Is it fair to keep Enlisted Soldiers from going Commission/Warrant because of their tattoos?

2014-04-25T22:29:13-04:00

I am covered in Tattoos from right above my wrist bone to my waist. (none of which can be seen in any full uniform)My goal was to obtain Warrant in my field, but now I am told that is not possible. Why are Soldiers with tattoo's so accepted in a time of need, but cant advance to the career field desired. Is this fair?

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 25 at 2014 11:54 PM

2014-04-25T23:54:30-04:00

This decision really bugs me - probably 25% of the people I commissioned with were prior combat medics who went to nursing/medical/PA school to get a commission. We're talking guys with bronze stars, CMBs, and purple hearts. All these were earned while they had tattoos. To say that they can't advance/commission because of the same tattoos that they had while earning those awards is shameful.

Response by 1SG Steven Stankovich made Apr 26 at 2014 7:35 AM

2014-04-26T07:35:11-04:00

I have been in the Army a long time and I have seen a lot of changes in culture, regulations, etc. Everyone knew that the revision of AR 670-1 was needed and we all sat patiently awaiting its release. I am a big fan of most of the changes with the revised regulation. I share your frustrations though SGT Lewis. While I have a lot of tattoos and if I had any plans to go Warrant or OCS, which I do not, I would no longer be allowed to do so. You will see many different views on this from the "unprofessional appearance" to not looking like a Soldier, to the "Army image" and so on and so on. I do not think that change in the regulation is fair and I am not happy about it. I know a lot of great Soldiers who had aspirations of serving as WOs and Officers that are now ineligible to do so because of the regulation. That is unfortunate for them and it is also unfortunate for the Army. With that being said, that is now the current policy. We as leaders will enforce it. Will it change in the future? Hopefully. Will it be anytime soon? No. This is a culture change within our Army and if you want to continue to serve, you will need to adapt with the changes.

Response by SGT Suraj Dave made Apr 26 at 2014 8:50 AM

2014-04-26T08:50:20-04:00

If you ever noticed, when it comes to tattoos and various other issues, the Army uses a special term for it. "Unprofessional". The term "Unprofessional" can be used as a "catch all" term by leaders when they can not logically justify or explain why a behavior or action is wrong.

Tattoos are a perfect example of this. There is no justification at all that Tattoos contribute/hinder the performance of an individual.... but someone somewhere with a higher rank then all of us just has a bad opinion on tattoos, and is imposing their unjustified personal views on you. Those leaders cant come out and say "We acknowledge that tattoos have nothing to do with the performance of a soldier, but we just simply don't like it, and we call the shots, so you cant have any", because if they did, it would be more then obvious they are just making you conform to their personal beliefs. To combat this, they just call it "unprofessional".

Response by CMSgt James Nolan made Apr 26 at 2014 9:26 AM

2014-04-26T09:26:56-04:00

There is no doubt that the changing policies on Tats will impact many troops in all branches. I am fortunate that I am too old and grumpy for it to matter anymore-although nothing can be seen in uniform. PT uniform is a different story.

I hate it that for example a Marine can't do something because he has an EGA on his forearm, or a Sailor because of a Anchor, an Airman because of wings, a Soldier because of Ranger etc... If you are not proud of your service, you are wrong. Displaying it (in some way, not just Tats) displays esprit de corps and pride. And that is not to say that someone without ink is not proud of their service

I think that sometimes sweeping changes are made to effect a minor problem, this I feel is one of those deals. And for those of us affected, we have two choices, complain or continue to march. For some of us this will be tough thing because it will definitely limit some careers. This also, unfortunately in some-not all cases will be the loss to that particular service.

In the end, policies are policies and you either follow them or get run over by them.

End of rant.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 26 at 2014 9:37 AM

2014-04-26T09:37:25-04:00

Sadly it's nothing more than a simple supply and demand model. We need troops, lessen the tattoo policy to increase the supply. Downsizing, tighten the policy to lessen the supply.

Is it fair, maybe maybe not, but it's business nothing more. Right now the demand for AD officers is fairly low, off hand I'm not sure about that of AD WO but I'd guess it's not overly high.

To those who wanted it as a career path, obviously it doesn't seem fair. Not do I think tattoos will dictate a good or bad officer/warrant. But in order to achieve the needed down sizing they picked something that will slow the growth based off of the aforementioned supply and demand idea.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 26 at 2014 10:36 PM

2014-04-26T22:36:47-04:00

It isn't fair but it is still a matter of professionalism, although the only real time you would see tattoo sleeves are during PT and Class B inspection. If the Army needs to draw down, then what better way to do it. If this is the new Army then maybe need to take a look at the new soldier. Just because you have a tattoo sleeve or tattoos on your arm doesn't necessarily mean you're unprofessional. If I see tattoos then I would think that person has lived and chronicled his/her life. Watch its going to take a few special cases for the Army to critique AR 670-1 more to where the tattoo policy will be even more meticulous than its trying to be today

Response by CPT Zachary Brooks made Apr 29 at 2014 2:51 PM

2014-04-29T14:51:04-04:00

SGT Lewis, you know that if they let you studs with tattoos commission you would make those of us without look bad, right?

