# New Army Rules for Tattoos, Grooming On the Way



## pardus (Sep 23, 2013)

I wonder how long it'll be until I'm banned from re-enlistment.
Assholes.



http://www.military.com/daily-news/...ing-on-the-way.html?comp=7000023435630&rank=1

JALALABAD, Afghanistan -- In the works for more than a year, strict new rules governing things like tattoos and grooming for soldiers have been approved by the Secretary of the Army and are only awaiting a final signature, Sgt. Maj. of the Army Raymond Chandler said Saturday.

Speaking to troops at bases in eastern Afghanistan, Chandler said Secretary John McHugh has approved but not yet officially put his name to the changes to Army Regulation 670-1.

“We’re just waiting for the secretary to sign,” Chandler said during a town hall meeting with soldiers from the 4th Combat Brigade Team, 10th Mountain Division, at Forward Operating Base Gamberi. He made similar remarks to troops at FOB Fenty in Jalalabad.

The regulations cover things such as tattoos, grooming, and uniforms and apply only to soldiers. Other branches of the military have their own grooming and appearance rules.

Chandler said he expects the changes to become policy in 30 to 60 days.

Media reports last year identified potential changes to rules governing things such make-up and fingernail polish, hair styles, body piercings, and the length of sideburns, among other items. Chandler, however, only confirmed changes to the policy on tattoos.


Under the new policy, new recruits will not be allowed to have tattoos that show below the elbows and knees or above the neckline, Chandler told troops. Current soldiers may be grandfathered in, but all soldiers will still be barred from having any tattoos that are racist, sexist or extremist.

Once the rules are implemented, soldiers will sit down with their unit leaders and “self identify” each tattoo. Soldiers will be required to pay for the removal of any tattoo that violates the policy, Chandler said.

While some soldiers at the meeting asked whether the Army will ever allow more visible tattoos, Chandler said it is a matter of maintaining a uniform look and sacrificing for the sake of the force.

When a soldier gets a tattoo that contains an curse word on the side of his neck, “I question ‘Why there?’ Are you trying to stand out?” Chandler said.

He said the Army wants soldiers to stand out, but because of their achievements, not because of the way they look.

In addition to the changes to the regulations, Chandler said officials will be separating many of the more specific policies in Army Regulation 670-1 and placing them in a Department of the Army pamphlet, which will make it clearer for troops to understand, as well as make it easier for future changes to be made.

On a separate note, Chandler told troops that the new Army combat uniforms will likely be phased in starting eight to nine months from now. The uniform will feature different colors for different environments, but the pattern will be very similar to the mottled “multicam” currently used in Afghanistan under the designation “Operation Enduring Freedom Camouflage Pattern.”

The uniform will have different coloring for varying environments like jungle and desert, he said, rather than the widely panned “universal” color of the current ACUs.

Several companies, including the current manufacturer of MultiCam, Crye Precision LLC, have submitted proposals for the new uniforms. No official announcement on the new uniforms has been made.

Congress has also pressed the military to use standard patterns across branches in order to save money.

Chandler said the most expensive part of moving to the new uniforms will be the gear like backpacks, body armor, and other items that are issued to all soldiers.

Additionally, the Army is pressing vendors to standardize boot sizes, Chandler said. Boot sizes often vary wildly, especially among women’s sizes.


----------



## Mac_NZ (Sep 23, 2013)

Shit, the war aint even over yet and your brass is getting all excited about grooming standards.

I feel for the guys who got a waiver for their forearm sleeve because the Army needed warm bodies for OEF/OIF and now has to pay for the laser removal.


----------



## CDG (Sep 23, 2013)

Mac_NZ said:


> I feel for the guys who got a waiver for their forearm sleeve because the Army needed warm bodies for OEF/OIF and now has to pay for the laser removal.



I think this part is total bullshit.  The Army chose to allow these dudes in because guess what, tattoos don't mean shit when it comes to ability.  Now all of a sudden they want to force guys to pay for removal of tats they came in with? Complete bullshit.


----------



## AWP (Sep 23, 2013)

"Current soldiers may be grandfathered in" I wonder how many unscrupulous commanders will use this to their advantage?

Chandler talking about sacrificing for the sake of the force...I kind of gagged at that.

Corporate America with a rifle....


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 23, 2013)

Not to mention warriors are covered in tattoos.


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 23, 2013)

Mac_NZ said:


> Shit, the war aint even over yet and your brass is getting all excited about grooming standards.
> 
> I feel for the guys who got a waiver for their forearm sleeve because the Army needed warm bodies for OEF/OIF and now has to pay for the laser removal.



I didn't read it that way.  I read it as those who are good now are grandfathered in, and anyone who wants to come in after the policy goes into effect, or who get one in contravention of the policy after it is enacted, will have to pay out of pocket to get it lasered off.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Sep 23, 2013)

cback0220 said:


> Not to mention warriors are covered in tattoos.



Going back many many years. Should you be able to look squared away when you're in dress uniform? Fuck yes.  Thing is, Dress uniform has a tall collar, tie, and long sleeves. Anything on your neck? yeah, that's derpmode... but PT shirts and brown T's in the platoon bay or doing PT? Guess what, there's a goddamn warrior that wears those tats most often due to the meaning they have for them incorporated into their personal warrior ethos and all that shit.

