0
0
0
Tattoos
Policy
Responses: 94
14
14
0
I was just having this same conversation with the EKG technician at the VA Hospital today. He and I both agree with the previous policy of "as long as it cannot be seen in the Class A uniform". Having tattoos does not make a Soldier (or any person for that matter) any less professional than someone who has none. As Soldiers we need to present a professional image when in a professional uniform. I have no issues with tattoos (that are not vulgar or derogatory) being visible in summer PTs because the PT uniform is not supposed to be a professional uniform. It is a common uniform worn for conducting physical exercise. As long as tattoos are not seen in ACUs or ASUs I see no problems. I do have to say, however, I have met and served with Soldiers who are dead-on when it comes to their jobs who are visibly tattooed in their ACUs. While great at what they do, to me, they just do not present a professional image.
(14)
(0)
LTC Joseph Gross
I'd give you a thumbs up but my stupid computer won't allow it! Tattoos should not be a end all in determining someone's worth as a Soldier, but when you don't look professional people often don't take you as professional.
(4)
(0)
SSG(P) (Join to see)
I definitely agree with this comment. I have a lot of tattoos, but coming from a military family, it just wasn't something that I ever envisioned as a "military appearance". I never got them on my arms or anywhere that would show in any uniform I wear, to include the PFU. Over the last decade, since OIF and OEF really kicked off, the standards were relaxed to maximize eligibility for enlistment. It only makes sense that now that we are downsizing the military, the standards would tighten back up.
(0)
(0)
Sgt (Join to see)
I agree it shouldn't matter where your tattoos are as long as their tasteful and not offensive. Some of the hardest working soldiers I know or lead our tattooed up. It all boils down to the person and their work ethic. The army is down sizing and looking for ways to do it. This is one of many changes that will be enforced now that the war is over and numbers looking to go down.
(0)
(0)
13
13
0
The biggest difference between people that have tattoo's and those who don't; people with tattoo's don't look negatively on those who don't.
(13)
(0)
CSM (Join to see)
<p>It also means I am going to hurry up and get my sleeves finished before this is in effect. Like in the next few weeks.</p><p><br></p>
(8)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
1SG Whitman, I completely agree. That plays a major factor. I as well have tattoos, most of which are on my arms, and I do not frown upon those that do not have any. And I plan on finishing my sleeve upon redeployment, before we line up to have the memorandum recorded and written by the CO.
(0)
(0)
CMSgt James Nolan
1SG Whitman, the thing keeping me from sleeving is not a policy, but more of a directive...from the Chief of Staff (of my house). She outranks everybody!
(4)
(0)
11
11
0
Tattoos are part of military culture/heritage. With that said, they are not for everyone. They should be fully acceptable, and should not be part of a consideration for promotion as has been discussed in several "threads". In my "own" opinion, they should be fully covered when in dress uniform (A or better). They should not be racially motivated, inflammatory or obscene (which opens up a whole can of opinions), or gang related/referencing-goes without saying. It is, like many things a difficult thing to come with a "policy" that works and makes total sense and properly governs their wear. At the end of the day, what we need to remember is that we are all Warriors (maybe some less than others) but Warriors still and our ultimate job is to pick up a rifle and defend our nation. So if having a few Tats makes someone feel more of a Warrior, what is the harm?
(11)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google