$100 Million Tattoo Lawsuit

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.