Do you agree with the Army's new/revised Tattoo Policy?

2015-04-02T07:23:47-04:00

As many of you have requested/asked/even demanded, the new SMA has recommended a change to the current tattoo policy, which will be official in the next revision of AR 670-1. CSA has approved the changes. What are your thoughts?

"Under the Army's new tattoo policy, soldiers will be able to have ink on their arms and legs as long as it isn't visible in the Army Service Uniform.

This means sleeves are once again authorized as long as they don't extend past the wrist, Sergeant Major of the Army Dan Dailey told Army Times.

"As long as it's not visible in the Army uniform … that's the spirit of what we went after," he said.""

Seems like common sense has prevailed.

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/careers/army/2015/04/01/army-tattoo-policy-changes-sma-dan-dailey/70791276/

SMA explains Army's new tattoo policy

Under the Army's new tattoo policy, soldiers will be able to have ink on their arms and legs as long as they aren't visible in the Army dress uniform.

Response by SGT Ramiro Durazo made Apr 2 at 2015 7:32 AM

2015-04-02T07:32:45-04:00

Tattoos have been a part of the military for as long if not longer, as this country has been around, it's about time the tattoo policy was approached with common sense, very happy with this decision.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 2 at 2015 7:52 AM

2015-04-02T07:52:49-04:00

I just think it's ironic that many of the same people complaining about the restrictiveness of the previous tattoo policy are the same people who will tell African American women to suck it up about the hairstyles.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 2 at 2015 8:01 AM

2015-04-02T08:01:05-04:00

I personally never thought anything was wrong with the original tattoo policy. I accepted the change and enforced it regardless of my personal thoughts (I have photos of my tattoos in my OMPF).

I think what is of the utmost importance is that our leaders, our highest ranking leaders, listened to the Soldiers concerns and acted on them. That is what I get out of the whole deal, leaders that care what their Soldiers think! Makes me pretty damn proud to be in the Army!!!

Response by PV2 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 2 at 2015 8:06 AM

2015-04-02T08:06:31-04:00

This makes sense. Am I less valued as a person because I have a couple of tattoos? I think not. My tattoos are representative of my life's journeys. Zero f's given if you like them or not.

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 2 at 2015 8:49 AM

2015-04-02T08:49:04-04:00

The only thing I don't like, and is not about the tattoo policy but the regs as a whole, is the back and forward with the authorizations and bans. One get confused, like now it is authorized, maybe next month won't be. A tattoo is a lifelong decision, now that they are authorized again, I could get a sleeve, then it could be unauthorized again and it may affect my career future. I don't know what to think any more COL Charles Williams.

Response by COL Vincent Stoneking made Apr 2 at 2015 8:55 AM

2015-04-02T08:55:46-04:00

I think it is the (next to) only rational choice.

I will personally state that I don't LIKE tons of tattoos (just a personal opinion, no claim about "professionalism", I have opinions there, but they are irrelevant). That said, we were FINE with tattoos when we wanted to grow the Army, and I would even say they were encouraged in lots of units. And when I say we were FINE with them, not only did we not make them and issue, but we also tended to turn a blind eye to tattoos that WERE out of the old regs.

It is hypocritical to tell someone who has served 14 years or 14 months that the tattoos that we were cool with are now unsat. (and make no mistake "we're putting them in your iPerms..." means that they are unsat. They wouldn't go into iPerms unless they were going to do SOMETHING based on that information.)

I would have been supportive of the old "new" policy had they said "for new non-prior service recruits enlisting after $DATE...". However, that would have had a somewhat divisive effect on the force as well.

Quite simply, the Army let the genie out of the bottle.

Response by SSG Buddy Kemper made Apr 2 at 2015 9:09 AM

2015-04-02T09:09:30-04:00

This is where I'm goin', warriors. Happy Easter to you all and blessings to your families.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 2 at 2015 10:46 AM

2015-04-02T10:46:34-04:00

He is right on the aspect that the old policy was keeping freat Soldiers from staying in or potentially great Soldiers from coming in. I tell my Soldiers, when they want tattoos, that as long as they are not offensive and I cant see them, I dont care if they get one.

Response by BG David Fleming III made Apr 2 at 2015 11:47 AM

2015-04-02T11:47:03-04:00

I'm glad we came to our senses! The only thing that works when you break it, is a "Chemstick"! The policy did not need tampering with in the first place, in my humble opinion, it was working fine until the changes. Now, maybe this can help increase our recruiting numbers!

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 2 at 2015 12:11 PM

2015-04-02T12:11:56-04:00

Slowly phase the tattoo policy in. It takes time, but let the soldiers remain grandfathered in, if they want tats, ok, but it has to be below a certain line. Still document them and any new tats below the allowed line may be punishable. That was the way the Marine Corps had put in their tattoo policy in 2000... the policy CSM Chandler made, over reached. It turned troops against him and it was career ending for those troops. He was very obviously out of touch with the current war fighter.

