Should we really be focusing on soldiers having tattoos, where we have a budget and downsize issue at hand? Or could they be all related?

2

0

Posted 12 y ago

I believe that in fact that are all related. The Army is being forced to down size, therefore if they pay less people, they in turn save money. The best way for them to do that is to tighten the regulations, making it harder for people to get in and harder for people to stay in. This is the same reason that the TIS requirements have changed.

Personally, I believe that there are many soldiers too focused on the new rules regarding tattoos and uniform appearance to even remember that they are planning the next year's budget that effects them just as much, if not more.

(2)

Comment

(0)

1

0

SFC (Join to see)

Edited 12 y ago

Posted 12 y ago

I always discuss tattoos in my new Soldiers reception, integration counseling. I mention current and past regulations, looking professional and then I really bring it home when I ask them what they think they'll look like with a neck tattoo at 70 years old. That tends to get my point across.

To this day, I have never had a Soldier under my supervision get a tattoo "out of regs" or one on the neck or hands. So maybe the answer is that our Soldiers just need better advice on this topic.

-Standards and discipline

(1)

Comment

(0)

1

0

SSG Zachery Mitchell

Posted 12 y ago

I think there are a lot of issues they could be more focused on than tattoos.

However, this is my opinion on tattoos. Yes, I have tattoos. None of them can be seen while I'm in ACU's or ASU's. Mine are all professional looking and remain covered at all times. I do not have a problem with sleeve tattoos. But I do agree that having tattoos on your neck or hands can detract from the professional appearance of the uniform. I do think in the grand scheme of things these two issues could be related though.

I understand they are grandfathering Soldiers with sleeves in, which is fine by me, I don't have a problem with sleeve tattoos. But in the future if you have a Soldier get one on their hands or neck or any other area the Army has deemed "unprofessional" that you will be able to punish that Soldier which could ultimately lead to their separation. Just my opinion.

(1)

Comment

(0)

0

SFC (Join to see)

Posted 12 y ago

If your in charge of outstanding Soldiers that violate this "new" policy will we enforce disciplinary actions?

(0)

Comment

(0)

1

0

1

1SG (Join to see)

Posted 12 y ago

I would like to start with; I have tattoos, I like tattoos and I will get more tattoos. With that said I believe they are obviously connected while we are trying to downsize you have to find ways to do that this is one.

The other thing I would like to say is even if they were not related why cant we deal with both. I see a lot of people on this site and other sites saying we shouldn't be worrying about this because of that or why deal with this when we have that. We should be able to deal with more than one thing at a time. If we were to spend all of our time worrying about just one thing and ignoring everything else it is going to create more headache than we can handle.

(1)

Comment

(1)

LTC (Join to see)

12 y

SSG Schmidt. They are related. The military relaxed its policies to increase the size of the force. In combat no one cares if you have tattoos. Now that we are downsizing and returning to a garrison enviorment they will become a discriminator.

(2)

Reply

(0)

1SG (Join to see)

12 y

Sir, I know they are related. That is why I said they are obviously connected. I just also wanted to point out the fact that it doesn't matter if they are or not we as a military should be able to multi task and handle multiple things related or not.

(0)

Reply

(0)

Should we really be focusing on soldiers having tattoos, where we have a budget and downsize issue at hand? Or could they be all related?

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.