Posted on Mar 29, 2015
Cannot become an officer or warrant officer because of tattoos: What do you think?
91.3K
479
190
42
42
0
I think along with many other think this tattoo policy needs to go away. I am barred from becoming a warrant officer because i have a sleeve tattoo. Seriously? I think this is complete bs. I have my pilots license on the civilian side i have passed all my Army pre reqs. So why can't i become a warrant offer? Because i have a tattoo and thats bs many great soldiers and potential great leaders are being screwed out of advancing to the top. Wjat do you guys think?
Tattoos
Officers
Warrant Officers
Aviation
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 127
59
59
0
Do visible tattoos present a Professional Military Appearance? That is the policy question. It's not about capability. It's never been about capability. It's about image.
I like tattoos. Have them. But I can't disagree with the policy, as it is.
An Officer (whether Commissioned, Warrant, or Non-Commissioned) is not just a leader, but also a Representative of the US Government, and has Powers invested in them. As such, image is more important than we like to believe.
I like tattoos. Have them. But I can't disagree with the policy, as it is.
An Officer (whether Commissioned, Warrant, or Non-Commissioned) is not just a leader, but also a Representative of the US Government, and has Powers invested in them. As such, image is more important than we like to believe.
(59)
(0)
MSG Loren Tomblin
The policy prevents many talents to be lost. However, folks should not do the tattoo thing below the wrist, on the neck or anywhere it is visible. I have a friend that is covered with those on his back , arms, etc. He went to the CGSC and retired on the LTC list. Back in the day I hand them on my fingers and arms when khaki short sleeves were in vogue. Gimmee a break Army. The current policy should be reviewed and everybody that complies get a participation award.
(1)
(0)
SFC Scott Parkhurst
Earlier in my career I was kind of old fashion. But as I have gotten more tolorent and more lack's, and realizing that times change and need to change that I feel it is okay to "sport" tasteful tattoo's on ones arms. As long as the public can see that the tatt's are in good tastes then there shouldn't be any reason why not. It's the person and how they perform and their background is what count's. I too now have some tattoo's on both arms and I have done just fine and have gotten hired and awarded and everything else. No one has ever frowned on my arms trust me.
(1)
(0)
TSgt Kevin Fincher
A small thing to think about for all of the people that are on the image and professionalism track. Start looking around! What is currently (the last decade or so) the most visible image of the military? Recruiting billboards, magazine articles, news reports, and every other form of media you can think of? Is it the super trooper at the base personnel office? Or could it be the special operator with non standard kit, a chest rig, beard, hiking boots, and blue jeans? Now who really wants to play the old standard which equates to stiff and inflexible in the minds of the public to the new image of professionalism where the boots meet the ground? Are tatoo's such a horrible image that you are willing to lose talent and capability over? Our people are our most valuable asset not the sharp creases and spitshine image!
(0)
(0)
SFC Harry H.
I have found as a Police Officer that we get a lot of our bad rap because officers not doing as they should. Many departments look to higher only those who have college. Just think how many potential great officers are passed over simply because they have no college. My point is, it is being proven in the civilian world that the best candidates aren't always selected. Is the image of the military worth the experience we are passing up?
(0)
(0)
50
50
0
Not BS in my book; it is/was the standard. When I was growing up and Officer, the rule (unwritten) was Tattoos were OK, so long as you can't see them in the Class B. That said, I believe, based on the current nature of tattoos, that the Army needs (and they are) to reconsider the changes and policies on tattoos in 670-1. My redlines are face, neck and hands. But, I am not the CSA or SMA. Good luck!
(50)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
I do understand the policies but i was able to commision until this nee policy came into account so why is it such an issue now? My current LT has pretty much a whole body tattoo sleeves to chest piece none visible in uniform but now hes barred from promotion. Where is the sense in that? He was an officer before the policy so why screw him over now? The big green weenie is on the prowl
(4)
(0)
COL Charles Williams
SGT (Join to see). Thanks. I believe we need to relook the hasty policy we currently have. Times have changed.
(0)
(0)
MSG Scott McBride
It's too bad that some of our leaders believe tattoos represent poor performance or apathy; and they do. This is simply not true in my experience. I am full sleeved and both sides and I excelled. I turned down SGM so I could retire. Face neck and hands are a no go for me as well, but tattoos as a whole are a part of military culture and tradition no matter what the rank.
(11)
(0)
32
32
0
This should work for you, if you were grandfathered
Enlisted Soldiers who have tattoos that were compliant with previous tattoo policies (grandfathered tattoos) may request commissioning or appointment. Commanders should continue to evaluate potential applicants on the “whole Soldier” concept in making appropriate recommendations. Soldiers, who have unauthorized tattoos that were not in compliance with previous policies, are not grandfathered. Grandfathering applies to Army enlisted applying for officer accession or appointment. Sister Service applicants are not eligible for grandfathering.
