Posted on 03/16/2006 5:19:05 PM PST by Libloather
Uncle Sam might not want you
Of the 32 million Americans in its prime recruiting age group of 17 to 24, the Army deems most unqualified to serve.
BY PAULINE JELINEK Associated Press
Posted on Mon, Mar. 13, 2006
WASHINGTON - Uncle Sam wants YOU, that famous Army recruiting poster says. But does he really?
Not if you're a Ritalin-taking, overweight, Generation Y couch potato -- or some combination of the above.
As for that fashionable "body art" that the military still calls a tattoo, having one is grounds for rejection, too.
With U.S. casualties rising in wars overseas and more opportunities in the civilian work force from an improved U.S. economy, many young people are shunning a career in the armed forces. But recruiting is still a two-way street -- and the military, too, doesn't want most people in this prime recruiting age group of 17 to 24.
Of some 32 million Americans now in this group, the Army deems the vast majority too obese, too uneducated, too flawed in some way, according to its estimates for the current budget year.
"As you look at overall population and you start factoring out people, many are not eligible in the first place to apply," said Doug Smith, spokesman for the Army Recruiting Command.
Some experts are skeptical.
Previous Defense Department studies have found that 75 percent of young people are ineligible for military service, noted Charles Moskos of Northwestern University. While the professor emeritus who specializes in military sociology says it is "a baloney number," he acknowledges he has no figures to counter it.
The military's figures are estimates, based partly on census numbers. They are part of an elaborate analysis the military does as it struggles each year to compete with colleges and companies for the nation's best and brightest, plan for future needs and maintain diversity. The Census Bureau estimates that the overall pool of people who would be in the military's prime target age has shrunk as American society ages. There were 1 million fewer 18- to 24-year olds in 2004 than in 2000, the agency says.
The pool shrinks to 13.6 million when only high school graduates and those who score in the upper half on a military service aptitude test are considered. The 30 percent who are high school dropouts are not the top choice of today's professional, all-volunteer and increasingly high-tech military force.
Other factors include:
• The rising rate of obesity; some 30 percent of U.S. adults are now considered obese.
• A decline in physical fitness.
• A near-epidemic rise in the use of Ritalin and other stimulants to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Potential recruits are ineligible for military service if they have taken such a drug in the previous year.
The ban on tatoos is kind of silly.
AFAIK, the tatoo regs have been relaxed a bit over the last few years. According to my BIL, tats are permitted as long as they aren't visible when in uniform, and if they don't promote gang ties or criminal activity.
He also told me that recruiters are increasingly looking the other way when it comes to obesity (truthfully, he was ranting about it). I was told that many guys are getting into basic who wouldn't have even been looked at 10 years ago. The assumption is that they'll either lose the weight quick, or they'll just quit.
already posted, and Army has modified that tattoo policy:
Army changes Tattoo policy
By J.D. Leipold
March 15, 2006
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.
thats msm for ya, they probably mean rasist/gang tats...
but off course why write a story with facts
Tatoos are so gross, especially on women.
It tends to filter out criminal elements.
Tattoo's are permanent cure for temporary insanity.
Recruiters have no say over height and wieght matters. It is the doc at the physical that passes or fails them.
An otherwise gorgeous 20 year old lady in my office has multiple large tatoos. Tatoos on a lady are no different that dents on a brand new Mercedes.
Really, tatoos make you a criminal?
The military checks your criminal record, so that's not the reason.
It does no such thing. It only brings a visual opinion of a soldier. You shouldn't judge a book by its cover.
Tattoos have no bearing on a soldiers attitude to his duty. People can easily be gang members or criminals without tattoos.
BTW, I got mine while in Basic Training.
So now I get up as early as in basic training without the garbage can lids. With "gotta fix this now" pay LOL!
The assumption is that they'll either lose the weight quick, or they'll just quit.
RRRRoooooaaaaaadddd GGGGGGaaaaauuuuurrrrrdddd
Not only does the Army want certain undesirables, not everyone deserves to serve in the Army.
Tattoos are disgusting. Trashy. It's impossible to watch the NCAA Men's Basketball tourney because of this.
Does that also include juvenile records? It'll be hard to convince me that a 17 year old festooned with tatoos doesn't have gang tendencies even though he hasn't been convicted.
I know I shouldn't but I still do. If I see a gold toothed 17 year old festooned with tatoos, my first inclination is not to think what a fine display of body art.
WTF? Do they have them on their FACES or something? If they are the traditional military tatoos on the upper arms, shoulder, or torso, then they are not "excluded by current regulations."
On the other hand, if they look like this guy, then frankly they deserve to be excluded.
Have you served?
Never heard of what is called a "Jail House Tattoo" have you?
Yes, six years in the U.S. Navy... and if you don't have a tatoo, you're not a sailor.
