Concerning the new policy in AR 670-1, will not allowing soldiers to commission with tattoos enhance or hinder the officer corps?

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 19 Apr 2014 17:25:34 -0400

The new AR 670-1 policy on tattoos prohibits anyone from commissioning with tattoos, even if they are grandfathered in. It seems like this excludes a large pool of experienced soldiers.

Response by LTC Jason Strickland made Apr 19 at 2014 8:21 PM

LTC Jason Strickland — Sat, 19 Apr 2014 20:21:10 -0400

John,

I agree! If you have some skin art and it isn't racist, offensive, etc., then I don't see a big problem. What if a future troop had a "Mom" tat on his shoulder, then we'd exclude him according to AR 670-1? Seems a bit constraining...

Response by PO3 David Packham made Apr 21 at 2014 11:15 AM

PO3 David Packham — Mon, 21 Apr 2014 11:15:55 -0400

I feel the same way, I feel that such appointments should be made of the basis o performance and merit, not skin art.

Response by SGT James Elphick made Apr 22 at 2014 7:13 PM

SGT James Elphick — Tue, 22 Apr 2014 19:13:15 -0400

I've said it before and I'll say it again about the new 670-1, the Army is choosing the easy wrong over the hard right

Response by PO3 David Packham made Apr 23 at 2014 12:00 AM

PO3 David Packham — Wed, 23 Apr 2014 00:00:11 -0400

To SGT James Elphick of Prescott, AZ.

I agree 100%. The Navy already went through this with the banning ov beards in 1985. This occurred shortly after I reported to my ship. I was looking forward to growing a beard, but alas. The "reasoning" behind this (which I still, nearly 3 decades later, regard as a farce) was so that everyone onboard ship would be able to wear an OBA (Oxygen Breathing Apparatus, a device one would wear if fighting a fire in a space in which there was a depletion of oxygen). I've always felt that the OBA should have been redesigned to accommodate people with beards, but they took the easy way out. Same for this tattoo policy as well. In the Navy scenario, many senior enlisted decided to get out instead of retiring at their 20 or 30 years because of this, causing a small brain drain.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 29 at 2014 7:18 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Apr 2014 19:18:50 -0400

16,000 signatures just prompted a look into the recently changed regulation on grooming standards. What the signatures pertained to doesn't matter, what does is the fact that people keep going on about this, but aren't doing anything about it. I'm sure there are more than 16,000 service members with tattoos... just my two cents.

Response by LTC John Griscom made Aug 15 at 2018 11:00 PM

LTC John Griscom — Wed, 15 Aug 2018 23:00:41 -0400

How does it "hinder" the officer corps?

Response by MSG Reid Zohfeld made Aug 21 at 2018 4:38 PM

MSG Reid Zohfeld — Tue, 21 Aug 2018 16:38:27 -0400

If the soldier was grandfathered in it should be a mute issue It sounds to me someone did not read and or understand the the policy or just does not like tattoos Shameful

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made Aug 21 at 2018 10:20 PM

SGM Bill Frazer — Tue, 21 Aug 2018 22:20:12 -0400

Regs are regs, if it cuts back on folks, I'm pretty sure ACS looked into it. After all are we soldiers or swabbies?

Response by LTC James McElreath made Aug 22 at 2018 4:56 PM

LTC James McElreath — Wed, 22 Aug 2018 16:56:44 -0400

There have to be rules or people take things to extreme, just to see what the fall out is that comes from their action. There must be a past occurrence that prompted changes to AR 670-1. The problem then becomes how the Army plan to remedy the issue. It is often over acted upon and then when their planed result backfires, it will take a signified amount of time to reverse their bone headed idea's to one that fits the situation.

Response by Diane Stockton made Jun 26 at 2020 6:01 PM

Diane Stockton — Fri, 26 Jun 2020 18:01:19 -0400

so very sad! It should be made on the basis of each one.