Current Tattoo Policy

2014-01-15T12:58:38-05:00

What is the current tattoo policy? What are your thoughts on the new policy?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 10 at 2013 6:56 AM

2013-11-10T06:56:54-05:00

I feel the current tattoo policy is just fine. If it cant be seen in long sleeves (Nothing below the wrist, or above the collar), then it shouldn't matter. My tattoos do not demean my professional conduct, my ability to lead, or my ability to fix aircraft. Now like MSG Cunningham said, the documentation part of this policy is going to put quite the burden on many of the systems we have.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 17 at 2013 10:56 AM

2013-11-17T10:56:29-05:00

I agree, as long as they can't be viewed in the duty uniform (ACU/ASU) and aren't offensive then it shouldn't matter. To me, it's all about performance, regardless of the amount of tattoos someone has. Basically, according to regulations, we're supposed to "look" the part on and off duty. That's one of the reasons for the statement about detracting from a military appearance. I don't see how it's a detriment to the force either. In other countries, they're allowed to wear beards and shorts...

Response by LTC Joseph Gross made Nov 18 at 2013 4:46 PM

2013-11-18T16:46:26-05:00

You must first agree that tattoos are unprofessional and recognize that we are a profession. And the standard should not be duty uniform but rather the most revealing uniform which would be the Summer PT uniform. You are a professional and a leader of Soldiers in PTs just like in your Class As.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 18 at 2013 6:05 PM

2013-11-18T18:05:17-05:00

Appearance is for Hollywood. Every soldier I've ever lead would've followed me just the same had I painted my face blue and worn a clown suit. That's because they all knew I was looking out for them, regardless of my appearance. those who truly believe that their image is what inspires their soldiers is simply immature.

Response by Cpl Samuel Reeder MA made Nov 18 at 2013 6:08 PM

2013-11-18T18:08:45-05:00

But that's just it, we don't agree that tattoos are unprofessional. You could probably get most to agree that face tattoos are unprofessional, but lots of us feel that tattoos are just a way of demonstrating our values. In addition, tattoos have a long history with the military. What is unprofessional is judging leadership based on appearance rather than ability. Good leaders should be fit and have their gear squared away, but they are tall, short, black, white, male, female, good looking, ugly as sin, and quite often, tattooed.

Response by Capt Ed Yong made Nov 18 at 2013 6:47 PM

2013-11-18T18:47:25-05:00

It depends. Can't just blanket statement tattoos as a whole even though I personally won't get one. Think business professional. When you interview, you don't go flashing tattoos. Military people are military professionals. The appearance is just like the uniform. If tattoos are not visible in uniform, fine. You also have the other facet of what the tattoo itself displays. If a hate message, definitely not right.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 18 at 2013 6:47 PM

2013-11-18T18:47:26-05:00

I think it is very subjective to say tattoos are unprofessional. I know SMs that have no tattoos that act very unprofessional and SMs with lots of tattoos that are the most professional soldiers I know. Appearance does matter to an extent, you can show professionalism through your appearance and the military does that. Your attitude is a huge part of your appearance and is not at all changed by a few tattoos. I will notice an overweight SM or a uniform out of regulation before someones tattoos.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 18 at 2013 6:50 PM

2013-11-18T18:50:32-05:00

Tattoos are a long tradition way back past my grandfathers time in the service. I agree that if they are not visible in duty or dress then there should not be a problem. The go back to the older regulation that was in place in 2000 simple put on your t-shirt draw a line were the bottom of the sleeves are and that is as far down your arm you can go.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 18 at 2013 7:34 PM

2013-11-18T19:34:56-05:00

I agree with you, even though I don't have any tattoos (and probably
never will) I see how for some, they hold sentimental value for miles stones or
memorable events in a person's life. What I don't like to see is someone with a
neck, head, or hand tattoo. There is far too much space on the human body to
choose one of these locations and they do detract from a military and
professional appearance.

SMA Chandler made a statement that I agree with "You
are not just representing yourself; you are a team member and have to
understand that it's not about you and drawing attention to yourself."
Soldiers with vulgar language tattooed on their necks or sleeve tattoos seem to
be excessive to me. I feel the reasoning is the same as why we can't color our
hair or have faddish hair styles and nails. I know some of us don't like it,
but we are not meant to "stand out" from one another as Soldiers.

Response by SFC Stacy Harris made Nov 18 at 2013 7:57 PM

2013-11-18T19:57:29-05:00

stating that the army is a profession in no way means that the army cannot have tattoos. the definition of profession is "a paid occupation, esp. one that involves prolonged training and a formal qualification." it is a paid occupation. the military has had a long standing of getting tattoos, no...not a requirement, but it has always been that some people in the military have tattoos. Does that mean that someone who was in the military 40 years ago and had tattoos would be "less professional" than someone now?

Does someone with a tattoo of the names of friends lost in combat on his calf present an unprofessional appearance? I dare anyone, military or civilian, to say that this Soldier is not a professional because he wants to carry the memories of his lost brothers permanently on his body.

Response by MSgt Brian Woodbury made Nov 18 at 2013 7:58 PM

2013-11-18T19:58:26-05:00

I as a retired Air Force 1st Sergeant has had many discussions with senior leadership on what is pushing the bounds of what is appropriate and inappropriate in uniform. As long as it is not degrading, racist or in bad taste (ie pornographic) I do not thing tattoos are bad. I also think that while you are in uniform, any uniform dress, duty or pt, tattoos if offesive in anyway to anyone should be covered. Neck and face should be off limits for tattoos. Just my thoughts. By the way I have two tattoos and in know way were they ever visible while in any uniform, but even if they were they were in good taste.

Response by SSG Lisa Rendina made Nov 18 at 2013 9:26 PM

2013-11-18T21:26:35-05:00

I was just having this same conversation with the EKG technician at the VA Hospital today.  He and I both agree with the previous policy of "as long as it cannot be seen in the Class A uniform".  Having tattoos does not make a Soldier (or any person for that matter) any less professional than someone who has none.  As Soldiers we need to present a professional image when in a professional uniform.  I have no issues with tattoos (that are not vulgar or derogatory) being visible in summer PTs because the PT uniform is not supposed to be a professional uniform.  It is a common uniform worn for conducting physical exercise.  As long as tattoos are not seen in ACUs or ASUs I see no problems.  I do have to say, however, I have met and served with Soldiers who are dead-on when it comes to their jobs who are visibly tattooed in their ACUs.  While great at what they do, to me, they just do not present a professional image.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 18 at 2013 10:42 PM

2013-11-18T22:42:03-05:00

Many of the arguments or stances made are from a "politically correct" viewpoint. I agree that some can detract from the appearance if their location is of the face, neck or hand (and even those of the hand depends on the tattoo....IMHO) but for the majority they do not bother me as much.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 18 at 2013 10:50 PM

2013-11-18T22:50:28-05:00

I am a huge fan of tattoos. I'll start by saying that. I own 9 and plan on getting more. In fact I will be beating the deadline by completing my sleeves in the next few weeks.