I mean, I have limited ink, but I'd stab a commander in the gut if they told me I had to get either removed. Seriously.


----------



## Polar Bear (Sep 23, 2013)

Nothing new, happen back in the early 90's when I was in. Ask the Troll probably did the something after the 1812 war.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Sep 23, 2013)

Mass exodus at all levels, tattoo's are a cultural norm in the Army. You will have dudes getting out left and right.

I get not wanting tats on the neck, face or hands. But for fuck sake, my tats are all in places easy to cover up, don't show in any uniform except PT uniform. But based on that new reg, I would be out of regulation.  WTF?


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 23, 2013)

JAB said:


> Mass exodus at all levels, tattoo's are a cultural norm in the Army. You will have dudes getting out left and right.
> 
> I get not wanting tats on the neck, face or hands. But for fuck sake, my tats are all in places easy to cover up, don't show in any uniform except PT uniform. But based on that new reg, I would be out of regulation.  WTF?



You'd only be out of reg if you wanted to come back in bro.  If you were still in, you'd be grandfathered.

As far as dudes getting out... you really think there's going to be a mass exodus over this?  I don't.  Not a voluntary one, anyway.

But what everyone who wears the uniform has to realize is, the Army is going to get cut MASSIVELY in the very near future.  They are going to be looking for ANY excuse to not let Joe re-up.  This is another example of that.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 23, 2013)

A BS one.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Sep 23, 2013)

Yeah I do think stuff like this will cause people to say fuck it. Hell its been happening already, a good buddy (E7 with 12 years) just ETS'ed and took a job with am oil company. He was a total career soldier, said fuck it, he doesnt want to watch how gay it gets.

Several other buddies have been jumping out of AD and going NG, a few just getting out period.

The Army IMHO, is going to have a experience (NCO & O's) loss beyond imagination in the next 5 years.


----------



## galafinaster (Sep 23, 2013)

Holly shit. So could my 18X package currently going up through the ranks at MEPS get turned down for my tattoos?  I am prior service Marine so hopefully some grandfathering will keep this from happening. I'm 6'4 230 pounds with two full arm sleeves and two full leg sleeves and they would rather have a choir boy behind the gun. FML. Hopefully I can get some word stat on these regulations and my chances now. These changes were small reasons why I left the Corps, I already had to grandfather into their policies. This chaps my ass.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Sep 23, 2013)

JAB said:


> Yeah I do think stuff like this will cause people to say fuck it. Hell its been happening already, a good buddy (E7 with 12 years) just ETS'ed and took a job with am oil company. He was a total career soldier, said fuck it, he doesnt want to watch how gay it gets.
> 
> Several other buddies have been jumping out of AD and going NG, a few just getting out period.
> 
> The Army IMHO, is going to have a experience (NCO & O's) loss beyond imagination in the next 5 years.



As happens after every war, unfortunately. Then we get to re-learn all the things when shit gets hot again.


----------



## pardus (Sep 23, 2013)

galafinaster said:


> Holly shit. So could my 18X package currently going up through the ranks at MEPS get turned down for my tattoos?  I am prior service Marine so hopefully some grandfathering will keep this from happening. I'm 6'4 230 pounds with two full arm sleeves and two full leg sleeves and they would rather have a choir boy behind the gun. FML. Hopefully I can get some word stat on these regulations and my chances now. These changes were small reasons why I left the Corps, I already had to grandfather into their policies. This chaps my ass.



I wouldn't bring it up. 

my .02c


----------



## galafinaster (Sep 23, 2013)

@pardus in no way will I bring this up to them at all. They already have all of my ink documented in my paperwork with my explanations and everything. Kind of forgot they already did that so not gonna let it bother me.


----------



## Mac_NZ (Sep 23, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> I didn't read it that way.  I read it as those who are good now are grandfathered in, and anyone who wants to come in after the policy goes into effect, or who get one in contravention of the policy after it is enacted, will have to pay out of pocket to get it lasered off.



_Current soldiers may be grandfathered in, but all soldiers will still be barred from having any tattoos that are racist, sexist or extremist.

Once the rules are implemented, soldiers will sit down with their unit leaders and “self identify” each tattoo. Soldiers will be required to pay for the removal of any tattoo that violates the policy, Chandler said.
_
I don't read the second line as being grandfathered in.  Someone will not be able to join with an exposed tattoo under that policy so anyone who then has to sit down with their commander is already in.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Sep 23, 2013)

It seems that political correctness comes in many forms, and still has no critical thinking involved.


----------



## reed11b (Sep 23, 2013)

This whole thread makes me want to stomp puppies. I hope this asshat gets busted for cheating on his wife as seems to be popular among the high ranking these days.
Reed


----------



## Teufel (Sep 23, 2013)

They need excuses to get guys out in order to make it down to the smaller post war Army.


