Guardsman sues over Army's new tattoo rules

Stars and Stripes ^ | May 1, 2014 | Brett Barrouquere

[Jet Jaguar]

A Kentucky National Guard soldier with aspirations of joining a U.S. Army special operations unit wants a federal judge to overturn the military's new regulations concerning soldiers with tattoos.

Staff Sgt. Adam C. Thorogood of Nashville, Tennessee, said the tattoos covering his left arm from the elbow to the wrist aren't harmful, but the Army is using the body art against him and stopping him from fulfilling a dream of joining "The Nightstalkers," the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. Thorogood's attorneys said the new rules are preventing their client from seeking appointment as a warrant officer.

Thorogood, 28, sued Thursday in U.S. District Court in Paducah, Kentucky, seeking to have the new rules declared unconstitutional. He is seeking $100 million in damages.

The regulations went into effect in March cover a variety of appearance-related issues including hair styles, fingernails, glasses and jewelry. The rules ban tattoos below the knee or elbow. Soldiers who already have the ink are grandfathered in. Under the new regulations, any soldier with tattoos is barred from seeking a promotion to warrant officer or commissioning as an officer.

"You've got a soldier who is about as gung ho as you get ... then you've got this regulation you read about on Facebook and you don't have a career," said Robin May, a Kentucky-based attorney who represents Thorogood. "That would be a blow."

May said the new regulations violate a constitutional ban on laws that retroactively change the legal consequences or status of actions that were committed before the enactment of the law. The ban also infringes upon Thorogood's free speech rights, May said.

An Army spokesman did not immediately return a message Thursday. In an online video posted in March, Sgt. Maj. of the Army Raymond F. Chandler III addressed why the changes were made, saying appearance matters and should "be a matter of personal pride" to soldiers.

"The Army is a profession, and one of the ways our leaders and the American public measure our professionalism is by our appearance," Chandler said. "Every soldier has the responsibility to understand and follow these standards. Leaders at all levels also have a responsibility to interpret and enforce these standards, which begins by setting the example."

Tattoos have long been a part of military culture, but as they have become more popular, and more prominently displayed on the body, the various branches have been regulating them in to try to maintain a professional look. The Air Force bans tattoos covering more than a quarter of an exposed body part, under regulations revised in 2011. In 2006, the Navy announced that forearm tattoos could be no wider than a hand's breadth.

The Marine Corps has been cracking down on tattoos for years. In 2007, the Corps banned sleeve tattoos and those covering the leg below the knee.

Thorogood spent 10 years on active duty in the Army as a decorated soldier and sniper before switching to the Reserves, a move that allowed him to pursue a degree in aerospace at Middle Tennessee State University and pursue certifications in flying planes. Attorney Ken Humphries said Thorogood's goal was to submit an application for an appointment as a warrant officer, which are usually technical leaders and specialists, and become a helicopter pilot.

Thorogood has 11 tattoos, including three on his left arm featuring a three-member sniper team, a second of skulls and the sniper logo of a serpent and spear and an ambigram of the words "Fear Is the Mind Killer." After the tattoo regulations took effect, body art that Thorogood had before the regulations could get him charged with a military offense if he even applied for the position.

"It disqualifies a candidate for cosmetic reasons," Humphries said.

[Shimmer1]

What FEEEEELS good isn’t coming into play here.

[coop71]

Tattoos can spread AIDS? Maybe if you get one in the AIDS infirmary in a third world prison. Not in the US.

[Future Snake Eater]

That doesn’t remotely answer my question. Does that guy deserve the treatment he’s now getting? If so, why, and why was it OK to overlook the tattoos when we needed these people to act as IED bait? If they were fit to serve before, why aren’t they fit to serve now?

[rmlew]

Pay no attention to the last 200 years. Tattoos are completely incompatable with the military.
Pay no attention to the collapse of Rome. Illegal aliens in the military is a wonderful idea.

[Mr Rogers]

Your ‘constitutional rights’ are limited under the military. There is no good reason why a mustache couldn’t go past the corner of your mouth in the military, but those are the rules.

Further, this rule applies to FUTURE promotions. The guy is not being demoted for the tattoos he has...but yeah, lots of tattoos can limit your upward mobility, even in the civilian world.

Heck, try getting a tattoo with the “N” word on your arm and owning an NBA team at the same time...

[jwalsh07]

Right on. My tattoos had not one iota of effect on performing my duties as a grunt. And neither will this guys.

[Mr Rogers]

“These soldiers were told, however, that they could have tattoos and that it wouldn’t affect them.”

And they won’t - at their current rank. But at least when I was in, tattoos were very strongly discouraged amongst officers, and anyone getting a lot of them would know it could limit how high one went.

Heck, the first time I was passed over for major, the SQ/CC said it was because my official photo had a wrinkle in the sleeve, and that would indicate sloppiness to a promotion board!

[OneWingedShark]

Your ‘constitutional rights’ are limited under the military.

Then there is no Constitution — you see, the Constitution is about limiting the government, not granting rights.

There is no good reason why a mustache couldn’t go past the corner of your mouth in the military, but those are the rules.

If those were the rules you agreed to under your enlistment, then it's a matter of you violating your contract, no?

Further, this rule applies to FUTURE promotions. The guy is not being demoted for the tattoos he has...but yeah, lots of tattoos can limit your upward mobility, even in the civilian world.

Granted.

Heck, try getting a tattoo with the “N” word on your arm and owning an NBA team at the same time...

Nachos?
What do they have against cheese-covered chips?

[xzins]

If they hadn’t changed the rules, Mr Rogers, I’d have no problem with it. However, you can’t give someone permission to do something and then punish them for doing it.

Since it requires mutilation to remove these, it is not like approving of beards and then disapproving of beards.

