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

Tattoos doesn't make the soldier

And those with them are hotties

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.