----------



## Teufel (Sep 23, 2013)

Ranger Psych said:


> Going back many many years. Should you be able to look squared away when you're in dress uniform? Fuck yes.  Thing is, Dress uniform has a tall collar, tie, and long sleeves. Anything on your neck? yeah, that's derpmode... but PT shirts and brown T's in the platoon bay or doing PT? Guess what, there's a goddamn warrior that wears those tats most often due to the meaning they have for them incorporated into their personal warrior ethos and all that shit.
> 
> I mean, I have limited ink, but I'd stab a commander in the gut if they told me I had to get either removed. Seriously.



When I was at JPAC I thought that the Army guys with neck and hand tattoos looked pretty unprofessional.  Sleeves are one thing but neck, hand and back of the head tatts are something else.


----------



## racing_kitty (Sep 23, 2013)

There was a brief moment during FY2006 where Mother Army actually allowed in folks with neck and hand tattoos. Not waivered in, allowed in. While I'm no statistician, I'm confident that some of those let in at that time found Army/deployment life agreeable, and have reenlisted at least once. 

My, how the worm has turned.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Sep 23, 2013)

Teufel said:


> When I was at JPAC I thought that the Army guys with neck and hand tattoos looked pretty unprofessional.  Sleeves are one thing but neck, hand and back of the head tatts are something else.



I concur completely and would have happily gotten anyone drummed out for that shit, had they been under my purview.  I mean, I knew guys with pretty awesome ink and it stopped at the cuff. I wasn't even active when I got my shoulder piece done, but I specifically put on my uniform short sleeve shirt(civilian) and had the wife draw a sharpie line at the cuff while standing at attention. Artist got briefed "NOTHING SHALL PASS BELOW" when we were working on placement. It peeks out if I'm moving around, but parade rest/attention it's not visible.. as desired and designed. It's not for "show" for anyone but myself, anyway.


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 23, 2013)

racing_kitty said:


> There was a brief moment during FY2006 where Mother Army actually allowed in folks with neck and hand tattoos. Not waivered in, allowed in. While I'm no statistician, I'm confident that some of those let in at that time found Army/deployment life agreeable, and have reenlisted at least once.
> 
> My, how the worm has turned.


06 when the Army was desperate to stem the flow of experienced Soldiers out, and get ANYONE to enlist because no one wanted to go to Iraq.  

Agree with RK, the Perfumed Princesses are again in control (not like they ever lost control).


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 23, 2013)

Mac_NZ said:


> _Current soldiers may be grandfathered in, but all soldiers will still be barred from having any *tattoos that are racist, sexist or extremist*.
> 
> Once the rules are implemented, soldiers will sit down with their unit leaders and “self identify” each tattoo. Soldiers will be required to pay for the removal of any tattoo that violates the policy, Chandler said.
> _
> I don't read the second line as being grandfathered in.  Someone will not be able to join with an exposed tattoo under that policy so anyone who then has to sit down with their commander is already in.



If they're sitting down with the CO, it's because they're violating an existing policy, like the one bolded/underlined above.


----------



## Mac_NZ (Sep 23, 2013)

I'll bow to your Officerness on this one, you understand the jibber jabber of the brass.  I was under the impression that racist, sexist or extremist tattoos were already barred.


----------



## Polar Bear (Sep 23, 2013)

They will lose a wealth of knowledge because of this, next thing will be anyone with 3 + years will be aloud to separate voluntarily with an honorable. Watched a lot of good men part ways because of chicken shit games. One such episodes plays out in my mind. We where pulled out of the field to paint our rooms because we where getting inspected the following month by General so and so:wall:


----------



## MOTOMETO (Sep 23, 2013)

Polar Bear said:


> We where pulled out of the field to paint our rooms because we where getting inspected the following month by General so and so:wall:



lol we got inspected by the Division Gen. in the field.


----------



## Muppet (Sep 23, 2013)

This is fucking bullshit. Dudes with tats and have been in, as stated here, are fucking warriors and the Army is pulling this gay ass shit. I personally know of 1 guy I work with, has full sleeves, fucking motivated to serve and would be good at it. Both the Army and USMC would not let him serve because of the tats. That a crock of shit. This shit, IMHO, started in the mid 90's when they were checking us for white power ink post the murders in Fayettenam from those posing shitbag Nazi jerks. Suddenly, we all had Nazi tats until proven otherwise. But you know who checked us? Fucking NCO's with NO, ZERO experience on gang tattoos. Just some fucking asshole with stripes that if he "thought" we had a Nazi tattoo, would report you to higher. Bullshit I say. Loosing a lot of warriors and good guys to some liberal shit.

F.M.


----------



## reed11b (Sep 23, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> If they're sitting down with the CO, it's because they're violating an existing policy, like the one bolded/underlined above.


Don't you have a case study to be working on? 
Reed


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 23, 2013)

Polar Bear said:


> They will lose a wealth of knowledge because of this, next thing will be anyone with 3 + years will be aloud to separate voluntarily with an honorable. Watched a lot of good men part ways because of chicken shit games. One such episodes plays out in my mind. We where pulled out of the field to paint our rooms because we where getting inspected the following month by General so and so:wall:


ACC pulled a Ranger ALO off a JTX so he could fill out some paperwork; Rangers were real impressed with the AF that day.


