Full sleeve tattoos, are you for or against all military personnel being "allowed" to have them?

A1C Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 08 Jun 2015 03:45:46 -0400

I know I recently asked a question about if anyone thinks the Air Force will officially allow full sleeves, but with this I just want the opinions of y'all. From what I have been told, in the AF at least, we can get away with having full sleeves but aren't technically "allowed" to have them. What do y'all think? Should the service members of every branch be fully allowed to have full sleeves or not? Comments as to why or why not would be greatly appreciated also.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jun 8 at 2015 4:05 AM

PO1 John Miller — Mon, 08 Jun 2015 04:05:12 -0400

Tattoos and the military are a time tested tradition. Also, tats are becoming a lot more main stream.

I look at it this way. If you have to do something that requires formal dress, wear long sleeves.

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Jun 8 at 2015 6:06 AM

Cpl Jeff N. — Mon, 08 Jun 2015 06:06:37 -0400

I have no issue with tattoos. I have two myself but they were put on in a place where they could not be seen as long as I was wearing at least a standard short sleeve
"Charlie" shirt.

Sleeves down to the wrist are a bit much. As PFC Private RallyPoint Member said, are we going to okay exotic piercings, ear rings, tongue rings, teeth grinding and they like? Just because something is popular doesn't mean the military should accept it. As a matter of fact, if it is popular in the current culture that is almost a certainty the military should not accept it.

As long as everyone knows the rules going in there should not be an issue. Also there could be the question of impropriety of the tattoos on the forearms down to the wrist. What are they, what do they depict, what do they say etc. You don't want the military censoring tattoos. Best to keep them out of view until your service ends and then have at it.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 8 at 2015 6:08 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 08 Jun 2015 06:08:46 -0400

One or two tattoos here or there isn't the issue. As a leader you have to take in consideration ones ability to understand moderation. A leader has to understand how unprofessional one looks with too many tattoos. Yes sleeves are big now but back in the day so were high top fades and acid wash jeans.

Response by SrA Matthew Knight made Jun 8 at 2015 6:24 AM

SrA Matthew Knight — Mon, 08 Jun 2015 06:24:21 -0400

I say yes as long as it is within the bounds of good taste, i.e. no swastikas or things of that nature. Honestly I see nothing unprofessional about tattoos and have been impressed by the combination of great artistic talent on behalf of the tattoo artist and on the individual receiving the tattoo for choosing such great ideas for their ink.

I will say however that I have a personal distaste for tribal tattoos. Not that they look bad but they look simple as if little thought was put into them. That and far too many people have them. No offense to any on here that do.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jun 8 at 2015 6:30 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Mon, 08 Jun 2015 06:30:01 -0400

The issue with tattoos is that they are Art, and hence Subjective, not Objective. That said, making a "non-visible" policy is a way to apply Objective rules to a Subjective concept.

Should people be allowed to do what they want with their own bodies? Absolutely. However, when in Uniform, there are constraints.

Full sleeves don't present a "Professional Military Image" just like other forms of visible body modification don't present a professional military image. That doesn't lesson actual skill, but it does alter public perception.

Response by PO1 Jason Taylor made Jun 8 at 2015 6:54 AM

PO1 Jason Taylor — Mon, 08 Jun 2015 06:54:44 -0400

I have a full sleeve tattoo, and my command authorized it! As far as them banning tattoos, good luck lol. To many members have them and will continue to get them. They are a recognized statement of service haha.

Response by 1LT Kathleen Heisler made Jun 8 at 2015 7:20 AM

1LT Kathleen Heisler — Mon, 08 Jun 2015 07:20:26 -0400

I don't see why it would be a problem and it should be that way for all troops

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Jun 8 at 2015 8:14 AM

LTC Bink Romanick — Mon, 08 Jun 2015 08:14:21 -0400

I don't have tattoos, but I really don't have anything against them. I'm not sure how full sleeves will look with the Army's white shirt with Class B uniform. Just really not sure.

I often see them on the prison shows on TV.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 8 at 2015 8:29 AM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 08 Jun 2015 08:29:00 -0400

In the bees our company master chief has full sleeves. I'd say 98% of the battalion has visible tattoos. It's always been that way. No one asks about you getting tattoos, people get pin ups and beer mugs. It's just a part of the tradition, and I don't see it changing anytime soon.

