Posted on Mar 26, 2014
What are your opinions regarding the tattoo policy in the AR 670-1 update?
14K
27
24
7
7
0
From what I have gathered regarding the tattoo policy, only 4 (size of your hand) tattoos are permitted below the elbow or knee. People with more or sleeves will(?) be grandfathered in. On that note, I do not understand as to why the new policy is needed. I understand and agree with no face, neck, or hand tattoos; as they do look unprofessional and are visible in ACUs and ASUs. To further the topic, I believe tattoos, to include sleeves, are a part of military heritage and tradition. Any other insight on this or furthered opinions?
Posted in these groups: 
Tattoos
Professionalism
Tattoos Professionalism
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 11
5
5
0
"To further the topic, I believe tattoos, to include sleeves, are a part of military heritage and tradition."
Yes they are.....but be careful to draw too many extrapolations from that. Historically, soldiers and sailors were considered the dregs of society and what they did to "mutilate" their bodies was something that polite society merely considered was par for the lower social strata.
Personally, I am one who believes in all things in moderation. I don't think there is anything wrong with tattoos per se, but I think a lot of folks go overboard with them and being overly tattooed is not a professional image. Anything that can be seen in short sleeve dress uniform, IMHO, should not be allowed.
Yes they are.....but be careful to draw too many extrapolations from that. Historically, soldiers and sailors were considered the dregs of society and what they did to "mutilate" their bodies was something that polite society merely considered was par for the lower social strata.
Personally, I am one who believes in all things in moderation. I don't think there is anything wrong with tattoos per se, but I think a lot of folks go overboard with them and being overly tattooed is not a professional image. Anything that can be seen in short sleeve dress uniform, IMHO, should not be allowed.
(5)
(0)
SSG(P) (Join to see)
CPT Michael Barden I do not make this statement without backing it up...I bring solutions to the table...I am a NCO. This is factoring in that more than 70% of our youth today is unqualified to serve in the military due to obesity...add the new tattoo policy, and we are limiting qualifying for military service down to such a small pool of candidates...the ripple will be felt across all the services....Especially the larger services. That leaves a 25% pool of young adults, lets be optimistic and say many have not tattoo'd themselves yet. 1% to be safe, and now we have drugs, crimes, and misdemeanors...that eliminates probably another 10%, so what does that leave us with, less 15% of a pool of candidates...? Are my numbers off, if so please correct me.
(0)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
Honestly, as societial attitudes change, the whole tattoo issue may become a moot point in the future. Who would have thought, 20 years ago, at that homosexuals openly serving would be a reality?
(2)
(0)
SSG(P) (Join to see)
Here is the post I referenced CPT Michael Barden
https://www.rallypoint.com/command-post/what-role-does-religion-play-within-our-military
https://www.rallypoint.com/command-post/what-role-does-religion-play-within-our-military
What Role Does Religion Play Within Our Military? | RallyPoint
With member of the military identifying with 98 different religions, it is evident our Armed Forces is extremely diverse. Unfortunately, religious differences sometimes cause feelings of animosity between service members. Are you less likely to trust another service member who does not identify with the same religion as you?
(0)
(0)
SSG(P) (Join to see)
CPT Michael Barden we may have to wait a few years to have this discussion again, and see where we are then. I do not think the current changes will benefit the forces, generally speaking. I do think a tattoo policy is something that should of been instituted a long time ago...we wouldn't be here right now.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
I got my first tattoo in 1988 when my son was born. It was strategically placed on my ankle out of sight. I received 3 other tats over the next 20 years, all out of sight. In October 2009, my only child, was killed while on active duty and I had his dog tags tattooed on my right hand so that regardless to what I'm wearing, it shows. I have had people tell me that it is unprofessional, and I simply ask them to grieve their way and allow me the same freedom. If you are hurt or in trouble and I showed up to help would you send me away because I have my deceased son's name tattooed on my hand in a gesture of love.
(4)
(0)
SSG(P) (Join to see)
I struggle with the new changes...It does tighten us up and make us appear more professional...but we have a lineage and traditions...and those run deep.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
I myself have tattoos. I also have a couple that have to be grandfathered in now. I agree with no tattoos on the face, neck or hands. I think as long as they can be covered with your uniform on that they should be authorized. Tattoos are a statement of that persons individual path through life. I have one Soldier who is not re enlisting just for the fact of this policy.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google