Why are tattoo regulations so strict? Do they hinder your ability to fire a weapon?

Cpl Kenny Woods — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 11:34:51 -0500

Over the years I've tried to get into the national guard to continue to serve our nation, and have been denied due to tattoos, I really don't understand this rule.. Last time i checked, tattoos don't hinder my ability to fire a weapon , nor does it hinder my ability to receive or give orders... Just looking for some insight ...

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Dec 28 at 2015 11:37 AM

Capt Jeff S. — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 11:37:07 -0500

They are strict because in addition to being a fighting force, we are also ambassadors and want to put on a professional military image -- one that every other culture on this planet can look to and respect.

Response by Capt Mark Strobl made Dec 28 at 2015 11:43 AM

Capt Mark Strobl — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 11:43:20 -0500

I think every branch of the military has attempted to regulate ink. To this, I'd bet there are four... maybe five... different policies on tats. My guess is that these rules evolved from some need to protect the image of the American service member. You're right: They don't hinder one's ability to do their job. However, in a time of personnel draw-down and budget cuts, such rules on ink make it easier for the recruiter to decline your application.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 28 at 2015 11:51 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 11:51:42 -0500

Assuming that there is nothing obscene or extremist-related, the only remaining issue you should be having is the size of them, limited to one the size of your hand on each extremity.

Response by TSgt Kenneth Ellis made Dec 28 at 2015 12:35 PM

TSgt Kenneth Ellis — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 12:35:54 -0500

So you are gang tattoos ok?

Response by Sgt Benton Garrison made Dec 28 at 2015 12:42 PM

Sgt Benton Garrison — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 12:42:09 -0500

I think it doesn't matter, ink or no ink. A warrior's battle marks, just the liberal's attempt to control the military.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Dec 28 at 2015 12:48 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 12:48:30 -0500

Because being a Service Member is not only about "firing a weapon." It's about promoting a Brand. Brand USA. Although you (and I) find them acceptable, not everyone does, and until that changes we must live within said policies, which are clearly published.

America wants war hardened killers who we can send overseas on a moments notice. It also wants Marines who collect Toys for Tots, and are easily approachable. America is bipolar.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 28 at 2015 1:24 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 13:24:23 -0500

The new SMA Daily has changed the short lived policy from last year. Still there are places on the body that are prohibited, but for the most part the arms and legs are good to go. Just have to make sure they are according to 670-1! I love tats and have plenty, it doesn't hinder my professionalism or performance.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 28 at 2015 1:27 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 13:27:34 -0500

no but i bet some fat politician behind a desk raised the issue and our leadership followed

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Dec 28 at 2015 2:10 PM

SGM Erik Marquez — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 14:10:52 -0500

Perception
Professional appearance
While I personally do not see ink as detrimental to either, reality is many do. And some of those many write the rules.
It really is as simple as that

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 28 at 2015 2:29 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 14:29:38 -0500

Might want to check with your recruiter again, the policy changed recently relaxing the standards.

Response by MSgt Steven Holt, NRP, CCEMT-P made Dec 28 at 2015 2:36 PM

MSgt Steven Holt, NRP, CCEMT-P — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 14:36:11 -0500

Personally, I think it all boils down to the "Professional Image". Whether I agree or not, a large portion of today's society still view tattoos as belonging to the 'criminal' or 'delinquent' elements. Those same personalities expect a certain "look" and "image" from those in professional careers. For example, one of our best Paramedics looks like an ex-convict biker due to his hair style and multiple tattoos. Many people can't get past his image to see the huge amount of skill and knowledge he brings. There's an old saying, "Perception is Reality". How people perceive you is their reality of you. Doesn't matter if it's true or not.

Response by SSG Todd Halverson made Dec 28 at 2015 4:19 PM

SSG Todd Halverson — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 16:19:57 -0500

They restrict the tattoos as a way of controlling who can and can't join the Military. When we needed more troops for combat deployments, they relaxed a lot of the tat regs. Now that they are wanting to shrink the size of the Military, this is just one of the tools.

Response by Cpl Rc Layne made Dec 28 at 2015 4:36 PM

Cpl Rc Layne — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 16:36:47 -0500

Another reason for the regulations severity is, I believe the fact that so many gang members have tattoos and it gives everyone with a tattoo a bad rap.
I spent a career working in corrections after my time in the Corps, and the latter part as a training officer. Virginia did not recognize the fact that we had a gang problem until the mid 2000s. Once they did, they went overboard, and everyone with a tattoo was a gang member. I spent a lot of time correcting that assumption as I have tattoos and I am not a gang member.
I think that theory bled over to the military.