Response by SGT Ben Keen made Apr 2 at 2015 1:17 PM

2015-04-02T13:17:58-04:00

While it doesn't really matter to me as a Veteran; what I was happy to see was the leadership of the Army taking the feedback from the Soldiers and actually listening to it. The fact that the senior leadership team heard and saw first hand what Soldiers were saying and thinking about the policy change made in September and seeing the fact that good, hard working Soldiers were leaving their ranks because of their rash decision I think speaks volumes. While my "duty uniform" is much different these days, I still do not allow any of my tattoos to show when dressed for work.

Response by SSG Christopher K. made Apr 2 at 2015 1:23 PM

2015-04-02T13:23:08-04:00

I for one am happy about this decision. A tattoo does not diminish your professionalism at all or make you any less of a great soldier. For alot of soldiers I have seen them be able to further express their military pride and patriotism through tattoos.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 2 at 2015 1:25 PM

2015-04-02T13:25:32-04:00

This is meant as no disrespect to any senior NCO or officer that may or may not agree or disagree with said past and/or current policy and/or had any input into the decision making process of either. This disclaimer also applies to my PT Belt reference.

There has to be some sort of standard to keep the force looking professional, we don't want Mike Tyson face tattoos seen throughout a formation, but the past policies being applied to soldiers in today's society seemed to make as much sense as a Rainbow butterfly kitten hybrid. Regardless of the intent, the feeling down on the line was that individuals not echelon's above reality, but dimensions above reality, honestly thought that we could not win the war against terrorism if people had tattoos....and tattoos were the reason Unicorns went extinct. It's along the same lines as leadership that can't not conceive of soldiers being able to rake gravel in the middle of the woods properly if they are not wearing a PT Belt; it defies all academic, common or Jedi logic.

I thank (enter deity or lack of deity or object/things/spirit that is not a deity but revered in your particular religion or spiritual life if applicable) that our leadership is willing to adapt to the times. Please excuse my overall sarcasm.

That all being said, I will support whatever policy comes out from dimensions above reality as long as it is legal, moral, and ethical.

Response by SGT James Elphick made Apr 2 at 2015 5:13 PM

2015-04-02T17:13:18-04:00

This sounds like the policy when I first went into the military and it makes sense.

Response by PV2 Violet Case made Apr 2 at 2015 9:01 PM

2015-04-02T21:01:52-04:00

I prefer not to have tattoos showing especially on military people the young look up to you and some get very scary tattoos that would make a person wonder what that person is about or thinking. Some only do it for expressing themselves like some of us write poetry or sing. It is totally up to the soldiers but I really do think for military so all look the same in code they should not be on the head, neck or areas viewable. That is just my thinking to each their own but please before you tattoo do think about this the FDA lets so many things slip by and if they make an announcement about something being bad I would think hard about it because they normally sit back on to many things. But they did just put out a warning and it could cost the VA doctor bills and hospital bills to go up along with the sicknesses of the military people. Here is the link http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm316357.htm

Before you thumb down on me realize I think it is your body. But I care enough about you possibly getting sick. ok

Inks Used in Certain Tattoo Kits Cause Infections

Contaminated tattoo ink can cause potentially serious infections. After investigating a multi-state outbreak, FDA offers strategies for controlling your risk.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 2 at 2015 9:22 PM

2015-04-02T21:22:20-04:00

I'll say it's about time common sense was used and that it was an idiotic policy, especially for the officer side of the army

Response by SFC William Swartz Jr made Apr 3 at 2015 9:12 AM

2015-04-03T09:12:45-04:00

Was a waste of time and paper to have changed it in the first place, the policy that was in place when I came in back in '87 was almost the same policy that the Army is going back to today. I always agreed with the no neck, face or hands policy as well as the ban on anything racist, gang related or sexist, but felt that "we" went to far with "banning" sleeves or putting a size or number on tattoos, to me personally it never made sense. Glad to see that someone "saw the light" and reversed course on this one!

Response by SSG Christopher K. made Apr 3 at 2015 9:40 AM

2015-04-03T09:40:56-04:00

Tattoos are not looked upon as they were years ago. They are more socially acceptable.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 3 at 2015 9:52 AM

2015-04-03T09:52:42-04:00

Society as a whole has a very different view of tattoos than it had lets say 20, 30 or 40 years ago. It changed and the Army has to adopt to those changes, it's not just outlaw biker gang members anymore that have sleaves.
And for me personally I don't think that a tattoo should have any influence on someones career. (exception are gang, racism etc related tattoos)

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 3 at 2015 5:06 PM

2015-04-03T17:06:25-04:00

100% sir. Requiring Commanders to track and photograph tattoos was a huge waste of my time and the Soldier's. Furthermore, if doesn't impact their professional appearance why does it matter if the Soldier has a sleeve tattoo under their ASU?

