Tattoos

[egscharf]

All,

 

Big Army put out a PDF yesterday stating the following regarding tattoo policy changes in the upcoming revised AR 670-1:

 

TATTOO & BRANDING

 Policy is equal for accessions and current Soldiers;

Current Soldiers may keep previously authorized

tattoos (grandfathered)

 Redefined indecent tattoos

 Added restrictions for locations for unauthorized

tattoos

 Soldiers’ current tattoos will be documented in online

records to protect Soldiers with grandfathered tattoos

and aid with implementing this policy

 Unauthorized tattoo locations:

 On the head, face, & neck, (anything above the T-shirt

line to include on/inside the eyelids, mouth, & ears)

 On the hands, fingers, wrists (below the wrist bone)

 Each visible tattoo below the elbow or below the

knee must be smaller than the size of the wearer’s

hand (with fingers extended & joined with the thumb

touching the base of the index finger)

 Soldiers may have no more than 4 total visible

tattoos (smaller than the size of the wearer’s hand)

below the elbow or below the knee

 Defines small tattoos within a 5 inch diameter as one tattoo

 Visible band tattoos may be no more than 2” in width; Each

band tattoo counts as one tattoo & Soldiers may have no

more than one visible band tattoo

 Sleeve tattoos on arms or legs are unauthorized

 Officers and Warrant Officers are also restricted to this

same policy; Enlisted Soldiers exceeding this limit cannot

request commissioning (not grandfathered)

Once upon a time, I was an 18 year old kid who thought tattoos were cool. That said, my right arm is sleeved, though within current regs. I was selected in JAN for WOCS and have an ATRRS reservation in JUN. I'll gladly have the ink removed, as I was planning on doing so anyhow in order to present a more professional appearance, but I wonder if anyone has heard anything else on the matter. Looks like I'm in a bit of a gray area.

 

[akscott60]

Oh snap. Time to get two full sleeves.

[Yamer]

If you're already selected, that means what you have has been approved already, therefore you would be grandfathered in I'm guessing.

[Yamer]

Lol scott

Edited March 20, 2014 by Yamer

[egscharf]

If you're already selected, that means what you have has been approved already, therefore you would be grandfathered in I'm guessing.

Sure hope so buddy. I have enough on my hands with preparing to PCS and knocking out my final college class. Like I said, I'll certainly do whatever the Army asks to keep my slot, but I'd prefer not to have to shell out $1000+ right now.

[darkstarx87]

A guy in my wocs class had a bunch. He had to go see the cdr or something... said they were harassing him about them (maybe more specifically on hands/neck).

[StockTrader]

Once upon a time i was also an 18 year old tattoo happy kid. Fortunately i kept one rule of thumb. Everything had to be covered when wearing a normal t-shirt. As it stands right now I have bands around both upper arms, left shoulder, both pecs, and my upper back done. I think I am still within the regs though.

[WaterRooster]

I am also heavily tattoo'd. All that time in the infantry... Yet you would never know until I took my shirt off. I was taught never above the neck or below the arm of a t-shirt. They all seem pretty reasonable except that last one. No commissioning? The army will lose on that one. Ridiculous.

[egscharf]

We'll see what happens. In either case, I have an appointment today at a laser clinic. Just not worth chancing, ya know?

[Yamer]

We'll see what happens. In either case, I have an appointment today at a laser clinic. Just not worth chancing, ya know?

that's gonna hurt

[egscharf]

It'll hurt my wallet more than my arm;)

 

I don't mind too much at this point though. The tattoo sucks anyhow, and I was planning on covering it up. USAREC has a new message on their website basically saying that they're trying to get guidance from DA on what this means for applicants and selectees with tattoos.

[apacheguy]

The neck tats have to go. When they let that change during the wars it was sure sign of the decline of standards. Just my opinion but I've never met a truly stable person who had a neck tattoo.

[Lastshot]

If this rule is implemented, all of a sudden the selection rate jumps to 95%... j/k

[Justine]

I am also heavily tattoo'd. All that time in the infantry... Yet you would never know until I took my shirt off. I was taught never above the neck or below the arm of a t-shirt. They all seem pretty reasonable except that last one. No commissioning? The army will lose on that one. Ridiculous.

Its true of the Marine Corps, why not Army?

[WaterRooster]

Its true of the Marine Corps, why not Army?

I think it's ridiculous for them too. Can you tell me that tattoos mean a person wouldn't be a good leader and officer?

[Lastshot]

I think it's ridiculous for them too. Can you tell me that tattoos mean a person wouldn't be a good leader and officer?

 

It's all about presentation. Pilots and other officers are expected to "appear" more gentleman-like (or lady-like) -- this lends to their credibility. In the same way, you'd downplay a doctor who wears jeans and a t-shirt when treating patients, or a financial advisor with a pony tail. If the military has regs against having beards, why not tattoos? It doesn't mean they won't be great officers, but it tends to lead people to think that way.

