Tattooing Identification Tags on Service Members

2014-10-19T03:44:49-04:00

If the military wanted to start tattooing Identification tags (dog tags) around service member’s necks and would be willing to pay for it would you be willing to allow that to be inked on you? What are the pros and the cons that would alter your decision?

Response by PO3 Shaun Taylor made Oct 19 at 2014 4:04 AM

2014-10-19T04:04:16-04:00

No, I wouldn't be willing to do that. If I would agree to something like that it definitely couldn't be where just anyone could get that information.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 19 at 2014 2:37 PM

2014-10-19T14:37:51-04:00

No, I'd rather get a RFID chip implanted before getting a tattoo.

Response by SSG George Baker made Oct 20 at 2014 4:40 PM

2014-10-20T16:40:52-04:00

hell yes after 15 years active duty i felt i own those who served before, during, and after me so i got Fallin soldier cross for all to see

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Oct 20 at 2014 5:02 PM

2014-10-20T17:02:39-04:00

It's too permanent IMHO.

Response by PO2 Rocky Kleeger made Oct 20 at 2014 7:37 PM

2014-10-20T19:37:29-04:00

No. If they are kicked out for drugs, or some heinous crime, then it still labels them as a veteran. Aren't dog tags taken away with a DH?

Response by SSG George Baker made Oct 20 at 2014 8:13 PM

2014-10-20T20:13:14-04:00

i got the tattoo for many reasons that it seems some lifers dont understand.. I'm a Viet Nam Veteran DAV, i lost one brother to Agent Orange (birth brother) i lost many comrades. This is to honor them. you want a chip in your head so they can follow every movement you make fine. dont chip me unless i'm in a combat zone that way they can find my body (heaven forbid).. like i said earlier i spend 15 years active duty. lifer code was my blood.. discahrged and listed 100 percent disable. to Honor my brothers and sisters who have served before,during, and after me is pure respect for those who died, wounded, and sstill fighting God Bless them All

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 20 at 2014 10:25 PM

2014-10-20T22:25:13-04:00

No. Absolutely not. This immediately reminded me of Auschwitz's identification program.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Oct 20 at 2014 11:10 PM

2014-10-20T23:10:51-04:00

It would be like having our own VIN number. Would arms, legs head and torso need to be inked, in case any part gets separated?

Response by Col Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 22 at 2014 5:18 PM

2014-10-22T17:18:23-04:00

Nope, the only ink that goes on my body is non ID related.

Response by SGT Mark Sullivan made Oct 22 at 2014 5:21 PM

2014-10-22T17:21:38-04:00

Oh, so we're talking about placing a barcode on someone, that's very impersonal and is reminiscent of Nazi Concentration camps, Too Creepy. Again, as your body does not remain intact when around certain explosives, logistically would not be feasible. Giving your DNA is a better solution, but even that would degrade over the years

Response by PO1 Tony Peters made Oct 22 at 2014 5:54 PM

2014-10-22T17:54:37-04:00

why not Barcode or QR code....no reason to put you name on your body that's a bit ghetto

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 22 at 2014 6:24 PM

2014-10-22T18:24:52-04:00

I would not let the Army tattoo anything on me since they would pick the cheapest bidder that would charge 3 times the street price for the same design with lower quality

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 23 at 2014 12:04 PM

2014-11-23T12:04:42-05:00

What happens in the event your captured?

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 23 at 2014 12:16 PM

2014-11-23T12:16:19-05:00

Not a chance. No offence to my brothers and sister with tattoos, but permanent marking of bodies is a personal choice that I would fight like hell if the Army foisted it on me.

I don't see much wrong with the current tags. With current DNA technology, we should have little trouble identifying remains anymore.
By the way, how long does skin last in the decomposition process? Seems like there are quite a few things wrong with this idea.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 23 at 2014 8:46 PM

2014-11-23T20:46:07-05:00

I don't see any pros... And cons are you have a tattoo on your Neck for life even after you leave the military. Also with new tattoo regs, that would never happen in the first place!

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 23 at 2014 8:47 PM

2014-11-23T20:47:30-05:00

No. At this point we still use SSNs on the dog tags and that is not a good thing to have on you as they can be seen when you go to the beach or pool and anyone can take a picture and put it their social media and boom there goes your identity to someone else along with your credit score down the drain....and your security clearance and your career.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 24 at 2014 12:07 PM

2014-11-24T12:07:23-05:00

Out of your mind!!! I have no tattoos and never want one. Esspecially one on my chest!!!! NO WAY!!! Not even a question....

