Would you consider a wolf ring tattoo to act as a wedding band (and to comply with AR 670-1, 3-3)?

2018-06-20T13:59:50-04:00

Would you consider this wolf ring tattoo to act as a wedding band? I have always wanted to get a wedding band tattoo but not the typical kind. Thank you for any help and input. (3-3, except Soldiers may have one ring tattoo on each hand, below the joint of the bottom segment,
portion closest to the palm of the finger)

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 20 at 2018 2:30 PM

2018-06-20T14:30:43-04:00

It’s hard to say. One one hand the regulations clearly state “one RING tattoo,” which would imply that any other kind of design deviating from a band/ring shaped tattoo on the hand would be prohibited. On the other hand, I’ve seen people’s initials tattooed on the finger in lieu of a wedding band without any issue that I’m aware of. My gut feeing is that if the tattoo can be covered by the wedding ring while the ring is worn, no one will give you an issue, any bigger than that might not be worth the risk.

Response by CSM Darieus ZaGara made Jun 20 at 2018 4:26 PM

2018-06-20T16:26:56-04:00

I am to old fashioned to answer. I will tell you what I tell my adult children. Tattoos get old and ragged right along with the skin they are on. A ring never looses its luster. Thank you for your service.

Response by SFC Ralph E Kelley made Jun 20 at 2018 5:05 PM

2018-06-20T17:05:52-04:00

You got me thinking!

Response by Capt David Bays made Jun 20 at 2018 5:14 PM

2018-06-20T17:14:39-04:00

Well, its not a "band" so it is not a wedding band. Anyone considering getting a "ring" tattoo should keep in mind that rings worn on duty must be "conservative." I would not bet much on being able to find many NCOs and Officers in the Army who believe that is conservative.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Jun 20 at 2018 5:41 PM

2018-06-20T17:41:55-04:00

Not my call, it's the Commanders. BUT, if you can show me where your spouse has the exact same wedding band tattoo, it'll go a long way towards winning me over to your side during deliberations..

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 21 at 2018 12:35 PM

2018-06-21T12:35:52-04:00

Creative, but I'm not sure any commander would agree. I recommend against, at least while you're in the military.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 21 at 2018 12:55 PM

2018-06-21T12:55:04-04:00

Yeah.......that's a tattoo of a wolf on your index finger. Again black and white.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 21 at 2018 2:06 PM

2018-06-21T14:06:37-04:00

If it was on the ring finger not the index finger

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 24 at 2018 12:59 PM

2018-06-24T12:59:57-04:00

The easy answer is, if AR 670-1 doesn't give specifics on what is considered the "proper" parameters, I'd say you can do it. But remember perception is reality. Get that old fashion CSM and you could find yourself getting a nice laser skin removal treatment.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 14 at 2018 9:50 PM

2018-08-14T21:50:23-04:00

That is a negative. If it’s wider than a traditional wedding ring it’s a no go. SMS will conform to the military, not the other way around.

Response by SFC Harry H. made Aug 14 at 2018 10:34 PM

2018-08-14T22:34:25-04:00

Don’t! You will thank me later. In about 6-10 years. Besides that’s a tat of a lone wolf. Your getting married, not a loner anymore. You want two Dragons on your back. JK! Seriously, its kinda trailer trashish.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 10 at 2018 5:13 PM

2018-12-10T17:13:30-05:00

670-1 doesn’t say ring finger nor does it say “to replace the wedding band.” It says one ring tattoo on your hand, however, everything is command directed and a commander (especially old school) will probably not like this one. The policy should be revised to give more description because the way it’s written now you can have one ring style tattoo per hand.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 14 at 2019 5:31 PM

2019-11-14T17:31:52-05:00

No, that would not conform to 670-1 and would be annotated in the SM OMPF for review by a retention board