One of the dumbest things I've ever heard of.

My tattoos don't impact me doing my job; my lack of effort can't

be blamed on my tattoos either.

A Soldier cannot have an Extremist, indecent, sexist or racist tattoo. Also, here's the language for the rest:

 

 

Soldiers are prohibited from having tattoos or brands on the head, face, neck (anything above the t-shirt neck line to include on/inside the eyelids, mouth, and ears), wrists, hands, or fingers.

 

Soldiers may have no more than four visible tattoos below the elbow (to the wrist bone) or below the knee. The

tattoos in these areas must be smaller than the size of the wearer’s hand with fingers extended and joined with the

thumb touching the base of the index finger. The total count of all tattoos in these areas may not exceed a total of four.

 

There's more detail in the regulation, but that is the most important parts.

Thanks.

 

I have a couple of questions.

1. Is this the policy for soldiers, and there is a different policy for officers? The original article says that you can't become an officer if you have tattoos. Period.

2. Do you have a link to the policy so we can read it in it's entirety?

I wouldn't think it's unconstitutional at all.

 

The military has always set standards for different jobs etc.

There have been height limits for pilots in the AF just as an example.

An officer must portray a certain image and tattoos they feel doesn't portray that image in a positive light so I say nothing wrong with it at all.

My tattoos don't impact me doing my job; my lack of effort can't

be blamed on my tattoos either.

:laugh:

My tattoos don't impact me doing my job; my lack of effort can't

be blamed on my tattoos either.

 

But we can blame it on Obama!

Thanks.

 

I have a couple of questions.

1. Is this the policy for soldiers, and there is a different policy for officers? The original article says that you can't become an officer if you have tattoos. Period.

2. Do you have a link to the policy so we can read it in it's entirety?

 

1. It applies to all Soldiers equally (officers and enlisted) (at least in the Army).

2. I can't link it, but if you google "AR 670-1" it will be the first one that comes up. The tattoo policy is located in Chapter 3, paragraph 3-3.

I wouldn't think it's unconstitutional at all.

 

The military has always set standards for different jobs etc.

There have been height limits for pilots in the AF just as an example.

An officer must portray a certain image and tattoos they feel doesn't portray that image in a positive light so I say nothing wrong with it at all.

 

I think it is certainly their right to set such a rule (no tattoos on officers), but I think it is a little outdated, to be honest.

I have tatoos and I have no issue at all with this rule.

 

It is what it is. So what they have a dress/appearance code. Why does anyone care?

I think it is certainly their right to set such a rule (no tattoos on officers), but I think it is a little outdated, to be honest.

I agree, it's outdated, as well as tattoos and servicemen almost go hand in hand.

 

But, with people complaining and wondering why enough people are not enlisting or re enlisting, they only have to look at rules like these that prohibit advancement, and more pay.

 

A soldier can go to the Middle East for 5 years and make about 150K, Or they could go work for a PMC (private military company) and make 500K in two years! A lot of our good soldiers are already going to the PMC's.

Should facial piercings, tongue rings and ear disk be allowed also?

I watched some of the Army/Navy boxing tournament last week and most of them were tatted. Most if not all I watched would not be noticeable with a short sleeve shirt. Mostly shoulder work.

The general "guide" for officers has always been nothing showing below the short sleeve line on the arms, and the basic "rule" nothing showing. I have no problem with this for officers, it's a standard and perception issue, and I have tattoos and I was an officer. It's just one of the things they expect from you in that type of leadership position.

 

I think the premise historically was that enlisted people got tattoos, and it was associated with unprofessional behavior(s). (Don't jump me here, I'm relaying what I was taught). Officers were to be "above" that type of behavior.

 

Part of the concern for special ops (officer or not) is that tattoos can be used to more easily identify you by the enemy and potentially create problems. I agree with this one. If you haven't read Lone Survivor by Marcus Luttrell he references the issue when it is discovered that he has half of the SEAL Trident, the Afghan people think it is some type of mystical message.

 

Using tattoos for selection into certain areas of the military is no different than public employers doing the same, whether they declare it publicly is the only difference.

Would you put a bumper sticker on a Bentley?