Posted on Nov 17, 2013
Do tattoos really define you as a bad Soldier?
52.8K
361
139
14
14
0
It seems to me that the SMA thinks that if you have visible tattoos, that it makes you a unprofessional Solider. Soldiers have had tattoos probably since the beginning of our military. Are they really that bad?<br>
Tattoos
Policy
Professionalism
Posted 12 y ago
Responses: 97
28
28
0
One of my greatest passions, I have sleeves and am as proud to wear them as I am to wear our uniform. Regulations come and regulations go lol I can still remember walking and smoking in the 90s and yet we were a professional Army, then cell phones came out and again we walked and talked with those! As times change so do the needs for regulations. I can fully understand why the SMA wants to tighten the shot group a bit, we've been at war for more than a decade where there's no clearly defined rules! You go to one post and it's you can't do this, don't wear that, and that's not authorized here to another installation where there are different standards because that commander has different priorities. 670-1 has been pushed back so many times because of so many changes that I can't remember what ALARACT or MILPER we're on. <div><br></div><div>I have had many leaders over the years give me that wandering eye and to be honest it tickles me to know my decions bother them just enough for them to take notice. In the end, it's all about work ethic and mission accomplishment. </div>
(28)
(0)
SSG James Seets
Couldn't have said it better top! As I said in another post, this is just a phase. Wait for another war to kick off and those same bad boys with all their dirty tattoos will be the first ones to step up and say "I would love to fight for you and your silly regs" and they will be the ones who will lead their men straight into the depths of hell and come out on the other side holding the American flag high.There will always be something for us to hate and disagree with but we will always do what is asked of us for our brothers and for our country.
(2)
(0)
14
14
0
<p>Tattoos do not define an individual as a "bad Soldier." What can define an individual as a "bad Soldier" is if their tattoos are not in accordance with AR 670-1. </p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p>I have tattoos. I have tattoos that are visible while in short sleeve ASU and APFU tops. My tattoos are within the guidelines as outlined in AR 670-1. No issues. </p>
(14)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
this problem has been presenting itself a lot lately. when the wars were raging and we needed bullet sponges the tattoos were not an issue now that we are downsizing it becoming an issue again. when I think of soldiers and level of discipline I think whos the soldier who going to sit on the 5* degree mountain top for 5 days with minimal food, water, clothing and continues stay awake and capable of doing his job and not quite. Not by if they have tattoos down their arms. using this as a level of discipline and standards is obviously flawed. The best soldiers our military and our country has to offer that I have ever worked with some serving in the most elite units we have are covered in tattoos for this reason I find this just to be a excuse to begin separation and to reduce overall size of the military. if it isn't gang, race or offensive material or all over the face then change the policy.
(5)
(0)
SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth
I have two tattoos that are not distracting and are not tasteless brother 1SG Steven Stankovich
(1)
(0)
14
13
1
This isn't an "SMA thinks" thing...after a decade of relaxed standards, the Army needs to get back to the professional force we are.<br><br>Tattoos do not make a "bad Soldier", but when someone outside the military/country sees tattoos in uniform, it does not present the professional Army we are getting back too.<br><br>If anyone knows CSM Greca, FORSCOM CSM, he gave a brief and really brought to light that tattoos can cause distractions.
(14)
(1)
Suspended Profile
<p>SSG Williams, </p><p> </p><p>That's where you're wrong! The Army actually does operate under the same premise as those aforementioned businesses. Just by reading your response, it seems as if you're completely honing in on only the combat aspect of what we do. This is not all that the Army is. What is it that you think we do when we're not fighting wars? </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Garrison is the professional setting for the Armed Forces in which the standards are usually heavily enforced. It is because many members of the Armed Forces aren't just in the field all day or working in the motor pool on vehicles or rehearsing battle drills in our spare time. There are combat support and combat service support members who work in professional office settings. Some of these office setting include Combatant Command HQ (CENTCOM, PACOM, SOCOM, etc.) law enforcement agencies (FBI) National Intelligence Agencies, Military Departments or the Joint Chiefs of Staffs office. </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Aside from that, what about those who meet with foreign diplomats, world leaders or a host nation leader during a deployment? Do you honestly think they would instill trust in the individual they're meeting if they walked into the room with more ink than Kat Von D? Also, I'm not entirely sure where you're going with the whole "we need to impress them with our professional business appearance." That's the whole point! Impressions. That's why we look the way we do. That's why we have do the things we do. To be presentable in the public eye. Actions, appearance and speech. If we're not impressing the public then they're not supporting us.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>I do agree with your statement that we only need to be the most effective fighting force. I cannot argue that. However, being the most effective fighting force cannot be accomplished without those combat support and combat service support elements I mentioned earlier. We are an Army of one and if a standard is good enough for those persons working in a professional environment, it's good enough for those who are not.</p>
SSG (ret) William Martin
I think comparing the Army to a corporation is a bit out there. This is like telling the owner of a night club to make his or her establishment more like a country club.
