Posted on Mar 26, 2014
SGT Team Leader
8.4K
34
29
8
8
0
From what I have gathered regarding the tattoo policy, only 4 (size of your hand) tattoos are permitted below the elbow or knee. People with more or sleeves will(?) be grandfathered in. On that note, I do not understand as to why the new policy is needed. I understand and agree with no face, neck, or hand tattoos; as they do look unprofessional and are visible in ACUs and ASUs. To further the topic, I believe tattoos, to include sleeves, are a part of military heritage and tradition. Any other insight on this or furthered opinions?
Posted in these groups: Tattoo_logo TattoosProfessionalism_logo Professionalism
Edited >1 y ago
Avatar_feed
Responses: 11
LTC Paul Labrador
5
5
0
"To further the topic, I believe tattoos, to include sleeves, are a part of military heritage and tradition."

Yes they are.....but be careful to draw too many extrapolations from that. Historically, soldiers and sailors were considered the dregs of society and what they did to "mutilate" their bodies was something that polite society merely considered was par for the lower social strata.

Personally, I am one who believes in all things in moderation. I don't think there is anything wrong with tattoos per se, but I think a lot of folks go overboard with them and being overly tattooed is not a professional image. Anything that can be seen in short sleeve dress uniform, IMHO, should not be allowed.
(5)
Comment
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
LTC Paul Labrador
4 y
Honestly, as societial attitudes change, the whole tattoo issue may become a moot point in the future. Who would have thought, 20 years ago, at that homosexuals openly serving would be a reality?
(2)
Reply
(0)
CPT Executive Officer
CPT (Join to see)
4 y
SSG(P) (Join to see), the problem is that it sounds like you keep referencing tattoos and the fact that many people today have tattoos as if that alone put them outside of regs. The new regs don't restrict tattoos. They restrict certain placement of tattoos. I don't think there are any stats out there to say that the candidate pool of people who have regulation tattoos is too small to sustain the force. In fact, most recruiters I've met would support a dissenting argument, which is that the candidate pool is more than adequate given the RIF. I know more than a few recruiters who consistently meet quotas and turn candidates away because the have already met their mission goals.
(0)
Reply
(0)
SSG(P) Instructor
SSG(P) (Join to see)
4 y
(0)
Reply
(0)
SSG(P) Instructor
SSG(P) (Join to see)
4 y
CPT (Join to see) we may have to wait a few years to have this discussion again, and see where we are then. I do not think the current changes will benefit the forces, generally speaking. I do think a tattoo policy is something that should of been instituted a long time ago...we wouldn't be here right now.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar_small
SPC Kimm Bridges
3
3
0
I got my first tattoo in 1988 when my son was born. It was strategically placed on my ankle out of sight. I received 3 other tats over the next 20 years, all out of sight. In October 2009, my only child, was killed while on active duty and I had his dog tags tattooed on my right hand so that regardless to what I'm wearing, it shows. I have had people tell me that it is unprofessional, and I simply ask them to grieve their way and allow me the same freedom. If you are hurt or in trouble and I showed up to help would you send me away because I have my deceased son's name tattooed on my hand in a gesture of love.
(3)
Comment
(0)
SSG(P) Instructor
SSG(P) (Join to see)
4 y
I struggle with the new changes...It does tighten us up and make us appear more professional...but we have a lineage and traditions...and those run deep.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar_small
1SG Driver
2
2
0
I myself have tattoos. I also have a couple that have to be grandfathered in now. I agree with no tattoos on the face, neck or hands. I think as long as they can be covered with your uniform on that they should be authorized. Tattoos are a statement of that persons individual path through life. I have one Soldier who is not re enlisting just for the fact of this policy.
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar_small
Cancel
close
Seg?add=7750261&t=2