New Army Rules for Tattoos, Grooming On the Way

Chopstick

Verified Estrogen Brigade
Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2006
Messages
5,359
Location
Sixburgh
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.
 

Diamondback 2/2

Infantry
Verified Military
Joined
Jan 24, 2008
Messages
6,836
Location
Tejas
SSMP
Military Mentor
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

Special Forces
Verified SOF
Joined
Apr 9, 2008
Messages
2,458
Location
Cajun Land
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

Farking hot weather
Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2011
Messages
1,109
Location
Where it rains
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

Verified SOF
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
5,494
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.
 

Diamondback 2/2

Infantry
Verified Military
Joined
Jan 24, 2008
Messages
6,836
Location
Tejas
SSMP
Military Mentor
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.
 

policemedic

Verified SWAT
Joined
Jul 29, 2008
Messages
5,672
Location
A galaxy far, far away
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

Special Forces
Verified SOF
Joined
Apr 9, 2008
Messages
2,458
Location
Cajun Land
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?
 

policemedic

Verified SWAT
Joined
Jul 29, 2008
Messages
5,672
Location
A galaxy far, far away
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

Special Forces
Verified SOF
Joined
Apr 9, 2008
Messages
2,458
Location
Cajun Land
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...
 
Top