# Army to do away with asinine tattoo policy?



## Marauder06 (Apr 1, 2015)

> In an article that has many veterans saying “pleasepleasePLEASE don’t be an April Fool’s joke” the Army Times posted a story today indicating that the Chief of Staff of the Army, General Raymond Odierno,  has reversed a much-maligned tattoo policy that has had inked troops and their supporters  seeing red.



http://www.havokjournal.com/culture/army-tattoos-are-in-again/

@pardus


----------



## racing_kitty (Apr 1, 2015)

One can only hope!


----------



## Brill (Apr 1, 2015)

@pardus has a tramp stamp?


----------



## reed11b (Apr 1, 2015)

AMERICA!!!
Reed


----------



## pardus (Apr 1, 2015)

Hmm, I'm not buying it until I see it come from somewhere more official that the Army Times, and certainly not on April 1st.

If true, bloody good job! Unbelievable that the Army would institute a discriminatory policy in this day and age. I'm still very pissed off about it. 

The restriction on hands, neck and head is perfectly OK IMO, and in fact should never have been altered in the first place.
If this reversal is true, I'm going to roll the new reg into a tube and jam it up Chandler's ass.


----------



## x SF med (Apr 1, 2015)

lindy said:


> @pardus has a tramp stamp?



Two, or is that three?.....


----------



## HOLLiS (Apr 1, 2015)

IIRC Bull Halsey had two propellers tatted to his rump,  above it was the words.  Danger Twin Screws.   
 I can easy see why Pardus and the Troll has a tramp tatt. Saying some thing like "Illegal back with intent... or NO Stopping"..


----------



## Worldweaver (Apr 2, 2015)

pardus said:


> Hmm, I'm not buying it until I see it come from somewhere more official that the Army Times, and certainly not on April 1st.
> 
> If true, bloody good job! Unbelievable that the Army would institute a discriminatory policy in this day and age. I'm still very pissed off about it.
> 
> ...




http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/1/ray-odierno-army-changes-tattoo-policy-effective-i/

Looking forward to this happening...if it happens at all. 

By the way, Chandler says he loves Saturday nights. :-"


----------



## policemedic (Apr 2, 2015)

Hmmm....maybe I'll reenlist.


----------



## pardus (Apr 2, 2015)

Worldweaver said:


> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/1/ray-odierno-army-changes-tattoo-policy-effective-i/
> 
> Looking forward to this happening...if it happens at all.
> 
> By the way, Chandler says he loves Saturday nights. :-"



That's still just quoting the Army Times...

Chandler can suck goat balls.


----------



## Worldweaver (Apr 2, 2015)

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/04/02/army-tattoo-revised-policy/70817402/

_"Not only were the stricter tattoo rules controversial among soldiers, it also had an impact on recruiting, Dailey said."

"There is a large portion of the American society that has tattoos," he said. "There was a population that we were disqualifying from military service because of this new regulation."

Dailey said the new policy is "the right decision."_


----------



## pardus (Apr 2, 2015)

Worldweaver said:


> http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/04/02/army-tattoo-revised-policy/70817402/
> 
> _"Not only were the stricter tattoo rules controversial among soldiers, it also had an impact on recruiting, Dailey said."
> 
> ...



Another Armytimes article...


----------



## racing_kitty (Apr 2, 2015)

The green fish wrapper is probably the only publication to give a shit about anything that would be a boon for the troops or increase enlistment numbers.


----------



## AWP (Apr 2, 2015)

> After many _Army Times _readers questioned the validity of the news — because it was announced on April Fools' Day — Dailey stressed on Wednesday evening that the policy change is real.
> "We didn't pick April Fools' Day. It's real," he said. *"I have a copy of the AR 670-1 update here."*


 
If so it hasn't been released.


----------



## pardus (Apr 2, 2015)

racing_kitty said:


> The green fish wrapper is probably the only publication to give a shit about anything that would be a boon for the troops or increase enlistment numbers.



I'm really hoping that is the case.
I don't want to get my hopes up though.


----------



## Totentanz (Apr 2, 2015)

I had an email come across my inbox a few days ago with what I'll call "strong RUMINT" pertaining to the current SMA making such comments (among others regarding NCO development, retention, et al).

I'd give this matter a level of fidelity above that of the normal Army Times Bat Boy stories.


----------



## reed11b (Apr 2, 2015)

Totentanz said:


> I had an email come across my inbox a few days ago with what I'll call "strong RUMINT" pertaining to the current SMA making such comments (among others regarding NCO development, retention, et al).
> 
> I'd give this matter a level of fidelity above that of the normal Army Times Bat Boy stories.


 Annnd I just learned what "fidelity"means. Damn wordy CA types...
Reed


----------



## compforce (Apr 2, 2015)

reed11b said:


> Annnd I just learned what "fidelity"means. Damn wordy CA types...
> Reed




What are you, an officer?  or a private?  