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 23, 2013)

reed11b said:


> Don't you have a case study to be working on?
> Reed



That's on hold for at least another week, until all my papers are graded.


----------



## Chopstick (Sep 23, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> That's on hold for at least another week, until all my papers are graded.


Just give everyone a B+ and lets get this show on the road!


----------



## Teufel (Sep 24, 2013)

The Army should never have eased up on the tattoo regulations.  So they let a bunch of guys get neck and hand tattoos or join with said tattoos.  No big deal!  Come aboard!  More fun for everyone!  Now all of a sudden they pull the rug out from under these guys. Don't worry, you will be grandfathered in.  We have your backs!  Don't worry about it.  It's just for the new guys.  In the Marine Corps we have to post an official promotion photo for every promotion above Sgt.  Is it the same in the Army?  Do you really think that board will give a crap about a grandfather clause when it comes to promoting a guy with neck and hand tattoos?  The way the Army sees it, this "problem" will take care of itself in 5-10 years after all these soldiers get passed over and forced out.


----------



## racing_kitty (Sep 24, 2013)

Mother Army also requires a DA photo one you make SSG or higher. I'm pretty sure some of the people affected by this have already had to deal with this prejudice by now. NCO rank has been ridiculously easy to attain for years, and while I understand that multiple deployments were the reason for lax promotion standards, "shake n bake" rank was never the solution.


----------



## medicchick (Sep 24, 2013)

I remember my recruiters being shocked when I showed up for a run one day in a sports tank top and they saw my 4 tattoos.  I'd been in the office weekly for 3 months at that point, they had no clue even though I'd worn short sleeves and I have one on each arm.  They had to document them but there wouldn't have been any issue.


----------



## goon175 (Sep 24, 2013)

I get the whole "we need reasons to dwindle the force", but there are better ways to do it. Dirt bags are giving plenty of good reasons to kick them out, lets start with the severely overweight soldiers and the repeat APFT failures. 

https://hitthewoodline.squarespace.com/militaria/2013/9/23/tattoos-and-the-warrior-tradition


----------



## 0699 (Sep 24, 2013)

JAB said:


> Yeah I do think stuff like this will cause people to say fuck it.


 
I don't believe tattoo regualtions will be what drives out shit loads of people; it'll be all the other stupid shit and the lack of a war to fight that will do the most damage.



Teufel said:


> When I was at JPAC I thought that the Army guys with neck and hand tattoos looked pretty unprofessional.  Sleeves are one thing but neck, hand and back of the head tatts are something else.


 
I've always recommended that people avoid any tattoo that isn't covered with a polo shirt and slacks.  Outside the military, although there may not be "regulations" against them, people in a professional environment will look askew at visible tattoos and people with visible tattoos run the risk of effecting their career options.



medicchick said:


> I remember my recruiters being shocked when I showed up for a run one day in a sports tank top and they saw my 4 tattoos.  I'd been in the office weekly for 3 months at that point, they had no clue even though I'd worn short sleeves and I have one on each arm.  They had to document them but there wouldn't have been any issue.


 
I've had people at the pool express surprise that I even have tattoos, as none of them are visible in normal business attire.


----------



## pardus (Sep 24, 2013)

Mac_NZ said:


> _Current soldiers may be grandfathered in, but all soldiers will still be barred from having any tattoos that are racist, sexist or extremist.
> 
> Once the rules are implemented, soldiers will sit down with their unit leaders and “self identify” each tattoo. Soldiers will be required to pay for the removal of any tattoo that violates the policy, Chandler said.
> _
> I don't read the second line as being grandfathered in.  Someone will not be able to join with an exposed tattoo under that policy so anyone who then has to sit down with their commander is already in.





Marauder06 said:


> If they're sitting down with the CO, it's because they're violating an existing policy, like the one bolded/underlined above.




Mac's got the right line on this if the article is to believed.
I had to explain each one of my tats to recruiters more than once during 2008, my tattoos were recorded. Violation tattoos were and are banned. This reads that we'll all have to do it again to ensure compliance.
Under the previous policy every new tattoo had to be approved by the unit commander anyway to ensure it wasn't in violation.

One big difference is that previous to this policy, the Army would pay for the removal of tattoos deemed offensive, if you refused you were barred from re-enlistment.


----------



## 0699 (Sep 24, 2013)

0699 said:


> I've always recommended that people avoid any tattoo that isn't covered with a polo shirt and slacks.  Outside the military, although there may not be "regulations" against them, people in a professional environment will look askew at visible tattoos and people with visible tattoos run the risk of effecting their career options.


 
Not that my oldest listened to me; she has more tattoos than I do... :wall:


----------



## Kheenbish (Sep 24, 2013)

Polar Bear said:


> They will lose a wealth of knowledge because of this, next thing will be anyone with 3 + years will be aloud to separate voluntarily with an honorable. :wall:


 Air Force allows Airmen to waive 2-3 years of there contract under the new Force Management programs with an Honorable and VA Benefits.


----------



## LibraryLady (Sep 24, 2013)

Meh.  Nothing new.  Just an easy way for them to downsize.  In the 80's a speeding ticket, a bounced check at the PX, and a myriad of other little minor things were enough to bar you from re-enlisting.

