"US Army - tattoo restriction" Topic

The long-awaited Army Regulation 670-1, with new rules on tattoos, hairstyles, grooming and uniform wear, went into effect Monday.

link

In addition to banning extremist, indecent, sexist and racist tattoos, soldiers now are prohibited from having tattoos on their head, face, neck, wrists, hands and fingers.

Soldiers may have no more than four visible tattoos below the elbow or below the knee, and these tattoos must be smaller than the size of the wearer's hand.

Sleeve tattoos are not allowed below the elbow or the knee.

Soldiers who are not in compliance with the new tattoo policy but were compliant with previous policies are grandfathered, according to the new regulation.

However, the Army also tightened the rules for enlisted soldiers hoping to go officer or warrant.

If you have tattoos on your head, face, neck, wrists, hands or fingers, you cannot request commissioning or appointment, according to the regulation.

Also barred from commissioning are soldiers who exceed the limit of four visible tattoos below the elbow or the knee; those with more than one visible band tattoo on their bodies; and those who have a sleeve tattoo below the elbow or the knee.

These soldiers "cannot request commissioning or appointment even if they are grandfathered," according to the new regulation.

"grandfathered"?

Doug

This will impact the numbers I bring into ROTC, and has already. I've had to tell a few prospects they would not be able to contract with their tattoos.

I assume 'grandfathering' is a term used to mean that the regulation is not applied retrospectively, so serving soldiers who already have tattoos that do not conform will not be required to have them removed or to leave the service, but clearly will find it difficult to advance further.

It may not apply to those who are currently 'grandfathered' but choose to obtain additional non-conforming tattoos.

This will impact the numbers I bring into ROTC, and has already. I've had to tell a few prospects they would not be able to contract with their tattoos.

I can see it affecting a proportion of the recruitment pool.

One more restriction to the ever shrinking pool of available qualified applicants.

About time in my opinion. It looks very unprofessional to me. My police department finally issued a similar ruling recently. Makes police officers look like thugs.

Actually, I think if you have a child considering a career in medicine that they would be advised to look into plastic surgery. Tat's may be trendy now, but like all fads they will go out of style. Unforunately, you just can't get rid of a tat as easily as you get rid of those bell bottom pants. So laser removal may be the growth industry of the future.

They're trying to cut down on the force size so the number of recruits is less impactful. I vaguely recall something similar in the Marines but it wasn't stated policy.

"One more restriction to the ever shrinking pool ".

But the 'politicos' are shrinking the forces to match aren't they?

What about traditional or cultural tattoos particularly among Samoan or Hawaiian recruits. is that not against some amendment. I am sure some lawyer will make a fortune taking this through the courts.

30 years ago it was pretty clear that Officers should never have a tattoo. I agree that many tattoos give the "thug" impression

Keep wondering why, these recruits are joining an organization that helps its applicants to be in harms way and even get them selves killed, are they saying they want a better 'quality' target? Seems disingenuous to me. My take and no I don't have any tats.
If your brave/patriotic enough what does this all have to do with your ability to serve in any government organization. My view is all or none and that includes sexual preference,gender and all the under the rug things that so call macho armed forces rattle on about. A soldier is a soldier or are they? My 2p worth.

It seems to be pretty much an American invention: link

"The original grandfather clauses were contained in new state constitutions and Jim Crow laws passed from 1890 to 1910 in many of the Southern United States to prevent blacks, Mexican Americans (in Texas), and certain whites from voting."

Ours laws would simply state whether or not it applied retrospectively.

In response to the number of gangbangers reported to be joining up to get 'combat training'? My department started the 'no visible tats' rule years ago. There are a few grandfathered in but even those working here before the rule took effect that have sleeves have to have them covered.

'Grandfathered' means the same as what we term 'Grandfather Rights' in the UK. I.e. the old farts may continue doing whatever they were doing under the old rules, while newcomers have to abide by the new rules. For example, some of us in the UK have 'grandfather rights' to drive particular types of vehicle that you know have to take a specific driving test for.

Quite scary really, to think I have grandfather rights on my driving licence:

link

"If you passed your practical car test (licence category B) before 1 January 1997 you would automatically also acquire licence categories BE, C1, C1E, D1 and D1E. These additional categories are more commonly known as ‘Acquired Rights' or ‘Grandfather Rights'.

Acquired Rights would be the normal term in use.

What about traditional or cultural tattoos particularly among Samoan or Hawaiian recruits.

Traditionally, these are above the knee. Early European explorers thought the natives were wearing shorts.

Well, guess I'm not joining the Army… at least the Air Force still has a reasonable tattoo policy (seriously, I only have tattoos below my left knee… the only time you would see them is in PT gear, and even then I can (and likely will) choose too wear long pants so that nobody sees them).