Response by LCpl Craig D. Pfautz made Jun 8 at 2015 8:29 AM

LCpl Craig D. Pfautz — Mon, 08 Jun 2015 08:29:34 -0400

ITHINK, IF U WANT A SLEEVE U GET A SLEEVE...
SIMPLE, IM GLAD THEY DIDNT HAVE THOSE REGS IN THE MARINES WHEN I WAS IN.
ALL TATTOOD UP!!!

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 8 at 2015 8:39 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 08 Jun 2015 08:39:30 -0400

Honestly, I have never understood what all of the fuss is about. The Army as an organization tells you what you can and can't do. This is nothing new, yet people get all bent out of shape when policies are tightened, or when they are relaxed.

For my money, the Army and its senior leaders can do what they want. They make decisions after careful study (at least I like to think so, even though a few of those decisions don't seem to fit that narrative) and implement them. Soldiers can bellyache about it - also nothing new - but they can either get with the program, lodge their concerns through appropriate channels, or get out and do as they please. If Soldiers vote with their feet, leadership will notice.
Where the Army runs into trouble is when it reverses itself, leaving many in the lurch.

This tattoo issue has definitely taken on a life of its own. Tattoos on military members is also nothing new; back in the day it was a kind of right of passage. But I can't help but notice that when the policy was relaxed at the height of the Iraq War, large numbers of Soldiers went nuts running out to get ink done. I don't really think that made the Army a better or worse organization, but it cost the Soldiers plenty, both monitarily and in the perception of future employers who might not think your giant tattoo of a mountain of skulls fits the image they want to project.

Soldiers are not hurt because the Army won't let them cover their arms like a canvas. If you want to do whatever you please, you are in the wrong line of work.

As a leader, it is my job to enforce the standards. Whether or not I agree with them.

Response by SFC William Swartz Jr made Jun 8 at 2015 8:47 AM

SFC William Swartz Jr — Mon, 08 Jun 2015 08:47:53 -0400

I have never desired to have a full-sleeve tat, but I also have no issue with anyone that does. As long as when one is in their respective service branch's dress uniform it can be covered by the long sleeve shirt, it should be authorized IMO.

Response by SA Harold Hansmann made Jun 8 at 2015 8:50 AM

SA Harold Hansmann — Mon, 08 Jun 2015 08:50:10 -0400

Why should the military care if anyone gets a tattoo? You aren't destroying gov't property, just giving it a paint job with artistic touch.
Tattoos have been around since long before man ever started sailing on the seas.

Response by CPO Joseph Grant made Jun 8 at 2015 9:05 AM

CPO Joseph Grant — Mon, 08 Jun 2015 09:05:15 -0400

I see no problem with tats. They've been a tradition in the Navy since Noah was a mess crank.

Response by SSG Skylur Britz made Jun 8 at 2015 9:12 AM

SSG Skylur Britz — Mon, 08 Jun 2015 09:12:59 -0400

Army can have them as long as you can't see them in the dress uniform.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 8 at 2015 9:28 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 08 Jun 2015 09:28:34 -0400

The army already had rules governing tattoos. Not bellow the wrist or above the neck that could be seen above the collar of your shirt. If you had tats that could be seen when wearing pt's or short sleeve dress shirt then they needed to be in good taste (no naked ladies, raise stuff, etc.). Those rules were good enough and the only reason anyone tried to change them is because one, they have to leave their mark somehow so they feel importantant. And two, I think it was a way to kick out all the crap sacks that came in during the troop surge that should never have been allowed in in the first place. So yeah, sleeves should be allowed. And the ay will loose a lot of good soldiers if they keep messing with this tattoo nonsense, not to mention all the good recruits that won't come in if they try messing with the tattoo regs again.

Response by SA Harold Hansmann made Jun 8 at 2015 9:29 AM

SA Harold Hansmann — Mon, 08 Jun 2015 09:29:47 -0400

Another positive thing about tattoos, if all tattoos are documented in your service file, they can be used as identification of your body if you are killed in combat and your dog tags are missing.

Response by PO2 Marcus Waller made Jun 8 at 2015 9:46 AM

PO2 Marcus Waller — Mon, 08 Jun 2015 09:46:41 -0400

What all seem to be forgetting is tha you signed up for the military, as in any job dress code is theirs to make. For instance if you are out on the beach and get sun burned you can be written up for destruction of government property, you will abide by all rules and regulations, just sayin

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Jun 8 at 2015 9:55 AM

CAPT Kevin B. — Mon, 08 Jun 2015 09:55:30 -0400

When I first came in, tats were not too common on the Navy side although a number of recruits got a needle job after boot camp. I remember this skinny kid got a clipper ship on his chest that looked like an anorexic tug boat. I saw him a long time later and 120 pounds heavier. It finally took sail.

