Military Tattoo Policy: Do the rules and regulations keep warfighters from being unprofessional or are the policies outdated?

SSgt Timothy Prevost — Mon, 26 Jul 2021 15:35:37 -0400

In my personal opinion, servicemembers should be able to have as many tattoos as they desire. Tattoos do not make make the servicemember less professional, they're something we do out of personal expression and a way to commemorate meaningful things. With the current state of the world being as it is, shouldn't the military be more accepting of all cultures and individualities of the servicemember? Diversity and inclusion is a priority for most businesses and is currently a huge priority within the military. That's all well and great yes, but how does a servicemember having a sleeve tattoo or hand tattoos affect mission success? It doesn't. Does having a tattoo on my index finger impede my ability as a trigger puller? No it doesn't. If i have a sleeve tattoo, does that stop me from carrying my buddy off the battlefield? Nope, I can still carry them.

Just my thoughts. What do you think?

These opinions are my own and are not to be reflective of the USMC or DOD

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 26 at 2021 3:53 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 26 Jul 2021 15:53:14 -0400

I think the issue comes down to perception. Perception of the military by the populace. Think about it, in the civilian job market, it is the perception of visible tattoos that will get the sans tattoo person a better shot at a job than someone with tats. Especially if they are distinctly visible on the hands and/or face. Some folks just don't want the general populace perceiving us military folk as mindless ruffians, hooligans and heathens because of visible tattoos. People see tats (especially facial) and instantly think uneducated. But, this is just my opinion.

Response by SSG Samuel Kermon made Jul 26 at 2021 4:35 PM

SSG Samuel Kermon — Mon, 26 Jul 2021 16:35:00 -0400

You raise an interesting question. I, personally, don't have any tattoos, don't want one. Many, many Marines I served with did have at least one, several had more. The tattoo had to be completely coverable and that seemed to be about it. Today many more people accept tattoos as no big deal. So I cannot answer except as an opinion. Here it is: have your tats, as long as it is not visible so as to prevent an uniform and professional appearance.

Response by CW3 Harvey K. made Jul 26 at 2021 5:28 PM

CW3 Harvey K. — Mon, 26 Jul 2021 17:28:18 -0400

Right off the bat -- the "HOLD FAST" tattoo shown is "bassakwards". It was a good reminder to a Sailor up in the rigging, but this version is being broadcast to the public.
I have no tattoos, and I recall that if you don't get one in your first hitch, you are not likely to get one later.

Response by SP5 Charles Gould made Jul 26 at 2021 5:51 PM

SP5 Charles Gould — Mon, 26 Jul 2021 17:51:11 -0400

Basic training revolved around making. Everyone and everything look, sound and move as one. Individuality was/is? greatly discouraged in the idea of “unit cohesiveness”. Combat units began to tat-up as gung-ho! statements. Navy almost as military unit and ocean tour maps. Do tattoos affect capability? No - could be argued they increase forward-facing effectiveness! Today tattoos are commonplace in the general populace, have more acceptance by the public, and other than overly old school military leaders should almost be a non-issue. Love mine.

Response by CSM Darieus ZaGara made Jul 26 at 2021 6:05 PM

CSM Darieus ZaGara — Mon, 26 Jul 2021 18:05:53 -0400

What about the neck, the face, why not. That’s why not. There have to be lines for everything, or there are no standards, subsequently no discipline.

Response by LCpl Kenny Kellar made Jul 26 at 2021 6:33 PM

LCpl Kenny Kellar — Mon, 26 Jul 2021 18:33:50 -0400

My dad, a hard-core marine, advised me if I ever showed up with a tattoo I would get my ass kicked by him. His reasoning was tattoos get less admirable as we age. He had a tattoo of a woman on his bicep that expanded when he flexed. As he got older, she just drooped

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 26 at 2021 6:51 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 26 Jul 2021 18:51:48 -0400

So marijuana leaves on the hand is cool right

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 26 at 2021 7:07 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 26 Jul 2021 19:07:51 -0400

SSgt Timothy Prevost I believe people post comments on Social Media that will have a more negative effect on future employment, relationships, etc., than a tattoo would have.IMO...