(0)
(0)
CSM (Join to see)
Isn't CSM Greca "sleeved up" When he came to USASMA last year to talk to us, he wore long sleeves. I believe you could make out the tattoos in the cuff area of his White dress shirt. Maybe I am wrong, but I think there are a lot more senior leaders out there with tattoos than one would believe. I have tattoos, and I do not believe it automatically makes you unprofessional. I think you should make sure you don't have the racist or unethical tattoos. I also believe that as long as you can cover them up in ACUs/ASUs, it should be ok. I understand tattoos on the neck, hands, face, etc should be banned. It is getting a little more out of hand than it should be.
(6)
(0)
SSG Peter Ludlum
We are warriors not dog and pony soldiers. Does that sleeve tattoo bring any dishonor to the Tomb of the Unknown's? I know 2 who guard who are severely tatted up and tell me that it affects their performance? Tattoo's do not hinder your ability to shoot, move or communicate. That is what we do. Not walk around looking all pretty. When we put on our Class A's we do so with honor and pride. Anyone who thinks this is a good policy should drink some water and do a reality check with the troops on the ground and get out of the office once in a while for something more than a little photo op. Rant over enough said by this old dog.
(3)
(0)
11
11
0
I really do not believe there is a simple answer to that question. I do not think the SMA is attempting to convey the stereotype that having tattoos make you a "bad Soldier", I believe he is trying to convey that not having them on particular parts of your body makes you more professional looking. No matter if anyone likes it or not you are judged on your appearance in the military and society as a whole. Back before the ACU era there were these things called "BDU's" that we starched the hell out of with spit shined boots. With that you were able to ascertain with a good amount of accuracy who the duds and studs were. A Soldier who cares about their appearance, cares about how they are perceived. When they care about how they are perceived they care about their quality of work. When they care about quality of work, they trainer harder, faster, and longer than the average trooper. This is very contagious and not only brings up morale and unit cohesion, but creates a better lineage of NCO's for Soldiers to emulate. It is all about perception my friend....<br>
(11)
(0)
11
11
0
Some folks do judge based on appearance, and with the new regulations being implemented it does seem that a "war on tattoos" has begun within the military, but I am of the mind that a person should be looked at for all he is (full Soldier/Person concept), not just the way he appears. As long as it cant be seen in ACUS/ASUS, then it shouldn't matter.
(11)
(0)
9
9
0
This, like many other things is simply a matter of social norms. It is not uncommon today to find Doctors, Lawyers, Judges, and other stereotypical "Professionals" with visible tattoos. <br><br>I worked in a hospital for 3 years while going to college, and the best doctor hands down, appreciated multiple times by the community had a full sleeve. He wasn't a better doctor because of it, nor was a great doctor in spite of it. It had zero affect on his professionalism, and ability to care for his patients.<br><br>This is something that 15 years ago, you would not see, because society said it was "Unprofessional" Why? Because it is. Because it always was. However whenever you have a social norm who's reasons are justified by "Because it is" it will end up changing.<br><br>The military is historicaly slower to accept change in social norms than the rest of society. (Blacks, Women, Gays, etc etc), but they DO change too.<br><br>Society has already begun to accept tattoos as common place, it's only a matter of a decade or so before you start seeing top Brass with sleeves and neck tattoos. <br><br>Agree or disagree, it's the way it is, and you will see it soon enough.<br><br>
(9)
(0)
8
8
0
I have no problems with tattoos, i have some myself. However, we have uniform services (i.e we look alike) to help prevent bias's among other things. thats why we dont have beards, facial piercings, etc. .....the regulations should be the same as when i was in, no visual tattoos, that includes neck, face,,lower arm. rule does not apply in PT uniform or civilian clothing. and the regulation needs to be enforced by recruiters and MEPS.
(8)
(0)
8
8
0
SFC (Join to see)
I believe its all in what the Tat depicts. Tattoos are so common in the military now that I don't believe personnel are judged on them alone. It's the character and ethics of that particular person that help shape opinions.
(4)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
I completely agree as long as it can't be seen when wearing the ACU or ASU uniform.
(5)
(0)
PO1 (Join to see)
Well, that is highly counterproductive. This is a discussion about tattoos, not whether they are allowed by regulations.
(3)
(0)
7
7
0
Tattoos are a public expression of a private experience and reflect the emotions of the wearer. So long as the visible tattoos are not deemed offensive by societal norms, I see no reason to judge the Soldier based on tattoos alone. I have several myself and each has a meaning. I support the fact that we are to be professional Soldiers, but do not feel as though a tattoo should detract from that. The very nature of what a Soldier is required to perform dictates a special mindset, that of a warrior. Warriors from every historical era have adorned themselves with tattoos and other distinct items.
(7)
(0)
7
7
0
I never forgot the words of my Drill SGT at MP Basic training..."Never get a tatoo below the elbow, above the collar bone and below the thigh" and I never did. A Soldier needs to present himself as a professional whether in ASU with short sleeves or the APFU. I agree with the SMA.
(7)
(0)
Suspended Profile
SSG Sedlacek, appearance is a part of Professionalism.
SFC Kevin Doody
I've known a lot of folks who appeared professional as hell and were the biggest dirtballs. You ever heard the saying "you can't judge a book by its cover" You, like many of the senior leadership would rather have symbolism over substance; you would be happy to have a bunch of PT studs standing in formation "looking" like they know what the hell they are doing, rather than having people who may not fit this ill conceived mold we are being spoon fed into buying into, who actually know their jobs and can accomplish the mission.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google