What I do not like is the cherry picking that our military does every time it is convenient. Where was the focus on professionalism when we allowed every individual with tattoos on their necks and hands? Apparently those soldiers were good enough to catch bullets and RPGs when the S hit the fan but now they're no good. Working in the HUMINT field, we allowed so many substandard soldiers (no writing skills, no people skills, no discipline) to pass because numbers were more important to the policy makers than actually forming a disciplined and professional Army.

Even if I am grandfathered in, you have made it clear to me you believe I am unprofessional and not fit to lead. What kind of tone are we setting for the leaders we expect to being back discipline to the force?

Response by CCMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 18 at 2013 11:23 PM

2013-11-18T23:23:24-05:00

Both FDR and Winston Churchill had tattoos... it didn't seem to impact them too awful much in leading their countries in a time of war. Too label all tattoos as unprofessional is a very closed-minded view. Though there are some that are definitely inappropriate as First Sergeant Woodbury mentioned above in his post, with that said, I do agree there should be some form of limits and restrictions.

Response by LTJG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 19 at 2013 2:11 AM

2013-11-19T02:11:11-05:00

It's going to be tough to
enlist a force of young warriors while using their tattoos as a limiting
factor. Cultures, societies, and organizations change over time, and while
tattoos have historically been viewed as rebellious or counter-culture for the
past 20, 30, 40, or even 50 years, they are much more acceptable today, and it
is NOT uncommon to see ink on reliable professionals in a number of career
fields.

I’m not saying everyone
should mark their face and get a full-sleeve done, but I have personally led
teams with 50-75% of my Sailors inked. Working in joint commands, most Soldiers
and Marines I served with had some level of tattoo work done, often service
related or to memorialize a lost comrade, friend, or family member. At this
point in our history, tattoos are NOT very taboo, and will continue to become
more and more visible in our daily lives.

If we intend to continue pulling from society our
young men and women willing to fight and die for the American way of life, then
we must accept the evolution of that same American way of life.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 19 at 2013 6:08 AM

2013-11-19T06:08:21-05:00

While I don't think they are unprofessional, unfortunately, my opinion doesn't matter. Those who are in the Pentagon feel that they are, and they are taking steps towards ensuring that they mitigate them. The professional world, ie business, industry, education, etc, still looks at tattoos as taboo. The professional world is run by the same generation as the military. On top of that, our leaders today grew up in the 1980s Army (or the Army immediately following) where everything was a reaction to Vietnam and the following "Hollow Army." To them, a professional image is of the upmost importance. Perhaps our generation will change that in twenty years, but until then...

Response by LTC Joseph Gross made Nov 19 at 2013 6:44 AM

2013-11-19T06:44:08-05:00

I would not go so far as to say all are unprofessional but I think all give a certain look that is not one of a professional military. I know that flies in the face of centuries of tattooed sailors and decades of tattoos in our force, but is my opinion. My son is tatted up and got his in the military. He was still a good Soldier! And some of the best guys I've known mainly on SOF side, all had tats. We're really talking about appearance and opinion. And I stand by my position that tattoos should be visible in the most revealing uniform. If not that standard, why bother with any standard?

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 19 at 2013 8:00 AM

2013-11-19T08:00:47-05:00

I feel like this: Judging somebody by what is on their skin is no different than judging them by the color of their skin, the accent the speak with or the car they drive. I do agree that the neck, face should be off limits; however, a person/employee/Soldier should be judged solely on their performance on the job. I will take a squad of tatted up bad assed professionals over a the most clean cut PT stud dirt bag any day.

Response by CPT Aaron Kletzing made Nov 19 at 2013 8:30 AM

2013-11-19T08:30:15-05:00

I would like to add that as a profession -- particularly one that many civilians cannot relate to well -- the image we as military personnel portray helps shape their opinion of us. I'm not implying that's right or wrong, but it's absolutely true. I don't have any tattoos, and even if I did, I'm not really one to say what looks good or bad. But, there are tattoos out there in the force that send the wrong message to others about our profession -- namely ones that contain profanity or violent language. I know it's your body and I respect that it's your decision as an adult to get a tattoo -- but when you go to the beach in Hawaii, where there are tons of military, tourists, and local civilians all mixed together, and you have some derogatory and aggressive tattoos -- this does affect the way you and your military peers are perceived among the community.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 19 at 2013 8:32 AM

2013-11-19T08:32:00-05:00

I'm just sitting back and watching to see what is going to happen when all of the changes hit the force. Going to be interesting to see what happens when the good NCO's and Officer's get fed up with all of the changes and leave the force in the hands of Soldiers who "fit the mold", but don't have a clue on how to train and lead Soldiers. If we are really worried about how the force looks, lets get rid of the Soldiers who break the scale when they step on it or the Soldiers who can't run more than 2 laps around the track without stopping. Tattoos are easy targets right now. You can't run out and get a profile that will save your a** if you aren't allowed to have them. I'm sorry for the rant, but it seems that everyone is focused on the peas and carrots when they should be focused on the meat and potatoes as far as professional appearance goes.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 19 at 2013 8:57 AM

2013-11-19T08:57:08-05:00

Before I joined the military I worked in a tattoo shop. I'm covered in absolute ridiculousness from a time in my life when my chosen profession allowed that. Fortunately, I never got around to my hands, face, or neck. But now I'm a soldier, fully intent on seeing my career through to retirement. I love what I do and I'm damn good at it. My tattoos do not define me or hinder my ability to lead. I completely agree with the Army's stance against tattoos that show in dress uniform because not only do we have a job to do, but we are representatives to the world. I just don't feel that the standard should go beyond that. There's no reason for it and any tattoos on the arms and legs are generally socially accepted in today's society. Fix the height/weight/PT standards first and then worry about peoples artwork.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 19 at 2013 9:04 AM

2013-11-19T09:04:48-05:00

Tattoos are an expression of self. Plain and simple a tattoo does not tell the story of the US Military. Tattoos do not make or break leaderhip ability, that comes from training and mentorship. Loyalty to those whom I serve, this statement has no bearing on whether or not you have a tattoo. A tattoo with not prevent a service member from completion of duties assigned to him or her. Tattoos in good taste (ie. no gang signs / pornographic in nature) do not compromise the ability to respect one another. Tattoos do not deter from selfless service, a man or woman can still volunteer their life in the name of our country regardless of a tattoo. A service member is not prevented from serving honorably due to a tattoo. Tattoos will never cause a lie or put someone in a position to compromise their integrity. Lastly, I have never seen where a tattoo has prevented someone to have the personal courage to take a bullet in the name of the USA and I doubt that will ever happen.

Notice here that these reasons are also the Core Values for the Army and the probably line up pretty well across the DoD. LDRSHIP (Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity and Personal Courage). Explain to me why Tattoos are so wrong if all these values can be met with or without tattoos.

In case you are wondering I myself have no tattoos currently. I want one but with all these changes on the horizon I am afraid to get one. I love what I do for my nation and would hate to be told "get out" over an expression of myself.