"Attention to orders: Headquarters, Department of the Army, The president of the United States has reposed special trust and confidence in the patriotism, valor,* fidelity* and abilities of [NAME]. In view of these qualities and his/her demonstrated potential for increased responsibility, [NAME] is promoted to [NEW RANK] with a date of rank of [DATE]."


----------



## AWP (Apr 2, 2015)




----------



## Totentanz (Apr 2, 2015)

compforce said:


> What are you, an officer?  or a private?
> 
> "Attention to orders: Headquarters, Department of the Army, The president of the United States has reposed special trust and confidence in the patriotism, valor,* fidelity* and abilities of [NAME]. In view of these qualities and his/her demonstrated potential for increased responsibility, [NAME] is promoted to [NEW RANK] with a date of rank of [DATE]."



In keeping with the spirit of the thread, I must express exultation (another vocab work for you, @reed11b) in tattoo form (no, it's not my ink).  Lower-arm ink, no less.


----------



## x SF med (Apr 2, 2015)

@reed11b ....   the sky is falling, the sky is falling..... oh, hell.... it's friggin arty from multiple batteries.


----------



## Viper1 (Apr 2, 2015)

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

http://www.armytimes.com/story/mili...attoo-policy-changes-sma-dan-dailey/70791276/ (SMA explains the new policy)

http://www.vox.com/2015/4/2/8334951/army-tattoos

Letting Soldiers get tats on their neck and hands (minus the wedding band tat) was a mistake from the start.  Idiocy.

Bottom line: the 2015 policy changes the tattoo policy back to pre-SMA Chandler days.  And tattoo artists across the U.S. gave thanks...


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 2, 2015)

Now for the beret.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 3, 2015)

I fail to see how this is asinine.  And before you even ask St George Slaying the Dragon is on my right moob.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Apr 3, 2015)

No, the tattoo policy currently enforced/applied to service-members is asinine.


----------



## pardus (Apr 3, 2015)

ThunderHorse said:


> I fail to see how this is asinine.  And before you even ask St George Slaying the Dragon is on my right moob.



Did you miss the point of the thread, or are you saying the current tattoo policy is not asinine?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 6, 2015)

I think the current tattoo policy is not asinine.  And I have tattoos.


----------



## pardus (Apr 6, 2015)

ThunderHorse said:


> I think the current tattoo policy is not asinine.  And I have tattoos.



Gotcha, thanks for the clarification.
I strongly disagree that a discriminatory policy being expanded in this day and age is not asinine though. I could make an argument that it is a racist policy too if I felt so inclined.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 6, 2015)

To be honest I think there is plenty of canvas between your knees, clavicle and elbow.  What I did not understand was why you couldn't get any below the knees...since when do we wear short shorts like the French as a duty uniform?


----------



## pardus (Apr 6, 2015)

ThunderHorse said:


> To be honest I think there is plenty of canvas between your knees, clavicle and elbow.  What I did not understand was why you couldn't get any below the knees...since when do we wear short shorts like the French as a duty uniform?



Fair enough, but that is all beside the point. 
I've been told that my appearance which was good enough to enlist and go to war for this country, is now unprofessional, and I must be registered and photographed like a criminal to retain the ability to serve my adopted country.
I will add to that by saying tattoos which are a huge part of my heritage, are part of my cultural identity, and any move against them is extremely discriminatory. 
How many fucking classes am I forced to go through that say, gays are cool, don't discriminate, females are cool, don't discriminate, race's are all cool, don't discriminate... oh wait, unless you're a Pacific Islander or a European, then we can and will discriminate against the part of your culture that defines you as an adult and a warrior.   
There is no legitimate justification for this new move. The assholes in charge should have left things well enough alone, pre neck/hand tattoos.


----------



## policemedic (Apr 6, 2015)

ThunderHorse said:


> To be honest I think there is plenty of canvas between your knees, clavicle and elbow.  What I did not understand was why you couldn't get any below the knees...since when do we wear short shorts like the French as a duty uniform?


 
The PT uniform comes to mind.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 7, 2015)

The PT Uniform is not one for the public and is purely functional.  We haven't rolled sleeves in the Army since I knew what a hard on actually was.


----------



## pardus (Apr 7, 2015)

ThunderHorse said:


> The PT Uniform is not one for the public and is purely functional.  *We haven't rolled sleeves in the Army since I knew what a hard on actually was*.



When did you join the Army there chief?


----------



## policemedic (Apr 7, 2015)

ThunderHorse said:


> The PT Uniform is not one for the public and is purely functional.  We haven't rolled sleeves in the Army since I knew what a hard on actually was.


 
Unless things are done radically differently since I was AD, the PT uniform is worn in public.  It's also used when USAR and ARNG units conduct PT sessions off-post.  It's an official uniform of the US Army that exposes bare skin below the knee.  The ACU was also touted as a functional uniform, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

Come to think of it, female Soldiers are authorized to wear a skirt that falls just below the knees which would expose any ink on their lower legs.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Apr 7, 2015)

ThunderHorse said:


> The PT Uniform is not one for the public and is purely functional.  We haven't rolled sleeves in the Army since I knew what a hard on actually was.