LL


----------



## x SF med (Sep 24, 2013)

I did not get tattoos until after I left the service...  partly because of the mission at the time, partly because I didn't want the hassle.  None of mine are visible in a short sleeve shirt, people don't need to know I have them unless they'll understand them... 

Face, neck hand and head tattoos are an ancient warrior tradition... but our current general society has fallen away from any type of warrior ethos, and these marks of earned honor have been turned into marks of criminality by gangs and prisons... the usurpation of honor marks by the lowest of the low is sad, and those who earned them honorably in battle have to deal with a stigma of that criminality because that's what the media shows...

A stupid order, if not unlawful, still has to be followed, right?  Performance, ability, and growth should be the keys to promotions and retention, not body art that does not impinge on the 'face' of the services.


----------



## pardus (Sep 24, 2013)

I think Im going to tell the Army that half my tattoos show my cultural heritage and the other half my gay pride. I'd like to see them try and kick me out then


----------



## x SF med (Sep 24, 2013)

pardus said:


> I think Im going to tell the Army that half my tattoos show my cultural heritage and the other half my gay pride. I'd like to see them try and kick me out then


 
...and some, both at the same time...


----------



## Red Ryder (Sep 24, 2013)

Well shit. I have a small tattoo on my left ankle....


----------



## pardus (Sep 24, 2013)

Red Ryder said:


> Well shit. I have a small tattoo on my left ankle....



Always nice to see female members of the board posting with their view, thanks


----------



## Red Ryder (Sep 24, 2013)

pardus post: 304966 said:
			
		

> Always nice to see female members of the board posting with their view, thanks


Your welcome sugar 

Looks like I will be enlisted by the time it takes affect.


----------



## goon175 (Sep 25, 2013)

Tattoo's have never been more popular in American culture than they are presently. I did a lot of research for that article I wrote, and many are saying that America is in the midst of a "Tattoo Renaissance". By the Army adopting this train of thought, they are cutting off thousands if not millions of potential volunteers from joining. This comes at a time when the military has already stated that the amount of obese Americans in the military age demographic is now a national security concern. So, less than 20% of military aged citizens are eligible for service, and you are going to cut into that number EVEN MORE with this new regulation. It just doesn't make sense.


----------



## pardus (Sep 25, 2013)

goon175 said:


> Tattoo's have never been more popular in American culture than they are presently. I did a lot of research for that article I wrote, and many are saying that America is in the midst of a "Tattoo Renaissance". By the Army adopting this train of thought, they are cutting off thousands if not millions of potential volunteers from joining. This comes at a time when the military has already stated that the amount of obese Americans in the military age demographic is now a national security concern. So, less than 20% of military aged citizens are eligible for service, and you are going to cut into that number EVEN MORE with this new regulation. *It just doesn't make sense*.



Agreed, and not to mention what a huge insult it is to the hundreds of thousands of tattooed veterans and war dead that served this country and kept it free through their sacrifice. 

Tell a WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Middle eastern veteran, or go to a Military cemetery, and tell all the tattooed vets and the fallen that they aren't professional.

But we are falling over ourselves to be non discriminatory to gays, females, minorities etc... 

If I hear one more leader give a speech about how they value the troops and care about our welfare, I'm going to vomit.  

Assholes.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Sep 25, 2013)

What I really don't understand is what the hell was wrong with the old regulation? No tats below the wrist, above the collar of the dress uniform. Yes they gave waivers out for some guys to enlist. But this no tattoo below the elbow or knee is stupid. Soldiers and Sailors have had forearm tats since before WW2. I have one tattoo on my lower leg/below the knee that would be out of reg (if I was still in). Unless I was in PTs nobody would ever see it. And why would they care what I look like while doing PT? 

This "new reg" is total bullshit and I would imagine that it puts more than half the current soldiers out of regulation.

Helping to push soldiers out? There is a ton of things (as has been pointed out in this thread) that can be used to push sand-baggers out with. But this regulation is something totally different.  Some jackass who doesn't like tattoos trying to make a point, etc. It has nothing to do with looking professional, or they would have simply started enforcing the old regulation.


----------



## medicchick (Sep 25, 2013)

The no lower leg tattoos make sense for women for wearing Class A's.  Even when I was going to enlist way back when they weren't really allowed and if they did you were only able to wear trousers for your dress uniform.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Sep 25, 2013)

Good point medicchick, but also seems like they had that covered already for female soldiers, by requirement of wearing the slacks vs the skirt. 

I still think the below the elbow/knee rule is dumb. Besides, what soldier, male or female, wants to wear a skirt. lol

ETA: my main point was that the rules/regs worked before. They don't need to re-invent the wheel. Just enforce the regs as they were and stop granting waivers.


----------



## JustAnotherJ (Sep 26, 2013)

Has any guidance been pushed out to Army recruiters on the regulations or is there a suspected implementation date.  I'm trying to look out for a hopeful SF candidate with a sleeve.  It's hard to tell if his recruiters are being pushy to meet their quota (which they were openly discussing in front of him) or if they're trying to get him in before the regulatory Morale Bomb pisses off/on half the Army.