How about flesh colored tape to cover visible tats while on duty? My stepson does this when visiting his very conservative grandfather :)

Yes, I was on active duty when Sabre6 was it appears … and being a former officer, I remember it that way and I agree … @ Zargon – "sexual preference, gender and all the under the rug things that so call macho armed forces rattle on about. A soldier is a soldier or are they?" I was in the Infantry … it's not that simple … I didn't know any "so called" macho types … You either were or were not … Hair cuts, limited facial hair, limited to no tatoos, piercings, etc., … all part of good order and discipline, etc. … We're soldiers not Vikings …

Zargon, I don't think any military recruits personnel to be targets therefore it is not a case of them making a better or worse one. Additionally, if they really are patriotic enough to volunteer for military service, not getting racist extremist, indecent, sexist or ugly (my middle-aged opinion!) images and/or writing tatooed onto your skin is surely a small 'price' to pay for that patriotism?

I never heard of the term "grandfathered".
I would guessed at an entirely different meaning without the context.

Agreed Cambria …

Good job the US doesn't draft young men into the army anymore, a tattoo could have been the ticket out.

I suspect tats that look good on tight young skin will look different when that skin is older and looser and the tat has faded. Throw in wrinkles, too.

@Terrement: Easy answer – don't have any horrible tats in the first place! I don't think anyone finds my non-inked skin offensive; ugly perhaps, but not offensive…

No professional tattooist worth his salt would undertake to tattoo below the wrist or on and above the neck anyway, at least in the auld Celtic/Anglo-Saxon tradition…They used to respect the ground rules in Hong Kong and Singapore too…What used to be a respected trade, at least around the great old naval cities of the UK, has now sadly deteriorated…

in the movie Cadence
imdb.com/title/tt0101531

a soldier is imprisoned because he gets 'tatoos that show'

"No professional tattooist worth his salt…"
when the soldier insists
the artist is very firm 'you didnt get them here'

Sparker wrote:

No professional tattooist worth his salt would undertake to tattoo below the wrist or on and above the neck anyway, at least in the auld Celtic/Anglo-Saxon tradition…

Hmmmm. I am reminded of the story of a Navy national serviceman who had "I hate the Navy" tattooed along the right side and little finger of his right hand. Consequently, whenever he saluted, the words "I hate the Navy" were clearly visible to the officer he was saluting.

With its customary sense of humour, the Royal Navy transferred him to the Royal Marines, to crew landing craft.

All the best,

John.

This Tat thing is not half as bad as the forcing out all or most the NCOs with 5 years or less to go before retirement. That is just low and underhanded, The Government is starting to use corporate, screw the worker, money before people tricks.

It's the money really Sparker, £60.00 GBP for a small, often sub-standard, drawing. One of my ex-students proudly came in to show me his tattoos, as I put on my professional 'interested' face, I quickly totted up the cost. £1,200.00 GBP for one arm, and he wanted to have the other arm and his shoulder done, so three grand for mediocre art, no wonder it's a booming business.

Some tattoos are works of art and some really fit the person, but the celebrity inspired mishmash of cultural tattoos is often laughably naff.

There is a steady profit waiting out there for someone to develop a 'fugitive' tattoo ink, something that will disappear entirely in 10-15 years time or can be removed by a non-invasive, safe device/substance. If you really like/need the tatts, you just get them redone.

All I can say is, as a unit commander, I now have to take up a lot of otherwise valuable training time photographing and documenting and counseling my Soldiers to comply with this policy.

What a PITA.

My two shillings worth.

Eric

The Army has to drop by about 30,000 and if the sequester continues, another 30,000 more.

As the saying goes, "The nail that sticks up gets hammered."

I'm glad that the US does not have a draft, I'd rather lead volunteer/professionals, which I did '79-'90 … And with the current rounds of more possible downsizings, I still don't think a draft would ever be needed. That being said, with the current social, political, etc., environment in the the US since after Vietnam, I don't think anyone would stand for a draft … What many don't understand, the anti-war movements during Vietnam, was more of an anti-draft movement … Had there been no draft, save for a few, there would have been no real anti-war movement … That all being said, I guess if there was a draft today, the tatoo business would see a notable profit increase … Not to mention, do you draft females ?

"Did you fight in the war grandad?"

"Nah, I had a tattoo"

No disrespect all_Legion_Cambria, etc. But if I was a rookie or for that matter a hardass with some in country time on my sheet, I'd still be wanting to be behind the guy with Semper Fie or Kill tattooed on his arms never mind on his forehead (see 40K upbringing for that one:) rather than Captain desk job, a guy like that would just scare me into do better IMO. A psychological thing and it might make politicians a bit more respectful. Yes, No? Am I being a bit naive?
My Dad served in the British armed forces and ranked NCO, he had the obligatory old school tats on his forearms and had the brains to lead and did do so, so why such negativity to something which actually defines the soldiering profession. Also very unhappy about how they are downsizing the US armed forces by getting the oldtimers out 1st,very disrespectful. Cheers all

GeoffQRF

Depends which war. Reminds me of the Simpsons.