What aggravates me is the troops who got in on waivers with tattoos on their neck and even worse places. I had an E4 in one of my past units with "Thug Life" tattooed on his knuckles. It looked like a bag of smashed !@#holes when he wore a dress uniform.

Response by 1SG Steven Stankovich made Apr 3 at 2015 5:12 PM

2015-04-03T17:12:20-04:00

It looks eerily similar to the previous policy. Speaking from the point of view from someone who has a lot of ink, I am a big fan.

So...when can I expect my Tattoo Memo to be purged from my OMPF?!?!? ;)

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Apr 3 at 2015 7:39 PM

2015-04-03T19:39:35-04:00

I'm not a fan of tattoos myself but I'm not going to judge someone who is. Other than PTs everyone's going to look the same in duty or dress uniform. I do think the no facial tattoos is appropriate.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 3 at 2015 8:20 PM

2015-04-03T20:20:57-04:00

I am so glad that the tattoo policy is being revised. I didn't see anything wrong with the policy when I entered service so long ago. That policy was relaxed even further to allow the Army to plus up it's numbers when more troops were needed. Then came the drawdown and a new policy was created that seemed, in part, to allow the Army to discharge those same Soldiers it allowed to fight for it. I am actually kind of amazed that the SMA took to heart the complaints of Soldiers and is effecting change. Good to see.

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Apr 4 at 2015 11:27 AM

2015-04-04T11:27:17-04:00

BUT anytime someone mentions 'common sense' in the military, it kind of makes me afraid to bend over, for fear of what is about to happen to someone?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 4 at 2015 12:48 PM

2015-04-04T12:48:19-04:00

I'm glad the new SMA was more considerate of his subordinates than his predecessor.

Response by SrA Matthew Knight made Apr 4 at 2015 6:43 PM

2015-04-04T18:43:21-04:00

I think it's a good route to take by being more lenient. Honestly, as long as the tattoo isn't an offensive symbol such as a swastika or something not in good taste in general then I don't see what is ever unprofessional about them.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 4 at 2015 6:59 PM

2015-04-04T18:59:23-04:00

I've got enough tattoos so I'm biased. And I absolutely love a man with sleeves. So yes! I love this new rule!

But seriously, they need to be hidden. It's more professional. That goes in any workplace. I have to hide my arm when I go to work and I completely understand.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 5 at 2015 12:59 AM

2015-04-05T00:59:05-04:00

I wasn't a fan of the previous tattoo policy as I have been in the Army for quite some time now and remember when the tattoo policy was exceptionally close to what the new policy is. I think as long as a Service Member can present a professional appearance in both duty uniform and dress uniform what does it matter what is underneath?
Bottom line, regulating tattoos that would be covered by the uniform is like regulating our underwear.

Response by MAJ Monique Ruiz made Apr 5 at 2015 1:54 AM

2015-04-05T01:54:51-04:00

Sir, my question is, "why didn't they think to take opinions into consideration before publishing it?" I prefer something to take longer, with thorough research and not an emergency, to get approved rather than throwing it out there to see what the reaction is.

Response by CSM Charles Hayden made Apr 5 at 2015 2:46 PM

2015-04-05T14:46:34-04:00

SSG Lorenzo Fleming, I am delighted the SMA and the Army were able to resolve an issue that annoyed so many Soldiers.

Response by SGM Billy Herrington made Apr 5 at 2015 2:53 PM

2015-04-05T14:53:00-04:00

I'm glad it's actually going to make sense.

Response by Sgt Adam Jennings made Apr 9 at 2015 9:04 PM

2015-04-09T21:04:35-04:00

Now if only the Marine Corps would grow its balls back and follow suit.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 9 at 2015 9:23 PM

2015-04-09T21:23:14-04:00

Stop making worthless excuses for reducing numbers of personnel you can't pay for. Just be upfront and say that you can't afford to keep people.

Response by SPC John Rickel made Apr 9 at 2015 9:52 PM

2015-04-09T21:52:08-04:00

I don't see how it hurts anyone. In our culture tattoos are becoming more acceptable, as long as their not offensive in any ways I don't see why it hurts anyone.

Response by SSG Thomas Brousseau made Apr 9 at 2015 10:00 PM

2015-04-09T22:00:59-04:00

Tatoos have absolutely nothing to do with a Soldiers performance.