[egscharf]

I can't tell you how many incredible Team Leaders, Squad Leaders, and Platoon Sergeants I've known with heavy ink who I would gladly trust in a firefight, in the cockpit of an aircraft, or anywhere else.

 

That said, the policy is still fairly lenient, i.e. four tattoos are allowed below the elbow the size of the wearer's hand. Laser treatment, though expensive, is definitely an option.

[ShaneWey]

 

It's all about presentation. Pilots and other officers are expected to "appear" more gentleman-like (or lady-like) -- this lends to their credibility. In the same way, you'd downplay a doctor who wears jeans and a t-shirt when treating patients, or a financial advisor with a pony tail. If the military has regs against having beards, why not tattoos? It doesn't mean they won't be great officers, but it tends to lead people to think that way.

 

One would still maintain that appearance if tattoos were out of sight. Also, I had a political science professor who had a beard strictly because statistically people are actually more trusting of a man with a beard and assume he is more knowledgeable. I know, ridiculous right? The point is it seems to be more about tradition than anything else. I think the military just prefers a certain look. But regs are regs and whether or not you agree with it, professional appearance is exactly why your parents told you not to get tattoos. A beard you can shave and hair you can cut.

[WaterRooster]

 

It's all about presentation. Pilots and other officers are expected to "appear" more gentleman-like (or lady-like) -- this lends to their credibility. In the same way, you'd downplay a doctor who wears jeans and a t-shirt when treating patients, or a financial advisor with a pony tail. If the military has regs against having beards, why not tattoos? It doesn't mean they won't be great officers, but it tends to lead people to think that way.

I understand what they are trying to do but I still don't agree. I know plenty of people who look the part but are horrible leaders. If you can do the job you can do the job or vice versa. Looks "should" have nothing to do with it. Plus it's the military... If you are heavily tattoo'd I'm not shocked by it.

[Lastshot]

I understand what they are trying to do but I still don't agree. I know plenty of people who look the part but are horrible leaders. If you can do the job you can do the job or vice versa. Looks "should" have nothing to do with it. Plus it's the military... If you are heavily tattoo'd I'm not shocked by it.

 

I can see where the Army is coming from. The military discriminates, whether we like it or not. It could be age, gender, orientation (at least before). The Army isn't always going to compromise the nation's security because of someone's personal preferences. We have to be cognizant of how other countries view us -- and the thinking is that tattoos generally don't help that image. That's the harsh reality of it. I'm not saying it's right or politically correct, but it's the truth.

[Wally]

A tattoo is fundamentally an intentional self mutilation. It is an inarguable psychological indication. Is it a decisively favorable indication to a branch of the service? If the tattoo is more important than the calling, the answer is obvious.

[brackac]

A tattoo is fundamentally an intentional self mutilation. It is an inarguable psychological indication. Is it a decisively favorable indication to a branch of the service? If the tattoo is more important than the calling, the answer is obvious.

 

 

Wow! Is filling a cavity self mutilation? Is cutting your hair self mutilation? What about a woman piercing their ears? They all modify the human body.

 

The fact that you think someone who has a tattoo has psychological deficiencies says a lot about your mental state.

[brackac]

A tattoo is fundamentally an intentional self mutilation. It is an inarguable psychological indication. Is it a decisively favorable indication to a branch of the service? If the tattoo is more important than the calling, the answer is obvious.

 

 

Sat and went through everyone in my unit, enlisted and warrant, and only 5 people don't have tattoos. So, that puts the percentage of people tattooed > 90% in my unit. Good to know that i work with so many psychologically damaged individuals.

[Wally]

 

 

Wow! Is filling a cavity self mutilation? Is cutting your hair self mutilation? What about a woman piercing their ears? They all modify the human body.

 

The fact that you think someone who has a tattoo has psychological deficiencies says a lot about yo.ur mental state.

 

"Is filling a cavity self mutilation?"

No, it's a restoration and repair. That's an illuminating point if you can't tell the difference.

[brackac]

 

"Is filling a cavity self mutilation?"

No, it's a restoration and repair. That's an illuminating point if you can't tell the difference.

No, there is no difference. The filling of cavities, along with crowns, bridges, and every other dental device that replaces or refinishes the natural form of the human body are cosmetic in nature. That's why we choose fillings that match our teeth color, or dental devices that disguise the work done, and by your own words the usage of a mechanical tool to alter or change one's body is in your stated opinion self mutilation driven by psychological issues.If it wasn't done for vanity reasons, we would just pull the tooth or use material that is much more conducive to the job, but less appealing visually.

 

The fact that you think people with tattoos are psychologically damaged shows your simple minded ignorance. I don't know if it's your age, or your beliefs, but either way you are seriously misguided on this subject. If you think that people in the military are mentally deficient just because they have tattoos, then you obviously think very little of the military as a whole. Just another out of touch old person who feels a sense of superiority because they can't get passed something someone did to their own body to improve their appearance. With that, I'm sure you know what you can go do.