----------



## goon175 (Sep 26, 2013)

JustAnotherJ said:


> It's hard to tell if his recruiters are being pushy to meet their quota (which they were openly discussing in front of him) or if they're trying to get him in before the regulatory Morale Bomb pisses off/on half the Army.



Both.


----------



## AWP (Mar 23, 2014)

Soldier Systems has this article on the new regs:
http://soldiersystems.net/2014/03/20/new-us-army-wear-uniform-appearance-guidance/

PDF: http://soldiersystems.net/blog1/wp-...New-US-Army-Uniform-and-Appearance-Policy.pdf

New sideburn standards, new mustache standards and some awesome tattoo standards. Oh, they can also result in UCMJ action.



> Portions of AR 670-1 and most of the appearance and grooming chapter are punitive
> 
> Violations of the punitive sections by Soldiers may result in adverse administrative and/or charges under the provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).


 
Sleeves aren't authorized (you are grandfathered in) and then there's this gem:



> Officers and Warrant Officers are also restricted to this same policy; Enlisted Soldiers exceeding this limit *cannot request commissioning (not grandfathered)*


 
On one hand, I get it. On the other, not even grandfathered?

Anyway, all of the items (with pictures and drawings) are included in the .pdf above.


----------



## goon175 (Mar 23, 2014)

A lot of really good changes in there. The only things I don't like are the fact that they still allow the high and tight, the mustache must be worn in accordance with Hitlers tastes, and of course the fact that they don't allow sleeves anymore. I do agree with not having anything on the hands/neck/face though.


----------



## PunchingBag (Mar 24, 2014)

The slideshow regarding the 670-1 changes hit the airwaves at my unit last week. Most of the guys are planning on hitting up tattoo shops this week to get their sleeves outlined before everything gets documented.


----------



## RetPara (Mar 24, 2014)

PunchingBag said:


> get their sleeves outlined before everything gets documented.



Outlined?    Only tattoo  I have is my blood type on my left inner arm...


----------



## PunchingBag (Mar 24, 2014)

The outlines are pretty much only placeholders because most guys I know have their one artist / shop they get all their work done at (usually at their homes of record). They don't want to get the whole sleeve done locally so they just get the outlines so they can be grandfathered in and finish it later.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 24, 2014)

PunchingBag said:


> The outlines are pretty much only placeholders because most guys I know have their one artist / shop they get all their work done at (usually at their homes of record). They don't want to get the whole sleeve done locally so they just get the outlines so they can be grandfathered in and finish it later.


I'd recomend they go with the new guidlines and not the current guidelines.


----------



## PunchingBag (Mar 24, 2014)

SOWT said:


> I'd recomend they go with the new guidlines and not the current guidelines.



I agree that it's not the wisest of choices but they're all grown men who are for the most part my rank or higher. They know the potential repercussions of their actions and decide whether it's worth it or not. That being said the infantry environment is very pro-tattoos so I doubt command will pursue any adverse action.


----------



## AWP (Mar 24, 2014)

PunchingBag said:


> That being said the infantry environment is very pro-tattoos so I doubt command will pursue any adverse action.


 
Don't underestimate the sway of "one more pay grade." O's and SNCO's will seek it (many will) at all costs and some won't let their men stand in the way. Trust me, there are quite a few spineless 11A's who will calculate retention numbers, the graces of their rater, and all of the other variables...and the men won't be on that list.

Generally speaking you may be right, but political winds will trump tradition in this day and age.


----------



## PunchingBag (Mar 24, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> Don't underestimate the sway of "one more pay grade." O's and SNCO's will seek it (many will) at all costs and some won't let their men stand in the way. Trust me, there are quite a few spineless 11A's who will calculate retention numbers, the graces of their rater, and all of the other variables...and the men won't be on that list.
> 
> Generally speaking you may be right, but political winds will trump tradition in this day and age.



Unfortunately I've noted that some senior NCOs and officers will throw their men under the bus in a heartbeat for the sake of politics and their evaluations. I understand the need to follow orders and also sympathize with the ethos of taking care of your men however I won't on a political landscape that I don't fully understand.

As for my own lane I've avoided the issue entirely by already having all of the visible tattoos I want .


----------



## PunchingBag (Mar 24, 2014)

I won't *comment* on a political landscape that I don't fully understand.

Feel free to edit or splice my previous post so I don't have a double post... I still haven't located the edit button yet.


----------



## AWP (Mar 24, 2014)

PunchingBag said:


> I won't *comment* on a political landscape that I don't fully understand.
> 
> Feel free to edit or splice my previous post so I don't have a double post... I still haven't located the edit button yet.


 
User edits are restricted to vetted .mil folks or long-time members who are civilians and known to other memebers of the board.

As for your other comments, I totally understand. In the interest of disclosure, I'm a prior Guard guy who spent his entire time in Signal, but on both sides of the fence. Politics in the military is a nasty business regardless of branch.


----------



## pardus (Mar 25, 2014)

RetPara said:


> Outlined?    Only tattoo  I have is my blood type on my left inner arm...