Bart: Look, if you're gonna stay in my room, could you at least stop making up gibberish?
Grandpa Abe Simpson: Gibberish, eh? Then, what's this?
[lifts his sleeve, revealing a tattoo]
Bart: Wrinkly gibberish?

The Army is not about being an individual, it is about being part of the team. Uniforms are uniform for a reason.

And, so many tatoos in the US have nmeanings to certain people. Many gangs and racist group use them as a sort of personel billboard. But, they are also put on people who think they just look cool and have no idea what they are displaying.

As recruiter I had no personel problem terning down the guy with the SS lightnign bolts on his neck. But what about all the ones whose meaning I dont know?

When you join the Armed services you give up a lot of freedoms. Just how it is. If you love the tats more than the service, get the tats and stay out.

Try moving up in the corperate world with visible tatoos. Lots of them down on the loading dock, pretty much none in the board room.

Owen

This extends to Active, Reserve, and National Guard as well – Any interpretation is up to the Unit Commander, so individual units may be even more stringent.

The unit is currently documenting all tattoos on the body. They have requested self documentation first and photos that will be made a part of the electronic personnel record.

Next drill there will be a full viewing in PT uniform

Piggy backing off of badger's comments, I was fortunate to attend a business conference at a very exclusive ($30MM net worth to be invited to join), private resort in Florida and of all the hundreds of women of all ages I saw around the pool, not a tat in sight despite some very skimpy bikinis.

I didn't notice any on the men either but I wasn't looking as closely. Tats not bikinis….

good. these days trendster teens/20somethings are getting tattooed up like carnies and then they complain that they can't get a job. same thing with those giant ear plug things. when you undergo massive body mod to get attention i think it says something about your personality and suitability for an important job. small wonder that even fast food joints are turning down teen girls with gigantic skulls tattooed on their shoulders. "i shouldn't be judged by my tats" oh god, grow up…..

Zargon, you said, "No disrespect all_Legion_Cambria, etc. But if I was a rookie or for that matter a hardass with some in country time on my sheet, I'd still be wanting to be behind the guy with Semper Fie or Kill tattooed on his arms never mind on his forehead (see 40K upbringing for that one:) rather than Captain desk job …" I knew/know a lot of guys I served with who were hardasses and had no tattoos … of course I served in 4 Infantry Bns … that is where "hardasses" grow. And I eventually was promoted to CPT, and commanded a Mech Co. and a few years before that I lead a Rifle Plt as 2LT in the 101. Tats don't mean tough, brave, tactically and technically proficient, etc. … actions speak louder than tats. That and qual badges (Parachute, Air Assault, HALO, Pathfinder) Tabs(Ranger, Special Forces), awards(CIB, CAB) and training … plus where they have been (served) and what they have done, ie: experience … I have some of those badges, etc., 3 deployments to the CZ, Panama, CA, served 2 tours on the DMZ in the ROK, etc., etc. … Some considered me as a Hardass. I don't think I was. But I was well trained and competent, etc. … at least that is what I was told. So IMO Hardass is in the eye of the beholder. As a Cadet I was call Sgt. Rock … compared to some Cadets I guess I was. But showing up as a shiny new 2LT in the 101 … With all the vets from Vietnam and as well as other well trained officers, etc. … I was not in that category … mayber not yet at least (?)… But still don't think I was, compared to many others I served with for over a decade … Some real Hardasses ! Are you being a bit naive ? Yeah, a bit … no offense …

yep, my father fought in korea. tough times. he had no tats but somehow managed to get medals for bravery anyway, lol. and he was no captain desk job, he could barely read and write. he said the south korean guys he fought alongside were even braver a lot of the time, real hardasses. tattoos? give me a break. and the turks were the toughest of all. tattoos? nope. they did not need to ink themselves up to show how dangerous they were. they showed that instead by killing you.

Yes, my Dad was a SGT with the 90th Inf Div. WWII, ETO … no tats but S/Star, B/Star, PH … He, like many "have seen the elephant" …

HGA is right, the desire to get a tat in the first place says a lot about your personality and what you consider important.

And if you think someone with tats must be "tough" and someone to follow, that says something about your personality, too.

If you look at cultural/religious mishmash tattooed on celebrities, you'll understand how vacuous the driver for most of the modern day teen culture is. Pick and mix is great for sweets, not so great for personal morality or individuation.

Modern culture extolls the easy path to everything, so why bother taking risks and experiencing real hardship alongside success, just get some tattoos and an instant personality. Except they don't, they just become another, often middleclass, rebel without a clue, as the great Tom Petty sang.

Great Tatoo article…

Woman slices … Off Tattoo Of Ex-Boyfriend's Name, Mails Skin To Him…

link

You just can't make it up…

OOW !

YouTube link