Be all you can be.
Posted on 03/16/2006 4:40:47 PM PST by SandRat
WASHINGTON (Army News Service, Mar. 15, 2006) – The Army has revised its policy on tattoos in an effort to bolster recruitment of highly-qualified individuals who might otherwise have been excluded from joining.
Tattoos are now permitted on the hands and back of the neck if they are not “extremist, indecent, sexist or racist.” Army Regulation 670-1, which was modified via a message released Jan. 25, also now specifies: “Any tattoo or brand anywhere on the head or face is prohibited except for permanent make-up.”
For women, allowable make-up would be permanent eye-liner, eyebrows and makeup applied to fill in lips, officials said. They said permanent make-up should be conservative and complement the uniform and complexion in both style and color and will not be trendy.
The change was made because Army officials realized the number of potential recruits bearing skin art had grown enormously over the years.
About 30 percent of Americans between the ages of 25 and 34 have tattoos, according to a Scripps Howard News Service and Ohio University survey. For those under age 25, the number is about 28 percent. In all, the post-baby-boom generations are more than three times as likely as boomers to have tattoos.
As a result of tattoo attitude changes, Army Regulation 670-1, chapter 1-8E (1) has been modified via an ALARACT 017/2006 message.
Additionally, paragraph 1-8B (1) (A) was revised to state: “Tattoos that are not extremist, indecent, sexist or racist are allowed on the hands and neck. Initial entry determinations will be made according to current guidance.”
The Army has never allowed indecent tattoos on any part of the body, G1 officials pointed out.
The new policy allows recruits and all Soldiers to sport tattoos on the neck behind an imaginary line straight down and back of the jawbone, provided the tattoos don’t violate good taste.
“The only tattoos acceptable on the neck are those on the back of the neck,” said Hank Minitrez, Army G-1 Human Resources Policy spokesman. “The ‘back’ of the neck is defined as being just under the ear lobe and across the back of the head. Throat tattoos on that portion of the neck considered the front, the ear lobe forward) are prohibited.”
Soldiers who are considering putting tattoos on their hands and necks, should consider asking their chain of command prior to being inked.
“While the Army places trust in the integrity of its Soldiers and leaders, if a Soldier has a questionable case regarding tattoos, he or she should seek the advice of the local commander through the chain of command,” added Minitrez.
Should a Soldier not seek advice and have tattoos applied that aren’t in keeping with AR-670, the command will counsel the Soldier on medical options, but may not order the Soldier to have the tattoos removed. However, if a Soldier opts not to take the medical option at Army expense, the Soldier may be discharged from service.
The U.S. Coast Guard has a limitation on the size of a tattoo in percentages of a given area that will not exceed 25 percent of the space between wrist and elbow, knee and ankle, but it does not allow tattoos on the hands or neck.
The Army’s new policy, however, does not mean Soldiers should rush out and have the backs of their necks or their hands entirely covered in decorative art, Minitrez said.
“The Army does not have a percentage policy for tattoos,” Minitrez said. “As long as tattoos do not distract from good military order and discipline and are not extremist, racist, sexist or indecent they’re permitted.”
If a Soldier’s current command has no issue with his/her tattoos, the Soldier should have personnel files so notated that the Soldier is in line with AR-670, officials said. Though not mandatory, having the notation entered serves as back-up documentation at a follow-on command which might feel the Soldier’s tattoos don’t meet Army regulations
You don't need to see your commander. Just ask the Platoon Sergeant. Things tend to get all muddled when we let officers do things.
:-)
Be all you can be.
Are you kidding? This is absurd. Before, it was somewhat tolerated to have them on the hands. Now you're going to see them on the necks, heads and God knows where else.
no mention of gang related
Note that it said racist or indecent were excluded.
When I was recruiting, pretty much and "_____ Pride/Power" (insert race or color) tattoo was disqualifying at MEPS. That and the processors recognize any/all gang tattoos.
Alot of Gang Members would like to join up, no I am not kidding.....
It's nuts. I'm starting my own business and just recently wrote a dress code policy. It ain't you momma's policy either. No loud hair color, no hair in the face. Only 1 earing per lobe. No eyebrow, tongue or lip rings. No excessive mskeup. Waist bands of pants to be pulled up to waist No low cut, tight or baggy clothes. Shirts must cover abdomen when arms raised. Underwear under white clothing to be neutral or white. Underwear and shoes are not optional.
Don't matter how clean your skin is, if your record is polluted by serious crime you ain't joining.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
I'm part of the 70%. I hate tattoos.
Tattoos remind me of criminals, homos and weirdos.
Nevertheless, I have no problem with the military relaxing its ban on tattoos in inconspicuous areas.
He looks like he has an infection.
As my kids say, 'why not'? I've raised them right (3 conservatives), it's the culture we live in today.
So I guess this guy is out:
I'm sorry, but "why not" is not good enough for me. You've got to have more than that or it ends up right up there with "because I can."
There has to be a reason...any reason...to make a lifetime commitment to a drawing.
aack! I demand you replace that picture with Helen Thomas right this instant!
I think mine got them because they knew how bad my husband and I hated them. Now, one of the "boys" wishes he hadn't. The other thinks it is his Navy obligation to get one each time he gets deployed. It's all those Marines he hangs out with:')
>>>Tattoos remind me of criminals, homos and weirdos.
Really--didn't know I fell under any of those categories. But thanks for your bigoted judgement!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.