Posted on Dec 28, 2015
Why are tattoo regulations so strict? Do they hinder your ability to fire a weapon?
39.2K
216
93
11
11
0
Over the years I've tried to get into the national guard to continue to serve our nation, and have been denied due to tattoos, I really don't understand this rule.. Last time i checked, tattoos don't hinder my ability to fire a weapon , nor does it hinder my ability to receive or give orders... Just looking for some insight ...
Tattoos
Regulation
Uniforms
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 40
35
35
0
Because being a Service Member is not only about "firing a weapon." It's about promoting a Brand. Brand USA. Although you (and I) find them acceptable, not everyone does, and until that changes we must live within said policies, which are clearly published.
America wants war hardened killers who we can send overseas on a moments notice. It also wants Marines who collect Toys for Tots, and are easily approachable. America is bipolar.
America wants war hardened killers who we can send overseas on a moments notice. It also wants Marines who collect Toys for Tots, and are easily approachable. America is bipolar.
(35)
(0)
SSgt Scott Reynolds
Who cares what the civilian populace thinks! As a Marine who has both fought in war and done numerous T4T events I've never seen tattoos hinder performance in either arena. The problem is we have general officers who care more about promotion, political correctness and public opinion than they do about standing up for their troops. We promote our brand through our professionalism both on and off the field of battle and will continue to do so with or without tattoos. To make any argument contrary to that statement is both invalid and asinine. We're taught to never judge a book by its cover unless it's to judge a member of the military! Let's pop the brown star cluster and call bullshit on this flawed line of thinking.
(2)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
SSgt Scott Reynolds - We should for a variety of reasons.
First among them is that we recruit directly from the civilian populace. Specifically from "impressionable youth" and we specifically target those in the 18 year old bracket. Those who are (still) HIGHLY INFLUENCED by their parents, and more than likely not to have served. A parent who sees something they view as "scary" or "not-professional" is not going to "buy in" on endorsing the Brand, and will "actively discourage" a life decision like joining the military. Since we use the Delayed Entry Program as our primary means of entry into the service, and a solid portion make the decision to join pre-18, this requires a parental signature to join.
Second is that our funding comes from Congress, who is made up of Civilians (though there are a "few" Reserve Officers, Retirees, and Veterans). Furthermore, it comes directly from the American Taxpayer, who again is predominantly Civilian. They write the check, they make the call.
First among them is that we recruit directly from the civilian populace. Specifically from "impressionable youth" and we specifically target those in the 18 year old bracket. Those who are (still) HIGHLY INFLUENCED by their parents, and more than likely not to have served. A parent who sees something they view as "scary" or "not-professional" is not going to "buy in" on endorsing the Brand, and will "actively discourage" a life decision like joining the military. Since we use the Delayed Entry Program as our primary means of entry into the service, and a solid portion make the decision to join pre-18, this requires a parental signature to join.
Second is that our funding comes from Congress, who is made up of Civilians (though there are a "few" Reserve Officers, Retirees, and Veterans). Furthermore, it comes directly from the American Taxpayer, who again is predominantly Civilian. They write the check, they make the call.
(0)
(0)
SSgt Scott Reynolds
Maj Werner Hindrichs - Are you having a stroke or are you just that misinformed? That symbol for scout snipers has been around long before the guys that you mentioned. Maybe if you weren't in the Air Force you'd actually have a clue as to what you're talking about. Additionally, I don't have to be tight lipped about my criticism of field grade and general officers, because the only way many of them attain those ranks is from being politically correct "yes" men, your delusional to think anything contrary to that. For an officer I'd expect more than some ad hominem attacks on my character. Maybe you should make a valid argument that has some substance and then get back to me, or you can just continue to make personal attacks against me.
(0)
(0)
18
18
0
Personally, I think it all boils down to the "Professional Image". Whether I agree or not, a large portion of today's society still view tattoos as belonging to the 'criminal' or 'delinquent' elements. Those same personalities expect a certain "look" and "image" from those in professional careers. For example, one of our best Paramedics looks like an ex-convict biker due to his hair style and multiple tattoos. Many people can't get past his image to see the huge amount of skill and knowledge he brings. There's an old saying, "Perception is Reality". How people perceive you is their reality of you. Doesn't matter if it's true or not.
(18)
(0)
SSgt Jim Gilmore
I agree completely. I have 2 small tatts on either bicep and that is fine for me. I could give damn if you got your johnson tattooed as long as you do your job but the plain facts are that image is perception.
(1)
(0)
Cpl Buck Buchanan
Most Marines are the " delinquent element" at least the guys I would trust to have my back in a fire fight.