Response by Col Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 10 at 2015 7:43 AM

2015-04-10T07:43:12-04:00

I think it's more sensible than the previous guidance.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 10 at 2015 8:09 AM

2015-04-10T08:09:07-04:00

I think it should have a limit. I have seen Soldiers with tattoos that are all over their arms so we should have a limit to how much of the exposed arm but I am not concerned about the legs as most uniforms will cover the legs.

Response by Maj Chris Nelson made Apr 10 at 2015 8:38 AM

2015-04-10T08:38:41-04:00

I thought the "old new guidance" (placing extreme limits) was a bad idea... I do not disagree with neck, head and hands tats, but as long as they can be covered in uniform, why worry??!! Also, I agree with the "no-inflammatory" type graphics.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 10 at 2015 2:56 PM

2015-04-10T14:56:20-04:00

Finally! I did not agree with the previous policy. I don't think a person's character or leadership ability correlates to the amount of tattoos one has. I remember a lot of my fellow NCOs who wanted to commission were upset about the policy since it basically said, "we don't care how you would benefit the Army because you have tattoos." Glad it got fixed....Now, if we could do something about these SSDs..........

Response by CW5 Jim Steddum made Apr 11 at 2015 5:11 PM

2015-04-11T17:11:22-04:00

I do not have tattoos, I don't mind tattoos at all. I could right a better regulation/policy so that there is much less confusion. Been dealing with Soldier tattoo issues for the last several weeks.

Response by SPC Patrick Gearardo made Apr 12 at 2015 12:13 AM

2015-04-12T00:13:53-04:00

Adjusting to the times and still being able to look awesome in your dress uniform. Well done.

Response by SFC Charles S. made Apr 12 at 2015 4:07 AM

2015-04-12T04:07:04-04:00

Not a very big thing. It's a policy change. If you have them it's great, if you don't WHO cares. I don't. For those who choose to get them as long as the tattoos don't interfere with the performance of their duty, "which may include a positive public image..." They should be okay to have.

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 22 at 2015 6:15 PM

2015-04-22T18:15:18-04:00

I know I'm new to the army and but I don't think it's a bad change at all soldiers should have some freedom to wear tattoos the army is about fighting and winning Americas war not on the size and length of a tatoo.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 22 at 2015 6:19 PM

2015-04-22T18:19:46-04:00

The entire mentality that tattoos look unprofessional is dated. The AF is worse with the entire "Look like a business executive" mentality...then they preach the "Warrior Ethos". Make up your damn mind.

Yes, allow them anywhere and everywhere so long as you can't see them in Service Dress. That should be DoD wide.

Response by SSG Steven Borders made Apr 30 at 2015 9:19 AM

2015-04-30T09:19:11-04:00

I am happy the rules got changed back. I have a tattoo that is below the knee and was looking to get another one before the whole tattoo policy was even mentioned. I just never got a chance. Now I can again and can't wait.

It just seems silly to me that it was changed to begin with. I can still look professional and when in uniform you can't tell I have any. As long as they are not on the face, below the wrist what does it matter.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 30 at 2015 9:29 AM

2015-04-30T09:29:19-04:00

I came in prior to 9/11 (98), so the funny thing is this mirrors the old policy. Ink yourself from wrist to wrist and up to the collarbone.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 30 at 2015 10:50 AM

2015-04-30T10:50:56-04:00

I'm glad the policy was revised to this. My tattoos not only look good but also have special meaning to me. And I know there are a crap ton of Soldiers that are the same. And even if they don't have meaning for you, people just like to have the art on their bodies. I do agree with the no tattoos on the neck or face or hands though. That being said, society accepts tattoos more than what they used to. And for those that don't know, tattoos have been a part of military culture for thousands of years. So if you see a "scary" tattoo on a SM, then it's probably having it's intended affect. I'm glad cooler heads prevailed on this one. Now I can finish up my other sleeve.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 30 at 2015 8:44 PM

2015-04-30T20:44:24-04:00

I personally am a huge fan of the changes. I have a lot of tattoos, more than most of the population, both military and civilian. I face challenges as a tattooed officer (yes I know, personal choice of appearance) and when they changed the regulation, suddenly I was a target for every person who thought they knew the reg better than myself, or the O6 that allowed me to join a commissioning program in the first place.
When the stigma of tattoos in the military workplace was finally dying down, and I could go out in my summer PTs without someone "correcting" me, they changed the reg and everyone went nuts, and suddenly I was being watched again, and lectured about how my tattoos shamed the force, and effect my ability to perform.
The reality, was that my appearance effected people's ability to see beyond my skin to the quality of work I produce and how I care for my Soldiers. I think it reinforces the idea that a person can be an outstanding Soldier/leader/parent/teacher despite a few or more tattoos.
I think the reg change will allow leaders and Soldiers to go back to work, without all the background noise.