Response by PO1 Donald Kennelly made Nov 24 at 2014 3:58 PM

2014-11-24T15:58:39-05:00

There are operations where we did not have any ID with us at all (under orders). No rank, no ID, no tags.

And as SPC Mulder states; it reminds me of government identification.

I suppose it wouldn't matter for body ID whether it was cut off of you or not, but the next of kin might be grossed out.

And last but not least, only I and Jesus Christ own this body. NOT the government.

Response by SPC Jack Hunt, JR made Nov 24 at 2014 4:15 PM

2014-11-24T16:15:16-05:00

We called em meet tags in my days. Quite a few of the guys I served with in the airborne had a dog tag tattooed on their rib cage just under the arm pit.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 24 at 2014 7:10 PM

2014-11-24T19:10:20-05:00

No, because this marks Soldiers permanently. How can we blend with the civilian populace, hide in plain sight, or otherwise escape detection at the beach? OPSEC.
Also: The SS tattooed information on their arms and it made them easily distinguishable from the German regulars when inprocessed as EPWs. Didn't end well for them.

Response by SA Eugene Breaux made Nov 25 at 2014 1:07 PM

2014-11-25T13:07:45-05:00

No. Absolutely not.

Response by SPC Natasha Nelson made Nov 25 at 2014 1:51 PM

2014-11-25T13:51:40-05:00

The point of dog tagS is that when a soldier dies one is left on the body. And one is taken for accountability of your dead. So it would be very unwise to tattoo then to troops unless you are also going to start issuing a special knife and class on how to cut that 2nd tag off...

Response by SGT Suraj Dave made Nov 26 at 2014 7:30 AM

2014-11-26T07:30:04-05:00

This would never work.

We just let a soldier in who will not conform to grooming standards due to religious reasons. (I am talking about the Sikh Soldier, whose name has slipped my mind at the moment).

Since he can get out of shaving and hair cut's with that, the rest of us could just say Leviticus 19:28 forbids tattoo's... like how that Sikh soldier's religion forbids him from shaving and getting hair cuts.

As long as we keep changing the standard to conform to the soldier (as we have been doing), instead of making the soldier conform to the standard (which we used to do), this isn't even a remote possibility. I guess that is the one positive's to conforming the Army to fit the soldier, and not vice versa.

Response by SPC Stephanie Oanes made Nov 28 at 2014 11:29 PM

2014-11-28T23:29:32-05:00

I'm all about tattoos! But as far as dog tags being tatt'd on me....ehhh I'm not really for that. Yes, there ARE pro's to it; you can't lose your dogtags and you can't show up to formation and bring the excuse that you forgot them. But, what about if you leave the Army? You now have that permanent ink on your body unless you have the money to get it lasered off. (Even then, that's not 100% removal)

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Jul 7 at 2015 10:28 PM

2015-07-07T22:28:47-04:00

The Nazis identified their victims, the Jewish people and others with a tattoo as well. I will never let the Army mark me like that for identification. I already take vaccinations for the Army. I do not want myself to me identified I am in the military if I ever get into situation which is not good for me or my family.

Response by A1C Lisa Casserly made Feb 27 at 2016 2:49 AM

2016-02-27T02:49:47-05:00

Ah. I have mixed feelings on this. First, I am and have been proud to serve. Being tattooed with a marking to show my service and patriotism would be cool. But, on the other hand, there is this knee-jerk reaction in me... I was in Europe at the time of that plane hijacking, where those two Navy divers were on the plane. And, back in the day (mid 80s) we didn't NEED a passport... we could travel the world (pretty much) on our green active duty ID card. And, at the time, these two young men were coming back to Europe from leave, I think. They had no passports. So, when the hijackers demanded all the passports, they didn't have any. They knew this would make them targets, so they tried to hide their cards... they were found, and one of the young men was dragged to the front of the plane when it was parked on a tarmac somewhere, and, the door was opened. And then right there, broadcast live around the world, the hijacker/terrorists shot the guy in the head, and threw his body out the door of the plane. It was pretty horrific. After that, we were all pretty much told to stay put, until we could get a passport made. I shudder to think of the people who worked in that department, thousands and thousands of passports to be issued in the biggest hurry. This was all to make the US Soldier harder to identify. So, that could be an issue, not allowing a soldier to "fly under the radar."

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 19 at 2023 10:21 PM

2023-04-19T22:21:59-04:00

HELL NO!

Response by Maj John Bell made Apr 20 at 2023 3:49 PM

2023-04-20T15:49:28-04:00

No. Nothing would alter my decision. Faced with an order, I would accept fines, incarceration and punitive discharge first.