were obtained long before they enacted the rule change.
Now I agree with some of the policy where it relates to "hate speech, slurs, foul language and things of that nature" but those that don't fall into that category I feel should be left alone.
The tattoos on my arms are religious in nature and hold spiritual significance to me.
The only other part of the reg that I had issue with was, the photographing and keeping in a HQDA database, I asked what would happen to the photos once I leave the service and JAG was supposed to get me an answer, and I have yet to hear back.
Now I agree with some of the policy where it relates to "hate speech, slurs, foul language and things of that nature" but those that don't fall into that category I feel should be left alone.
The tattoos on my arms are religious in nature and hold spiritual significance to me.
The only other part of the reg that I had issue with was, the photographing and keeping in a HQDA database, I asked what would happen to the photos once I leave the service and JAG was supposed to get me an answer, and I have yet to hear back.
(1)
(0)
SPC Tom DeSmet
The military has long standing traditions in changing regs to suit its purpose. Look at at the history of the "Overweight Program". This program changed immensely over the years since it was implemented in the early 80's. Fair or not, it created the desired effect of RIF'ting some really good soldiers and leaving in some of the worst.
I keep coming back to the possibility that there may be unpublished reasons a particular unit would disqualify candidates for any number of reasons. It's part of what makes them "Special".
I keep coming back to the possibility that there may be unpublished reasons a particular unit would disqualify candidates for any number of reasons. It's part of what makes them "Special".
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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?
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?
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
I dont know about that. Im not sure where that verbage is. I have seen nothing that says that in the regulation. "any soldier with tattoos" is incorrect. There are stipulations as to what is authorized and what isnt.
SSG G, can you provide some clarification on your response? It would seem that you agreed that ANY soldier with tattoos is barred from seeking a commission.
I have a tattoo on my forearm but it is smaller than the hand and is only one. Not extremist. From my understanding, tattoos that are not authorized regardless of being grandfathered (sleeves, more than 4, ect)can not seek a commission, but grandfathered tattoos or tattoos that meet the new guidance are not an issue.
I just re-read the regulation, and according to para 3-3, it says that you must comply with para 3-3c(1-3) to be able to seek commission. Actually it says if you are not in compliance with those sections, you cannot seek a commission. Same thing.
If you have tattoos that are outlined in those sections, Neck, head, in the ears, hands, fingers, inside the eyelids, or mouth, more than 4 on the lower arms and legs, larger than the hands, bands larger than 2" in width are not in compliance and are not able to be grandfathered. Hence, they exceed the regs and bar you from seeking a commission.
Seeking a commission with tattoos below the elbow or knee is possible as long as you have less than 4 total, they are smaller than your hand, and are not extremist.
Your thoughts?
SSG G, can you provide some clarification on your response? It would seem that you agreed that ANY soldier with tattoos is barred from seeking a commission.
I have a tattoo on my forearm but it is smaller than the hand and is only one. Not extremist. From my understanding, tattoos that are not authorized regardless of being grandfathered (sleeves, more than 4, ect)can not seek a commission, but grandfathered tattoos or tattoos that meet the new guidance are not an issue.
I just re-read the regulation, and according to para 3-3, it says that you must comply with para 3-3c(1-3) to be able to seek commission. Actually it says if you are not in compliance with those sections, you cannot seek a commission. Same thing.
If you have tattoos that are outlined in those sections, Neck, head, in the ears, hands, fingers, inside the eyelids, or mouth, more than 4 on the lower arms and legs, larger than the hands, bands larger than 2" in width are not in compliance and are not able to be grandfathered. Hence, they exceed the regs and bar you from seeking a commission.
Seeking a commission with tattoos below the elbow or knee is possible as long as you have less than 4 total, they are smaller than your hand, and are not extremist.
Your thoughts?
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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?
(1)
(0)
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
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.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google