Posted on Apr 25, 2014
Is it fair to keep Enlisted Soldiers from going Commission/Warrant because of their tattoos?
48.1K
88
36
5
5
0
I am covered in Tattoos from right above my wrist bone to my waist. (none of which can be seen in any full uniform)My goal was to obtain Warrant in my field, but now I am told that is not possible. Why are Soldiers with tattoo's so accepted in a time of need, but cant advance to the career field desired. Is this fair?
Posted in these groups: 
Tattoos
DA Pam 670-1
Tattoos DA Pam 670-1
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 17
20
20
0
This decision really bugs me - probably 25% of the people I commissioned with were prior combat medics who went to nursing/medical/PA school to get a commission. We're talking guys with bronze stars, CMBs, and purple hearts. All these were earned while they had tattoos. To say that they can't advance/commission because of the same tattoos that they had while earning those awards is shameful.
(20)
(0)
13
13
0
There is no doubt that the changing policies on Tats will impact many troops in all branches. I am fortunate that I am too old and grumpy for it to matter anymore-although nothing can be seen in uniform. PT uniform is a different story.
I hate it that for example a Marine can't do something because he has an EGA on his forearm, or a Sailor because of a Anchor, an Airman because of wings, a Soldier because of Ranger etc... If you are not proud of your service, you are wrong. Displaying it (in some way, not just Tats) displays esprit de corps and pride. And that is not to say that someone without ink is not proud of their service
I think that sometimes sweeping changes are made to effect a minor problem, this I feel is one of those deals. And for those of us affected, we have two choices, complain or continue to march. For some of us this will be tough thing because it will definitely limit some careers. This also, unfortunately in some-not all cases will be the loss to that particular service.
In the end, policies are policies and you either follow them or get run over by them.
End of rant.
I hate it that for example a Marine can't do something because he has an EGA on his forearm, or a Sailor because of a Anchor, an Airman because of wings, a Soldier because of Ranger etc... If you are not proud of your service, you are wrong. Displaying it (in some way, not just Tats) displays esprit de corps and pride. And that is not to say that someone without ink is not proud of their service
I think that sometimes sweeping changes are made to effect a minor problem, this I feel is one of those deals. And for those of us affected, we have two choices, complain or continue to march. For some of us this will be tough thing because it will definitely limit some careers. This also, unfortunately in some-not all cases will be the loss to that particular service.
In the end, policies are policies and you either follow them or get run over by them.
End of rant.
(13)
(0)
10
10
0
Sadly it's nothing more than a simple supply and demand model. We need troops, lessen the tattoo policy to increase the supply. Downsizing, tighten the policy to lessen the supply.
Is it fair, maybe maybe not, but it's business nothing more. Right now the demand for AD officers is fairly low, off hand I'm not sure about that of AD WO but I'd guess it's not overly high.
To those who wanted it as a career path, obviously it doesn't seem fair. Not do I think tattoos will dictate a good or bad officer/warrant. But in order to achieve the needed down sizing they picked something that will slow the growth based off of the aforementioned supply and demand idea.
Is it fair, maybe maybe not, but it's business nothing more. Right now the demand for AD officers is fairly low, off hand I'm not sure about that of AD WO but I'd guess it's not overly high.
To those who wanted it as a career path, obviously it doesn't seem fair. Not do I think tattoos will dictate a good or bad officer/warrant. But in order to achieve the needed down sizing they picked something that will slow the growth based off of the aforementioned supply and demand idea.
(10)
(0)
MSG Wade Huffman
Excellent analogy SFC Wesemann and right on point.
"Fair" rarely, if ever, is considered in matters such as these in the military...and as long as a policy (whether you agree with it, or not) is enforced equally (as written); that is as close to 'fair' as you can ever expect.
The true shame is that the Army will loose some potentially great leaders as a result of this policy.
"Fair" rarely, if ever, is considered in matters such as these in the military...and as long as a policy (whether you agree with it, or not) is enforced equally (as written); that is as close to 'fair' as you can ever expect.
The true shame is that the Army will loose some potentially great leaders as a result of this policy.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
I agree completely SFC Wesemann, and unfortunately the fact that they are utilizing business tactics is effective even if I disagree with it myself. One of the best officers I've had the privilege to work with was covered in tattoos, it's a shame that the potential for people like him have been lessened.
(0)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
I agree 100% with Wesemann. It's all about controlling numbers.
But here's the thing: there is also a lesson here about consequences. Most people when they get tats, don't think about long term consequences that having a lot of ink (or body modifications) may bring. It may be cool and accepted NOW, but that may not be the case in the future and having done body modification in your youth may have negative impacts that you may not have foreseen or had been a problem in the here and now. You really need to consider the ripple effets before doing something that is essentially a permanent change.
But here's the thing: there is also a lesson here about consequences. Most people when they get tats, don't think about long term consequences that having a lot of ink (or body modifications) may bring. It may be cool and accepted NOW, but that may not be the case in the future and having done body modification in your youth may have negative impacts that you may not have foreseen or had been a problem in the here and now. You really need to consider the ripple effets before doing something that is essentially a permanent change.
(1)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
Now I'm not saying that tattoos are bad and you should never get them. Just that there are consequences to every action you take.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google