Posted on 05/01/2014 9:45:30 PM PDT by 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.
Sodomy okay, tats bad.
I never saw any military career enhanced by getting tattooed.
the military ain’t changing it b/c they want to. obama is changing it. hegot rid of opposing officers high up and they are doing what he tellsthem.
I have never cared for tattoos except on trashy women, sorry appears I am being redundant.
“I was thinking of encouraging my son to enlist...”
Today’s Army is not the army I belonged to nearly fifty years ago. I don’t think I would have encouraged my sons to join the army we have now. No slam intended against our troops. It’s the Pentagon and how things are run today, and the current administration with its PC ideas.
They allow dirty filthy diseased homosexuals, but they draw the line at Tattoos.
Something doesn’t seem right with this story. When I was in...a long time ago...those of us above a certain clearance weren’t supposed to have identifying marks, as in, no tattoos. I never went and got the ones I had wanted because I couldn’t, at all, not even above the elbow, etc.
I was never a Nightstalker or anything similar but I find it hard to believe that those guys are allowed to have any tattoos.
Not all people who have tattoos are evil, but, all evil people have tattoos.
Right. We don’t want warriors but people who look pretty.
When you lower Biblical standards set forth by God, you very quickly learn there is no depravity too deep to sink, and no bottom of the pit too horrible for humanity to descend into.
The military came under assault for 2 reasons:
1. The public respected its traditions, service and sacrifice
2. The godless left figured that if it could manipulate THAT institution, then the public would accept all manner of manifest evil
“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.”
Appearance matters huh? But yet they now allow gays in the military to march in gay parades in uniform with despicable displays of undress taking place and allow them to strut their stuff at events on base. So much for personal pride.
The Leviticus passage about tatoos was not extended into the Christian era in Acts 15. It could have been, but it wasn't. The only parts of the law still imposed on gentile Christians is: No meat offered to idols, no blood, no strangled meat, and no sexual immorality.
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.
This sergeant is exactly right. The new regulations allow him to continue as an NCO, but they won't permit him to become a warrant officer.
If they say to soldiers who join after the new regs come into force, "You are signing up under new rules. Tatoos are not allowable for those becoming warrant officers." I'm OK with that. Those soldiers join and sign on to those rules.
These soldiers were told, however, that they could have tattoos and that it wouldn't affect them.
So, they already have them. But now, the military is punishing them for the military's OWN old rules.
I think this is an 'ex post facto' law. I think that makes it unconstitutional.
So he has tattoos? BIG DEAL! Does that make him less formidable as a “fighter” for our country? I think NOT!
While I agree facial tats are a “nono”, having arm or leg tats are obviously “distracting” but, IMO, don’t take away from ones ability to do their job.
I hope he wins his lawsuit.
I stand by what I said. Remember what the senior NCO of the Marine Corps said with regards to pay. Most of the generals and admirals are libs and have been for some time.
The Army can decide that soldiers cannot have tatoos. What they can’t do is say, “Yes they can.” and then with that same group of soldiers say about something that requires mutilation to remove “We’re punishing you for what we gave you permission to do in the past.”
If it was a beard, that would be different. A person doesn’t have to mutilate himself to remove a beard.
Good. They were good enough to die in Iraq and Afghanistan, but now they’re not good enough for a commission? I don’t think so.
Wrong. It's new.
Tattoos can also spread AIDS, because equipment is sometimes not adequately sterilized.
I just did some research on that topic. No one has ever gotten AIDS from getting a tattoo. What else you got?
And thus far, you number 2 has proven to be true.
So the combat vet with a tattoo of his KIA buddy’s ID tags is the same as that freakshow you posted? And he should be banned from career advancement or kicked out altogether if the tattoo is on his forearm?
You want him to enlist in obambi’s military?????
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.