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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.