Odierno on tough tattoo rules: 'We missed the boat'

Army Times — Fri, 07 Aug 2015 16:41:08 -0400

From: Army Times

After a misstep, the Army now has the right tattoo policy in place, the service's top officer told Army Times.

"For me, I think we missed the boat initially on adjusting to societal norms with tattoos," said Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno. "I think tattoos are something that are more common, and I think we have to realize and understand that, and we have to make sure we get the best people in our Army."

Odierno, who will retire later this month, sat down with Army Times to discuss his tenure as the Army's senior officer. He discussed a wide range of issues, including the service's tattoo policy, which has been a hot-button topic for soldiers.

Under the Army's current tattoo policy, in place since April, soldiers can have ink on their arms and legs. In simple terms, as long as it isn't visible in the Army Service Uniform, you are good to go.

This means tattoo sleeves are once again authorized as long as they don't extend past the wrist, and there are no longer limits on the size or number of tattoos soldiers can have on their arms and legs.

Soldiers are still not allowed to have tattoos on their neck, head, face, wrists or hands. The exception is a ring tattoo on each hand. Also banned are tattoos that are sexist, racist, extremist and derogatory.

The existing tattoo policy, outlined in Army Regulation 670-1, replaced a highly unpopular policy that was introduced last March and updated in September. That policy limited to four the number of tattoos soldiers could have below the elbow and knee. It also limited the size of the tattoos to the wearer's hand.

The regulation also initially barred soldiers who ran afoul of the rules from requesting a commission, sparking anger among many soldiers. The September update grandfathered enlisted seeking a commission or appointment, as long as they have their commander's endorsement.

The old policy was starting to disqualify otherwise qualified current and potential soldiers, Odierno said.

"I believe we were starting to limit some people who were absolutely qualified," he said. "They couldn't come in or they couldn't stay in because they had a certain tattoo, and I thought that wasn't an appropriate limiting factor."

The Army had to adjust, Odierno said.

"I think it's important that we adjusted," he said. "I think we have the right policy in place."

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/careers/army/2015/08/04/odierno-tough-tattoo-rules-we-missed-boat/31120753/

After a misstep, the Army now has the right tattoo policy in place, the service's top officer told Army Times.

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Aug 7 at 2015 5:25 PM

SSgt Alex Robinson — Fri, 07 Aug 2015 17:25:49 -0400

This new policy makes more sense. There are plenty of people with tattoos who are fine citizens and many without who are not.

Response by CPO Joseph Grant made Aug 7 at 2015 5:40 PM

CPO Joseph Grant — Fri, 07 Aug 2015 17:40:54 -0400

They've definitely been part of Navy culture since Noah was a mess crank. I assume it's the same for the other services.

Response by SSG Kelly Ferguson made Aug 7 at 2015 7:00 PM

SSG Kelly Ferguson — Fri, 07 Aug 2015 19:00:25 -0400

I think the tattoo policy was good just not enforced

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 7 at 2015 10:47 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 07 Aug 2015 22:47:38 -0400

As someone once said, "it's a wise man that can make a decision, and even wiser man that knows he made the wrong decision and can change his mind."

Response by COL Charles Williams made Aug 8 at 2015 2:21 AM

COL Charles Williams — Sat, 08 Aug 2015 02:21:14 -0400

Yes he did.... not we... he.

Response by TSgt Marco McDowell made Aug 9 at 2015 9:39 PM

TSgt Marco McDowell — Sun, 09 Aug 2015 21:39:28 -0400

I'm all for tats. I have three myself, but when I joined, the Corps made it clear about tattoos and certain occupations...nothing visible below a short sleeve. Especially if you wanted to go career and needed a special duty. They wanted a professional image and who was I to argue. They relaxed the regs and soon men and women were sleeved up from neck to ankle. Some dudes brought up guys in the "Old Corps" but none of them had sleeves or AC/DC tats, they were Marine tats or campaign reminders. After the Marines ran out of boat spaces, I joined the Air Force (yeah, supreme culture shock). To me the policy was written, kinda vague and not enforced. Then they changed it and made people cover up. It got changed again but by then I stopped caring due to the wishy-washy nature of reg changes. I just punched out and I found that some jobs won't hire you with visible tattoos. It's not discrimination, the company just wants to project an image. Myself, if the military really wanted to, they could have set a deadline, had everyone's tats id'd, recorded and then said no more, grandfathering people. But they kinda went at it without much thought. But hey, if you can be gay or trans in the military, why should non-offensive tats be an issue these days?

Response by SGT Ben Keen made Aug 10 at 2015 9:24 AM

SGT Ben Keen — Mon, 10 Aug 2015 09:24:11 -0400

I looking forward to seeing and hearing about more of his thoughts as he prepares to retire.

Response by CPO Randy Francis made Aug 10 at 2015 10:32 AM

CPO Randy Francis — Mon, 10 Aug 2015 10:32:31 -0400

If you put your vanity, and that's all that tattoos are about - a person's vanity ("hey look at me I have an arm full of tattoos-look at me"), before your career then you reap what you sow.

Response by SrA Donald Bacha made Aug 10 at 2015 7:33 PM

SrA Donald Bacha — Mon, 10 Aug 2015 19:33:01 -0400

Now the AF has to follow up with a better tattoo policy

Response by SGT Kristin Wiley made Aug 11 at 2015 1:56 PM

SGT Kristin Wiley — Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:56:54 -0400

There were numerous issues with the policy that hurt well performing soldiers. I could see applying the standard to troops entering the military, but it's demoralizing to be barred from commission if you had been working towards that goal for X amount of years. We need an efficient high-performing force, and tattoos have nothing to do with how well a servicemember performs.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 11 at 2015 6:23 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 11 Aug 2015 18:23:53 -0400

Now if we can just get the air force to follow suit with the current army policy..

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 11 at 2015 9:57 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 11 Aug 2015 21:57:15 -0400

Glad GEN O said this. At some juncture it should have been clear the last SMA wasn't to be listened to on his topic.

Response by SPC Devin Brinkley made Aug 12 at 2015 12:56 PM

SPC Devin Brinkley — Wed, 12 Aug 2015 12:56:25 -0400

They are finally making the right decision.

Response by CPL Bryan Claeys made Aug 12 at 2015 4:54 PM

CPL Bryan Claeys — Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:54:40 -0400

My personal opinion, but I believe that tattoos shouldn't be visible while wearing shorts sleeve class B uniforms, it makes the servicemember look more professional. I have a couple of tats myself but I placed them where the only way they are visible is if I take off my shirt.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 12 at 2015 11:07 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 12 Aug 2015 23:07:11 -0400

Jump on board Air Force!!!!

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 15 at 2015 11:33 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 15 Aug 2015 11:33:09 -0400

I think that this is the right policie. There are all kinds of walks of life some good some bad. Just because a person has tattoo sleeves doesn't mean that they are bad or a 1%er. That means that we are judging people on what they look like and that is not right. Ther is only one judge and that is God himself. Tattoos are a part of the military and military history. Look back in history to the beginning of each branch and there are MOTO tattoos. That's just the facts.