Do you think the tattoo regulations are too strict in the military? Are they different between branches?

2016-05-02T14:07:22-04:00

Response by SGT Ben Keen made May 2 at 2016 2:13 PM

2016-05-02T14:13:18-04:00

Personally, with tattoos becoming more and more main stream and accepted and as a collector of some great artwork myself; I do not find the Army regulation to be overly strict. Sure, the update they did about 2 years ago, which got a lot of press time here on RallyPoint did go a little crazy but since it was reversed I find the currently Army policy in line with the image they are trying to maintain. Not sure how the other branches.

Response by PO2 Robert Aitchison made May 2 at 2016 2:21 PM

2016-05-02T14:21:20-04:00

Different branches do have different policies.

The Navy very recently relaxed their policy heavily, even allowing small neck and hand tattoos (which I do not agree with)

Response by CPT Ahmed Faried made May 2 at 2016 2:31 PM

2016-05-02T14:31:23-04:00

They are definitely different between the branches. I think the Navy is the most lenient.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made May 2 at 2016 2:36 PM

2016-05-02T14:36:47-04:00

The Army needs to post a standard and stick to it. There is so much flip flopping with his issue every time a new SMA takes control. Lets just keep it the way it is now. No hands and nothing on or above the neck.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made May 2 at 2016 4:01 PM

2016-05-02T16:01:31-04:00

Tattoos are a long tradition in the Navy and what's allowed or not has varied over the years. It tightened up when the ink became something other than the usual Navy stuff. Then the location tightened up as well. I remember you had to write up a Special Request Chit and run it through your Department Head with your Department Chief having the artistic approval role. Permission to marry had to go to the Skipper. Times change and they'll keep changing and 30 years from now this question will again be talked to death like most other topics.

Response by LCpl Tad Cunningham made May 2 at 2016 4:42 PM

2016-05-02T16:42:35-04:00

Marines get more and more strict about it every 4 years or so.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made May 2 at 2016 7:50 PM

2016-05-02T19:50:17-04:00

Tattoo regulations in the Army are back to where they need to be. As long as you cannot see them while in uniform then it shouldn't be an issue.

Response by PO1 Brian Austin made May 2 at 2016 10:12 PM

2016-05-02T22:12:24-04:00

The Navy just relaxed their policy in a big way. Granted it's a Navy tradition, but i don't think they should be seen running up your neck or down to your hands in unform. Who the 'ef came up with that brilliant idea? It looks unprofessional in uniform, IMO.

Response by SPC Brian Mason made May 3 at 2016 12:49 AM

2016-05-03T00:49:25-04:00

I only know what I saw at my first unit. 2nd BDE, 10th MTN DIV is Light Infantry. Lots of people had and were getting them. I had 2 myself before I went in and now I have four. The only one you can see is the half-sleeve on my right arm when I'm wearing a tshirt.
Like any business, the people who work for it are the faces of the business. The military has to draw a line somewhere with them. It's also keeping a soldier's future career in check; both military and civilian. The class A's are some of the sharpest uniforms and I believe tattoos should be hidden well while wearing it.

Response by SGT Callen Pool made May 3 at 2016 10:25 AM

2016-05-03T10:25:41-04:00

to be honest its not the tattoos that make the soldier. but I don't agree with neck or hand tattoos. I have plenty but none that can be seen in my service dress uniform. it will stay that way till I die due to the fact that we still need to maintain some sort of discipline. they are soldiers marines airmen and seamen first. you can be your own person on your own time.