Like many things, I'd like to see the Government, hence military bosses stay out of private matters. Some things do matter like beards don't work too well in a CBR environment. I did see a note from PO1 Private RallyPoint Member and agree they are more popular with the Bees. They just weren't around much in the 70-80s timeframe.

My (E3 then) first division chief aboard a tin can had tats everywhere. He was a true hero who used to pilot YPs in Nam, got a lot of frags bringing the boat back in with a pile of casualties, himself included. He got the tats to cover up all the shrapnel scars and then added because he liked them. I remember the county style hinge on the inside of his elbow. He had a bunch of tats on his legs to cover where the hatch was blown into him.

Now the rest of the story. We were in port with the CDO/OOD in their racks and Chief snuck a honey on board but didn't know where to take her. He then decided the Wardroom. While very compromised, an SK opened the hatch and took a picture of them on the table. A few days later an 8x10 glossy of table and legs showed up on the bulletin board. Skipper freaked and Chief was seen wearing long underwear the rest of the deployment. Chief just told the O's that he had a skin condition that the Doc had a special cream for that he didn't want to stain the uniform. We'd laugh every time we heard "special cream". Chief perfected his glare and the O's never connected the dots.

Response by CPL Brendan Hayes made Jun 8 at 2015 10:08 AM

CPL Brendan Hayes — Mon, 08 Jun 2015 10:08:40 -0400

I think it's fine. While I'm not fully sleeved, I have one on my forearm and others that come down to about my elbows. As long as the ink isn't offensive in nature, why should it matter?

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 8 at 2015 10:15 AM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 08 Jun 2015 10:15:23 -0400

I personally do not see the issue with tattoos in general, at least with the Navy this once was a time honored "non"tradition. Granted the type of tattoos one decides to get on their body is a different matter. Gang or hate crime related tattoos have no business in our military but other than that I do not (professionally or otherwise) look at a service member that is "all tatted up" differently than one that is not. However, your tattoos will be a direct reflection of yourself and/or character so that should be considered when one decides on what and where they would like to put them. On that note, I will find amusement if you do not have proper spelling either.

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Jun 8 at 2015 11:33 AM

Capt Jeff S. — Mon, 08 Jun 2015 11:33:33 -0400

Like it or not, when you travel to foreign countries you are ambassadors of the U.S. and represent America. In many foreign cultures, the lower class of their society and criminals get tattoos. In Cuba, they tatoo criminals on their hand with the crime they committed. Regardless of what we think of it, we must consider how others view it and the image we portray of ourselves to the rest of the world.

If you want to cover your body in tattoos, that's your choice and nobody is stopping you from doing that. You just have to decide whether you want to cover yourself in tattoos or have a career in the military....

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 8 at 2015 12:10 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 08 Jun 2015 12:10:48 -0400

I don't see any problem with the number of tattoo's or where they are. The way I look at it I would rather serve with an outstanding person covered in tattoo's than with a total douche with not one single tattoo.

Response by PO3 Sherry Thornburg made Jun 8 at 2015 12:32 PM

PO3 Sherry Thornburg — Mon, 08 Jun 2015 12:32:43 -0400

I'd prefer the old rules where there were no tatoos showing in short sleeve summer whites. I've seen a good many full sleeve tatoos. When you get into the gothic and biker motifs, its just doesn't look good with the uniform. I'm not sure even flower motifs really look good with a uniform either.

Keep it simple. Save your full sleeves for later.

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 8 at 2015 12:55 PM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 08 Jun 2015 12:55:31 -0400

I see no problem in it. You would decorate an HQ building with stuff that pertains to its taste or nature. Why should you not do the same to your body? But, like the building, it must be in good taste.

Response by COL Ted Mc made Jun 8 at 2015 1:30 PM

COL Ted Mc — Mon, 08 Jun 2015 13:30:58 -0400

I've never really understood tattoos (other than a discrete "Handle With Care" on some hidden body part, or a name which can be later converted to read "Mom" or a design which can later be converted into some historic monument -and/or [possibly] a graphic directly related to one's original posting).

However, one thing you should remember is that the metallic components of most tattoo inks will REALLY screw up your new $500.00 "Apple Watch" and have been known to set off anti-theft RF systems when you are walking out of your friendly neighbourhood "adult" bookstore.