Sieg...


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 25, 2014)

RetPara said:


> Outlined?    Only tattoo  I have is my blood type on my left inner arm...



You know what's funny about that, the hospital will still cross check you.


----------



## shidosan4 (Apr 21, 2014)

Reading these posts makes me want to go get a tat and give somebody the finger.


----------



## LibraryLady (Apr 21, 2014)

shidosan4 said:


> Reading these posts makes me want to go get a tat and give somebody the finger.



Nice attitude.  Good luck staying in the Army!

LL


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Apr 21, 2014)

This new policy is retarded......the only good thing is it lets us wear all badges/tabs on our Uniform for DA Photos.


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 21, 2014)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> This new policy is retarded......the only good thing is it lets us wear all badges/tabs on our Uniform for DA Photos.


Beer Tabs don't count.


----------



## roninsthao85 (Apr 25, 2014)

Guess there goes my chances of joining the Army. So sad...     :  (


----------



## AWP (Apr 30, 2014)

I guess we should have seen this coming.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/30/military-to-review-hair-rules-after-complaints/

http://www.armytimes.com/article/20140429/NEWS07/304290063/



> Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has directed all of the services to review their hairstyle policies in response to a letter from the Congressional Black Caucus.
> The lawmakers wrote to Hagel on April 10 in response to an online controversy sparked by the Army’s new grooming regulation.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 30, 2014)

Man wouldn't be cool if the Army went back to long hair and beards? I'm not a long hair guy, but I sure as shit don't do the high and tight shit anymore. But I fucking HATE shaving...

As for the female hair, nails and makeup standards. I saw some of the most fucked up shit by female officers and SNCOs while at Fort Sam, that I wonder if anyone actually knew the standard, much less followed them. Crazy fucking nails, with stupid paint scheme, colored hair, bright lipstick and even saw a 1LT with smokey eyes.


----------



## Chopstick (Apr 30, 2014)

JAB said:


> Man wouldn't be cool if the Army went back to long hair and beards? I'm not a long hair guy, but I sure as shit don't do the high and tight shit anymore. But I fucking HATE shaving...
> 
> As for the female hair, nails and makeup standards. I saw some of the most fucked up shit by female officers and SNCOs while at Fort Sam, that I wonder if anyone actually knew the standard, much less followed them. Crazy fucking nails, with stupid paint scheme, colored hair, bright lipstick and even saw a 1LT with smokey eyes.



I wish I could "like" this at least 3 times due to the fact you typed "smokey eyes".


----------



## AWP (Apr 30, 2014)

JAB said:


> ...even saw a 1LT with smokey eyes.


 
We had an AF E-7 here at Bagram a few years ago who had permanent eyeliner. I don't know if it is allowed or not, but she has it.

As an aside, she'd also lost a bunch of weight and did P90X every day, even teaching a class in one of the gyms. I could walk by her at breakfast and remark on the amount of starch on her tray and I promise you, she would leave the office an hour early to do cardio on the days I commented on her hash brown consumption.


----------



## Brill (Apr 30, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> We had an AF E-7 here at Bagram a few years ago who had permanent eyeliner. I don't know if it is allowed or not, but she has it.
> 
> As an aside, she'd also lost a bunch of weight and did P90X every day, even teaching a class in one of the gyms. I could walk by her at breakfast and remark on the amount of starch on her tray and I promise you, she would leave the office an hour early to do cardio on the days I commented on her hash brown consumption.



Hashbrowns AND Salsa Night???  War is hell.

Bottom line is that Army regs are clearly NOT about good order and discipline but rather...geez, who knows!

Next thing you know they'll totally ban Five Fingers!


----------



## goon175 (Apr 30, 2014)

Everyone up in arms about tattoo's.... no one listens.

Can't get your weave on... congressional inquiry


----------



## racing_kitty (Apr 30, 2014)

IIRC, permanent eye liner originally wasn't allowed, but was changed later in my career to being allowed.  I can't remember for certain.


----------



## Chopstick (Apr 30, 2014)

racing_kitty said:


> IIRC, permanent eye liner originally wasn't allowed, but was changed later in my career to being allowed.  I can't remember for certain.


Does that appy regardless if you are Bradley or Chelsea?


----------



## medicchick (Apr 30, 2014)

racing_kitty said:


> IIRC, permanent eye liner originally wasn't allowed, but was changed later in my career to being allowed.  I can't remember for certain.


IIRC as long as it's natural looking it's allowed.  No tatted on cat eye lines allowed but a basic one.


----------



## racing_kitty (Apr 30, 2014)

medicchick said:


> IIRC as long as it's natural looking it's allowed.  No tatted on cat eye lines allowed but a basic one.



You're right about the appearance, I just can't remember if it's always been allowed or it was a recent concession.


----------



## medicchick (Apr 30, 2014)

racing_kitty said:


> You're right about the appearance, I just can't remember if it's always been allowed or it was a recent concession.


I want to say as long as it was natural it was a simple waiver if it was noticed at MEPS in 2003, if nothing was said then don't bring it up.