In all seriousness, I still feel that your ability to lead, do your job, etc should exceed your appearance. Its the same reason why Britain has allowed members of its military to not meet height/weight standards when working in cyber. And again, SGT Lewis is a commo NCO, you would not have him parading around as the "face of the Army" if showing off a bad image was even part of it. I do not see how tattoos can affect your ability to be an effective leader that mostly sees the inside of a tent, server stack, or truck.

How is that "public eye"?

Response by MSG Martin C. made Apr 29 at 2014 3:57 PM

2014-04-29T15:57:02-04:00

I don't necessarily agree with the policy but I do understand where the current Senior leadership is coming from. My concern is that society has change in many forms and tattoos are no longer a taboo or something for gangsters and prisoners they are more common than people think. If I was the policy maker I would implement the new regulation but I would had extended the grandfather rule to current service members. I hope the Army will look into it an allow Soldiers to be waivered; we have some great NCOs that should become officers and warrant officers as they hold the tribal knowledge from 13 plus years of war that no clean cut college graduate will ever have..... You simply cannot train experience

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 29 at 2014 5:41 PM

2014-04-29T17:41:02-04:00

Twenty years ago, when I was a private, I was told that If I ever wanted to become an officer, I had to be careful where I put my tattoos. Now under the new guidelines, I have to register tattoos that are only visible in my PT uniform. Do I feel that the new rules are a bit much, Yes. However, we need to look professional. Tattoos on the neck and wrist, no matter how nicely done, distract from that all so important first impression.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 29 at 2014 7:17 PM

2014-04-29T19:17:35-04:00

16,000 signatures just prompted a look into the recently changed regulation on grooming standards. What the signatures pertained to doesn't matter, what does is the fact that people keep going on about this, but aren't doing anything about it. I'm sure there are more than 16,000 service members with tattoos... just my two cents.

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made May 25 at 2014 8:41 AM

2014-05-25T08:41:49-04:00

In a word..no

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made May 25 at 2014 8:42 AM

2014-05-25T08:42:04-04:00

In a word..no

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 26 at 2014 12:34 PM

2014-05-26T12:34:14-04:00

I'm not saying I agree or disagree because it doesn't matter what I or anyone else thinks. The Army isn't fair, and doesn't care if you think it is.

Response by SSG Trevor S. made Jul 1 at 2014 4:11 PM

2014-07-01T16:11:41-04:00

Is it fair? Not completely. IMO those with recently documented tattoos should be grandfathered in. Of course my opinion doesn't matter for squat.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 13 at 2014 10:57 PM

2014-07-13T22:57:21-04:00

This question strikes at the heart of a balance that we as a force have never been good at managing. On one end of the spectrum is a warrior culture that exists to hunt and kill the enemies of our country with overwhelming combat superiority, and on the other end is a parade ready parody of a Wall Street corporation where all opinion and emotions matter and need to be protected. We have struggled with this through our EO programs, our uniform standards, and now face it with tattoos.

While I have never been a, "cool guy," myself I have had the privilege to support some of the finest units from the services- teams and groups and task forces and activities and whatever else. The majority of those men, our premiere warfighters, have tattoos that do not meet the new criteria. To render them "unprofessional' and "not a fitting image for leadership" poses the question- what profession are the doctrine-writers talking about, exactly? Who are they unfit to lead? I don't know a single E4 infantryman or E6 engineer who would hesitate to follow a commanding officer into combat because that Captain or Major had a tattoo visible on his arm or leg.

Is the policy fair? No of course not, but it serves a greater purpose as a meter of measure for the mindset of the men and women who choose how to deploy and array forces at the highest levels. It tells us what they know about the junior enlisted force, and young officers. It also tells us what they think about troops finishing 15 years of hard living and constant deployments, because as they decide if we are fit to be members of their organization with unlimited opportunities to advance and excel, we can decide if we want to continue our sacrifice and service to that same institution.

Response by Sgt Dee Watts made Jul 31 at 2017 6:57 PM

2017-07-31T18:57:23-04:00

You'll find your tattoos will limit you in the civilian world too. Most companies don't want extreme tatts to represent their company image. Same for the military.

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made May 22 at 2018 9:27 AM

2018-05-22T09:27:11-04:00

And who says you deserve to transferred to the career field you want and elevated? Regs are Regs- it is the needs of the service not what you want that counts.