In 1943 while just out of bootcamp San Diego USNTS I had a tattoo of a pair of crossed Prep Flags tattooed on my right, middle, top side of my right arm signifying I was a Signalman Striker, I was proud of being chosen to attend the Navy's class "A" school and qualify to be a Signalman on a ship of the U.S.Navy which I did and was on board this ship for two years and three invasions(Asiatic Pacific Fleet)as what was considered at the time as being a member of an elite group known as the "Eyes of the Fleet" that really inpressed a 17 year old West Texas kid who had only been on one train and that was to get to California to get in the Navy.
Anyway twenty-four years later I applied for duty with the U.S. Border patrol(the second time I was allowed to be interviewed)due to the fact I had passed the entrance exam the second time after almost three years of waiting(red tape)and during the interview I was told I would be required to have this tattoo removed if I was accepted as I could be identified by illegals and could not do any undercover work.
Now here is this old station chief(who had been in the Patrol for 45 years)with an eagle emblazoned on his right upper arm in very bold art in a beautiful dark blue with all the attendant trimmings that go with eagle tattooes.
He noticed I was looking at his tattoo and he remarked to his interview helper as an aside(another old grizzled chief)that he was planning to have it removed after 45 years as he was told to do by his superiors, I just smiled and was rejected anyhow because I was too old although that was not allowed to be used to reject an applicant.
Their reason for my rejection was I just wasn't what they were looking for!
Now that reason was not on the table for argument and was plain enough so I never tried the third time!
You know after awhile even the hard-headed ones finally get the message and give up don't they?
Just think of what might have been the outcome of WW2 if the Navy had been that picky when I tried to join up(of course I am only kidding, it might even have been over sooner).
Never heard of what is called a causal fallacy, have you?
"WTF? Do they have them on their FACES or something? If they are the traditional military tatoos on the upper arms, shoulder, or torso, then they are not "excluded by current regulations.""
Nope the family tattoos (at least the ones I've seen) like a Navy symbol or "mother."
The article, though, made it sound like a tattoo was enough for rejection.
Well, that's a very logical reason.
False. Johniegrad, , USN 1979-1987, no 'toos. NRMC PortsVA 1979-1983, USNH RoosRds PR 1983-86, NRMC PortsVa 1986-7.
It certainly made sense to me and I had already made up my mind to have it removed but not before final acceptance which would be allowed such as if you were told to lose a specific amount of body weight, this happened to a DPS trooper who was told he had to lose 45lbs. then he would meet their weight criteria!
He told them to shove it he wasn't going to diet and exercise that much for any job opportunity and that he already had a good job!
If the tattoo can be covered by an ordinary long-sleeve shirt, then it is OK. The new change is that they are allowing tattoos on the back of the neck which show when wearing a shirt as well. Anchors, the Marine Insignia, or "Mother" on the upper arm are still allowed (and always have been).
Aha, thank you.
My husband (a boomer) also has the belief that a tatoo is a warning sign and often flags people who have been in jail at some time in their lives.
This may no longer be true of the new generation, but a lot of older men still go use old truths to judge younger people.
For myself, it is against my religion to desecrate the body given to you by God. Even pierced ears are considered pagan and a rejection of God.
I don't think I know any young people who still believe that. But then a lot of them have been raised to be pagans.
OK. Have you taken your medication today?
That was a stupid comment to make. She was calmly explaining her point of view, and you had to get personal.
Well, my reservist (IRR) brother worked very hard to get into shape for deployment to Iraq, worried he wouldn't make the cut, only to find he was in the upper portion of his group--and one of the younger ones, in his mid-30s. He said they were taking just about anyone.
There's the story of the 70-year-old retired Army colonel called-up and sent to Afghanistan, plus the other septuagenarian who was nearly arrested for ignoring the recall notices, figuring they must be a mistake since they were sent to his current residence--an assisted-living facility! Well, they were serious, though he was allowed to go home after the physical. :-)
And saying that young people who are pierced or tatooed were probably raised by pagans isn't?
My dad, a WW2 USN vet had a huge tattoo on his arm after a wild night in Hawaii. He always had a laugh when telling the story. "It wasn't that big in the book!"
Nitro, beta-blocker, statin--check, check, check.
yep, thanks for caring.
His last year in the service was miserable, and he did not reenlist.
Other factors include:
"• The rising rate of obesity; some 30 percent of U.S. adults are now considered obese.
• A decline in physical fitness.
• A near-epidemic rise in the use of Ritalin and other stimulants to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Potential recruits are ineligible for military service if they have taken such a drug in the previous year."
They also weed out those with criminal records and those with histories of drug use.
Read her post again. She did not state that or imply it.
tramp stamps...!
The Navy banned tongue splitting like that freak has a few years ago.
The ban on convicted felons tends to accomplish that a little better.
Lot's of 17-18 year old criminals who either haven't been convicted of anything serious or, had juvenile records that were expunged.
That having been said, there is a long tradition of judges giving a young man in a legal jam having an otherwise clean felony record two choices, join the military or go to jail. My comments weren't so much about the person with one or two tatoos as they were about the 17 year old who shows up at the recruiting station festooned with tatoos.
Furthermore, rules are rules, orders are orders. If a recruit is unwilling to have a tatoo removed as a pre-condition for signing up, how likely will that soldier be to follow orders?
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.