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 26 at 2021 7:27 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 26 Jul 2021 19:27:11 -0400

Do anyone think the military use the tattoo policy when the military is sizing down? My NCOs that have been in 10+ years have tats on their hand, back of the neck and side. It always draws my attention because I love tats and currently have 4. When I ask about them they said they received waivers during the enlistment process. It seems as though when the country needs bodies they do not care about tats being unprofessional. When they don't need bodies it becomes unprofessional. Just my two sense.

Response by A1C Chris Pointer made Jul 26 at 2021 7:58 PM

A1C Chris Pointer — Mon, 26 Jul 2021 19:58:01 -0400

Huh..seems like I’m going to be the odd man out for this one. I personally don’t have an issue with tattoos in general but like that one Marine commandant said “show me the tattoo that’s going to help you kill more effectively”.

I remember when i first saw sailors with hand tattoos and I was amazed they could do that. Then within 5 minutes I no longer cared. When they changed the policy in the Air Force everyone got trees tattooed on their arm for some reason.

So just like tattoos don’t impede performance they also don’t improve it. The one problem I see is that is just another thing to regulate. What’s professional to one person maybe unprofessional to another and offensive to another. Not to mention people don’t always make smart decisions when it comes to tattoos.

While I don’t think it would make a significant impact one way or another, I’d imagine it being a few ruining it for the many

Response by Lt Col Charlie Brown made Jul 27 at 2021 6:13 AM

Lt Col Charlie Brown — Tue, 27 Jul 2021 06:13:33 -0400

The rules are the rules.

Response by 1SG Dennis Hicks made Jul 27 at 2021 6:50 AM

1SG Dennis Hicks — Tue, 27 Jul 2021 06:50:05 -0400

As someone who had ink before I enlisted and got some while in uniform I will say the most obvious thing. A great many rules and regulations are around because of "Someone" taking things to far. Appearance has always been a high priority in uniform and given that some folks tend to put anything they see on the wall in the shop on their bodies without any real thought and not fully understanding the end results is one reason why there are limits. I have seen some troops that have taken to neck, head and hand tattoos while in dress uniforms at funerals, weddings etc and it does detract from the uniform. We have had that whole back and forth thing about what was allowed during relaxed enforcement and what should be removed at Soldiers expense etc.
The Military has a standard set of rules and regulations that everyone knows about before they enlist and while they serve. There are ways to modify and change them, but there are steps to do so. Sometimes it takes years if not decades to affect change and not all change is good for the order. I for one understood why we had TATTOO checks to see what the troops were putting on their bodies but I was also tired of them by the end. What was once a simple tattoo that was for motivation can later morph into and affiliation with a restricted group and can lead to removal from service or unofficial pressures to have it removed. It used to be a small subset that had ink and even then not much ink. Now Tattoos are the norm and those with no ink are the exception.

Response by SrA John Monette made Jul 27 at 2021 8:16 AM

SrA John Monette — Tue, 27 Jul 2021 08:16:58 -0400

i think as long as they are in good taste (no gang, white supremacy) and are not on the hands or face, go for it. you want a full sleeve? do it. full back? sure.

Response by Sgt Dale Briggs made Jul 27 at 2021 11:34 AM

Sgt Dale Briggs — Tue, 27 Jul 2021 11:34:59 -0400

I don’t have any, but that’s personal preference, other than that I don’t care, just not on the neck or face, not a fan on the hands either.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 27 at 2021 2:03 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 27 Jul 2021 14:03:21 -0400

I like your points on diversity - people are judged by their tattoos the same way others are judged.
However, we are not born with tattoos, so there is that. One day I do want a beard again in uniform and that will probably happen before tattoos are less controversial.

Response by Lt Col Mark Avery made Jul 27 at 2021 3:52 PM

Lt Col Mark Avery — Tue, 27 Jul 2021 15:52:30 -0400

Tats have become much more commonplace in society. I know several people who have tats that simply cannot be covered short of a full body stocking, gloves, and balaclava. They're not for me, but you do you, civilian.
The military can't be dependent on what society does, particularly society at home. What might work stateside and be anywhere from unnoticed to "yeah, whatever" turns into what could be a serious readiness issue if it means your tats make you undeployable or unable to be assigned to certain positions in another country's society. What may start as a statement of unit cohesion or individual permanent remembrance of a person or event suddenly becomes a hindrance to assigning the most qualified individual to a sensitive liaison position during a crisis. Even trigger pullers end up in other duties where the ability to carry a buddy off the battlefield takes second seat to making sure that buddy never gets injured at all.