Response by PV2 Scott Goodpasture made Dec 28 at 2015 5:43 PM

PV2 Scott Goodpasture — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 17:43:53 -0500

Good chance of hepatitis or other pathogen

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 28 at 2015 10:12 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 22:12:02 -0500

There was a day when you would just get a tattoo on your arm or shoulder. Over the years there has been such a distinct shift in where members of the military get tattoos. Hands, necks, head, and other places which may be visible tend to become distracting and in many cases excessive. It is about professional appearance and service. If for some reason, a member separates from military, the private sector may seem more lenient but there is a push for more stringent policies. My police department has tried several times to push for a very strict tattoo policy which would require any tattoo below the elbow covered with a long sleeve shirt. No tattoos below the wrist or above the t-shirt line. The military is clear...they are not saying you can't get tattoo's, you just need to keep it under control or you can look for employment elsewhere.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 29 at 2015 4:08 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 04:08:14 -0500

How many do u have & when did u get out?

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Dec 29 at 2015 4:35 AM

Capt Jeff S. — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 04:35:09 -0500

Any questions?

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Dec 29 at 2015 11:18 AM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 11:18:17 -0500

Because we don't need the Army being represented by these guys...

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 29 at 2015 11:31 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 11:31:36 -0500

Double check with a Guard recruiter again. Policies were changed with the new SMA in regards to tattoos. I work with the Idaho Army Guard recruiters and we are constantly getting waivers approved for new enlistments with tats.

Response by Sgt Jamie Greenhalgh made Dec 29 at 2015 11:56 AM

Sgt Jamie Greenhalgh — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 11:56:31 -0500

I love tattoos. Unfortunately not everyone else does. Have you ever thought having them removed in order to serve your nation?

Response by SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 29 at 2015 12:48 PM

SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 12:48:16 -0500

It is simple - you enlisted and agree to all the terms of your enlistment - not just the ones that you think are correct. You are a member of the U.S. Military, your appearance is a reflection on the country, branch of service - weight, wear of your uniform, how you act in public, etc. There were always restrictions on Tattoos - they were just relaxed after 9/11 to build up the ranks. Now that we are forced to cut spending - that effects who can enlisted and who can stay in the service. As others have said there are differences in each branch on what is allowed, but generally it is - not allowed on the face, neck - only on arms & legs and can't be more than 25% and there are limits on type of tattoos that you can get. If you really want to serve - then you either get them removed at your costs and/or seek a waiver. Are you willing to do the extra step to get into the service. It is not just about can you do the job - fire the weapon, pass the fit test, follow regulations, it is the whole package. Service is not a right - it is a privilege.

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 29 at 2015 1:43 PM

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 13:43:44 -0500

We are a professional force.

Response by SPC Jonathan Schmidt made Dec 29 at 2015 3:19 PM

SPC Jonathan Schmidt — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 15:19:48 -0500

Simply put it boils down to the appearance of professionalism. The same reason there are uniformity based regulations in the first place. Whether or not they make sense, they are the rules all the same.

Response by TSgt Marco McDowell made Dec 29 at 2015 7:27 PM

TSgt Marco McDowell — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 19:27:44 -0500

At the 4 minute mark upon my arrival at Parris Island, South Carolina, I kind of figured out that the military wasn't a democracy. It's up to the institution, something that'll be there long after we've been buried. I have tattoos, but I followed what were the regs at the time because I wanted a special duty later on. I'm all for them, unfortunately some guys go overboard and either get something unappealing to the populace or it doesn't fall into line with what the service views as professional. Tats on the neck, skull, hands, full body, doesn't hinder you physically, but it's not what they want. Most businesses and of course the armed forces tend to be conservative, only because it's a catch-all default that allows everyone to feel comfortable dealing with them. Many places will simply require you to cover them up as best you can or may not hire you. Some don't care as long as it doesn't cause grief with others. In the end, I've learned that unless you're the owner or the grand poobah, it's not about you (generalization, not personal), it's about what the man/woman who is in charge wants for their organization.

Response by PO1 Pete Sikes made Dec 30 at 2015 8:24 AM

PO1 Pete Sikes — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 08:24:35 -0500

Long hair and a crappy uniform don't either, right? Or an IQ above room temperature, yet we have restrictions on those also

Response by SSG Delanda Hunt made Dec 30 at 2015 1:06 PM

SSG Delanda Hunt — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 13:06:32 -0500

Response by Sgt Kevin Curl made Dec 30 at 2015 10:04 PM

Sgt Kevin Curl — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 22:04:16 -0500

As Marine from 70's and 80's with a tattoo on upper right arm I didn't see a problem with them . Today though tattoo's are far more colorful and the young today have them on their necks and all up and down their arms which doesn't look right for Marine Corps . Chest , back , upper arms, legs and stomach I have no problem with . But I also don't have a problem with a bit longer hair and mustache being longer and not looking like Adolph Hitler like Marine reg's make you look like. Also don't have problem with tasteful tattoos on forearm as long as it isn't to large or gawdy.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 31 at 2015 9:24 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 09:24:36 -0500

You can be profisional and be inked up that's not the issue the issue is that some people were takeing the tattoos to the limit and almost overstepping the boundaries of the regulation getting stuff they weren't supposed to a few can mess it up for us all I myself have only two tattoos and they are on my chest and back but I have futer plans to cover my arms with meaningful things to me all the children in lost over the yewas a total of 5 to be exact my two children family members and things iv thought long and hard about putting on my body forever and then there are people who just get bad ass sleeve and are still great soldiers and leaders tattoos army the issue its the people

Response by Cpl Kenny Woods made Dec 31 at 2015 2:51 PM

Cpl Kenny Woods — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 14:51:52 -0500

I just wanted to touch base, since I don't have the time it would take to respond to each individual that has posted. These are great responses and I appreciate your insight and opinions greatly! Semper Fidelis!