Response by PFC Joseph Vasta made Nov 19 at 2013 2:03 PM

2013-11-19T14:03:11-05:00

Tattoos do not lesson the persons rank or commitment to their duties as a soldier.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 19 at 2013 11:26 PM

2013-11-19T23:26:48-05:00

What is frustrating is that years ago when 9-11 happened the army lowered standards to allow soldiers in...why? To fight and possibly die. Now I don't k ow what the policy was before 9-11 but now that the army doesn't need soldiers to come in and die they change things. Now as far as professionalism..I call BS...since when in a civilian business do you have its employees throwing the "f" bomb during meetings or to its employees.  If we are gonna call for professionalism then let's have it across the board

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 19 at 2013 11:34 PM

2013-11-19T23:34:25-05:00

Like I stated on another topic. Why focus on ink?? When I came in, yes, nothing from neck up of hands (even though I know friends stationed in Korea in the 80's got ones on their hands). If you chose to get some on lower arms or legs, you just subjected yourself to having to wear the long sleeve (and pants for females) in the warmer months but that was on you. If they are so worried about "image" guess what...ink can be covered...Fat can't

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 26 at 2013 8:23 PM

2013-11-26T20:23:11-05:00

I can understand restricting tattoos to not being visible in ACU's. However, the policy is the policy. If the new policy restricts tattoos to not visible in summer PT's then we will have to make a log of every Soldier that has tattoos that are grandfathered and then continually check to see if they have added any new ink. This will be frustrating and time consuming, but as Soldiers we must do as we are instructed. I have never appreciated the tattoos on the neck, head, or hands. I can see where many would think this detracts from the professional appearance and the initial impression. <div><br></div><div>However, I think that it is the Soldier that demonstrates professionalism. Their appearance can have a lot to do with it. Are they wearing their uniform properly? Does it fit well? Do they have a clean shave and a haircut? Do they carry themselves in a professional manner? Then their actions will speak more. Are they physically fit? Are they a team player? Do they know their job? Do they perform? Would you trust them next to you in combat? These items say much more about professionalism than any tattoo ever can. It can even force me to overcome my opinions. There was a NCO running around FLW with tattoos up his neck. Sharp uniform. Very fit. Very professional. He was a Sapper Instructor and students spoke of him very, very highly. While I don't like tattoos on the neck, he proved that the tattoo does not demonstrate his professionalism.....his actions and dedication do. </div>

Response by LTC Joseph Gross made Nov 27 at 2013 3:14 AM

2013-11-27T03:14:52-05:00

No doubt we are overly concerned with tattoos, but that doesn't change the fact that we are. What is considered "professional" is not decided by the Soldiers in the ranks. But if those same Soldiers want to be taken seriously by a more conservative leadership then they have to realize that. We don't have to like this, but we can't disagree that it is true.

Response by 1SG Steven Stankovich made Dec 24 at 2013 9:02 AM

2013-12-24T09:02:19-05:00

In my opinion, that outburst by that NCO is ignorance.  It is a shame because I am sure that there were younger NCOs/Soldiers in that brief that witnessed that.  AR 670-1 is specific now with regards to the tattoo policy.  We shall see what the guidance is when the updated regulation is signed and released. 

Response by SPC Christopher Smith made Dec 24 at 2013 9:41 AM

2013-12-24T09:41:11-05:00

I understand this new tattoo policy is another measure to help with the down sizing, but in the long run this policy will have to change once again, as tattoos are becoming less and less taboo in our society and culture. The years are gone where a great majority of young people are not marked in some fashion, and sleeves seem to be the primary go to.

As far as the current NCO, he was out of line to yell out his intent to the crowd, but we have all heard it at least once, "do what your rank can handle", if he figures he can play around with grandfathering tattoos, let him, but it will catch up to him further in his career. Honestly unless he is getting his tattoos recorded and documented before the new policy drops he might just hurt himself sooner rather than later.

Response by SGM Matthew Quick made Dec 24 at 2013 10:20 AM

2013-12-24T10:20:37-05:00

First, until a new policy is released, there is no 'new tattoo policy'.<br><br>What corrective action did you take for the NCO that interrupted the class with his ignorance?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 24 at 2013 10:29 AM

2013-12-24T10:29:42-05:00

I can only speak from an Infantry stand point on this, and some may view it as ignorance, some may view it as being hard headed. We are an Army, our mission on this earth is to protect our country from enemies both foreign and domestic. To do this we must fight wars, death and blood shed is just a way of life for our chosen profession. In no way shape or form do tattoos prohibit or even hinder us from completing this mission. Most soldiers get tattoos as a way to express themselves, its an adrenaline rush, while I do think that guidelines for racist, indecent and sexist tattoo are a necessary thing I do not think that saying you can't get tattoos if they are visible in the pt uniform is acceptable. There are quite a few senior NCO's that are amazing leaders, that are covered in tattoos. The army should stick with the old policy of no tattoos on the front of the neck or the head, no racist sexist or indecent tattoos, and call it a day.

Response by SFC William Swartz Jr made Dec 24 at 2013 10:37 AM

2013-12-24T10:37:37-05:00

Should have just left well enough alone, the old policy worked just fine, Big Army made the mistake of allowing the tattoos on the the neck area, hand etc.. now once again "they" are reacting (back to being professional, lol). If you cannot see the tattoos when you are in your Class A uniform their shouldn't be an issue. I feel for you current NCOs with dealing with some of the GIF changes that are forthcoming with the updated AR 670-1, but then again, if you were good about enforcing the standards before, you'll be straight when the updated version is published, finally!

Response by CPT Aaron Kletzing made Dec 24 at 2013 10:47 AM

2013-12-24T10:47:06-05:00

That was an arrogant, ignorant thing to do, and a bad decision as an NCO.  Soldiers could see that behavior and laugh and think it's okay when it's not.  That goes against the good order and discipline of the unit.

Response by CPO Terry Ashmore made Dec 24 at 2013 11:00 AM

2013-12-24T11:00:48-05:00

The Navy changed it's policy for tattoos around 2001. I think it was a product of downsizing but I cannot prove it. When I first came in 1990 I remember seeing a "full sleeve" of tattoos on the arm every once in a while. Not so much since the policy changed, I know of at least on person had to get out because of one on the neck. Even though I agree that is should not matter if you cannot see it in uniform, we have to roll with the punches. The same resistance came to beards sometime in the 80's (before my time, but I heard plenty about it) when it was no longer allowed in the Navy except under certain circumstances. When it first came out, if you had a tattoo that was bigger than the palm of your hand with our fingers extended, you had to get pictures taken and submit it to the COC to be grandfathered into the system. I never had to follow up since that time.

Response by CPT Ray Doeksen made Dec 24 at 2013 5:40 PM

2013-12-24T17:40:20-05:00

The first mistake was advising others (by example) to run out and do something that might well hurt their career later. Is a tattoo more important than your job? <div><br></div><div>There was an article about a previous round of tattoo policy changes that advised this:</div><div><br></div><div>"<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">If a Soldier’s current command has no issue with his/her tattoos, the Soldier should have personnel files so notated that the Soldier is in line with AR-670, officials said. Though not mandatory, having the notation entered serves as back-up documentation at a follow-on command which might feel the Soldier’s tattoos don’t meet Army regulations."</span></div>

Response by CPO Jon Campbell made Dec 24 at 2013 5:42 PM

2013-12-24T17:42:46-05:00

Tattoo policies, like many other policies, are made to deal with the worst case situations. Tattoos can indicate gang affiliations, and criminal activity. It is impossible to ban all the various symbols and signs of gangs, hate groups, and tats with hidden meanings that may undermine military operations. The inability to ban the problem tats, will end up in policies that are overly restrictive to the vast majority of troops.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 24 at 2013 7:44 PM

2013-12-24T19:44:52-05:00

Okay not only does it not exemplify what an NCO is supposed to be, but yes it was very ignorant. Not trying to be disrespectful by any means but if you do that in front of your soldiers they will believe that you can just blurt out whatever you want and have no repercussions. If he wanted to do that he should have just kept it to himself and then went and got the tattoos if that is his prerogative.