Response by MAJ Byron Oyler made Jul 27 at 2021 7:20 PM

MAJ Byron Oyler — Tue, 27 Jul 2021 19:20:40 -0400

People are always going to be judgmental and it is best to be able to cover up all your ink with gender norm clothing. I think the coolest tattoos are sleeves with so much fore though that they end at the wrist and really there is so much surface area available to decorate yourself as you feel pleased that you can avoid the judgmental areas. My neighbor is a mental health counselor and he can go shirt and tie for some clients or short sleeves and bond better with other patients. He has this incredible flexibility with his ink and in the medical profession, there are times you need both options to make a challenging connection with a patient work.

You bring up very valid points and some of the nicest, most respectable people have tons of ink. The end of the day though no matter how much we agree, there will still be people out there that discriminate against ink.

Response by PO2 Russell "Russ" Lincoln made Jul 28 at 2021 2:39 PM

PO2 Russell "Russ" Lincoln — Wed, 28 Jul 2021 14:39:56 -0400

I have been working in the civilain medical community for the last 20+. My employer requiers that tatoos be no larger than 1 inch or must be covered by clothing.

Response by CMSgt Marcus Falleaf made Jul 28 at 2021 2:42 PM

CMSgt Marcus Falleaf — Wed, 28 Jul 2021 14:42:50 -0400

Keep your tattoos to yourself as aa member of the US Armed Forces. They are personal to you, not to me.

Response by Lt Col Timothy Cassidy-Curtis made Jul 28 at 2021 10:30 PM

Lt Col Timothy Cassidy-Curtis — Wed, 28 Jul 2021 22:30:07 -0400

I knew of an Enlisted Member (EM) who was a SSG at the time. She was personally known by the commander of the installation. One day she got a tattoo. It was on her right arm, facing forward, you might have guessed it, as she saluted. The installation commander, a two-star, bemoaned this by saying "Really?! On your RIGHT arm?"

I respected the heak out of both the SSG and the MG, at the time I knew each one of them. His comment, however, kind of sums up what the issue might have been. Tats might be okay, but one needs a modicum of common sense about where to put them.

Response by LTC David Brown made Aug 9 at 2021 4:26 PM

LTC David Brown — Mon, 09 Aug 2021 16:26:34 -0400

I have no tattoos. Here is my take. The military reminds of a soldier in a bar 3/4 drunk and horney. Any gal will do as closing time approaches. He wins the lottery and only the best looking trophy wife is good enough. When time is running out any troop will do. When little is going on the military becomes more discriminating. Unfortunately really visible tattoos can hurt you as they become a discriminating factor.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 9 at 2021 4:40 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 09 Aug 2021 16:40:26 -0400

I enlisted later in life than most in my generation. I had tats when I joined. One of my drills had one similar, and pointed it out while I was in the FLR position. He laid down next to Me so I could see his and then expounded on it for several minutes. I had my back done over the course of several consecutive weeks. I never had a problem with the "Chain". All of my tats were covered while I was in uniform. When ever Uncle Sugar sent Me somewhere new, I got a new tat, at least one. I was TDY a lot. As long as You don't cause an issue with a tat I see no reason not to get them.

Response by SSG Anthony Hetherington made Aug 9 at 2021 6:00 PM

SSG Anthony Hetherington — Mon, 09 Aug 2021 18:00:26 -0400

When words like unprofessional are bandied around it frustrates me, it's utter nonsense. Are all of the former servicemembers with tattoos that fought in all of our previous wars unprofessional? No, of course not. I heard the same thing regarding hair length and beards to name two, that means that Delta, SF etc... are all obviously unprofessional right? Again, no.
Tattoos are cultural to certain peoples, so in our time of diversity and inclusiveness maybe we should think about that before labels like unprofessional are thrown about (this is not directed at anyone here, but to our Military community as a whole).
Now all that said, (and I am tattooed) I never had a problem with the no hands, no head tattoo policy, do I think it's a little outdated now? Yes, but from a uniformed standpoint it made sense to a certain degree. It's a little moot now I believe with beards, long hair, religious headdress all allowed now, so what is uniformity? Is the uniform alone enough? It may have to be with all the changes taking place. However I'm just a JNCO and my opinion is worth every penny you paid for it!