Response by SPC Candace Leach made Jun 8 at 2015 1:41 PM

SPC Candace Leach — Mon, 08 Jun 2015 13:41:46 -0400

Tattoos have been around military for ages and shouldn't be a problem with having sleeve tattoos as long it's not on the hands, neck, and face. Shouldn't get rid of great service members because of their tattoos. I've seen a lot of good ones go because of their tattoos and it does not effect our mission and performance. Some people have tattoos as art and some have a story to it and I say leave the tattoo policy alone cause we are losing good service members and even potential recruits.

Response by SGT Aaron Barbee made Jun 8 at 2015 1:49 PM

SGT Aaron Barbee — Mon, 08 Jun 2015 13:49:18 -0400

As a matter of professionalism, do your best to keep anything below the elbow tasteful. Tattoos are fine as long as the visible tattoos are tasteful and don't look "tacky" in uniform (would say as long as they don't detract from the uniform, but let's face it, anything other than bare skin is obvious).

To be fair, I have a half sleeve on my lower left arm. It just happens to work out that the design ultimately put together is tasteful.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 8 at 2015 1:58 PM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 08 Jun 2015 13:58:17 -0400

LTC- Tricky question, I beleive that if a servicemen/an have the skill qaulifications and can perform accordingly why not. Arm or leg sleeves should not matter. Most of the time SM's are covered up with the exception of PT or while in PT uniform.

Response by SPC Charles Brown made Jun 8 at 2015 2:20 PM

SPC Charles Brown — Mon, 08 Jun 2015 14:20:21 -0400

The Army does not allow rolled sleeves so they cannot be seen. This negates the "they are just gross" argument at least as far as the Army is concerned.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 8 at 2015 3:11 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 08 Jun 2015 15:11:02 -0400

In the marines it's a no go even though back in the day it was allowed. I feel like it should be. Society now has less of a taboo on tattoos which is really good since a lot of civilians have tattoos. Now racists and sexists tattoo, no. But other artwork yes. I've stayed away from getting any tattoos that show simply based on how strict and how the marines are tryig to downsize. Should be allowed though.

Response by CPO Derek Carpenter made Jun 8 at 2015 5:30 PM

CPO Derek Carpenter — Mon, 08 Jun 2015 17:30:38 -0400

I'm for them with some pretty reasonable expectations. As long as they're not hateful or malicious racist crap like I've seen some people with I'm all for it. If you want swastickas all up and down your dumb ass arms then ya better believe thats a no-go.

Response by PO3 John Jeter made Jun 8 at 2015 8:02 PM

PO3 John Jeter — Mon, 08 Jun 2015 20:02:40 -0400

Tattoos are strong indicators about the character of the wearer. There's a history and culture that goes back centuries concerning 'tats'. I would recommend one innovation though; anyone wanting to get a tat should have to request a "counsel session" prior to getting it. They should have to list what the tattoo will look like, where they want to have it applied, and in general, state what it represents. Unless it's a clear violation of the UCMJ there would be no denial of getting the tattoo. The purpose of the process would be to prevent, as much as possible, those "I can't believe I did that! " tattoos by making the individual consider his/her actions fully. I would limit the entry on the record to location and description though.

Response by Cpl Kirk Lurch Davis made Jun 8 at 2015 10:52 PM

Cpl Kirk Lurch Davis — Mon, 08 Jun 2015 22:52:28 -0400

Tattoos are up to the individual service member. Regardless of Branch of Service, each service member makes up his or her own mind. I personally have no ink (I remember that dentists drill sound at the tattoo parlor), and I have no issues with those who have chosen to ink their canvasses. My wife had seven (small) tattoos before she passed. Each tattoo has special meaning to my dear departed wife.

Response by SGT Felicia King made Jun 9 at 2015 12:25 AM

SGT Felicia King — Tue, 09 Jun 2015 00:25:55 -0400

I don't think full sleeve tattoos should be allowed, nor have the ability to get away with it. I also don't understand how you can get away with having one, though it not be "allowed". I think they are unprofessional looking and tacky, especially on lighter skinned individuals. I only say that because they stand out more. Darker skinned individuals, you can't see it at first glance and they don't stand out.

I'm with the standard that you should not be able to see any tattoos, at least on the arms while in military attire. That goes with full sleeve because you may take your jacket off and have short sleeve shirt on.