Response by SFC Gary Fox made Dec 24 at 2013 8:35 PM

2013-12-24T20:35:17-05:00

Personally I believe the NCO displayed stupidity in bursting out with his comment in a formation.

The Army used to have a tattoo policy prohibiting tattoos from being seen while wearing the Class A uniform. I have two tattoos. Each are in good taste and are on my upper arms where they couldn't be seen while even wearing APFU.

I once had a Soldier who had a tattoo of a slit throat across his throat. He thought it was "pretty cool." I thought it displayed stupidity.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 25 at 2013 3:04 AM

2013-12-25T03:04:20-05:00

Do you think this NCO has inked himself out of a decent paying job?

Response by CPT Linzie Brim made Dec 25 at 2013 5:45 AM

2013-12-25T05:45:29-05:00

Well not many special ops would want him. That tat immediately identifies him from a great distance away. Hard to blend in with a tattoo on your arm like that!

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 25 at 2013 9:33 AM

2013-12-25T09:33:13-05:00

To answer your questions i do think its ignorance, if the Soldier wants to get a tattoo but does not know what he wants, but knows that in the next year or so they might make it illegal, he might feel the urge to get something done now. I have tatts on my arms and legs, i know that i will get more and personally i 100% disagree with this policy about having to get it removed or getout. BUT let me say to do agree with the policy that stays it cant extend beyond your collar and Class A jacket, PTs' are a ridiculous way to evaluate the limits. Stricter guidance on tattoos? I say no, who is anyone to tell somebody else they can or can not get a tattoo or piercing,(so long as it does not extend past the Class A/ ASU uniforms sleeves and collar) because this is the agreement we all came into the Army with except during the surge. Should the waivered Soldiers be given an option to remain in by removing the tattoo or getout? yes because they were Waivered into the service, not every other Soldier.

His Behavior was out of line, unprofessional in front of junior leaders and Soldiers.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 25 at 2013 4:57 PM

2013-12-25T16:57:51-05:00

At this point I just feel bad for the word 'ignorance.' As leaders we should understand and recognize the difference between ignorance and a lack in military bearing.

The NCO referred to in the original post showed an obvious lack in military bearing, but I'm sure he was well aware of the effects of his actions. He should be singled out as having a bad example of the attitude expected of an NCO and should be counseled on CURRENT tattoo policies, as well as his military bearing.

I have artwork planned for both my arms that I had intended to acquire over the next few years. I have completed half now and moved up my plans in hopes of getting what I want prior to the changes in 670-1, but I didn't go shouting it from the rooftops. I will continue to follow the guidance set forth in our current regulations and fully intend to implement and enforce any policy changes when they are published.

The NCO in the original post handled the issue a bit more juvenile than I would have, but I understand his reasoning. As others have touched on, my tattoos didn't hinder my ability to perform tasks inherent in my role as an Infantryman, now as a Recruiter, nor will they in the future as a Warrant Officer.

Slap that dip$hit on the wrist and explain to him that he was wrong in voicing his opinion the way he did. Discuss the expected example he should be setting amongst his Soldiers and ensure to address the upcoming changes to the rest of the Unit to ensure a single message is being sent out to the lowest levels.

-SSG B

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 27 at 2013 1:23 AM

2013-12-27T01:23:36-05:00

As a tattooed Soldier. Both arms completely sleeved. I do think the new tattoo policy is a little extreme. As far as none below the elbow. But I do agree that tattoo's should be unseen in Dress and ACU uniforms. I think it is tacky and completely unprofessional to have tattoo's on your hands/neck unless tattoo is your trade/work. But Also that That NCO is showing ignorance. As the policy is not set yet. Nor is a grandfather in rule. Cause it has been stated that every soldier will have a sit down with their CO.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 27 at 2013 3:07 AM

2013-12-27T03:07:54-05:00

This "New Tattoo Policy" has really been something that shows the character of some more than anything. Besides, it isn't new it is merely old policy being re-implemented. More so at the end of the day we are here to look the part and be an image to all as professionals because we are in fact members of a profession. I have tattoos on me that will be out of regulation if the policy changes but I have already started having them removed. My career means more to me than something that can be replaced. Also a majority, not "ALL", but a majority of those complaining are doing the complaining more so because they can't look the way they want to look because they feel that the tattoo they so desperately want is what will define them in some way. As for the NCO or lack there of that said what they said during the briefing. I'd honestly sit them down and find out what they are wanting t do with their career. If they don't understand the example they set then make an example out of them they will understand and remember.

Response by SFC James Baber made Jan 11 at 2014 11:35 PM

2014-01-11T23:35:38-05:00

I think this is a good thread for those we are trying to get to join can see the substance of some things we discuss between us as current and former military, soft spoken as well as informational and mentoring types of postings.

We also have fun at times while remaining professional.

Response by 1SG Steven Stankovich made Jan 15 at 2014 1:25 PM

2014-01-15T13:25:16-05:00

Sir - Stick with the current guidance outlined in AR 670-1. There is an update that is up for signature, but it is not signed yet. Have your Soldiers follow the guidelines with the current regulation and they will not go wrong.

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Mar 4 at 2014 12:05 AM

2014-03-04T00:05:27-05:00

It's all perception and opinions. Some people think we should wear black berets other think PC's.

Response by SPC David Solotky made Mar 4 at 2014 12:12 AM

2014-03-04T00:12:43-05:00

Probably the best Senior NCO I have ever met was full sleeved tattooed. In Iraq we found out he had practically a full back tattoo. This 1stsgt at the time was always boosting morale. I do however think they should be able to be covered by a class uniform.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 4 at 2014 12:42 AM

2014-03-04T00:42:15-05:00

It is really foolish to think someone with tattoos is a better or worse soldier. I get the Army wanting to have a professional appearance but like was stated before if it is covered when wearing ACU's or Class A's it shouldn't matter. The PT uniform would be the only uniform you could see it in and if soldiers are doing the right thing they wont be out and about in PT's. Out of everything laid out in the new unsigned AR 670-1 the tattoo restrictions and the side burn restrictions make no sense at all. If the regulation was followed now and leaders enforced it we wouldn't have a problem with long side burns. Tattoo's above the neck and on the hands are something I don't agree with but the Army let people get them while in the service and let people join having those things. If that's the case then in my opinion soldiers with gold/silver whatever color caps over their teeth should have the same restrictions(besides for medical reasons) their is no way that looks professional at all. An I don't even agree with that but if your taking away things that "present an unprofessional apprence" someone should look into that as well... That's my opinion.

