New SMA to take serious look at Army tattoo policy

Army Times — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 10:25:12 -0500

From: Army Times

JOINT BASE LEWIS-McCHORD, Wash. — Soldiers' strong objections to the Army's tattoo policy have caught Sergeant Major of the Army Dan Dailey by surprise — and he's planning to measure the extent of this dissatisfaction, across the service.

"I don't want this to be the deciding factor for a good soldier to get out," said Dailey, who took over as the Army's top enlisted leader on Jan. 30.

If he finds this to be a force-wide issue, Dailey said action may be necessary. The SMA said he will keep an ear out for soldier concerns on tattoos, and any other issues, in the weeks and months to come.

This week Dailey embarked on his first troop visit as SMA, heading to JBLM.

On Monday, he fielded questions from a group of Warrior Leader Course students, who raised the issue of the service's tattoo policy, which was tightened last year.

One solder stood up and argued that tattoos should be allowed, so long as they are not visible when a soldier is in his dress uniform.

"How many of you agree with that?" Dailey asked the group of about 100 soldiers.

Almost all of them immediately raised their hands.

Looking surprised, Dailey asked: "How big of a deal is this for soldiers? I want to hear your thoughts. I want to hear your opinions."

"A big deal," many of the soldiers said, with others nodding their heads in agreement. They also added that some may choose to leave the Army or decide not to seek a commission because of their ink. They also cited concerns about missing out on a prospective recruit because of the policy.

The update to Army Regulation 670-1 was released in March and updated in September. It limits the number of tattoos soldiers can have below the elbow and knee. The regulation initially barred soldiers who ran afoul of the rules from requesting a commission, sparking anger among many soldiers. The September update grandfathered enlisted seeking a commission or appointment, as long as they have their commander's endorsement.

After his session with the WLC students, Dailey told Army Times he was surprised by the soldiers' almost overwhelming opposition to the tattoo policy.

"I thought this had settled quite a bit," he said. "Obviously it has not."

There must be a balance between the tattoo policy and discipline and standards, Dailey said, adding that the American people have a perception of what an American soldier should look like.

"How do you want to be perceived?" Dailey asked the soldiers. "What is the image an American soldier should carry? What does the nation think about my soldiers? What should the standard be?"

Dailey's predecessor, Sergeant Major of the Army Raymond Chandler, strongly believed the initial uproar about tattoos had waned. Chandler based this fact on trips across the Army and feedback from soldiers. In his exit interview with Army Times, Chandler said he felt media coverage inflated the issue, and made it appear more controversial than it was.

However, looking back, Chandler said he could have done a better job early on of explaining why the Army was moving toward the stricter regulation.

"This has absolutely nothing to do with your performance on the battlefield," Chandler said at the time. "It all has to do with how we want to see ourselves as professionals."

Dailey plans to visit the installations that are home to the Army's corps and divisions in the next 90 days.

"I need to be well informed," he said. "One installation's not enough to go back to the [Army chief of staff] and say there's an issue or concern. Something I've learned over time is to be less emotional and more informed."

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/careers/army/enlisted/2015/03/04/sma-dan-dailey-army-tattoo-policy-jblm-visit/24377435/

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 5 at 2015 12:10 PM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 12:10:37 -0500

I think SMA Dailey hit a nerve with younger troops. Tattoos seem to be much more prevalent and in vogue among younger generations, the future of our Army and armed forces. I tend to agree with the Soldier in WLC who told the SMA that as long as the tats are not visible when a person is in dress uniform, they should be G2G.

Response by CPL Lane Bailey made Mar 5 at 2015 3:58 PM

CPL Lane Bailey — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 15:58:54 -0500

I believe that if you are judging people on there tattoo's not there job performance or whether of not they are a good solider is totally retarded. What is the difference can a soldier with a tattoo not defend the country as well as a soldier with-out a tattoo to make a regulation to ban tattoo's in the service make's no sense to me there are thousands of men and women in the armed forces with tattoo's all over there body on the neck hands caves forearm's to limit someone else from doing the same just seem's to be dumb cause all you hear from people is well why it is that this one soldier can have a full sleeve tattoo but the rest of us can't do tattoo's really make for a worse soldier? yes i do believe that if you don't have them on your hands or Neck you shouldn't be able to get them cause yes they do look tacky when in the dress uniform but as the regulation stands now they can't go below your elbow. I have one below my elbow and it's been there for over 20 years and looks horrible cause it was done by hand so why can't i get it covered up with something that look's better and is more presentable than what is already there. I do believe that if you are getting something offensive or gang related or maybe drug related yes i say that those are not authorized so why can't i get mine covered up sense it is drug related " Mary Jane" with a cross i'm not gonna have it removed. I'm waiting for my discharge date to have it covered this doesn't make me a horrible solider just cause i have one i actually have a bunch that you can't see that look 1000X better than what was there to begin with i this if you don't have them on your hands neck head that no you shouldn't bearable to but other places i don't see why not most the time unless doing PT your never gonna see then anyways the covered up by the Duty Uniform.

Spc Lane Bailey
Wyoming National Guard

Response by SSG Scott Burk made Mar 5 at 2015 4:34 PM

SSG Scott Burk — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 16:34:18 -0500

As long as the Dress Uniform covers them, no problem to me.

