Any New News On Tattoos?
 

I saw a few things in the works on tattoos, just wondering if anything has passed yet. Last I heard was if they are below elbows or knees you have to get them removed.

That was Last month, and I have attached the link.

http://www.latinpost.com/articles/24...eg-tattoos.htm

In the article it says that it is really only going to effect new recruits, and that soldiers would be grandfathered in.

-But my main question is about Prior Service. Do you think, or know, whether or not this will mean I will have to get my leg tattoos removed.

I am in the process of signing up, was Air Force. I finish all paperwork on Nov. 9th for 18X.

I did ask my recruiter, her answer was " let me go ask my boss," and his answer was "I have no idea."

I hear you loud and clear.

Same thing when I went through for the Air Force, had to do a write up on them and all.

There nothing bad or can be deemed as inappropriate in any way, shape, or form, but still a hassle non the less.

Seemingly this is the final product.

http://projects.militarytimes.com/pd...ar-changes.pdf

-Interesting note, if you're enlisted and would like to commission, WO or O, but have tattoo's below your elbow or knee. You're SOL. Not grandfathered.

"You are a professional, and if you want to
serve in the Army you will look professional or leave our ranks." SMA Chandler

http://www.ncosupport.com/military-n...ler-notes.html

You know what looks unprofessional to me? Having only been deployed once in a 30 year career. :rolleyes:

So, tattoos are unprofessional? Says who? Certainly not society. Tattoos are more prolific throughout contemporary American society now than when I was growing up. The military I came in, tattoos were commonplace if not encouraged. What a subjective (and stupid) statement.

We had a female recruit join about a month ago. One tattoo on her arm below her elbow (larger than her hand). Considering that policy is dated March 19th I'm guessing she just squeaked in.

Some of the coolest stories my granddad told were of him getting his tattoos over seas. Guess I'll be keeping mine a half sleeve.

So who didn't see this one coming?

Guardsman Sues Over Army's New Tattoo Rules

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.

Cont'd http://www.stripes.com/news/us/guard...medium=twitter

And we couldn't even wear our lederhosen for PT! :rolleyes:

Richard

I have one tattoo on my calf. I was drunk and stupid when I got it. I can see one tat here or there but I don't get the massive body tats or sleeves. Who decided these were cool?

Here here.

Dude, the tattoo issue was like, two months ago. It was a uniform and appearance issue, thats what a CSM does; he sits around all day editing uniform regulations.

Its true though, tattoo's DO NOT impact a Soldiers ability to fight...
...but then again, we aren't "fighting" any more; we are retrograding!!!

Even the Commanding General of TRADOC is on record saying, "The Army must transition now from a force of execution to one of preparation".

There is more to it than just the new crisis of visible tattoos we have in the Army; hands, neck, and face tattoos have always been taboo. The system decided to look the other way because we needed boots on the ground. Numbers were down, demand was up. Now, the governemnt has failed so horribly at managing the nations budget that we are forced to cut budgets in order to afford the national welfare state that we have adopted. The easist and most logical is the miitary - this way we shift the dollars from defense budget to welfare budget. A soldier out of work becomes a citizen out of work and its easier to pay out welfare dollars than it is to pay out defense dollars. Forget for a moment that many of the soliders being forced out will be looking for jobs in a failing economy ALSO brought to us courtesy of failed political practices.

Bean counters don't care how tight your shot group is. Bean counters care that you only need 9 rounds to zero and 40 rounds to qualify annually.

I have to say, I think it is a stupid policy. It could have been implemented better. My opinion is that tattoos should not show while wearing the ASU, or the ACUs. Other than that, I don't get the issue.

So, if in SF no one who has tattoos below the knee (ex. calf), or below the elbow (ex. forearm) that is bigger than the size of the palm, can become a WO, or O?

I guess 60% of the CIF NCOs are now out of the running for that job. One can sit here and lament the good old days ("back when I was in SF..."), but that time has passed. There are a lot of proven warriors in our ranks, who grew up in a different generation. Get over it.

A lot of these young guys grew up training in MMA, doing Cross Fit, and YES (the horror!) they have tattoos. Big f__ing deal. If you can't see those tattoos when the guys are in their ASUs, or ACUs, I don't see the issue. We are cutting out a bunch of great guys in our ranks for a policy that someone just implemented that was not in place for a few years now. I'm guessing that when we needed warm bodies to absorb bullets, and take the occasional IEDs, tattoos were not deemed unprofessional. Now, somehow, they are? Especially, when the guys we are penalizing were abiding by regulations for years?

I'm an O, and I'm grandfathered in. But, I'm upset over the tons of talent (WOs and O) that this policy is going to throw away for the practicality of looks in shorts and short sleeves. WTF?

No disagreement there. But, we have not really had a problem with that with our guys in the regiment (hand, face, neck). I have never seen it. But, I'm sure there are one, or two knuckleheads running around with that. But, the policy, as it stands now, eliminates a huge number of our NCOs that have tattoos below the knee, or elbow, and are larger than a palm. Dive team guys and CIF guys come to mind. Like I said before, ASU (as in for DA photo) and ACU should be the standard. If they can't be seen in those, a guy should be good-to-go. Our WO population is going to take the biggest hit with this policy.

I don't think the head shed thought this through all the way. Considering the pool that WO and a good chunk of the O's come from, they have just eliminated a substantial amount of experience that should be utilized. All of this based on appearance and not performance. I will keep my opinion of the Kentucky guard guy to myself for the moment but I am interested to see the outcome of that case. As for the reg, I had a tattoo removal done two weeks ago to conform as much as possible as I had a tattoo behind my ear. I don't think I should have had to do it as I have been in for a hot minute and proven my worth to the green machine on many occasions, but I want to continue to serve so I did what I needed to do. I do think that they should offer some assistance in the removal process for the joes as I can imagine they will look for the cheapest and fastest route to meet standards should they choose to do so.

Just my .02.

From my understanding (based on the CSM's brief), the cost of any corrective medical process required by the standard is to be paid for by the service member.