On a side note, one female I work with who is an Army spouse. She had a tattoo done on her rear end when she was younger. I forgot what she said it WAS, but during a doctor's visit, the doctor said it looked like an onion. So be fore warned, your body may not stay the same as you age. LOL

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 9 at 2015 12:30 AM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 09 Jun 2015 00:30:04 -0400

It is new day and age and Tattoos are the norm now. They don't make who you are. It's is a wonderful way of self expression.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 9 at 2015 9:01 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 09 Jun 2015 09:01:59 -0400

I say yes, but provisionally. Naturally, you cannot have offensive, sexist, racist, or extremist tattoos, but that's a given. Fine. However, a secondary caveat to that would be this: Does your job have room for you to have it? Say you're a Special Operations Operator, and part of your job is anonymity, can you afford to have a bunch of identifiers, such as tattoos? Not so much. Now, as say a 42A, who probably wont spend a whole lot of time in and around the locals' homes and common areas, then you're probably safe with them.

Response by MSG Scott McBride made Jun 9 at 2015 9:17 AM

MSG Scott McBride — Tue, 09 Jun 2015 09:17:40 -0400

As with any downsize, rules and policy change. I love my ink. Tattoos are not a hinderance nor a booster in ones career and I think it's ridiculous that there is so much emphasis on this subject when the focus should be on training, families and protecting our borders. As some have already stated, you either get with the program or seek life elseware.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 9 at 2015 12:08 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 09 Jun 2015 12:08:48 -0400

As long as they're tasteful I don't know what difference it makes. Tattoos don't determine whether or not a soldier is competent and capable.

Response by SGT Kevin Brown made Jun 9 at 2015 12:10 PM

SGT Kevin Brown — Tue, 09 Jun 2015 12:10:23 -0400

I don't see a problem with tattoos on military personnel, including full sleeves, but agree that some rules need to be in place (like facial tattoos, tattoos on hands and tattoos on the head and neck) at least while in uniform. Aside from that, I say get inked.

Response by SGT Lawrence Corser made Jun 9 at 2015 12:11 PM

SGT Lawrence Corser — Tue, 09 Jun 2015 12:11:34 -0400

if it is covered by the dress uniform or even the duty uniform then sure why not, unless of course they spread hate or any of the no nos.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 9 at 2015 5:56 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 09 Jun 2015 17:56:05 -0400

There one and only one issue with tattoos: There is NONE. It is issue with some dickhead in charge who thinks tattoos somehow magically make someone useless in the military

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 9 at 2015 8:03 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 09 Jun 2015 20:03:21 -0400

So here is my question, does having a full sleeve tatto prevent you from being a productive member of your service branch? Probably not. Does this need to be a issue in any service? No. Why is it a issue? It's not, some people just can't let go of personal feelings.

Response by SFC Christopher Perry made Jun 9 at 2015 8:07 PM

SFC Christopher Perry — Tue, 09 Jun 2015 20:07:20 -0400

I don't have a single tattoo personally. However, over the years I never saw an instance in which a tattoo made a difference in a person's ability to lead.

Response by CMSgt Mike Esser made Jun 9 at 2015 9:02 PM

CMSgt Mike Esser — Tue, 09 Jun 2015 21:02:22 -0400

Screen them, no gang, no prejudicial tats, no face or neck. If a member has visible tats in short sleeves make them ineligible for public affairs, HQ or joint service duty and cap them at E8 but LET THEM SERVE!

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 9 at 2015 11:34 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 09 Jun 2015 23:34:23 -0400

Tattoos doesn't make the soldier

And those with them are hotties

Response by TSgt David L. made Jun 10 at 2015 12:20 AM

TSgt David L. — Wed, 10 Jun 2015 00:20:42 -0400

Don't judge a book by it's cover. As long as they are not inappropriate or controversial/hate speech.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jun 10 at 2015 2:49 AM

PO1 John Miller — Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:49:09 -0400

Hell, tattoos precede the US military by how many hundreds, if not thousands, of years? Celtic warriors would often get another "link" in their Celtic knots for each victory!

Other tribal warriors and royalty would also get tattoos to denote their status. Think the Samoan tattoo that Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson sports. It's an acknowledgement of his Samoan heritage.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jun 10 at 2015 2:51 AM

PO1 John Miller — Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:51:04 -0400

Another thing that pisses me off is how tats that have one meaning have been stolen by hate groups and now represent their belief system.

Example: Celtic tats and spiderweb tats (particularly on elbows) have been adopted by white supremacist groups like the Aryan Brotherhood.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 10 at 2015 7:42 AM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 10 Jun 2015 07:42:18 -0400

I don't think it really matters as long as they are in good taste. Meaning that they are not extremely offensive to others.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 10 at 2015 7:59 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 10 Jun 2015 07:59:59 -0400

The old default of "not visible in Class A uniform" and "no images of a sexual or racist/hate nature" were good enough. I have no tattoos and never plan to get any, but the military freakout over people having tattoos always seemed like an overreaction. I'd rather they go after the Hungry Hungry Hippos who haven't passed a PT test in 2+ years.

