Do you want the tattoo policy to change?

I could not have been happier about the change. Tattoo culture in the United States is what it is today largely due to the heavy military influence in tattoos. I made the mistake of over tattooing myself in my teens, then enlisted in 2005 at 20. I had to fight to stay in until the official position changed, served 40 months on three back to back deployments just to come home last May to a revised AR 670-1 and my tattoos being out of regs again. If the Army would pay, I'd remove them, but I don't have the money to do it otherwise. I wouldn't be so bothered by the Army's continuously revolving policy, if I hadn't just spent four Christmases in Iraq or Afghanistan away from my kids over the past seven years. Whatever the Army decides to do, I hope they stick with it, one way or another. I personally don't see how having tattoos makes me less professional than the obese soldiers each base has, hiding out from QSP and chapter packets. I know it's a cultural difference if opinion. I grew up in an obscure little town in eastern Idaho where no one cared what you did.

I think it's the right move. As long as the tatts are not visible in dress uniform, they should be good to go. I applaud the change. As GEN Odierno says, the attitude about tattoos is changing as generations change. And if "we" can allow all manner of moral variations (to be polite) in the Army, what the heck difference does a tattoo make? Think about it.