Response by MSG Karl Arrington made Mar 5 at 2015 8:57 PM

MSG Karl Arrington — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 20:57:56 -0500

During my early years (80's), my squad leader had tats up and down his arms, but they weren't visible in dress uniform. He was a good Soldier and leader who eventually was promoted to CSM.
I don't see why that policy can't be in effect now. Before I retired, I was at a unit meeting and our Bde CSM was questioning his own judgement over a couple of tattoos he had. Those thoughts should be a waste of time for someone in his position, yet there he was talking about it.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 5 at 2015 9:26 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 21:26:52 -0500

I'm not knocking tattoo's or people who wear them, but, seriously, has anybody thought about not getting tattoo's? If Soldiers are that concerned about their careers because of a tattoo, why get them? It is a personal choice at the end of the day.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 5 at 2015 10:46 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 22:46:48 -0500

When the change to the reg came out I didn't think that the change was needed the old reg was plan and simple it just needed to be re enforced there were a lot of good soldier who enlisted during the buildup and the push who received wavers for tattoos and they should be allowed to stay and not penalized. i think that the reg should go back to the old one " nothing below thw wrist or above the neck.

Response by SPC Shane Farlin made Mar 5 at 2015 11:05 PM

SPC Shane Farlin — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 23:05:22 -0500

It's time that we stop equating something of expression that has been a release for many soldiers. As a sign of something unprofessional. Keep tats off neck/ face. And in good taste. Then if not visible in dress uniform should be OK. We will lose many new recruits and current to this reg. The new generation is almost all tattooed. It's the new norm. Adapt or don't get recruits. Simple.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 6 at 2015 2:25 AM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 06 Mar 2015 02:25:32 -0500

I think it's time to stop reinventing the wheel with each SMA and tackle more important issues. Like solving problems with overtasking, soldiers deficient in the basics of their MOS, analysis of ineffective training requirements to appease politicians and civis.

Who cares if a Joe has a tattoo? Let them but keep the boundaries basic and nonretro.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 6 at 2015 12:33 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 06 Mar 2015 12:33:38 -0500

So basically SMA Chandler placed more emphasis on appearance than performance. He convinced himself that this ridiculous policy was a good idea, despite the overwhelming voiced opposition to it. And now SMA Dailey is actually asking the TROOPS how they feel about the policy. I think that is a good first step; one that SMA Chandler SHOULD have taken BEFORE instituting the change. Let's just hope SMA Dailey makes the appropriate change. I will never understand why anyone would support the idea that tattoos, which are hidden in every uniform except the APFU/IPFU, should block the commissioning of any Soldier who has proven themselves, and who meets every other requirement for commission.

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Mar 6 at 2015 3:20 PM

SSG Robert Burns — Fri, 06 Mar 2015 15:20:43 -0500

This is what happens when policies are made from subjective opinions. It will never end.

Response by SGT Alex Gould made Mar 6 at 2015 6:23 PM

SGT Alex Gould — Fri, 06 Mar 2015 18:23:29 -0500

I served 4 years in the 82nd (07-11) and my service and fellow paratroopers encouraged my single tattoo to grow to an entire sleeve. I got out in 2011 and have been in the IRR since. Recently I put together my warrant officer (153A) packet and went to four different recruiters to try and schedule my SIFT and flight physical. They all had the same response. I am ineligible because my tattoos that I got while I was serving violate the new tattoo standard and the Army is not accepting tattoo waivers at this time.

I hope this changes soon!

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 7 at 2015 11:29 AM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 07 Mar 2015 11:29:49 -0500

Im a younger enlisted soldier and I think tattoos are a right of passage for my mos which is infantry and if it's covered by the dress uniform it should be fine

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2015 9:36 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:36:08 -0400

Why would the policy catch him by surprise? That is ludicrous. Servicembers have voiced their vociferous opposition to the new regs since the announcement that they were coming.

Response by Sgt Matt Pinardi made Mar 18 at 2015 9:55 PM

Sgt Matt Pinardi — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:55:51 -0400

Ok, I'm speaking as a Dinosaur of a Marine. I have tattoos adorning both arms, my brothers are well tattoed as well. My rule of thumb was never to get ink below the wrist, so when in a dress uniform they weren't visible. It's a totemistic form of expression , and it doesn't make someone a less skliled or professional warfighter. All branches of service have focussed on restrictive tattoo policy , to me, it's a misguided pursuit. Tattoos in the military go into military history, it's a tradition. The first tattoo I received was one I saw on the arm of a photograph from a WW2 Marine in the Oacific Campaign.

Response by CPO Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2015 7:01 AM

CPO Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 07:01:39 -0400

http://www.rediviva.sav.sk/55i4/143.pdf
OBJECTIVES: Piercing and tattoos are promoted by fashion and the media and are becoming
more and more popular, especially among young people. The number of young adults acquiring body modification has increased in recent years. Different studies showed a correlation between body modification and self-harm behaviors. The present study investigates the correlation between piercing and tattoo and different psychological and personality disorders.

RESULTS: The statistical analysis of acquired results showed a significant correlation between body modifications and psychological and personality disorder and psychopathologies.