Response by SP5 James Elmore made Aug 10 at 2021 9:09 AM

SP5 James Elmore — Tue, 10 Aug 2021 09:09:15 -0400

My only concern is for military professionals an special ops who might someday need to blend in to the “community” where they are operating. Careers also can take off after the military in working for certain agencies. IMO, it’s not to one’s advantage to have certain tats.

Response by SGT Tim Tobin made Aug 10 at 2021 9:18 AM

SGT Tim Tobin — Tue, 10 Aug 2021 09:18:43 -0400

I currently have no tats, and I have no objection. But there needs to be a limit. If you are good with sleeves and hands, how about face? And the what about content? I do believe as with most things in life common sense must prevail and un fortunately that's not in abundance

Response by CPO William Rys made Aug 10 at 2021 10:05 AM

CPO William Rys — Tue, 10 Aug 2021 10:05:07 -0400

My humble opinion regarding permanent body markings? People don’t seem to understand the meaning of “permanent”.

Granted, I’m a 70 year-old retired Navy guy who never chose to waste my money on “decorating” my skin with any sort of artwork. However, many of the guys I served with regretted their choice at one time or another, and either lived with the decision, covering as necessary, or spending lots of $$$ for removal procedures.

Then again, the “younger” generations tend to look upon their permanent body scarring as some sort of self expression, so it’s really none of my business. My wife has a 51 year-old niece who has covered a large amount of her skin with some very colorful (“LOUD”) tats she has been collecting since the age of 20, and still claims to be “proud” of them. They look disgusting and atrocious, and the woman would have to wear a burka in order to appropriately conceal them. As a result, my wife has refused to appear anywhere in public with her. Yeah, they ARE that bad…

If you want to “express” yourself, get a freakin’ bumper sticker…

Sorry The continued rantings of an old guy who absolutely cannot understand things anymore-LOL!!!!!

Response by PO3 Craig Strid made Aug 10 at 2021 10:06 AM

PO3 Craig Strid — Tue, 10 Aug 2021 10:06:15 -0400

I have thought of getting a tattoo but my ever changing life experiences have erased any possible selection. I was a Navy corpsman, lab tech assistant and field med that was attached to the 3rd Marine. You will always carry the pride in your service and unit. A tattoo is a physical. Identity that feeds ones ego in anticipation of perceived outside responses. I also am a retired 29 year street cop. . I suggest using unit patches and hats so it frees your body to be clean to return to the creator the same as in birth. Label free. If I remember when I first went in I remember the saying that your body is no longer yours. It’s now property of the Government. When stationed in Okinawa I assisted a surgical tech. when he removed tattoos through abrasion or surgically cutting dermal pattern. No two people are genetically alike and as you leave your service you will again regain your individuality and grow personally if you chose to look towards the future.

Response by SPC Steve Bright made Aug 10 at 2021 11:36 AM

SPC Steve Bright — Tue, 10 Aug 2021 11:36:43 -0400

The issue is not so much tattoos, but isn't it that of individuality? The choice to use our skin as a billboard or canvas to show what we like, support?
The military discourages individuality for obvious reasons but let's say that the DOD allows tattoos so long as it is not racist, supporting illegal activity, etc. Who then decides what is wrong? The commander? the base command or do we put a list of unapproved items on a policy note?

Take this situation:
What if an individual has an "OK" symbol tattooed on his/her hand or webbing thumb? What if he or she puts a swastika on the other hand? Obviously these are racial symbols. The commander should say they have to be removed.

But the individual then informs the commander that he/she is buddist and the swastika is a religious symbol and the other is to remind him or her everything will be ok.

What if this person has a facial deformity and decides to hide it with a tattoo? Maybe he or she was in a fire and places a dragon breathing fire (scar tissue is the fire) on his/her face. Not religious so does the commander have the right to state that the "art" is not approved when his/her prior commander thought it was great?

Individuality is not something the military celebrates but rather uniformity. Uniformed Services does not just mean the clothes we wear to work each day, but that we are similar. If hidden from view, why complain. But if visible... I see problems arising.

