Why is there a different standard for Officers when it comes to tattoos.

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 21 Mar 2014 19:43:08 -0400

Looking at the upcoming changes to AR 670-1, there is a tattoo rule that is more restrictive for Officers than it is for Enlisted. Does anyone know the reason behind this?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2014 7:56 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 21 Mar 2014 19:56:45 -0400

My first thoughts when I also read this MSG...............................The Army is now going to hold officers to higher standards then NCO's and Soldiers. Follow on thoughts were; the Army's also trying to make this an "officer lead" force. I think it's BS myself, but I won't complain too much, I'm trying to do my 20.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2014 8:13 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 21 Mar 2014 20:13:14 -0400

They hold officers to a different standard than enlisted. When I was out recruiting, someone that wanted to be a officer had to be great from the start with little to no flaws. I know there was one time that a officer couldn't be color blind when they come in.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2014 9:22 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 21 Mar 2014 21:22:39 -0400

My question related to this is, Are we going to start dropping officers with sleeves now? Would only be fair right?

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2014 9:43 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 21 Mar 2014 21:43:24 -0400

The tattoo prejudice is well ingrained at the officer level. Don't be fooled. It is very easy to shuffle officers around without having to ever give an explanation; as an LT you end up not getting a platoon, as a CPT you get buried in the 3-shop. There is no need to cause an uproar by kicking officers out.