24
24
0
From: Army Times
After a misstep, the Army now has the right tattoo policy in place, the service's top officer told Army Times.
"For me, I think we missed the boat initially on adjusting to societal norms with tattoos," said Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno. "I think tattoos are something that are more common, and I think we have to realize and understand that, and we have to make sure we get the best people in our Army."
Odierno, who will retire later this month, sat down with Army Times to discuss his tenure as the Army's senior officer. He discussed a wide range of issues, including the service's tattoo policy, which has been a hot-button topic for soldiers.
Under the Army's current tattoo policy, in place since April, soldiers can have ink on their arms and legs. In simple terms, as long as it isn't visible in the Army Service Uniform, you are good to go.
This means tattoo sleeves are once again authorized as long as they don't extend past the wrist, and there are no longer limits on the size or number of tattoos soldiers can have on their arms and legs.
Soldiers are still not allowed to have tattoos on their neck, head, face, wrists or hands. The exception is a ring tattoo on each hand. Also banned are tattoos that are sexist, racist, extremist and derogatory.
The existing tattoo policy, outlined in Army Regulation 670-1, replaced a highly unpopular policy that was introduced last March and updated in September. That policy limited to four the number of tattoos soldiers could have below the elbow and knee. It also limited the size of the tattoos to the wearer's hand.
The regulation also initially barred soldiers who ran afoul of the rules from requesting a commission, sparking anger among many soldiers. The September update grandfathered enlisted seeking a commission or appointment, as long as they have their commander's endorsement.
The old policy was starting to disqualify otherwise qualified current and potential soldiers, Odierno said.
"I believe we were starting to limit some people who were absolutely qualified," he said. "They couldn't come in or they couldn't stay in because they had a certain tattoo, and I thought that wasn't an appropriate limiting factor."
The Army had to adjust, Odierno said.
"I think it's important that we adjusted," he said. "I think we have the right policy in place."
http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/careers/army/2015/08/04/odierno-tough-tattoo-rules-we-missed-boat/31120753/
After a misstep, the Army now has the right tattoo policy in place, the service's top officer told Army Times.
"For me, I think we missed the boat initially on adjusting to societal norms with tattoos," said Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno. "I think tattoos are something that are more common, and I think we have to realize and understand that, and we have to make sure we get the best people in our Army."
Odierno, who will retire later this month, sat down with Army Times to discuss his tenure as the Army's senior officer. He discussed a wide range of issues, including the service's tattoo policy, which has been a hot-button topic for soldiers.
Under the Army's current tattoo policy, in place since April, soldiers can have ink on their arms and legs. In simple terms, as long as it isn't visible in the Army Service Uniform, you are good to go.
This means tattoo sleeves are once again authorized as long as they don't extend past the wrist, and there are no longer limits on the size or number of tattoos soldiers can have on their arms and legs.
Soldiers are still not allowed to have tattoos on their neck, head, face, wrists or hands. The exception is a ring tattoo on each hand. Also banned are tattoos that are sexist, racist, extremist and derogatory.
The existing tattoo policy, outlined in Army Regulation 670-1, replaced a highly unpopular policy that was introduced last March and updated in September. That policy limited to four the number of tattoos soldiers could have below the elbow and knee. It also limited the size of the tattoos to the wearer's hand.
The regulation also initially barred soldiers who ran afoul of the rules from requesting a commission, sparking anger among many soldiers. The September update grandfathered enlisted seeking a commission or appointment, as long as they have their commander's endorsement.
The old policy was starting to disqualify otherwise qualified current and potential soldiers, Odierno said.
"I believe we were starting to limit some people who were absolutely qualified," he said. "They couldn't come in or they couldn't stay in because they had a certain tattoo, and I thought that wasn't an appropriate limiting factor."
The Army had to adjust, Odierno said.
"I think it's important that we adjusted," he said. "I think we have the right policy in place."
http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/careers/army/2015/08/04/odierno-tough-tattoo-rules-we-missed-boat/31120753/
Tattoos
Army
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 16
11
11
0
MSG Gary Himert
The crackdown on tats came after the skinhead murders at Fort Bragg after Desert Storm. A typical knee-jerk reaction, and then the resulting purge during the 90s cost us a lot of good men who made it in, served honorably and then got the boot over a tattoo.
(5)
(0)
SSG Dj Winters
People confused a lot of the Military personnel for skinheads, duh! They are at Fort Bragg, what kind of haircuts did they expect the troops to have, dreads and ponytails? Point is every male looks like a skinhead.
(2)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
The policy came from SMA Chandler. It was his way of trying to thin the ranks after the war in Iraq "ended".
(1)
(0)
LT Carl Martin
Troops with tats should be offered the opportunity to have them removed. It would cost a lot less than replacing them.
(1)
(0)
9
9
0
I'm all for tats. I have three myself, but when I joined, the Corps made it clear about tattoos and certain occupations...nothing visible below a short sleeve. Especially if you wanted to go career and needed a special duty. They wanted a professional image and who was I to argue. They relaxed the regs and soon men and women were sleeved up from neck to ankle. Some dudes brought up guys in the "Old Corps" but none of them had sleeves or AC/DC tats, they were Marine tats or campaign reminders. After the Marines ran out of boat spaces, I joined the Air Force (yeah, supreme culture shock). To me the policy was written, kinda vague and not enforced. Then they changed it and made people cover up. It got changed again but by then I stopped caring due to the wishy-washy nature of reg changes. I just punched out and I found that some jobs won't hire you with visible tattoos. It's not discrimination, the company just wants to project an image. Myself, if the military really wanted to, they could have set a deadline, had everyone's tats id'd, recorded and then said no more, grandfathering people. But they kinda went at it without much thought. But hey, if you can be gay or trans in the military, why should non-offensive tats be an issue these days?
(9)
(0)
10
9
1
This new policy makes more sense. There are plenty of people with tattoos who are fine citizens and many without who are not.
(10)
(1)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google