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.
New Army Rules for Tattoos, Grooming On the Way
- Thread starter pardus
- Start date
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.
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.
My, how the worm has turned.
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.
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).
If they're sitting down with the CO, it's because they're violating an existing policy, like the one bolded/underlined above.
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.
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:
lol we got inspected by the Division Gen. in the field.
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.
F.M.
ACC pulled a Ranger ALO off a JTX so he could fill out some paperwork; Rangers were real impressed with the AF that day.
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.
Just give everyone a B+ and lets get this show on the road!
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.
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.
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 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
https://hitthewoodline.squarespace.com/militaria/2013/9/23/tattoos-and-the-warrior-tradition
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.
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.
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
Verified Military
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 10,535
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.
Not that my oldest listened to me; she has more tattoos than I do... :wall:
Similar threads
