Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

U.S. Army Set to Ban Tattoos Below the Elbow or Knees

page: 1
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Speaking to troops in Afghanistan, Sgt. Maj. of the Army Raymond Chandler was discussing a new policy that is getting ready to go into effect within 30-60 days:


Under the new policy, new recruits will not be allowed to have tattoos that show below the elbows and knees or above the neckline.

Current soldiers may be grandfathered in, but all soldiers will still be barred from having any tattoos that are racist, sexist or extremist.

Once the rules are implemented, soldiers will sit down with their unit leaders and “self identify” each tattoo. Soldiers will be required to pay for the removal of any tattoo that violates the policy.
Source

These are confirmed changes that will take effect soon.


Apparently, a U.S. Army soldier will no longer be allowed to have visible tattoos while wearing the uniform. They're trying to make the soldiers look more "professional".

It also appears that policies regarding body piercings, fingernail polish, sideburns, makeup, etc. are also in the works.


A related article can be found here.




posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Yep. But I knew about this policy a year ago and was reminded again when I went to the NCO academy in HI.

It's really all about soldiers and the profession of arms.

As for grandfathering in, that too is quickly going away. Too bad, a bunch of battles I know have a lot of tats.

I do believe that there are options though, if you get them removed you can stay in, though its going to be an out of pocket expense.

IMO, I think soldiers should have any tat they want where ever they want, but that's WAY ABOVE MY PAY GRADE.



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Arnie123
 


Hmmmmm, wonder if that will apply if the draft ever kicks back in?

Although I did my time in service, I have a feeling the tattoo shops might become extremely busy!



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 05:13 PM
link   

seeker1963
reply to post by Arnie123
 


Hmmmmm, wonder if that will apply if the draft ever kicks back in?

Although I did my time in service, I have a feeling the tattoo shops might become extremely busy!

--
No, If a draft ever kicked in, you can say goodbye to that policy.

Just like when the wars started hitting the yearly marks, the restrictions an parameters were lowered giving the recruiters the A-Okay to let hoards of people in, something that should have never happened regardless because theft, rapes and a whole slew of criminal activity jumped up in statistics all across the military when that happened.



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Well, I totally agree.

Professional soldiers need to look like professionals and not yobs, even if they are called upon to act like yobs when the trigger needs to be squeezed.

Regards



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 05:21 PM
link   
The Marine Corps instituted this policy back in 2009.

Just another step in the Army trying to become the Marine Corps. The Army should be more concerned about all their food blisters first.



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by paraphi
 


Yes, because everyone that has a tattoo looks like a 'yob', right? (Where is the thumbs down emoticon when you need it.)



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 





Apparently, a U.S. Army soldier will no longer be allowed to have visible tattoos while wearing the uniform. They're trying to make the soldiers look more "professional".


That is going to interesting because those who have tattoos have them for a reason, and not to mention the fact that some people have tats on their forearms of their babies and other things that mean something to them.

You will probably see a good amount of soldiers leaving the service before having their tats removed, especially since the removal will come out of their pockets..



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Our troops are certainly upholding not only our freedoms, but they're own!

Haha end sarcasm, what a joke.



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Seems to me like they're using the "professionalism" bull# as a means for reduction in force. They'd catch way too much heat implementing a rift or a higher tenure. Sure there would be people that would try and get them removed, but some are too far gone with the amount of body coverage.

Of course, that's just a 'what if' scenario --- surely it's just to look more professional...



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Tats that show when? When they're fully dressed? Wouldn't that just leave the hands (maybe) and face? When exactly would they show? In PT shorts? this is just bizarro.

Do we read that self-identifying exercise part and consequential removing part for the offensive tats that are below the elbow or knee, especially seeing as they are also saying existing tats on already serving people are grandfathered in (uness offensive)? I guess I'm confused.
edit on 9/23/2013 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 06:13 PM
link   
This is a present to those who want out I just wonder what the DD214 will read general under honorable, honorable, ........?

A buddy of mine had a tat of a shark on the side of his head he had it since he was a kid. American Indian thing but that was allowed. I am also talking back in the early 90s as well. Even then we were discouraged from getting tats below the elbo.



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Aren't the knees already below the elbows?
Or are they currently undecided which regulation will be put in effect?
--
Okay, enough with the joking, I find it so ironic that the soldiers are losing a freedom of expression or at least having it regulated when they are supposed to be fighting to uphold these freedoms.
I would think the US Armed Forces would have better things to worry about than what ink might be on the soldier as he/she is protecting our country or our allies be it in a theatre of combat or on embassy grounds etc. These men & women signed up to out their life on the line and if they happen to have some tattoos on them, so what!



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Good. Tattoos are ugly.



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   

~Lucidity
Tats that show when? When they're fully dressed? Wouldn't that just leave the hands (maybe) and face? When exactly would they show? In PT shorts? this is just bizarro.

Bizarre? When? I know plenty of battles who's tats show when fully dressed. You do realize that some have tats on their necks, their hands, behind their ears.
In PT's, we are not just wearing our PT shorts, we do also wear PT shirts, short sleeve shirts to be exact and a lot of soldiers have what you call "Sleeves", tatted up arms.


Do we read that self-identifying exercise part and consequential removing part for the offensive tats that are below the elbow or knee, especially seeing as they are also saying existing tats on already serving people are grandfathered in (uness offensive)? I guess I'm confused.
edit on 9/23/2013 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)

No, the grandfathering is in itself is being slowly faded away.
By policy, your suppose to report all new tats you get, but that doesn't always happen.
Yes, Offensive tats will get you chaptered out.



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Restricted
Good. Tattoos are ugly.
That is simply a matter of opinion...and you know what they say about opinions, dontcha?



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 06:40 PM
link   
I remember back in 2007 the Marine Corps changed their tattoo policy and the weekend before there was a rush by the Marines I was stationed with to get their tattoos before the rule became into effect. They have been trying to make the US military more professional for decades now. It is not all bad, but I think overall it weakens the military personal.

If there was a draft and the military needed people I think they would have to waive the tattoo policy, given that many draftees would be rejected for physical and mental reasons they would be forced to take those with visible tattoos.



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 06:41 PM
link   

JohnnyCanuck

Restricted
Good. Tattoos are ugly.
That is simply a matter of opinion...and you know what they say about opinions, dontcha?

--
Opinions are like ***holes, everybody has one!!
did I get it? was I right??!!! what did I win!!!??? OH PLEASE I HOPE ITS AN XBOX ONE......



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


If a military member looks "clean cut", that makes the job of killing people look better to the public.



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 07:25 PM
link   

theconspirator

 


If a military member looks "clean cut", that makes the job of killing people look better to the public.

--
That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
A military member is always clean cut IAW AR 670-1.

edit on 23-9-2013 by Arnie123 because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join