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Mar 17 at 2014 4:32 PM

2014-03-17T16:32:22-04:00

I think we must be a professional force and tattoos that are visible when wearing the dress uniform detract from a professional appearance.

On a personal note, as long as the tattoo is not offensive (gang or hate group related or sexist in nature) I do not mind the ink. As a matter of fact I see it as one's own individual expression. With as many deployments and sacrifices we've made and as many of our brothers in arms we've lost there are many that have memorialized the fallen with ink and I appreciate that more than many.
The world culture is changing and ink is much more accepted globally than 30 or 40 years ago.

Response by LTJG Robert M. made Mar 17 at 2014 4:51 PM

2014-03-17T16:51:54-04:00

I will simply state that I retired from a Sea Service and do not have any Tattoos. I now have a role where I represent an International Company and do not feel I would be in this position if I did have visible Tattoos.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 17 at 2014 5:45 PM

2014-03-17T17:45:21-04:00

It's matter of where and what are the tattoos. You SHOULD NOT have any face tattoos in the Army. Neck and Hands: very simple. You want to stay in, remove them; if not, thank you for your service, I will always be here for you sister or brother.

This what the Army is going for and it might change as it always do.

Now remember, THIS IS NOT APPROVED YET. So before we jump the gun and start going all crazy about regulations, let's all wait and see what happens.

I'm currently in Recruiting school and we have people, including myself, that have tattoos in arms and legs that can be see in short sleeves and shorts. I made it to the screening process for the school and so did my peers.

I have see a lot of Recruiters already that have tattoos like this before I came to USAREC and in the few months I was in my station before the course and they are very successful Recruiters and some of the most intelligent and knowledgeable NCO's I have met in my almost 9 yrs in the Army.

I have also met SNCO's, SGM's and Officers in my old unit and other units in Korea with full sleeves tattoos and this didn't took away from them being outstanding leaders. Even a old CSM(RET) from my old Division in Kansas have tattoos in his lower arms

The Era of judging because you have tattoos is long gone.

13 yrs of war memories can be told just by looking at some soldiers, marines, sailors and airmens arms and legs.

My opinion, feel free to agree or disagree.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 17 at 2014 6:01 PM

2014-03-17T18:01:01-04:00

I have four tattoos but only one is visible while wearing a long sleeve shirt or the service coat. The one that is visible is my wedding band which signifies my lifelong commitment to my wife while the others represent various factions of my life and experiences that I have encountered throughout my military career. That being said, from the stand point of one that DOES have tattoos I believe that ink (while in good taste as CSM Uhlig stated) does not detract from a professional military appearance.

There are many reasons why members will get a tattoo ranging from a personal commitment like mine to "it looked cool so I got it". However, so long as the tattoo is within the regulations set forth by our senior leaders and authorized by one's commander, professional opinion is purely based on personal preference. One flight/company commander may view a tattoo as tacky and therefore unprofessional while another may have two half sleeves and a porcupine on their thigh, it really all depends on personal preference.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2014 8:17 PM

2014-03-18T20:17:39-04:00

Along as they tasteful and not ostentatious I am good with it.

Response by SFC William Swartz Jr made Mar 19 at 2014 9:00 AM

2014-03-19T09:00:26-04:00

From an Army perspective, I never felt they were unprofessional until they began to allow incoming Soldiers to have them on their necks and hands, totally out of character for what we as an Army projected as our image the entire time I had been in...I enlisted in 1987 and the regs stated that as long as they could not be seen in your Class-A's amd were not racist or smutty, then you were good to go. While a recruiter in the mid-late '90s we started to scrutinize them more to try and weed out any gang related tats and then when big Army was trying to bump it's numbers up they said oh heck they have lips/barcodes, etc. on their neck or hands let 'em in. Now they are returning to the more "traditional" stance on them which I applaud for the most part. To me I don't think they detract from an individuals professionalism if they are not racist, smutty, gang related or can be seen while in one's dress uniforms.

Response by PFC Nathaniel Culbertson made Mar 19 at 2014 2:44 PM

2014-03-19T14:44:17-04:00

i'm the most of you here not hate groups or sexist images. memorializing the fallen and unit pride in big support of. i have one on my left shoulder and it reads, "No Kings before God", it symbolized my faith and my dislike of any toxic leadership. i have at least 3 more planned one is a unit pride, one is for my fallen friends and to fill the hole between the top and bottom of the first tattoo.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 20 at 2014 7:43 PM

2014-03-20T19:43:10-04:00

I personally have no thoughts towards tattoos as to if they are professional or not. However, there is one thing I don't understand from those who wear them. I generally see those with tattoos up in arms about not being able to have them due to Army standards, or at the very least they are frowned upon. I then generally hear these same soldiers state that tattoos are an art form and a way to express themselves.

My inquiry to this train of thought is that there are lots of ways to express ones self that are prohibited. Hair style and jewelry are just two right off the top of my head. I think it is clear that, for the most part, the military frowns upon tattoos and have deemed them unprofessional. If I had tattoos I think I would be pleased that they weren't totally prohibited.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2014 10:57 AM

2014-03-21T10:57:31-04:00

<p>As an officer with tattoos & piercings I agree with you.  I personally believe the two sides of the argument are: Freedom of self-expression vs "Professional" appearance.  The people who are changing AR 670-1 are essentially the people who are saying "This is what image we want to promote...this is what we want our soldiers to look like."  The problem is that in my opinion they seem to be out of touch with what the majority of Army soldiers want to look like.  They believe that what the soldier wants to look like is irrelevant and naive and "unprofessional."  They are the keepers of the definition of "professional."  If you don't agree with their definition of "professional" then they are the first ones to call you "UNprofessional."</p><p> </p><p>Its a classic case of the upper echelons making decisions without requesting AND without wanting to know what their subordinates think.  Ergo, you have the upper echelons make decisions on where they want the organization to go and if you are already a member of the organization but you don't fit where they want to go, you are either forced out or you vote with your feet and leave (which is what they really want you to do).  The same thing with cutting your retirement pension.  They already have you.  Sure there is a method to provide feedback.  But I'm sure the people that read it are the same people that thought that their changes were good ideas so I seriously doubt they give any serious consideration to our feedback.  I imagine they scoff at our ideas and call us revolting heathen barbarians as they sip their tea.  The Army wants pretty, obedient, sophisticated soldiers now, not mean-looking free-thinking, fighting soldiers.  If you want choir boy soldiers then don't be surprised when they can't win on the fields of battle.  We are made to stand in front of the enemy bullets, not media cameras.</p>

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2014 11:07 AM

2014-03-21T11:07:13-04:00

I completely disagree with this policy. I have many tattoos.
None are visible in ACUs or the ASU. The only time you see the ink is in the
APFU. The APFU is not a very professional looking uniform it is a fitness
uniform. No one sees us in the APFU except other military members.

Knowing the trend of the military this is not going to last
forever. The regulation will change depending on who is in charge and how many
bodies they need.

