Tattoos
Tattoos
2
2
0
So say you have a Soldier that wants to go Green to Gold. The language of the revision is fairly clear in that if you are grandfathered, you can request commission provided your commander agrees.
However, it says that no tattoos on the face were technically ever authorized, so for the purpose of this revision can they still request commission?
Example - Soldier enlists with a neck tattoo, which is technically never authorized, but they receive a waiver at MEPS. So are they considered grandfathered for these purposes or no because even though they got a waiver it was technically never auth?
However, it says that no tattoos on the face were technically ever authorized, so for the purpose of this revision can they still request commission?
Example - Soldier enlists with a neck tattoo, which is technically never authorized, but they receive a waiver at MEPS. So are they considered grandfathered for these purposes or no because even though they got a waiver it was technically never auth?
Posted in these groups: 
Tattoos
DA Pam 670-1
Tattoos DA Pam 670-1
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 4
4
4
0
I really wish the Army hadn't gotten itself into this situation to begin with. When we lowered our standards, did we not think of the repercussions down the road when we went back to the tougher original standard again as the recruiting requirements go down? Now we have Soldiers all over the place with neck tattoos that we stigmatize because we've again changed our standard. I hope they get this taken care of, but it will likely take many years before this issue goes away and the last person with a next tattoo retires or reaches ETS.
(4)
(0)
1
1
0
AR 670-1, 3-3c(1):
"Soldiers are prohibited from having tattoos or brands on the head, face (except for permanent makeup, as provided in paragraph 3–2b(2)), neck (anything above the t-shirt neck line to include on/inside the eyelids, mouth, and ears), wrists, hands, or fingers. Accessing applicants must adhere to this same policy."
AR 670-1, 3-3c(3)(a):
"...Grandfathered tattoos include: any tattoo on the neck (see glossary), on the wrists, hands, or fingers; any tattoo below the elbows (to the wrist bone) or below the knees which exceed the size of the wearer’s hand (with fingers extended and joined with the thumb touching the base of the index finger); any tattoos below the elbows (to the wrist bone) or below the knees that exceed the total number of authorized tattoos; any other tattoo(s) for which the Soldier received a waiver or exception to policy."
AR 670-1, 3-3c(3)(g):
"The tattoo restrictions enforced in paragraphs 3–3c(1) through (3) apply equally to officers and warrant officers. Enlisted Soldiers who have tattoos that were compliant with previous tattoo policies (grandfathered tattoos) may
request commissioning or appointment, if otherwise eligible. 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. Tattoos on the face or head (to include on/inside the eyelids, mouths, and ears) are not grandfathered because these locations were never authorized locations for tattoos."
AR 670-1 glossary definition of "neck":
"For clarity in regards to grandfathered tattoos, the neck is defined as anything above a crew T-shirt neckline (in a standard uniform T-shirt) and also below the jaw line (in the front of the head) and below a parallel line from the lowest point of where one ear connects to the head to the lowest point of where the other ear connects to the head (in the back of the head)."
So. If it is a NECK tattoo and falls within this ^^^ definition, then YES. They can request accession or commission. But they must still be approved by their commander.
Furthermore, if they have a tattoo on the face/head, then NO. They cannot.
It isn't so much a matter of nobody "knowing" the answers. It's that too many people listen to the misinformation being tossed around and are too lazy or too "busy" to look it up.
"Soldiers are prohibited from having tattoos or brands on the head, face (except for permanent makeup, as provided in paragraph 3–2b(2)), neck (anything above the t-shirt neck line to include on/inside the eyelids, mouth, and ears), wrists, hands, or fingers. Accessing applicants must adhere to this same policy."
AR 670-1, 3-3c(3)(a):
"...Grandfathered tattoos include: any tattoo on the neck (see glossary), on the wrists, hands, or fingers; any tattoo below the elbows (to the wrist bone) or below the knees which exceed the size of the wearer’s hand (with fingers extended and joined with the thumb touching the base of the index finger); any tattoos below the elbows (to the wrist bone) or below the knees that exceed the total number of authorized tattoos; any other tattoo(s) for which the Soldier received a waiver or exception to policy."
AR 670-1, 3-3c(3)(g):
"The tattoo restrictions enforced in paragraphs 3–3c(1) through (3) apply equally to officers and warrant officers. Enlisted Soldiers who have tattoos that were compliant with previous tattoo policies (grandfathered tattoos) may
request commissioning or appointment, if otherwise eligible. 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. Tattoos on the face or head (to include on/inside the eyelids, mouths, and ears) are not grandfathered because these locations were never authorized locations for tattoos."
AR 670-1 glossary definition of "neck":
"For clarity in regards to grandfathered tattoos, the neck is defined as anything above a crew T-shirt neckline (in a standard uniform T-shirt) and also below the jaw line (in the front of the head) and below a parallel line from the lowest point of where one ear connects to the head to the lowest point of where the other ear connects to the head (in the back of the head)."
So. If it is a NECK tattoo and falls within this ^^^ definition, then YES. They can request accession or commission. But they must still be approved by their commander.
Furthermore, if they have a tattoo on the face/head, then NO. They cannot.
It isn't so much a matter of nobody "knowing" the answers. It's that too many people listen to the misinformation being tossed around and are too lazy or too "busy" to look it up.
(1)
(0)
CW2 (Join to see)
I should know. My Warrant Officer application (for Rotary Wing Aviator) was held up for a while because even the senior NCOs and Field Grade Officers in my unit didn't really KNOW what the regulation says.
I have three tattoos below my elbow to the wrist line (two on the left arm, one on the right arm). I can completely cover each of them with my hand. As they can be fully covered by "the wearer's hand" and there are no more than four, I was considered "in compliance" with the regulation and did not require a waiver.
I eventually had to print out the regulation and highlight the applicable sections before I could get my BC to sign off on my tattoo memorandum for my WOCS packet.
I put in my packet because I studied the regulation for myself and found that I was in compliance (and this was before this month's update to AR 670-1). I would encourage Soldiers who are considering applying for commission or appointment to do the research themselves, like I did. Then you will be able to professionally and respectfully articulate to your superiors that you are in fact in compliance with the reg.
I have three tattoos below my elbow to the wrist line (two on the left arm, one on the right arm). I can completely cover each of them with my hand. As they can be fully covered by "the wearer's hand" and there are no more than four, I was considered "in compliance" with the regulation and did not require a waiver.
I eventually had to print out the regulation and highlight the applicable sections before I could get my BC to sign off on my tattoo memorandum for my WOCS packet.
I put in my packet because I studied the regulation for myself and found that I was in compliance (and this was before this month's update to AR 670-1). I would encourage Soldiers who are considering applying for commission or appointment to do the research themselves, like I did. Then you will be able to professionally and respectfully articulate to your superiors that you are in fact in compliance with the reg.
(2)
(0)
0
0
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google