Do you want the tattoo policy to change?

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Apr 2015 18:37:10 -0400

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/careers/army/2015/04/01/army-tatoo-policy-change/70783186/?fb_ref=Default

Army announces big changes to the tattoo policy

Army Chief of Staff says tattoo policy will change.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 1 at 2015 6:40 PM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Apr 2015 18:40:17 -0400

I think it's the right move. As long as the tatts are not visible in dress uniform, they should be good to go. I applaud the change. As GEN Odierno says, the attitude about tattoos is changing as generations change. And if "we" can allow all manner of moral variations (to be polite) in the Army, what the heck difference does a tattoo make? Think about it.

Response by SrA William Giraldi made Apr 1 at 2015 6:52 PM

SrA William Giraldi — Wed, 01 Apr 2015 18:52:27 -0400

I see NO issue with having tattoos visible in ANY uniform. As long as it's not hate-related, there should be NO question from leadership. What else do they want to change? Seriously, they act like we can't control our own body. So thankful I'm no longer active.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 1 at 2015 10:12 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Apr 2015 22:12:12 -0400

I am indifferent.

I have tattoos. I like tattoos. But, if the Army says no, then I won't argue.

Response by LTC John Shaw made Apr 1 at 2015 10:34 PM

LTC John Shaw — Wed, 01 Apr 2015 22:34:04 -0400

The current Tatoo regulation is very heavy handed. The Army should still check for Gang or Hate tatoos. I am happy to see this change. I am the least cool, no tatoo person around...

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 1 at 2015 10:49 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Apr 2015 22:49:48 -0400

I could not have been happier about the change. Tattoo culture in the United States is what it is today largely due to the heavy military influence in tattoos. I made the mistake of over tattooing myself in my teens, then enlisted in 2005 at 20. I had to fight to stay in until the official position changed, served 40 months on three back to back deployments just to come home last May to a revised AR 670-1 and my tattoos being out of regs again. If the Army would pay, I'd remove them, but I don't have the money to do it otherwise. I wouldn't be so bothered by the Army's continuously revolving policy, if I hadn't just spent four Christmases in Iraq or Afghanistan away from my kids over the past seven years. Whatever the Army decides to do, I hope they stick with it, one way or another. I personally don't see how having tattoos makes me less professional than the obese soldiers each base has, hiding out from QSP and chapter packets. I know it's a cultural difference if opinion. I grew up in an obscure little town in eastern Idaho where no one cared what you did.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 1 at 2015 11:07 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Apr 2015 23:07:03 -0400

Go back to the old reg there was nothing wrong with it. We should of never changed our regs for a recruitment tool. Cant be seen in the class A or ASU uniform is the way to go. simple and clear cut. maintain professionalism and makes it much more of a non issue so we can look at things that matter like duty performance or pt or war fighting skills.

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Apr 2 at 2015 2:08 AM

CSM Michael J. Uhlig — Thu, 02 Apr 2015 02:08:45 -0400

I'd like to see it change to "can not see the tattoo while in dress uniform."

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 2 at 2015 2:50 AM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 02 Apr 2015 02:50:28 -0400

Response by SSG Stacy Carter made Apr 2 at 2015 3:01 AM

SSG Stacy Carter — Thu, 02 Apr 2015 03:01:12 -0400

Tattoos are very common around the world. Why is the Military discriminating against people who have tattoos. I do not have an issue with tattoos as long as they do not detract from the appearance while in their prescribed uniform. I do not think that full sleeves or leg tats all the way to the ankle are appropriate as they can be seen while in Class B or PT uniforms.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 2 at 2015 3:06 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 02 Apr 2015 03:06:59 -0400

As long as tattoos aren't visible in a long sleeve dress uniform, they should be authorized (provided of course they meet the criteria for sexist, racist, extremist and otherwise indecent tattoos).
I think the most recent overhaul of 670-1 presented tattoos as something to be ashamed of. Barring advancement to certain ranks was proof enough of that. I'm happy that was already changed, and I'm further happy that the overall limit of the number and size of tattoos below the knees and elbows will be lifted once more.

Finally, I can get my sleeve! :)

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 2 at 2015 4:48 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 02 Apr 2015 04:48:26 -0400

So far Sgt. Maj. of the Army Daniel A. Dailey seems awesome.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 2 at 2015 5:09 AM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 02 Apr 2015 05:09:01 -0400

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 2 at 2015 5:48 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 02 Apr 2015 05:48:36 -0400

some tattoos may be gang-related and we don't need that in our military there is a TV show called gangland there is an up rise of gang members joining the military learning how to operate military style and go back home and use those skills for their purposes that is a real big problem cuz the police has to deal with it

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 2 at 2015 12:33 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 02 Apr 2015 12:33:51 -0400

Totally agree with the new change of policy.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 2 at 2015 12:56 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 02 Apr 2015 12:56:56 -0400

I believe that not having tattoos visible in the ASU is reasonable. My question is: what will happen to the Tattoo Validation Memorandum that is sitting in my records?