A female civilian friend stated, “Tattoos in the military is
tradition since before the times of Sailor Jerry. The military was one of the few jobs you could
get into with a tattoo. I am rather fond of our service members looking like
bad asses instead of daycare teachers. When I see a rough man with tattoos and
some scruff on his face I think “warrior”. When I see a man with a baby face
and smooth skin I think “daycare teacher. In addition we are taking a step back
in terms of American Culture. Is not America supposed to be a tolerant country?
I understand uniformity and professionalism but I do not understand what the
big deal about having a tattoo under your uniform is.”

I am not very excited about having someone inspect my body
every year for tattoos. In addition, many of us service members will now have ½
finished tattoos. I personally know a Soldier with a sleeve outline done but
not filled in. Is there going to be a grace period? Or is this the grace
period. When will this officially be published?

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2014 12:12 PM

2014-03-21T12:12:17-04:00

There are a couple of considerations here.

One is that there is a lot of talk of returning to the Class B uniform. I've included a picture so that you can see the problem. Tattoos that were previously not visible in any authorized wear of the ACU would be plainly visible in a Class B. Can you reasonably say that only women are not permitted to have tattoos below the knee? Or that they are not authorized to wear the skirt in Class A or B uniforms? (Actually, I know plenty of women who would prefer the latter to the former.)

Two, please stop trying to compare having tattoos with discrimination based on factors that are not personal choice. It is more comparable to unauthorized hairstyles. I look terrible with my hair in a bun, but I don't want to cut my hair short, so I am not given another choice. There are a lot of threads here that indicate that, in general, military personnel are NOT in favor of letting people have "personal expression" when it comes to physical appearance and wear of the uniform...unless we are talking about tattoos. Then suddenly, people defend the exact thing they didn't support when we were discussing beards, or a Sikh turban, or hair weave (and I do not put long-standing established religions in the same category as "personal expression" but I am pointing out how strongly people argued against this).

And I am not a fan of the culture argument either. If your point is that tattoos are "American Culture," well so is obesity and you won't get a pass by playing that card. Or maybe your point is that you cannot resist cultural influences? Like drug culture or rape culture? I just think it's not what you want to claim. There are a lot of things that are part of popular culture that are not acceptable.

Overall, I feel like this is a stupid thing to waste effort on. If people want tattoos, fine. I have no desire to document all of my Soldiers' body art or to check up on them every year to see if they have more. What will the ramifications be if I fail to do this, or fail to turn people in with new tattoos? Will there be a big investigation? What if other Soldiers were there when the new tattoo got put on? Are they in trouble too? Do we have to do the whole males check males and females check females thing? There's another hassle. Ridiculous. Piles of paperwork and hours of hearings that serve no greater purpose. People have talked about how we are focusing on the wrong things and I see this as yet another example of misdirected focus.

Response by LTC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2014 3:45 PM

2014-03-21T15:45:54-04:00

I personally don't have any tattoos, nor do I care to have one. However, I support a person's right to obtain them. If the Army wants to change the standard, fine. But to not grandfather Soldiers that met previous regulatory requirements or obtained appropriate waivers to join is just plain ignorant. Is the Army planning to offer tattoo removal services in a time when medical care is in decline? Clearly, the civilians that are forcing these decisions are completely out of touch with with the value our Soldiers bring to the fight, tattooed or not. I have served with many fine Officers and Warrants that have tattoos and some dirt bags that didn't have them. The Army really needs to focus on quality...not vanity. It's a good day to be retired!

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2014 5:01 PM

2014-03-21T17:01:51-04:00

I guess this is the Army's way of saying they expect their Officers to live to a higher standard than Enlisted Soldiers.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2014 5:10 PM

2014-03-21T17:10:33-04:00

having both arms sleeved I hate the idea. I feel the top leadership is out of touch with todays world. Not just soldiers but society in general. Kids today are getting tattoos in high school. I have seen kids at my sons high school who play sports who have half sleeves already. They are not trouble makers or bad kids. Some are CPT's of sports teams. As well as they get good grades. My son who is 17 wants one as well. Which I am not against as I got my first at 17. It was a graduation present. I was 17 and graduated a year early. Having tattoos or not don't necessary make you unprofessional. How many of these people in trouble in the news have tattoos we can see or can't. They should focus more on other issues instead of if I have a cross on my forearm. I would been happy with old rules for tattoos. None on the heck/head/hands.

Response by SPC(P) Delcina Myers made Mar 21 at 2014 10:27 PM

2014-03-21T22:27:42-04:00

Well... In my opinion, this AR will yet again change itself, as it does very often and honestly, it's hard to keep up with.

But if they are going to start weeding out people with tattoos, I would have to say that there goes 98% of the entire Army population.

Response by SrA Zachary Bolling made Mar 24 at 2014 8:54 AM

2014-03-24T08:54:51-04:00

One other thing we should all remember is that tattoos are not a new issue with the military, in fact, the military is somewhat the foundation that started making tattoos less taboo. Service members have been getting tattoos since WW2 and making them famous.

What is more famous than an anchor on the arm or an Airborne tattoo. Tattoos have been with the military for quite some time, and to want to change the policy now because it is convenient? How many good members will the military lose because of this decision?

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 26 at 2014 5:26 AM

2014-03-26T05:26:56-04:00

For your question SPC Kaleel, the new policy is an update of the existing AR 670-1 (dated 2005) and adds all the Milper/Alaract messages that have been issued since. It greatly updates the existing regulation, seeing as we've had a combat uniform change since.

Can you explain how you feel tattoos are part of heritage and tradition, in your eyes? I can see how a chest piece, back piece, or bicep piece could be considered a morale/comraderie builder if done with peers, but sleeves, in my opinion, are construed as unneccessary. I understand its a certain level of artwork and appreciation. But at the same time, where does the tradition come in to play?

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 26 at 2014 5:40 AM

2014-03-26T05:40:04-04:00

The biggest difference between people that have tattoo's and those who don't; people with tattoo's don't look negatively on those who don't.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 26 at 2014 9:28 AM

2014-03-26T09:28:31-04:00

I believe that as long as your tattoos are not offensive, gang related/affiliated of some sorts or extend below your wrists or onto your neck, than who cares what you put on your body. I have tattoos and in no way shape or form do I care if someone else has them or doesn't have them. If they made exceptions to the rule for people to join who have neck and hand tattoos, which was never allowed in the first place, then why change the policy on them now to include sleeve tattoos. Tattoos are not what makes people professional or unprofessional, people make people that way. It is the values instilled in an individual from the day they sign on the dotted line. Granted not every person can be changed and take on that professional manner but the individuals who do are the ones that make this Army a professional Army.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 26 at 2014 3:24 PM

2014-03-26T15:24:37-04:00

It's a down-sizing thing. You implement rules that will inevitably frustrate service members, and they'll choose to get out. It's a "poke the bear" kind of scenario. Moreover, after Desert Storm, rules and regulations became a little stricter until Afghanistan and Iraq became the forefront of the military's attention.

As soon as the next major kicks off, it'll all simmer down.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 26 at 2014 6:48 PM

2014-03-26T18:48:59-04:00

I agree with the new changes. I think tattoos that are visible on the neck, face, hands are unprofessional in this line of duty. When in uniform you represent the Army, which mean you're also representing all of the Army's Soldiers. I choose not to have tattoos because i'm sure they hurt (Wahh) and i don't like there appearance.

