3
3
0
In accordance with ALARACT 082/2014 States that all tattoos will be photographed and recorded with a memorandum for record and placed on your IPERMS and OMPF within 30-60 days from AR 670-1 release.
Do you think Senior selections boards will discriminate against Soldier with sleeves or Tattoos ?
Will this become a tool to discriminate NCOs for MSG and above?
What are your thoughts?
Promotions
Tattoos
Discrimination
Posted 12 y ago
Responses: 16
10
10
0
<p>I would hope that it does not become an issue during selection boards. Maybe they will be "unavailable" to the board? Who knows? I do believe that in the long run, for the young and coming NCOs, the bugs, and the "old school" mindset, will be worked out for their boards.</p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p>On a side note, I am personally looking forward to my photo shoot and being able to view my "Tattoo Tab" in my IPERMS and OMPF. </p>
(10)
(0)
SGT(P) (Join to see)
MSG S,
You went there. Thank you for the much needed humor. I agree, it might be a hassle now, but in a few years, it would calm down.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Talking with other former Enlisted, we are brain storming how to award extra points for tattoos. Like the extended scale APFT.
(4)
(0)
1SG Steven Stankovich
My Tattoo Memo made it into my OMPF last Friday. Too bad cut-off for board validation was 29 May. I guess the board members will have to check it out next go around... ;)
(1)
(0)
SSgt Kevin Beckley
I think should be awarded for design and layout. :-).
I have tattoos, after I got them I was told I could be disciplined for getting them. My NCO said I caught him on a good day so keep them covered and go from there.
I have tattoos, after I got them I was told I could be disciplined for getting them. My NCO said I caught him on a good day so keep them covered and go from there.
(0)
(0)
8
8
0
Why are we in such a rush over this aspect of the reg? It hasn't even been published yet and commands are in a hurry to enforce something that isn't even officially here yet.
As for discriminating against those people with tattoos? Absolutely this will be a discriminator. If you think otherwise you are naïve. If it was not supposed to be a discriminator, then this record would be filed in your medical records and screened by a medical professional. The fact it is going onto your OMPF means boards WILL have access to your tattoo file and will take it into consideration when not selecting you because you have tattoos. Of course this will never be made public because it would open the Army up to all sorts of legal trouble.
I understand the no tattoos on the head neck and hands, but sleeves and legs? These areas are covered 95% of the time by your duty uniform. I still wonder where all this hate for tattoos is coming from; was someone picked on mercilessly by other Soldiers with tattoos?
(8)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
They mask PT, weapon and profile data during boards. I can't see them having access to this during a board. Not saying it won't happen but I just can't see it. I do agree with your comment about being in the medical file instead of OMPF.
(1)
(0)
SFC Cornelius Walsh
Agreed, 1SG - putting it in the medical file makes far more sense to me, and prevents any anti-tattoo bias from slipping in.
(4)
(0)
TSgt (Join to see)
I don't know about you all, but my command is starting the documentation process on Monday. So thew update to AR 670-1 may not be "officially" published, but the entire 2ID is acting like it is.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
7
7
0
Well, I can speak only for myself. I will not discriminate as I have tattoos myself... I may have a borderline tattoo by location as well, we shall see what is to become of me.
(7)
(0)
5
5
0
While I do think there should be some parameters set for tattoos, (i.e. no vulgar, sexually explicit, extremist, and/or gang-oriented ink) I've never seen skin art affect the professionalism or standards of a solid soldier. Certain pieces and placement may indicate a temporary lapse in judgement, but shouldn't be the be-all-end-all in determining a soldiers skill-set and level of professionalism. In my opinion, its an archaic mindset to believe that tattoo's effect that.
(5)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Many professions are looking to making visible tattoos prohibited but they often do not have a rationale to back their policy. If the rationale is that they are "unprofessional" then where is the research and evidence to actually prove this. It's very strange how a stigma still exists yet tattoos are becoming so prevalent.
(3)
(0)
1
1
0
Well, couple more days till memo and photos are due to your OMPF. The real question is, if you wait to get the memo and photos done will that be held against you at the board looks? If they even look at the memo and photos..?
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Battle, Who knows these days, im sure some alaract will be posted sooner or later on what happens for those who have failed to do so. It seems these days, an alaract or MFR will bepushed out to help things along, but with the changing ways of the military im sure some kind of "threat" (and I know Im wrong for saying that) will be enforced. Just my take! Great discussion topic!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
It should have zero effect on your career. The reg specifically states that the tattoo memos will not be seen by board members. It just goes to your OMPF to keep everyone honest about any future tattoos.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
SFC,
I believe if you get NEW tattoos it could potentially hurt you at your unit level, but that if you have previously recorded tattoos (grandfathered in) you're safe. Tattoos are recorded as identifying marks when you join the military anyway, as part of your medical packet I believe. It could be one more way to discriminate, but I don't expect it to become that as far as boards go. I know several consistent 1/1 NCOs that are already being prevented from going warrant, but as a means to deny promotion or separation I think it's a bit low. I don't expect tattoos to prevent you from furthering your career in the current career path (enlisted, warrant, officer), just prevents you from switching at this time.
I believe if you get NEW tattoos it could potentially hurt you at your unit level, but that if you have previously recorded tattoos (grandfathered in) you're safe. Tattoos are recorded as identifying marks when you join the military anyway, as part of your medical packet I believe. It could be one more way to discriminate, but I don't expect it to become that as far as boards go. I know several consistent 1/1 NCOs that are already being prevented from going warrant, but as a means to deny promotion or separation I think it's a bit low. I don't expect tattoos to prevent you from furthering your career in the current career path (enlisted, warrant, officer), just prevents you from switching at this time.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
The tattoo policy coming into affect shortly is reasonable in my opinion. However, I am against preventing NCOs who are "grandfathered" to not have the ability to be commissioned officers. So a person without tattoos coming into the force is more experience, more professional, and more capable to lead than someone who is a combat veteran, already leads, but has tattoos past his or her elbow and knees? Sound Crazy To me too!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
It shouldn't be allowed to be used, hopefully it will be blocked out like PT, profiles, weapons, etc., so it won't be a major issue, some of the 1st few boards may be looked at as a test to see how the percentages go as far as how many did or didn't get promoted that had tattoos in their files though.
It will be a litmus test for the 1st year or two I believe, so we will have to wait and see.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I want only one tattoo but I have yet to get it. I want on my left upper arm to state SPQR- Senātus Populus que Rōmānus ("The Senate and People of Rome"). The meaning behind it comes from the belief that the power of the government comes from the people.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google