Response by TSgt Wehart Hosea made Aug 10 at 2021 11:41 AM

TSgt Wehart Hosea — Tue, 10 Aug 2021 11:41:38 -0400

Never really had an interest in getting tattos. The idea of someone having to sit there and poke my skin with a needle an unlimited number of times to get an image on my skin was not my form of pleasure or self -identification. I seen some that were very nice and liked them. Having tattos on your hands or other areas of the body that are highly visible to the public eye maybe deterimental to the individual. People still do "PROFILING" of everyone around them including employers, custormers, and all that see you. You may say that this is not politically correct these days but it is the absolutel truth and no one will say anything to you about it, but will express their thoughts by not selecting you or just avoiding you all together.

Response by MSG David Densmore made Aug 10 at 2021 1:30 PM

MSG David Densmore — Tue, 10 Aug 2021 13:30:11 -0400

Once upon a time, tattoos were viewed as being for undesirables- prisons, biker gangs, etc. But they've come into acceptance in today's society. There will still need to be restrictions, but I think the policy should be loosened. For one thing, if they keep the current standards, the way I'm seeing more and more people with tats, they're liable to run out of candidates!

And I would suggest that folks getting a tattoo think about what it will look like when their 70 yo and wrinkled. :)

Response by PO2 J. leb Burza made Aug 10 at 2021 2:26 PM

PO2 J. leb Burza — Tue, 10 Aug 2021 14:26:48 -0400

Outdated. I would have re-joined as prior service but I am ineligible due to hand tattoos. The services are having a hard enough time getting bodies so because I have hand tattoos you are going to rule out someone who is otherwise qualified. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I can see not having tattoos on the face, neck and head but anywhere else should be allowed assuming they are not vulgar or offensive

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 10 at 2021 6:40 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 Aug 2021 18:40:08 -0400

I don't have any tats, but I don't think people should be judged by their outward appearance cause that has no bearing on how well a person can do their job, and hopefully society is moving more in the direction of acceptance - just my personal opinion/belief.

Response by LCpl Thomas Leigh-Kendall made Aug 10 at 2021 9:47 PM

LCpl Thomas Leigh-Kendall — Tue, 10 Aug 2021 21:47:35 -0400

My grandad said something about Tattoos, "not good" My USA uncle said "not in his unit" he was CO USASAP and E. And My in 1956 you needed a written letter from CMC to see if a Tat was ok??? Out of sight out of mind. Sailors need them it is a swabbie thing.

Response by Col John Madison made Oct 28 at 2021 9:32 AM

Col John Madison — Thu, 28 Oct 2021 09:32:40 -0400

Frankly, I believe tattoos should be mandated, so when you complete basic you'll get one, than after every NCO course, or airborne, Ranger, et al., you'd get more. We need more more tattoos because it provides a measure of uniformity to all the troops. You are only unique if you DON'T have tattoos, and that is disgraceful...you're out of uniformity, and that's contrary to good order and discipline. But...enough of the sarcasm.

People get tattoos for all manner of reasons. Many believe their tattoos show them as tough, more experienced, having "seen the world"...or affiliations and totemic superstitions, so the reasons are manifold. Some people are just masochists. But then, where is the point of restraint? Neck tattoos, hand tattoos, scalp tatt's? Someone will complain about that limitation and probably claim some religious reason for any or all of it.

Yes, I do have ONE tattoo...and it's coming off with some laser treatment. I got it during Vietnam, it's patriotic and all that, but it's still coming off. I don't need tattoos to tell my story and I prefer the skin that the Man Upstairs gave to me. The scars tell the real story. Your mileage may vary.

Response by SSG John Jensen made Oct 28 at 2021 11:04 AM

SSG John Jensen — Thu, 28 Oct 2021 11:04:46 -0400

do you mean that Lev 19:28 has nothing to do with it?

Response by SSG James Knopp made Nov 7 at 2021 10:21 PM

SSG James Knopp — Sun, 07 Nov 2021 22:21:23 -0500

The military used to be an “exclusive” institution with set rules and strict regulations, especially on tattoos.
I have three “tats” but are a bit conservative, military and discreet.
That being said, many warrior brothers have extensive inking. Tattoos doesn’t make the soldier. It’s a form of expression and as the saying goes “my body, my choice”. In order to fill the ranks with talented minds, the military services need to be “inclusive” and not “exclusive”. I’m good with they’re choices to be inked as long as it’s not “gang” related or facial tats. And after all, God forbid, it would possibly help for identification purposes.