ANY AD APPLICANTS REQUIRING AN EXCEPTION TO POLICY FOR TATTOOS will submit a Tattoo Waiver Request with their packet submission when applying for the Warrant Officer Program. The Tattoo Waiver Request Form is located under the downloads tab. Additionally, ALL AD APPLICANTS WILL BE REQUIRED to submit the new Statement of Understanding (with the tattoo policy paragraph) with their packet. If you need further guidance or have additional questions, please contact your regional WO recruiting team via email at: http://www.usarec.army.mil/hq/warrant/WOassistance.shtml
Enlisted Soldiers who have tattoos that were compliant with previous tattoo policies (grandfathered tattoos) may request commissioning or appointment. Commanders should continue to evaluate potential applicants on the “whole Soldier” concept in making appropriate recommendations. Soldiers, who have unauthorized tattoos that were not in compliance with previous policies, are not grandfathered. Grandfathering applies to Army enlisted applying for officer accession or appointment. Sister Service applicants are not eligible for grandfathering.
ANY AD APPLICANTS REQUIRING AN EXCEPTION TO POLICY FOR TATTOOS will submit a Tattoo Waiver Request with their packet submission when applying for the Warrant Officer Program. The Tattoo Waiver Request Form is located under the downloads tab. Additionally, ALL AD APPLICANTS WILL BE REQUIRED to submit the new Statement of Understanding (with the tattoo policy paragraph) with their packet. If you need further guidance or have additional questions, please contact your regional WO recruiting team via email at: http://www.usarec.army.mil/hq/warrant/WOassistance.shtml
(32)
(0)
12
12
0
SGT (Join to see) I told my sons and now my grandchildren that there is always a price to pay for your actions!
(12)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
That sounds familiar, CSM Charles Hayden. Oh, yeah, that's what I tell mine. Tattoos are taboo, but if you are part of any fringe element of the PC groups, your good to go. Sarcasm
(2)
(0)
12
12
0
Bottom line, it's policy. So ask yourself what is more important your tats or your career?
There are places to go and have them removed. Whining about it here will not change the Regs.
There are places to go and have them removed. Whining about it here will not change the Regs.
(12)
(0)
PO2 Skip Kirkwood
It's back to the judgment thing. IMHO getting tattoos is just not smart. I was a submarine corpsman - if I had a dollar for every hour I spent trying to remove tattoos from guys who had a bad lapse in judgment, I'd be wealthy. Spouse's name and get a divorce? Harlety tat now I ride an Indian? Come on!
(1)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
PO2 Skip Kirkwood - Didn't know you guys could do that, never had the occasion, because I listened to my Company Commander in Boot Camp that reminded me of the results.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
I am not making a policy comment here but I will say this about tattoo removal. When you have it removed you still have the tattoo it just becomes a horrible looking scar that's the exact outline of the tattoo you had removed. Tattoo removal is very painful and the results look a lot worse than the tattoo
(0)
(0)
10
10
0
I think it places one's judgment into question. Tattoos are pointless. When expressing yourself takes higher priority than maintaining professionalism, these are the consequences. Even if the tattoo is to honor a family member or fallen comrade, there are other ways to honor these people.
(10)
(0)
CW4 (Join to see)
LTC (Join to see) - My response is directed at the OP. The guy has a sleeve tattoo and seems outraged that he can't become an officer. Given the competitive nature of WO selection boards (I don't know how it works with the commissioned guys) it is not surprising that tattoos are a discriminator. If I have two equally qualified guy standing in front of me up for one WO position, and the only difference is a sleeve tattoo, I'll pick the guy without the sleeve tattoo. The Army can tailor its policies at any given time to fit the recruiting needs. There was a time when tattoos didn't matter and everyone was deploying all the time. The Army needed more people. Now they don't and the restrictions are higher. Give it some time, President Trump will call for WWIII with China and we'll have a draft.
(2)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
just my humble opinion, but if I have two equally qualified guys standing before me and the only difference is a sleeve tattoo, I would think I'd need to relook their qualifications and find a difference that would actually make a difference. That or flip a coin.
(10)
(0)
SSG Robert Perrotto
LTC (Join to see) - the image portrayed is important also. A sleeve is not the image the Army wants to portray. So yes, If I had 2 qualifying candidates, one that presents an image that I wish my brand to portray, the other with candy colored hair, nose,tongue,multiple ear rings, with tatoos all over, who do you think I would hire?
(3)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
CW4 (Join to see) - what if the only difference was that one had a religious exemption for a beard?
(0)
(0)
10
10
0
IMHO, as long as they are not on your face, neck or hands, tattoos should not be an issue. I have several, fortunately I had the foresight to make sure they are in places where they are covered by a T-shirt (one on each shoulder/upper arm and one on the chest.)
(10)
(0)
9
9
0
CW4 Tim Claus
This can have a bearing on hiring in the civilian job market too. Tattoos on applicants may not be the appearance an employer is trying to project for their company. I never got one, but my kids have them. Not sure if it has or has not effected them during job searches, but it can be a discriminator.
(3)
(0)
6
6
0
Regulations are regulations! If you don't like them then get out! Plain and simple. We are not going to change the regulation just too please you!
(6)
(0)
6
6
0
To be honest... if you really want to go.. get a waiver... get it removed.. ... but stop blaming army policy... where there is a will there is a legal way... how bad do you want it...?
(6)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google