The clear answer is to grandfather those who received tatoos during the time when it was permissible and deny them to all new recruits.

[Mr Rogers]

Grooming rules varied while I was in. But past actions can reduce the chance of future promotion because you have no “right” to be promoted.

They are not punishing the guy. They are not reducing his rank. But imprudent actions in the past can cause a person future problems. One of the reasons I dislike tattoos is that they are permanent, and what is considered ‘good’ today might be considered ‘bad’ tomorrow. Think about a tattoo proclaiming God, Mom & Apple Pie - it would now be considered religious bigotry, homophobic and insensitive to fat people...

[OneWingedShark]

I agree that tatoos aren't exactly wise, or [personally] appealing — but, on the other hand, I do dislike the variability of the rules.

[familyop]

"Wrong. It's new."

No, it's not. The policy was the same, when I was in ranks.

"I just did some research on that topic. No one has ever gotten AIDS from getting a tattoo."

Tattoo artist sites and open wikis probably aren't good references for that. Let's see what doctors say about it.

Q. Who can get HIV?
WebMD
Answers From Experts & Organizations (1)
"The disease can also be transmitted by dirty needles used to make a tattoo or in body piercing."

That's what the Army said from '89-'96, too.

"What else you got?"

Your FR page:
"I am a 31-year old Army Captain. I have served in the military since 1998"

"I was 31 during 13 weeks of OSUT training at Ft. Lost in the Woods."

cbt. engr. (cbt.), National Guard, '89-'96, enlisted type

I was too old to be an officer within a month of arriving at my first home unit (great unit with one commander, political/social unit with the next).

[ozaukeemom]

I really do not want him to, but there is nothing here for him. He could potentially gain a career (not in the military). Working in a restaurant 25 hours a week in Podunk is not exactly a wonderful path. He is a great cook! lol

[familyop]

"The Leviticus passage about tatoos was not extended into the Christian era in Acts 15...So, I'm not going to say this is a biblical issue for gentile Christians. And having a tattoo certainly shouldn't prevent an unbeliever from becoming a Christian."

It's also one of the reasons that some people around the world are leaving Chrstianity and studying from Orthodox Judaism. Those who came from various romanticist advocacies were easily embraced and replaced us long ago.

"I think this is an 'ex post facto' law. I think that makes it unconstitutional."

See my comment #52.

The Army already forbade getting new tattoos, when I was at Ft. Leonard Wood and in the Guard long before now. The policy wasn't enforced much. The UCMJ is a more accurate reference for soldiers. They enjoy the full rights of the Constitution, when they're discharged and beyond IRR (except for recent political/regulator class violations of civilian rights).

America has been more polluted since the 1850s. During the '70s, the shunting of young men from the economy began. During the '80s and '90s, most people, including highly respected, old, effeminate men with domineering wives, broke families with sneaky lusts and false accusations. The shunting of younger men (many husbands and fathers) from the economy intensified. People continued to scoff at the spirit of Elijah before he returns.

Now? Regulations, false gossip and legalistic robberies from higher places everywhere. It's a feeding frenzy perpetuated by those who keep up appearances while blaming the righteous. It's been going on for decades and is only intensifying.

Be nonpolitical. Enjoy the interesting times.

[familyop]

"Pay no attention to the collapse of Rome."

That might be better said without irony. Granted, we shouldn't look at the physical collapse of any cruel, idolatrous empire with our eyes and jump for joy at the demise of its supporters, although it's very difficult to avoid doing so. Very difficult indeed. Several empires like that have fallen for good reasons.

[Future Snake Eater]

No, it's not. The policy was the same, when I was in ranks.

The policy formally changed to allow in more Soldiers when they needed cannon fodder against the hajis. That was back when I was in, and I still am.

Let's see what doctors say about it.

I looked it up on AIDS-related sites, not tattoo sites or wikis. "Possible" does not equal "has happened." It hasn't happened, so it seems a bit odd to make that your go-to factoid as to why tattoos should be banned from the military.

I'm personally far more interested in the lack of leadership characteristics that are apparently demonstrated by Soldiers with tattoos, and why they were just fine a few years ago, but now are no longer fit to serve. Does anyone here have any factoids to explain the logic of that decision?

[eddie willers]

I make an exception for males...and only two.

One that has their service insignia and one that says, “Mom”.

Yes...I think all tats look barbaric.

And don’t get me started on studs and other piercings of the body (excepting ear rings for women).

[SkyPilot]

The Leviticus passage about tatoos was not extended into the Christian era in Acts 15. It could have been, but it wasn't.

I respect you. You are a good person, and I thank you for your service. But if what you posted it true, then this passage from right next to it in Leviticus also has no current meaning from God:

"'No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD."

Leviticus 18:6

[jjotto]

Yes, but there’s a tradition of men that one applies and one does not.

[SkyPilot]

Being a Christian never was, nor is it now, a requirement for military service. From my standpoint, based on the Bible, tatoos are something God has said "Do NOT do."

I think He made Himself pretty clear. I subscribe to the "leaky boat theory." We cannot puncture just one hole in the boat, and expect all to be well. Military members can have tatoos - as they have in this country for generations. It was NEVER a good idea. Ever. On top of that, we are now far beyond the seaman who had one or two on his upper arm. Today, we have facial tatoos, and also tatoos in every part of the anatomy. Where is the line? You tell me? How about up to the eye lids? No? How about up to the forehead? No....still too much? Why? Where is the limit?

I am not a 100% sinless individual. There is much that I have to account for, and I end up messing up and going back to my Savior for forgiveness. I wanted to say that because I don't want to be a hypocrite.

This will not be solved here. Once you let just "a little" evil in, it takes a mile.