----------



## Chopstick (May 2, 2014)

I wonder how this will work out for him? 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/kentucky-guardsman-sues-tattoo-rules-23552865



> A Kentucky National Guard soldier with aspirations of joining a U.S. Army special operations unit wants a federal judge to overturn the military's new regulations concerning soldiers with tattoos.
> 
> Staff Sgt. Adam C. Thorogood of Nashville, Tennessee, said the tattoos covering his left arm from the elbow to the wrist aren't harmful, but the Army is using the body art against him and stopping him from fulfilling a dream of joining "The Nightstalkers," the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. Thorogood's attorneys said the new rules are preventing their client from seeking appointment as a warrant officer.
> 
> Thorogood, 28, sued Thursday in U.S. District Court in Paducah, Kentucky, seeking to have the new rules declared unconstitutional. He is seeking $100 million in damages.


----------



## AWP (May 2, 2014)

What an asshole. I can only imagine how the 160th views this stunt...


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 2, 2014)

Seeking $100 million in damages?  What a fucking tool. I don't think I've ever seen a WO with a sleeve tat, I can't see that being in keeping with professionalism standards WO's are known for.


----------



## Viper1 (May 2, 2014)

I assess that he would have a stronger case if he wasn't seeking $100 million.  I could see attempting to seek damages for potential lost retirement income IF successful as a Warrant and successfully in achieving the 20 year retirement goal...but even that is a stretch.


----------



## medicchick (May 2, 2014)

Nothing screams professional like...



> Thorogood has 11 tattoos, including three on his left arm featuring a three-member sniper team, a second of skulls and the sniper logo of a serpent and spear and an ambigram of the words "Fear Is the Mind Killer".


----------



## TLDR20 (May 2, 2014)

JAB said:


> Seeking $100 million in damages?  What a fucking tool. I don't think I've ever seen a WO with a sleeve tat, I can't see that being in keeping with professionalism standards WO's are known for.



Haven't been around a lot of SF guys then.


----------



## TLDR20 (May 2, 2014)

100 mil? Holy shit.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 2, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> Haven't been around a lot of SF guys then.


Nope, although I can imagine SF WO, are a breed of their own.

I taught SUT for an isolated persons course that was mainly for helo crews. Those WO's were good humored but very professional, I can't remember seeing any tats on the WO's, not to say they didn't have a few with them, just never saw them.

When I did the ITI driving inst gig, the bossman was a 18A with a sleeve, which I thought was really odd, however, he was locked on and extremely professional.


----------



## DA SWO (May 2, 2014)

Chopstick said:


> I wonder how this will work out for him?
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/kentucky-guardsman-sues-tattoo-rules-23552865


not good.


----------



## Chopstick (May 2, 2014)

SOWT said:


> not good.


Maybe he should have went 50 million.


----------



## policemedic (May 3, 2014)

Viper1 said:


> I assess that he would have a stronger case if he wasn't seeking $100 million.  I could see attempting to seek damages for potential lost retirement income IF successful as a Warrant and successfully in achieving the 20 year retirement goal...but even that is a stretch.



I agree.  Seeking injunctive relief and fees would have helped him hold the moral high ground. 

That said, I hope he wins and we see a ruling against tattoo policies such as the Army has instituted.  That would put the kibosh on my PD's newly (yesterday) published tattoo policy.


----------



## Viper1 (May 3, 2014)

policemedic said:


> I agree.  Seeking injunctive relief and fees would have helped him hold the moral high ground.
> 
> That said, I hope he wins and we see a ruling against tattoo policies such as the Army has instituted.  That would put the kibosh on my PD's newly (yesterday) published tattoo policy.



What new rules did your PD come up with?  Something similar to the recent Army change?


----------



## Brill (May 3, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> 100 mil? Holy shit.



Better return than smuggling coke!


----------



## policemedic (May 3, 2014)

Viper1 said:


> What new rules did your PD come up with?  Something similar to the recent Army change?



Nothing below the wrist or above the collarbone. Everything else must be covered at all times regardless of assignment.   

If you're on the clock you can't show a tattoo, brand, or other modification.   This includes plain clothes assignments, detectives, and training.  To use the gym in our building I'd have to wear long sleeves.   Several bicycle officers would have to wear long sleeves and long pants in the summer. 

Even if covered, you can't have anything offensive. The problem is how do you define offensive?   The way the policy is written a St. Michael tattoo could be verboten, and so could crossed rifles. 

There's no grandfathering. 

The cover must be either flesh tone or the same color as your uniform shirt.  Technically you can wear a tattoo sleeve or similar device, but that just makes you look like a soup sandwich and in my opinion defeats the purpose of a standardized uniform policy.  Most people are opting for long sleeves.   In fact, I predict we will end up with a policy mandating long sleeves year-round for all commissioned personnel regardless of tattoos. 

Now ask me how many complaints we've received from the public regarding a police officer's tattoos.  Yep, zero.


----------



## Viper1 (May 3, 2014)

Holy shit, you have to be in long sleeves to use the gym in the facility?  Wow!  Someone better start writing UnderArmour for some swag...


----------



## Brill (May 3, 2014)

PM, give them something else to focus on: PT naked. I doubt they would even mention the tattoo policy.


----------