(0)
(0)
12
12
0
Might want to check with your recruiter again, the policy changed recently relaxing the standards.
(12)
(0)
Perception
Professional appearance
While I personally do not see ink as detrimental to either, reality is many do. And some of those many write the rules.
It really is as simple as that
Professional appearance
While I personally do not see ink as detrimental to either, reality is many do. And some of those many write the rules.
It really is as simple as that
(11)
(0)
10
10
0
A1C Melissa Jackson
That pic is...WOW!
I cannot believe someone would be THAT stupid about marking their body permanently. WOW. I have several tattoos, and ALL of them got careful consideration before I had them done.
I'll bet he will be proud to have the grandkids over when he is younger with a GD erection on his face.
Gross.
I cannot believe someone would be THAT stupid about marking their body permanently. WOW. I have several tattoos, and ALL of them got careful consideration before I had them done.
I'll bet he will be proud to have the grandkids over when he is younger with a GD erection on his face.
Gross.
(3)
(0)
9
9
0
They are strict because in addition to being a fighting force, we are also ambassadors and want to put on a professional military image -- one that every other culture on this planet can look to and respect.
(9)
(0)
Maj (Join to see)
Capt Jeff S. I have a tattoo, my husband has a tattoo, my SrA daughter has 1/2 a sleeve along with at least 4 other tattoos... It doesn't hurt her doing her job either but they can be covered (none are on the neck, face, hands...).
(2)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
Maj (Join to see) For me, it's a matter of personal choice, and a decision that you can't undo very easily. Human nature being what it is, people are going to make judgments about you based on what they see. If you are okay with being looked at sideways by folks who associate you with a lower class of society, that's something you must be prepared to accept. It's going to happen.
Personally, I don't see what the big draw is and don't care to have one. I don't see it as a rite of passage into adulthood. My preference is for other expressions of art. I find a woman without tattoos more wholesome looking, but appearances aren't everything. That is MY personal preference. Some guys find it hot. To each their own. If you are into them that's your thing. Don't judge me for not being crazy about them, and I won't judge your judgment for having them. We can have different views and it's all good. If everybody was the same, life would be bland.
Personally, I don't see what the big draw is and don't care to have one. I don't see it as a rite of passage into adulthood. My preference is for other expressions of art. I find a woman without tattoos more wholesome looking, but appearances aren't everything. That is MY personal preference. Some guys find it hot. To each their own. If you are into them that's your thing. Don't judge me for not being crazy about them, and I won't judge your judgment for having them. We can have different views and it's all good. If everybody was the same, life would be bland.
(2)
(0)
Maj (Join to see)
Capt Jeff S. - I agree that it's a personal choice and no one has to agree with why someone gets a tattoo. I'm not judging you for not being crazy about them. Just the opposite. I was actually agreeing with you (albeit badly because I actually had your profile confused with another) that while they might not hinder job performance they may not be seen as professional in appearance.
(1)
(0)
6
6
0
The new SMA Daily has changed the short lived policy from last year. Still there are places on the body that are prohibited, but for the most part the arms and legs are good to go. Just have to make sure they are according to 670-1! I love tats and have plenty, it doesn't hinder my professionalism or performance.
(6)
(0)
4
4
0
There was a day when you would just get a tattoo on your arm or shoulder. Over the years there has been such a distinct shift in where members of the military get tattoos. Hands, necks, head, and other places which may be visible tend to become distracting and in many cases excessive. It is about professional appearance and service. If for some reason, a member separates from military, the private sector may seem more lenient but there is a push for more stringent policies. My police department has tried several times to push for a very strict tattoo policy which would require any tattoo below the elbow covered with a long sleeve shirt. No tattoos below the wrist or above the t-shirt line. The military is clear...they are not saying you can't get tattoo's, you just need to keep it under control or you can look for employment elsewhere.
(4)
(0)
(1)
(0)
CW2 (Join to see)
If you need tattoos on your neck, face, or below the wrists, you should join a motorcycle gang!!
(2)
(0)
4
4
0
They restrict the tattoos as a way of controlling who can and can't join the Military. When we needed more troops for combat deployments, they relaxed a lot of the tat regs. Now that they are wanting to shrink the size of the Military, this is just one of the tools.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
I think every branch of the military has attempted to regulate ink. To this, I'd bet there are four... maybe five... different policies on tats. My guess is that these rules evolved from some need to protect the image of the American service member. You're right: They don't hinder one's ability to do their job. However, in a time of personnel draw-down and budget cuts, such rules on ink make it easier for the recruiter to decline your application.
(4)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google