LOL... if you didn't know what a hardon was in 99-2000 thereabouts, then I really don't even know what to say.


----------



## 8654Maine (Apr 7, 2015)

I won't blame the current tattoo policy, but it was one of the things to prevent me from getting a Reserve physician slot.

Their loss.


----------



## AWP (Apr 7, 2015)

One of the problems I see is that for years the Army could care less, but now it wants to consider one's appearance in a PT uniform. Policies, standards, norms, etc. all change, but when it comes at a time when restrictions on gay people (which I support), women in combat (which I have sever misgivings over), and the plethora of EEO/ SHARP/ other mandatory classes are occuring how does this not looks and feel like another "Form over function" debate?


----------



## Brill (Apr 7, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> One of the problems I see is that for years the Army could care less, but now it wants to consider one's appearance in a PT uniform.



If that's the case, they would drop the glow belt.  It breaks ALL the fashion rules.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 7, 2015)

Ranger Psych said:


> LOL... if you didn't know what a hardon was in 99-2000 thereabouts, then I really don't even know what to say.



98-99 I became cognizant of the noodly appendage being attracted to the ladies...4th grade was a tough year hombre.  

Us AD folks PT offsite in civilians.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Apr 7, 2015)

Explains your cav hardon.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 8, 2015)

That Cavalier life yo.


----------



## Totentanz (Apr 10, 2015)

ThunderHorse said:


> That Cavalier life yo.


 
Did your VTIP get approved, or are you now Paper Pusher Extraordinaire?

Personally, I thought the old tattoo policy made sense - if it can't be seen in dress uniform and isn't racist/obscene, good to go.  I really don't see at all what we have improved with the current policy.  IMO, the forced upload into OMPF is a sign that HQDA does not trust local commanders, and resultantly has to micromanage a process that a) doesn't need to exist in the first place and b) should (IMO) be a relatively low priority matter.


----------



## BloodStripe (Apr 20, 2015)

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/sto...too-regulations-marine-corps-career/25894935/

Not Army, but some bull shit nonetheless.


----------



## Worldweaver (Apr 20, 2015)

The U.S. Army has published its revised uniform and appearance regulation, AR 670-1 atarmypubs.army.mil/epubs/pdf/r670_1.pdf and DA PAM 670-1

Soldiers are still prohibited from having tattoos above the T-shirt neckline - meaning anywhere on the neck, face and head.

http://www.military.com/military-report/army-revises-tattoo-regs.html?ESRC=mr0420.nl


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 20, 2015)

Worldweaver said:


> The U.S. Army has published its revised uniform and appearance regulation, AR 670-1 atarmypubs.army.mil/epubs/pdf/r670_1.pdf and DA PAM 670-1
> 
> Soldiers are still prohibited from having tattoos above the T-shirt neckline - meaning anywhere on the neck, face and head.
> 
> http://www.military.com/military-report/army-revises-tattoo-regs.html?ESRC=mr0420.nl


I agree with that.
They need to outlaw tramp stamps too.


----------



## pardus (Apr 20, 2015)

Worldweaver said:


> The U.S. Army has published its revised uniform and appearance regulation, AR 670-1 atarmypubs.army.mil/epubs/pdf/r670_1.pdf and DA PAM 670-1
> 
> Soldiers are still prohibited from having tattoos above the T-shirt neckline - meaning anywhere on the neck, face and head.
> 
> http://www.military.com/military-report/army-revises-tattoo-regs.html?ESRC=mr0420.nl



NOW I believe it! 

I have to say, I'm surprised the Army did this. I applaud it, but am surprised.


----------



## reed11b (Apr 20, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> I agree with that.
> They need to outlaw tramp stamps too.


Why do you hate Pardus so much?
Reed


----------



## pardus (Apr 20, 2015)

reed11b said:


> Why do you hate Pardus so much?
> Reed



Got your B4 yet wanker?


----------



## policemedic (Apr 20, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> I agree with that.
> They need to outlaw tramp stamps too.



Completely depends on the tramp.

I've met one or two that wear them very well...


----------



## AWP (Apr 21, 2015)

A tramp stamp is just a Moving Target Indicator (Google it) for eligible, uh..."companions."

Also, if you outlaw those then who will remember what a hibiscus looks like?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 21, 2015)

Also published in 670-1 was that it no longer takes a 4187 for you to change your home regiment if you're enlisted...and no, my guys have no clue how to add it to your ERB haha.  

One of my old Soldiers asked me when I was going to get a sleeve, I won't.  But I retract what I said, just because I don't want it below the elbow doesn't mean the Army should mandate that.  And yes, keep that shit below the clavicle.  Most of us could not sport head tats like Ragnar.


----------