Response by CMSgt James Nolan made Mar 26 at 2014 7:17 PM

2014-03-26T19:17:44-04:00

Tattoos are part of military culture/heritage.  With that said, they are not for everyone. They should be fully acceptable, and should not be part of a consideration for promotion as has been discussed in several "threads".  In my "own" opinion, they should be fully covered when in dress uniform (A or better).  They should not be racially motivated, inflammatory or obscene (which opens up a whole can of opinions), or gang related/referencing-goes without saying. It is, like many things a difficult thing to come with a "policy" that works and makes total sense and properly governs their wear.  At the end of the day, what we need to remember is that we are all Warriors (maybe some less than others) but Warriors still and our ultimate job is to pick up a rifle and defend our nation.  So if having a few Tats makes someone feel more of a Warrior, what is the harm?  

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 26 at 2014 7:36 PM

2014-03-26T19:36:20-04:00

I'm in favor of going back to the "old school" way of nothing you can see in the class B short sleeve shirt. Grandfathering in those already in the Army.

Response by SFC James Baber made Mar 26 at 2014 8:24 PM

2014-03-26T20:24:02-04:00

I agree with the restrictions regarding neck, face, hands or any clearly visible area, but I also think that anyone that had other body tattoos that are not visible in regular uniform should be grandfathered for any actions.

Now the thing about not allowing WOC or OCS packets is BS as I have seen and known many officers with tattoos over my career, I knew of 2 generals and a handful of COLs as well as LTCs, and they were all very professional, no doubt or questions ever arose on them, so for them to say it now is unprofessional is total BS.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 29 at 2014 4:56 PM

2014-03-29T16:56:46-04:00

Sir,

I am just waiting to see it for myself.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 29 at 2014 5:31 PM

2014-03-29T17:31:22-04:00

I think it will ultimately lead to a more professional force.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 31 at 2014 12:57 AM

2014-03-31T00:57:59-04:00

Here's the curveball... Playing Devil's Advocate here. In regards to this post, is a cross, crucifix, or something relgious in nature deemed innappropriate, offensive, or derogatory? Being that it isn't a neutral stance on religion.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 31 at 2014 7:23 AM

2014-03-31T07:23:33-04:00

SPC Kaleel,

Every time I see the topic of conversation focused new or updating Tattoo Policy, I fear that there will be a severe or drastic change that could potentially affect my career. From a professional stand point, there needs to be certain limits with regard to the visibility of tattoos in uniform and overall uniformity of the forces including governing obscene or offensive tattoos. Definitely, agree that tattoos are in our heritage and culture----they have the tendency to get to a point in post-modern society in which they are no longer only on the upper arm or in few locations---the world of tattooing and social acceptance of tattoos has allowed tattoos to be placed anywhere and everywhere on the body that will accept ink. That being said, I have a certain tendency as a officer to be more objective or suppress the negative thoughts or feelings regarding high level decisions coming from the most positions of authority over us as them not having cruel intentions when developing a plan to change a policy such as the latest AR 670-1 update.

However, I also would like to point out that there is a very real disconnect due to generational differences between the highest levels of the Army and the intermediate/lowest levels. Essentially, it is very easy to capture----just ask your parents how they feel about tattoos or someone else's parents who don't have tattoos. I was discussing the same topic the other day with a business owner whom I know well enough that he projected his personal opinion---stating that he will not hire anyone with visible tattoos. At 62 years old and set in his ways, he is unwilling to accept tattoos (discriminatory?). Therefore, it is easy to see how some of the regulatory guidance has a tendency to fit into----personal manifestations which spawn from a generation of people who were not as accepting of the tattoo culture as the tattoo culture itself has progressed as well in the opposite direction then when they were at the unit level. It could be personal agendas or it could actually be the need to regroup, reevaluate, and recommit to higher principles.

Here is the other point I would like to bring to your attention as it pertains to my own personal view----I am a career military officer on active duty, I have tattoos (not visible in ACUs or ASUs). No one has ever verbalized anything to me about it, however from time to time I get a few looks from people. Sometimes if I am in civilian clothes people who don't know me probably think I am enlisted (not a bad thing). Being an outstanding service member isn't measured by tattoos, however I will tell you that professional appearance is very important in maintaining the world's premier fighting forces. I would argue that the most important aspect or more important emphasis needs to be placed on character develop than working about tattoo policy. Especially as we have seen several high ranking officers in the media with much more pressing issues than this topic of conversation.

The best attitude to have and maintain a level head about future policy changes, accept the fact that some may not like them or personally disagree at times, however they must be enforced as well as abide by them. Projecting a high degree of dislike or admiration for something sometimes can be received as a threat to someone else's view points-----that is why many people in the military choose not to discuss pay, politics, or religion as they are subjective and not conducive to interpersonal relationship building. Though tattoos are not necessarily the same---many feel strongly enough to overtly express their opinion in one direction or the other while many people in the military are in there presence. Tattoos are almost as permanent as skin pigment so there is a reason that people get offended by outlandish statements because it is not like they can be removed that easily! Think about it!

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 31 at 2014 9:38 AM

2014-03-31T09:38:12-04:00

I have to say that this policy has been very polarizing and a source of a lot of frustration with the younger Soldiers. Personally, I dont agree with it (Have a lower sleeve tribute project for my fallen brothers going on right now, not done), but in the end we will enforce it like we are required to. One of the biggest things that kinda pinches a nerve with me is the fact that those of us with tattoos in the "Offending Area" are now restricted from applying for Warrant Officer Candidate School and Officer Candidate school (Unless your selection is prior to July 2014). When you say that someone cannot take that next step because of something they have on their body (And at one time was allowed), how long till we are no longer considered for promotion because of it?

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 31 at 2014 2:11 PM

2014-03-31T14:11:43-04:00

My biggest complaint about the new policy, is that an officer with a sleeve tattoo is grandfathered, but an enlisted soldier with a sleeve tattoo is grandfathered if he (she) remains enlisted. So, we are saying SPC Snuffy can become a CSM, and LT Smith can become a COL, but SPC Snuffy can not become a WO1 or 2LT. In my mind, grandfathered should cover all future service. (Full disclosure; I have no tattoos)

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 31 at 2014 6:16 PM

2014-03-31T18:16:03-04:00

I believe that the percentage of service members with tattoos was last estimated around 30%. vs civilians who are lest than 15%. I know some people who have random tattoos that don't mean anything other than they had money and got bored. The majority though are those who have thought out both the design. Stories and memories are being stored on peoples bodies. I for one hold a friends memory alive for myself by having a memorial tattoo for him and the same is for many others. Really I believe that the tattoo changes are all political and they are using the "professionalism" excuse to help push it.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 1 at 2014 9:32 PM

2014-04-01T21:32:52-04:00

Since the release of the Leader's Training slides, I have been frustrated by the new tattoo policy. I hoped, however, that the Regulation would provide more insight (read; loopholes) so that I may continue with my career progression that I intended to.

Long story short, I have a lot of tattoos. I have also become frustrated with the promotion system and, as such, decided that should I be passed over for Sergeant First Class this year, I would pursue a Commission.