Response by Cpl Rc Layne made Jun 11 at 2015 7:50 AM

Cpl Rc Layne — Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:50:43 -0400

In my opinion, if someone is willing to fight and die for their country, they should be allowed to have the sleeves. I can't begin to understand why it is an issue now, when it wasn't for so many decades. It makes as much sense as raking sand and painting rocks.

Response by LCpl Joe Clayton made Jun 11 at 2015 2:11 PM

LCpl Joe Clayton — Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:11:31 -0400

Full sleeve may be telling your story but they are very unprofessionally when looking from the outside in such as future career interviews or standing guard in a Charlie shirt. The regs are clear for Marines although they have gotten lax over the years. I was luck in the fact my command never bothered myself or others who got tatted below the Charlie line.

Response by SSgt Charles Edwards made Jun 11 at 2015 2:27 PM

SSgt Charles Edwards — Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:27:02 -0400

My understanding about tattoos in the Air Force is in accordance with the other branches, you can have them, but they better not be visible in uniform. Additionally, if there is a tattoo that is offensive in nature, it must be covered at all times while participating in a military function.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 11 at 2015 10:13 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 11 Jun 2015 22:13:04 -0400

Sleeves are a way people can express themselves, but same as prior to the restriction on tattoo policies Service Members shall be briefed that they are restricted in what and where can go as to keep up professional image (Special Duty assignments and certain overseas billets). In turn will make them less competitive.

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Jul 10 at 2015 11:34 PM

LTC Bink Romanick — Fri, 10 Jul 2015 23:34:59 -0400

I'm old, not sure if I approve. I think that in Class B it would be less than attractive. I have seen a lot of full sleeves in jail shows on TV.

Response by LTC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 10 at 2015 11:42 PM

LTC(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 10 Jul 2015 23:42:02 -0400

I have no problem with Soldiers having full sleeve tattoos. With that being said...I cannot recall ever seeing an officer with them...although there are most likely some in the ranks.

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 11 at 2015 12:51 AM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 11 Jul 2015 00:51:03 -0400

I feel that in this day and age Tattoos are looked at a lot differently then they have been in the past. I personally do not have an issue with full sleeves though I don't have have a full sleeve I do have tattoos. I feel that as long as they are not Gang oriented then I don't see a problem with them

Response by SP5 Rex J Mcnealy made Aug 21 at 2015 3:22 PM

SP5 Rex J Mcnealy — Fri, 21 Aug 2015 15:22:42 -0400

No if the tattoo is tasteful it should not be an issue.

Response by CW3 Kim B. made Jul 16 at 2018 2:56 PM

CW3 Kim B. — Mon, 16 Jul 2018 14:56:21 -0400

As long as they are not offensive.

Response by LT Michael Turnington made Aug 30 at 2018 11:19 PM

LT Michael Turnington — Thu, 30 Aug 2018 23:19:56 -0400

When less than 10percent of eligible recruits meets height weight standards why limit and possibly deny good assets the ability to serve based tattoos. If it’s an image thing I would rather a good soldier/sailor over a pretty one.

Response by SPC Jake Ellis made Aug 31 at 2018 7:15 AM

SPC Jake Ellis — Fri, 31 Aug 2018 07:15:55 -0400

We are the United States Military. Our job it’s to be ready for anything and be combat effective. If you can die for your country you should be able to have sleeves. I don’t believe in neck and hand tattoos though, because one can still cover the sleeves in a dress uniform to look professional.

Response by PO2 Mike Vignapiano made Aug 15 at 2021 2:47 PM

PO2 Mike Vignapiano — Sun, 15 Aug 2021 14:47:42 -0400

Technically our dress uniforms are all long sleeved. With that in mind, I see no reason why tattoos, sleeved or not, cannot be allowed and not just tolerated. No face tattoos, hand tattoos, or neck tattoos than can be seen while if dress uniforms. But ink anywhere on our bodies that are covered while in dress uniform should be fully allowed. As popular as tattoos are, not allowing them would be denying qualified people from enlisting. Allowing them to get a waiver will single them out in every command and every time new personnel arrive at their command who is above them or who gets ink and then says "Well so and so has it"
Also, what better way to identify someone? Hairstyles, hair color, body physiques can change. Your tattoo is pretty much permanent.