Military announces stricter rules for tattoos

One poster will flip out. No more tattoos below the elbow or knee, plus no tattoos above neckline. All tattoos have to be disclosed to a unit leader, and members of the military have to remove racist, sexist, or extremist tattoos.

It's an ingenious tool to shrink the military and curtail new enlistments.

http://www.stripes.com/news/army/soldiers-told-new-rules-governing-tattoos-grooming-standards-on-the-way-1.242828

 

Given the fashion statements of the current generation of teens, this is silly. And I'm not a tattoo aficionado at all. I have no problem with the part about racist, sexist or extremist tattoos, but disqualifying someone for a tattoo on their forearm or calf is not smart. Hell, my grandfather got a dagger on his arm during WWII.

 

We've been waiting for this shoe to drop for quite some time. And, quite frankly, I can't wait for tattoos above the neck and below the wrists to go away.

It may seem silly to some, but as an Army, we take great pride in the wear of the uniform and appearance of Soldiers who put it on.

 

Yeah, they can pull this shit now but (god forbid) if there's ever another draft, I'd like to see the nationwide wait across the country in tattoo parlors if this becomes something that can disqualify you from serving.

 

It was for years until we had to relax recruiting regulations in 04-05.

 

I know you couldn't have tattoos if you wanted to go into a branch of law enforcement like the FBI where tattoos could make you more easily identifiable but I never knew that about the military.
So if they've essentially reinstated rules previously in place, does that mean A.) there are more enlisted servicemen and servicewomen than are necessary, B.) there's currently a push to reduce future enrollment or C.) there's a budget-related (sequester) push to reduce the number of people enlisted?
Also, are those currently enlisted who have non-offensive tattoos in the soon-to-be bad areas going to be grandfathered in provided they report them to their superiors?
I find this all fascinating.

 

Reading the article it seems like policy only applies to The Army ..... for now.

I guess if you have tats you now join The Navy

 

If not enough people enlist, there are two options: First is throw some more money on the table for recruiting bonuses and other financial benefits, and if that doesn't work, lower standards.

 

Hasn't the military had a gang issue in recent years? I suspect this move could be related.

 

When I was in the Navy (1989-93) I saw just about every conceivable tattoo in just about every single location. What I don't recall seeing was anyone ever having one below their wrist of above their shirt collar. I can say with 100 percent certainty I new saw anyone with one on their face/head. I don't know if this was by rule or it just simply hadn't become fashionable yet. I tend to think it was by rule. Guys couldn't wear earrings (even legally off duty), so I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be allowed to have a tat that was visible in full uniform.

 

The answer to all your questions is yes.

 

It was, and still is, by rule.

Racist, sexist and other stuff of that ilk has been prohibited for years. Lower arm is OK with size limits. Anything visible while in full uniform is not.

Admin separations definitely have been given, and I assume continue to be given, for violations.