2
2
0
Tattoos
Policy
Lawsuit
Responses: 42
18
18
0
SSG (ret) William Martin
Military Police Soldiers or at least the experienced ones seem to have an out of the world sense of humor because we deal with a lot of unbelievable stuff when it comes to dealing with the general public and other Soldiers. Maybe I am desensitized.
(0)
(0)
For those comments amounting to "what difference does it make", that sentiment can be applied to almost any personal grooming policy. Does having a 'fad' haircut make you any less effective? How exactly is the shaving of your initials in your haircut going to make you less of a soldier/airman/marine/sailor? Why does florescent orange nail polish prevent you from doing what you need to do? Etc...
As CSM Chandler stated when commenting on the tattoo policy, "The Army is a profession, and one of the ways our leaders and the American public measure our professionalism is by our appearance".
As CSM Chandler stated when commenting on the tattoo policy, "The Army is a profession, and one of the ways our leaders and the American public measure our professionalism is by our appearance".
(11)
(0)
COL Randall C.
Don't fall into the mistake of assuming that the "uniform" is only the ACU. While that may be the uniform you spend the most time in, Soldiers wear many different uniforms in the performance of their duties - Combat, Service, Mess, and Physical Training. Tattoos that are below the elbow or the knee are still visible when wearing summer APFT.
The complaints I'm hearing about the 'new' tattoo policy are almost verbatim of those when the prohibition against tattoos visible when Class As are worn was put in place back in early 2000s (2002? I know it was before OIF).
I say 'new' because the majority of the prohibitions go back to that policy. The Army had loosened the policy up about ten years ago and started allowing tattoos on the back of the necks, hands, etc. as long as they were conservative, weren't racial, sexist, etc.
As to your tone about soldiers that were good enough then, but not now, you imply that we are putting out those soldiers that aren't in compliance with the new policy. That is not correct. Everyone that currently has visible tattoos are grandfathered in and will have the tattoos recorded in their records. If they get NEW tattoos that aren't in compliance and don't have them removed, then they will be separated.
The complaints I'm hearing about the 'new' tattoo policy are almost verbatim of those when the prohibition against tattoos visible when Class As are worn was put in place back in early 2000s (2002? I know it was before OIF).
I say 'new' because the majority of the prohibitions go back to that policy. The Army had loosened the policy up about ten years ago and started allowing tattoos on the back of the necks, hands, etc. as long as they were conservative, weren't racial, sexist, etc.
As to your tone about soldiers that were good enough then, but not now, you imply that we are putting out those soldiers that aren't in compliance with the new policy. That is not correct. Everyone that currently has visible tattoos are grandfathered in and will have the tattoos recorded in their records. If they get NEW tattoos that aren't in compliance and don't have them removed, then they will be separated.
(2)
(0)
SSG (ret) William Martin
Sir, if the Army ever changes the APFU shorts to "silkies" as in short running shorts there might need be a change to tattoo policies that state no tattoos below the mid thigh.
(1)
(0)
COL Randall C.
Possibly, but trying to anticipate "what if" scenarios regarding our ever changing uniform policies is beyond my level of prognostication.
(0)
(0)
CPT Lawrence Cable
COL Randall C. - Now I am about the only ex-grunt (enlisted) I know that has absolutely no ink, but my cynical opinion of the tattoo regulations is that we tighten the standards every time we do a draw down and then find that it eliminates a large section of the demographics from which we recruit and relax them. How do you intend to maintain strength when tattoos are now far more socially acceptable across a wide range of society that used to frown on them? I personally don't have a problem with the regulations above the wrists, below the neck and none of the face, which is what the Navy allows, but if we expect to recruit in the current social climate/demographics, we are going to have to suck it up and allow those with tattoos on the arms and legs.
(0)
(0)
11
11
0
Either suck it up buttercup or take the tattoo off and then join active duty...assuming he meets qualifications.
(11)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Actually now with this new policy in place, those trying to go from Guard to Active are ineligible
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google