Posted on Apr 19, 2014
Concerning the new policy in AR 670-1, will not allowing soldiers to commission with tattoos enhance or hinder the officer corps?
12.8K
31
15
3
3
0
The new AR 670-1 policy on tattoos prohibits anyone from commissioning with tattoos, even if they are grandfathered in. It seems like this excludes a large pool of experienced soldiers.
Posted in these groups: 
Tattoos
Tattoos
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 10
9
9
0
I've said it before and I'll say it again about the new 670-1, the Army is choosing the easy wrong over the hard right
(9)
(0)
MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca
A tattoo, if IAW the reg should in no way hinder a commission. any one ever see Vietnam era movie "Off Limits" with Willam Defoe & Gregory Hines? Same scenario, the protagonist gets denied a commission because of a tattoo. Great flick!
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
I feel the same way, I feel that such appointments should be made of the basis o performance and merit, not skin art.
(4)
(0)
SFC Michael Hasbun
Ability a factor in promotion? You take that back good sir, the system would collapse!
(2)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
What a farce! Get naked and line up before you can sign up! What have we turned into! Certainly, we must maintain and prescribe standards: that is what Regs are all about, but it appears that the Army ist trying to set standards based on a utopic false morality. What will be next? Only virgins can become officers?
(5)
(0)
CW3 (Join to see)
I for one am tattooed, sleeved on both arms and was just picked up for Warrant Officer I was worried that they would bar me because of my skin art, but they didn't pick me for what I look like they chose me for my qualifications it makes no difference what the person look likes, and its ridiculous that we would discriminate against people with tattoos. Just my two cents hope it made sense to everyone.
(2)
(0)
4
4
0
John,
I agree! If you have some skin art and it isn't racist, offensive, etc., then I don't see a big problem. What if a future troop had a "Mom" tat on his shoulder, then we'd exclude him according to AR 670-1? Seems a bit constraining...
(4)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google