Posted on 09/24/2013 10:00:57 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd
Existing ink jobs could be grandfathered in.
The U.S. military and tattoos have an entangled history. The rise of the tattoo in popular culture started with floods of inked veterans—especially from World War II—returning home with them. The first tattoo parlor in New York City, established in 1846, served to mark up Civil War soldiers.
It is that strong history that's probably the reason why a blog post on the Army's website declared in 2009, "Today, it seems, you couldn't throw a rock into an Army formation without hitting a Soldier with at least one tattoo."
So it might be strange for the Army to put forth a new rule banning them on commonly tattooed portions of the body.
At the Stars and Stripes, Josh Smith (a former National Journal reporter) reports that Secretary of the Army John McHugh has approved, but not yet signed, a change to the Army's appearance regulations that would ban tattoos from the forearm, below the knee, or above the neckline. The Army will also require the removal of offensive tattoos, Smith reports,
Current soldiers may be grandfathered in, but all soldiers will still be barred from having any tattoos that are racist, sexist, or extremist.
Once the rules are implemented, soldiers will sit down with their unit leaders and "self identify" each tattoo. Soldiers will be required to pay for the removal of any tattoo that violates the policy, [Sgt. Maj. of the Army Raymond Chandler] said.
Forcing the removal of offensive tattoos is a step up in severity from current regulations. Currently, "commanders may not order the removal of a tattoo or brand. However, the commander must counsel soldiers, and afford them the opportunity to seek medical advice about removal or alteration of the tattoo or brand." If the soldier does respond to the counsel, the commander is to make sure "the soldier understands the policy."
For reference, here's what the Army considers offensive in tattoos.
(2) Tattoos or brands that are extremist, indecent, sexist, or racist are prohibited, regardless of location on the body, as they are prejudicial to good order and discipline within units.
(a) Extremist tattoos or brands are those affiliated with, depicting, or symbolizing extremist philosophies, organizations, or activities. Extremist philosophies, organizations, and activities are those which advocate racial, gender, or ethnic hatred or intolerance; advocate, create, or engage in illegal discrimination based on race, color, gender, ethnicity, religion, or national origin; or advocate violence or other unlawful means of depriving individual rights under the U.S. Constitution, federal, or state law (see para 4–12, AR 600–20).
(b) Indecent tattoos or brands are those that are grossly offensive to modesty, decency, or propriety; shock the moral sense because of their vulgar, filthy, or disgusting nature or tendency to incite lustful thought; or tend reasonably to corrupt morals or incite libidinous thoughts.
(c) Sexist tattoos or brands are those that advocate a philosophy that degrades or demeans a person based on gender, but that may not meet the same definition of "indecent."
(d) Racist tattoos or brands are those that advocate a philosophy that degrades or demeans a person based on race, ethnicity, or national origin.
Truthfully, this Army or any unit of the military is not worth enlisting in anymore, especially while we have this Muslim in control.
ridiculous
RE:D.
Is that like having a tattoo of a camel with the
word “Mother” underneath it?
we'll be seeing house basing for gay couples soon....
house basing?
heck they’ll be bopping in the next bunk
those who complain will be court martialed
I disagree. If you are tagged up like a blank wall in the ghetto - then yeah. The military should be a poor choice.
bump
Any Football team will accept them! Thugs!
The foot is one of the most pragmatic places to get a tattoo as it can be uncovered when one wants to display it and easily hidden in more professional circumstances.
I don't have any myself, but I do know some otherwise straight-cut people who have gotten tattoos there just for that reason.
If memory serves me right certain AFSCs in the USAF banned tattoos that were visible. Some were for obvious reasons like USAF ceremonial units. Some were related to special operations where "no identifiable marks or tattoos" was specified because the member needed to be "sanitized"...
In any case I seem to remember that forearm tattoos were limited in size, number and quality then. I do remember one of my troops getting an article 15 for a tattoo of a marijuana leaf.
In any case, the culture was different and not many had tattoos.
Some tattoos were intended to make one non draftable.
The simplest solution would be to keep the sleeves rolled all the way down to the wrist rather than the current requirement to roll them up to just above the elbow.
Their is a very devout soldier in my church that has tats below the elbow that are Christian symbols and a scriptural quote. He has 16 years in service. Since this new regulation has ID’ed things “Christian” as offensive, are they going to force him out? Yet it is OK for perversions to be foisted on the troops?
(2) Tattoos or brands that are extremist”
I guess that means no American flag, nothing to do with the Founding Fathers, The Constitution, God, Apple Pie, Chevy or anything else that is considered “extreme” by the Left.
“Allah Akbar”, Gay tattoos, and satanic symbols are probably OK.
It’s my recollection, as well, that visible tattoos were banned in the early 70’s.
Coming soon to an armed service near you ...
Reminds me of the movie “Cadence” with Charlie Sheen.
For some reason, bad assed dudes from the dawn of time seem to have gravitated towards tattoos so who am I to argue.
They probably would have given the military the middle finger and retired if these chicken s**t regs were enforced on them.
Many more will retire or not join in the first place
All for what?
I’d be grandfathered in it’s fine.
Besides unlike the Army the CG is a seagoing service and the outcry from everyone if they try something like this will be insane.
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.