3
3
0
I think the recent Army tattoo policy changes are doing us more harm than good, especially when it comes to recruiting mission. I'm not even "boots on the ground" yet and I've heard how bad it is hurting our numbers with fully qualified applicants who get DQed by tatts. Never mind my personal feelings about whether or not they are professional looking, the new policy is just bad for business IMO.
As a side note, I think there should be an exception for wedding ring/band tatts on the ring finger. For those who dislike wearing rings or jewelry in general, or for those who are prone to losing or breaking them (like myself lol), I think they should be allowed. Both for enlistees and for those of us who are already in the service. Just my .02.
As a side note, I think there should be an exception for wedding ring/band tatts on the ring finger. For those who dislike wearing rings or jewelry in general, or for those who are prone to losing or breaking them (like myself lol), I think they should be allowed. Both for enlistees and for those of us who are already in the service. Just my .02.
Posted in these groups: 
Tattoos
Recruiting
Tattoos Recruiting
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 9
2
2
0
We had some losses in my station day 1 the policy took effect, but the Command asked us to document the names and type of tattoos so they can have ammo to show DA how the policy is hurting the mission like you said.
Me personally lost a great applicant to the Navy because of this regulation. The guy was the "this guy will be a SGM" type, but I guess he will be a great CPO now.
Welcome to USAREC.
Me personally lost a great applicant to the Navy because of this regulation. The guy was the "this guy will be a SGM" type, but I guess he will be a great CPO now.
Welcome to USAREC.
(2)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
The Army has always been a place people could turn to when times where tough and begin fresh with a second chance. Turning away new recruits for something purely cosmetic like a tattoo that doesn't affect readiness in the least is keeping the army from gaining good willing civilian recruits.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
I almost got a wedding band tattooed because I hate wearing rings. Glad I didn't now!
(2)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
If I got married before the new policy that would have been something i would of consider. Im National Guard so its not like it would be even seen that often and in my line of work its too dangerous to wear a ring unless you dont want that finger anymore. Of course i would still have a ring for the two weeks that im home though.
(0)
(0)
I think that the regulations were eased a bit in the face of recruiting challenges during the war. I am in the National Guard and have been in management in a corporate setting. I now see the Army in a corporate sitting and it truly runs that way. I often ask myself of what would be the expectation of that situation in a civilian corporate sitting. I would challenge anyone to look at most business professional in a large organization and see if they are comparable to our regulations. I never saw a person in or above my level with sleeve tattoos. The appearance is a bit outside of professional norms. I am not against tattoos, as I have a few and plan on getting more but mine are not shown when wearing PTs. That is just the way it is. I don't think they make you a bad officer as Mad Dog Mattis is awesome but I understand where they are coming from.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google