Response by SFC William Adamek made Dec 31 at 2015 5:42 PM

SFC William Adamek — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 17:42:36 -0500

For some its part of the quality long-term decision making abilities let alone the branding or being a representative of who you work for. We have a veteran that, we are trying to help find work for, that had a tree tattooed across his face. Would you hire him as a representative of your company or your unit in any serious capacity?

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 8 at 2016 8:27 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 08 Jan 2016 20:27:10 -0500

Being in the military is not a right nd it's not just about firing a weapon. If you don't like the standard, get out and get a convoy security job. I'm barely within regulation as far as my tattoos are concerned but I understand that if I want to be a Marine, I need to follow orders.

Response by LCpl Cody Collins made Jan 10 at 2016 9:33 AM

LCpl Cody Collins — Sun, 10 Jan 2016 09:33:36 -0500

You will find that a lot of civilian jobs have the same policy.

Response by Cpl William Taylor made Jan 12 at 2016 11:31 AM

Cpl William Taylor — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 11:31:33 -0500

Because read you contract carefully you become government property once enlisted there strict cause you have to look professional. Why tattoo's have to beagle to be cover say you wanted to go to ocs. Training if they can t be cover you mm never get into officer training it about respect the uniform the service your in and they have to look at the money spend training you. You can get a number of charge if tattoo can t be covered by uniform. Destruction of government property , vandalizing. Government property, just to name 2 and you can be charged with a corp Marshall. And get dishonorable discharged from military it was like that when my dad was in in nam and me when I went in. In 86. Beside that there more stricter now cause of unclean tattoo parlars. Were a lot of disease you catch and from what I know they prefer soldier didn't smoke

Response by SGT Gabriel Brown made Sep 25 at 2017 8:18 PM

SGT Gabriel Brown — Mon, 25 Sep 2017 20:18:28 -0400

Regulation was changed because of MSG. In my opinion, make the ban on tattoos MSG specific, not Corps wide. If you ever get a chance to go to the rolling hills of Arlington, look around and ask yourself which of them had sleeves.

Response by SGT Chad Cherry made Sep 27 at 2017 9:50 PM

SGT Chad Cherry — Wed, 27 Sep 2017 21:50:14 -0400

Tattoos do not tell anyone who someone is unless they are founded in negative imagery. If the tattos are visable in unform then they my display an image Service members don't/shouldn't support.

Response by SPC John Decker made Apr 5 at 2019 11:22 AM

SPC John Decker — Fri, 05 Apr 2019 11:22:11 -0400

Hindsight, being what it is, has taught me that being in the military, whatever branch, is about being an asset. A tool. When you need x number of tools, of the same type, you tend to get the same brand, make, model. Ask an auto mechanic, who probably has more than one of a given tool. You'll find that most of them will tell you that every one of them is the same. Individualism is not in the best interest of the military.

Response by PO2 Bill Kuiper made Apr 5 at 2019 3:02 PM

PO2 Bill Kuiper — Fri, 05 Apr 2019 15:02:21 -0400

"Uniform". If the service wanted you to have tattoos, you would have been issued them. Look alike, talk alike, act alike.

Response by 1LT Nick Kidwell made Apr 5 at 2019 4:26 PM

1LT Nick Kidwell — Fri, 05 Apr 2019 16:26:05 -0400

I think it's the recruiter you're talking to.

I served in the NG from 1998-2007. The recruiter's aide who drove me to MEPS had eyes on the back of her neck just above her collar. Since then, regs have changed.

My advice is to talk to a different recruiter, because I suspect there's something else going on.

Response by SSgt Paul Nichols made Apr 5 at 2019 8:45 PM

SSgt Paul Nichols — Fri, 05 Apr 2019 20:45:59 -0400

The way I had always adhered to was if it fits under the Charlie’s, it was likely ok! Anything outside that is exposed to ridicule, and thus affects you, your unit and the corps! Though I find good tats a sense of history, some folks don’t and look upon them with condemnation! Above all else you are a representative of the most fierce fighting force! You must conduct you self as such! Yut! OohRah!

Response by PO3 Chris Scheide made Apr 5 at 2019 11:20 PM

PO3 Chris Scheide — Fri, 05 Apr 2019 23:20:16 -0400

In the 1950's the nuclear Navy thought that tattoos represented mental instability.