LUCKY ME! I don't have to wait for the list to be released.

Still slightly frustrated, but here is my issue; if the tattoos are acceptable for me, as a Platoon Sergeant, or acceptable for a Company Commander or Platoon Leader with far less time in service (simply because he is still in service), then how are they not acceptable for me, as a Noncommissioned Officer who wants to pursue a commission?

Response by LTC Jason Strickland made Apr 1 at 2014 10:58 PM

2014-04-01T22:58:43-04:00

What is the guidance?

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 7 at 2014 10:23 AM

2014-04-07T10:23:28-04:00

As far as interpretation goes yes it says it is up to command to interpret. Remember if you get the tattoos they will be photographed and also uploaded into your record. Some commands might not like tattoos (yes there are some of them out there) and be very strict in the interpretation and others how look like a walking billboard (also yes there are some of them as well). I think the safe be is to eer on the side of caution

Response by PFC Richard Proctor made Apr 12 at 2014 4:15 AM

2014-04-12T04:15:55-04:00

I have a follow-up question about wrist tattoos. is it only considered a wrist tattoo if it is directly on the joint? How far away from the joint does it need to be so that it is allowable?

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 12 at 2014 4:25 AM

2014-04-12T04:25:26-04:00

1LT Willis,

Realizing that new regulations need to be matched with an overarching explanation to clear any doubt. I happened to be an officer who possess tattoos. That being stated, I find myself in a position to read, interpret, and seek knowledge regarding the tattoo policy. However, keep in mind that I do not have full sleeve or any tattoo that is visible without short sleeves. The question that plagued me and was mentioned in Army Times answers some of the question that you purposed. Granted that Army Times is not an official channel for defining regulation, it still provide more clarity than reading the regulation. Hope this will assist.

http://www.armytimes.com/article/20140405/NEWS/304050028/Army-Your-half-sleeve-tattoos-could-OK

Army: Your half-sleeve tattoos could be OK

If you have a half-sleeve tattoo that ends above your elbow or your knee, you're good to go under the Army's new grooming and appearance reg.

Response by SGM Matthew Quick made Apr 17 at 2014 10:09 PM

2014-04-17T22:09:00-04:00

MSG Brown,

Would recommend looking through older threads for your answers...this topic has been proposed a few times over the past few months.

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Apr 30 at 2014 5:28 PM

2014-04-30T17:28:28-04:00

Saw something like this today and thought I'd recreate it and share. I don't have any tattoos but I think this about sums it up. https://imgflip.com/i/8hmd5

Fallen Soldiers

An image tagged fallen soldiers

Response by SSG Jahsen Dilger made Apr 30 at 2014 6:07 PM

2014-04-30T18:07:42-04:00

I come from a family line that has served this great nation generation after generation since its birth and I am proud to carry on this tradition. However the military has made changes that negate all my career efforts for the last seven years. After multiple deployments and overcoming multiple injuries due to those deployments and striving for several years to obtain a Masters degree while balancing a full time military career and family life you’re telling me that I am not allowed to commission simply because I have multiple tattoos on my arms. Because my tattoos undo all I have done and sacrificed for my country, because my tattoos make me an unfit leader? You're telling me that my tattoos make me unprofessional and of poor moral character? This is the message they send to all of us in uniform across all branches. One official says “The Army is a profession and one of the ways our leaders and the American public measure our professionalism is by our appearance” and I agree with this to a point. However, yes I have tattoos and yes I understand that many narrow-minded people say this makes me some kind of deviant. If this is the case simply because I have chosen to show my family pride and memorialize the seven family and friends lost to war so be it. I join a long line of famous public figures that have done the same.

We all know this is just an attempt to down size the military but why punish the soldier who was previously within regulations? A good example is the Army made it possible for young men and women with some tattoos on their hands and/or neck to join the military by allowing a waiver for these locations on a case by case basis. Now that they have fought these wars and sacrificed so much you're telling them to have them removed on their dime or the Army is going to kick them out. How is this moral, how is this ethical? Several soldiers I have spoken with are in the same situation I am. We have given so much to the military and sacrificed and silently endured so much to constantly strive for positions of greater responsibility. Now that so many of us are so close to obtaining the next huge step in our careers you are telling us no. These actions cause the troops to lose faith in their leaders. It causes us to mistrust the sincerity all leaders who should constantly encouraging their subordinates to strive for not just levels of higher responsibility but higher education.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 12 at 2014 7:51 PM

2014-05-12T19:51:27-04:00

You are not the only one. I feel the same exact way. I also believe AR 670-1 made it much more difficult to determine what is within and what is not with regulation in regards to female hair, I also believe it was clearly targeting a specific race. I wouldn't be surprised if AR 670-1 got a revisit within 12 months.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made May 12 at 2014 8:45 PM

2014-05-12T20:45:43-04:00

I doubt anyone would ever take pics of it so........

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made May 13 at 2014 7:18 PM

2014-05-13T19:18:17-04:00

21 years in the Navy and I don't have a one. Now my son is covered with Tattoos. It is basic salesmanship plain and simple a lot of Older Americans still take a dim view of Tattoos, "Only Gypsys, Sailors and Criminals wear Tattoos" I know it is a Stereotype but it is still there and our Business "The Military" is a product that we have to sell.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 27 at 2014 12:14 AM

2014-06-27T00:14:27-04:00

I am the Central Indiana Coordinator for the Indiana Army National Guard Military Funeral Honors Program. My soldiers are the finest soldiers the INARNG has. I select them after they have been cleared by their Commanders. A little bias, but I believe my soldiers are amongst the best in the program :) I have a full sleeve (all military related) on one arm that bans me from OCS or WOC. I do not believe it is okay to punish soldiers who already have artwork that can be COVERED and who are currently serving. For example, You can stay in but you are banned from becoming an officer or warrant. BUT! The policy should affect enlistments, not currently serving service members. The imaging should ensure currently serving service members obey the policy by not adding to their artwork. I wear a "tat jacket" to hide my artwork while in uniform. Especially since I want to look professional in front of families of deceased brothers and sisters. I encourage this method and have spent my own money purchasing tat jackets for soldiers in my program as well. Now, the tat jacket is not unathorized, but it is not authorized either. As a negotiation, I feel that a professional will take the steps needed to feel secure with their careers. Why not authorize the tat jackets? They come in multiple colors, even to match anyones skin color so you could even wear them with PT's. I just dont think that enough compromise was put into this AR. Now neck and hands, blah. I do not agree with either of these, especially if they cannot be covered up.
--- Butt hurt NCO lol

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 5 at 2014 12:50 PM

2014-07-05T12:50:23-04:00

We shoot people in the face for a living..What does "Professional appearance" mean, and to whom?

What I mean is the definition of "Professional Appearance" would differ depending on what "Profession" an individual was in.

A wall street banker would have a different "professional appearance" than a Police Officer.

If your profession was to Intimidate, Dominate and Kill the enemies of your country, wouldn't your "Professional Appearance" have a different standard as well?

To say a Soldier should have the same "professional appearance" as a real estate salesman, doesn't make sense to me.