Posted on Jun 8, 2015
Full sleeve tattoos, are you for or against all military personnel being "allowed" to have them?
123K
425
93
14
14
0
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.
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 63
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.
(16)
(0)
SA Harold Hansmann
Do you think Uncle Sam has everyone's DNA on file?
I, personally, don't think they do. That would be a major expense to catalog everyone's DNA for their files.
I, personally, don't think they do. That would be a major expense to catalog everyone's DNA for their files.
(1)
(0)
I see no problem with tats. They've been a tradition in the Navy since Noah was a mess crank.
(15)
(0)
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.
(14)
(0)
PFC (Join to see)
The old standard was no tattoos below the elbow/visible in the Class B shirt. or above the collar bone and visible on the neck. I think you could do what ever you wanted with your legs as long as it was tasteful and not offensive.
(1)
(0)
Sgt (Join to see)
I heard they changed this recently to allow one ring tattoo per hand. That's what my wife was told anyway.
(0)
(0)
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.
(11)
(0)
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.
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.
(10)
(0)
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.
(7)
(0)
(1)
(0)
PO2 Anastasia Croft
When I was with the bees, they're were a lot of people with sleeves. Honestly, who cares? It's a part of the culture nowadays.
(0)
(0)
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.
Tattoos have been around since long before man ever started sailing on the seas.
(6)
(0)
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.
(6)
(0)
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.
I look at it this way. If you have to do something that requires formal dress, wear long sleeves.
(6)
(0)
Sgt Ronald Petroski
tattoos made us scary, before we used our war cry. They new if we went through hrs of pain in a chair. we can kill while hurt.
(2)
(0)
Sgt Ronald Petroski
Just start handing out brief cases instead of rifles to the new recruits. I guess its ok to wear excessive make-up, be a sh**bird, have breast implants, and be gay are within Marine Corps standards.
All this tattoo policy crap is forcing good Marines out.
Thank you for fighting for our country, oh what's that you have tattoos no you can't be a DI or a recruiter. There is the door, get out, you look unprofessional.
Look at your history books people. I met some Marine Raiders from WWII that were sleeved. One of the greatest warriors to ever live.
but in the army Muslim can wear a head wrap which interferes with a gas mask
All this tattoo policy crap is forcing good Marines out.
Thank you for fighting for our country, oh what's that you have tattoos no you can't be a DI or a recruiter. There is the door, get out, you look unprofessional.
Look at your history books people. I met some Marine Raiders from WWII that were sleeved. One of the greatest warriors to ever live.
but in the army Muslim can wear a head wrap which interferes with a gas mask
(2)
(0)
PO1 John Miller
Sgt Ronald Petroski, I agree with you for the most part, except for the being gay part. Though I am not gay myself I look at it this way. There has been a US military in some shape or another since 1775. That means there has been gays in the military since 1775.
(0)
(0)
PO2 (Join to see)
Tattoos are as "Navy" as dixie cups and big blue seas. Can't imagine the Navy without them.
(0)
(0)
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.
(5)
(0)
PFC (Join to see)
A recognized statement of service by whom? They aren't recognized as a statement of service in most places in the world. At best they are a curiosity, at worst the images that are on your body can be insulting. It also portrays the wrong image when you are in front of high ranking dignitaries. Most people who get sleeves start them young and they become a part of their identity. The problem is you are going to grow older and if you stick around in the military long enough you are going to find yourself in a high profile position where image can mean everything.
(1)
(0)
CPO Joseph Grant
In the Navy, at least my Navy, tats are a part of life. Nearly every Submariner has his Dolphins tattooed on his chest. It's a matter of pride.
Mine get tattooed on soon. Something I always wanted but never got around to doing.
Mine get tattooed on soon. Something I always wanted but never got around to doing.
(3)
(0)
Sgt Ronald Petroski
they are tradition. i never finished my sleeves. alot of sailors of the year have tats, same as other branches. many cwo`s have sleeves dosen`t degrade from their knowledge or interity. sqid 97-01, devildog 2006-2010
(1)
(0)
Read This Next


Tattoos
