Posted on 04/03/2014 9:48:49 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd
If you want to sign on the dotted line to serve Uncle Sam in the Army, it’s going to get a lot harder to make the cut.
By the end of April, new recruits will be held to the Army’s new grooming standards–which include stricter rules on tattoos.
“Tattoos are cool thing today, 70-80% of people who come into our office have tattoos. I’ve seen 15-year-olds with tattoos,” said Sergeant First Class Robert Black with the Army Recruiting Command in Norfolk, who says these new policies will cut down on the number of enlisted they can take.
If you have a sleeve tattoo–you are eliminated.
If you have a tattoo on the face, neck, head, hands or fingers–forget about it.
If you have ink below the elbow or below the knee, you are limited to 4 tattoos, none bigger than the size of your hand.
“We have over 50 future soldiers in waiting, holding for basic training, and as of right now, 30% would not be able to qualify based on those standards,” said SFC Black.
The Army is allowing those new recruits already under contract, as well as current active duty soldiers, to be grandfathered in under the old rules—but if any of those enlisted soldiers want to try and get their commission to become an officer, they would be barred if their tattoos don’t match the new policy.
“A situation like that would definitely be disheartening to someone who wanted to be an officer and now the tattoo policy is going to stop them from being able to do it, but once again, they have to adapt to the situation to go forward,” said SFC Black.
According to the Sergeant Major of the Army, who came up with the new standards, it is all meant to keep up a more professional peacetime force.
it is all meant to keep up a more professional peacetime force
Actually I think this is a good thing. It is a third world right of passage to have various tattoos. In an educated civilized society tattoos are not all that attractive. Yes I have seen some very nice ink work but over the years tattoos age (as do the people having them). Even with out that the truth is that the folks who insist on getting lots of visible tats are trying to prove how anti establishment they are. There behavior at best is marginal. their work history sketchy and their bill paying ability limited. More often than not they have trouble with the law as well as trouble with drugs and alcohol.
For those of you with tats good for you. I am citing my own experience.
The armed forces don’t need these kinds of folks.
Warriors don’t need to be pretty outside. I personally don’t like tatoos but people who are willing to defend and die for this country, at great sacrifice to themselves and their families, can do whatever they damn well want to do to their skin. Your point is well taken; its the courage inside that counts.
“Watch for a run on tattoos to avoid the military if there is ever another draft.”
If there is a draft the rule would be waved. All you would do is make certain that you were stuck being a grunt.
The face of America-2014.
I think the operational word here is Peacetime
If the draft returns, we will be at war in a big way
Have you ever seen someone with a full sleeve? That is most definitely NOT part of the military tradition. Western civilization does not have the kind of tattooing history that the panAsians and Africans do. The northern tribes tended to use body paint rather than dye injection.
And by the by those thousands of years you refer to are mostly governed by monarchs and dictators.....I prefer to live in a more modern society
We’re not stone age savages.
A full sleeve will be seen when dressed....no way around it.....Same is true for face tats and neck tats....
If there is a draft the rule would be waved.
************
But certain designs, symbols and letters would still be deemed unacceptible. I can easily think of several.
It's tats above the neck and past the wrists - which, though my knowledge is *very* old, used to be illegal to perform in at least several states. (Tattoos on the genitalia are also illegal, but that's not germaine to this particular discussion. :-) )
IMO, and I'm just talking here, I'd guess that mostly it's to disqualify people with gang tattoos. That's just a shot in the dark, but I don't think it's a stretch.
This reminds me of the NBA requirement for non-active players to wear a suit while on the bench. To present a professional image as NBA players.
While active NBA players on the court look like prison escapees, circus clowns, gangbangers and thugs.
While there is no way to keep out the freaks with tattoos, the military should follow the civillian and corporate model and pay them accordingly:
The more tatts you have - the less you earn.
They would simply lower the standards again. Problem solved, or so they think.
Active Duty ping.
This surprises me; I thought Obama would make tattoos mandatory.
I think the operational word here is Peacetime
***********
I fear that the Democrat concept of “peacetime” may be something along the lines of unilateral disarmament. Just a small standing army to ensure “peace” and stability amongst the domestic population, if you know what I mean.
If a man (or woman) is willing to die for my freedom and liberty, then they can wear whatever body art they wish.......................
Or, not so small
witness the Huge standing army of China
7,054,000 according to wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_troops
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.