Recruiting is skin deep

The link may not work, because it's for subscribers only.

Thought this was an interesting story; I somehow managed to get through a tour without getting any tattoos.

#1: Leftists don't think rules apply to them. So what if the Marines have a rule against tattoos. The Left will just whine about it until the rule changes.

#2: Judging people by their skin is just so wrong. Unless we're talking about college admissions, or job preference. Then it's OK.

Same here. Eight years, no tattoos.

And I think the Corps is right on on this--MANY of the "harmless" tattoos are gang-affiliation symbols. There's too many to track.

Interesting.

I guess this varies by the service. I went to a basic training for Naval reservists last winter, and most of my fellow sailors had tatoos. Many had a lot of them.

And yet, these are guys who for the most part are going to do a great job working in the fleet.

Tattoos highlight individuality; exactly what the Marines want to drum out of their recruits in Bootcamp. Tattoos are a distraction and deterrence to their goals, and should continue to be banned.

Tattoos are a long-term result of a short-term impulse. Things to think about when the teenager goes out to get involved in piercing, painting, pot-smoking, or penetration. That kind of moral guidance and training usually involves parents. But like Popeye would say, "Rules is rules!"

During my kid's graduation party a few weeks back a boycame in with more piercings than an archery target. Later that day the kid was sitting on a cooler my dad needed to get to, "Hey! Tacklebox! move it!". I almost died laughing.

Issue Date: July 07, 2003

Is a crackdown on active Marines far behind?

By Gordon Lubold

Times staff writer

While would-be recruits undergo greater tattoo-related scrutiny, changes to the policy for active Marines may not be far behind, given the Corps' increasingly tough stance on body modifications in recent years.

Officials with Manpower and Reserve Affairs at Quantico, Va., recently reviewed the policy on body modification. But in the end, they opted to stick with existing rules — for now.

Capt. Gabrielle Chapin, a spokeswoman for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, confirmed that tattoo policy did undergo a review, but that officials decided against revising it, saying that it fits the needs of the Corps for the time being.

Two Marine officials, who are not part of Manpower and Reserve Affairs but are familiar with the debate, said manpower officials were considering a more restrictive policy.

Indeed, while much attention is paid to initial enlistments, it's far less clear to what degree Marines are scrutinized come re-enlistment time.

Manpower officials do not track how many Marines are denied re-enlistment or otherwise penalized for having inappropriate or excessive tattoos, Chapin said.

If the Corps were to apply the recruiting-specific tattoo guidance to the active force, it would not be the first time a service has taken such a step in cracking down on body art.

Expanding on recruit-specific policy issued in 2000, the Navy issued an order Jan. 24 that now prohibits active sailors from having any tattoos or brands on the head, neck and scalp, as well as tattoos or brands elsewhere on the body that are "prejudicial to good order and discipline" or "bring discredit upon the Navy."

The Corps made the first in a series of substantive changes to its policy in a Corpswide message issued in 1996 that banned tattoos and brands on the neck and head. It also reiterated the ban on tattoos or brands elsewhere on the body that are "prejudicial to good order, discipline and morale or are of a nature to bring discredit upon the Marine Corps." The regulation governing personal-appearance standards, MCO P1020.34, was revised to reflect this change.

And in 2000, the Corps raised the bar for enlisted Marines who want to become officers. With the change, enlisted Marines applying for warrant- and commissioned-officer selection boards now must show commanders their tattoos and send pictures of the body art to the selection board. The policy was implemented to preclude problems at Officer Candidates School or The Basic School at Quantico, where some officers were being sent home for having "inappropriate" tattoos.

The most recent change came in 2001, when officials closed a loophole in the order that at least one Marine used to justify piercing his tongue.

At the time, the order stated that a Marine could not pierce his skin, but the tongue is a muscle. The word "tongue" subsequently was added to the order.

The other services also have cracked down on body art in recent times.

In addition to the Navy's recent changes, the Air Force in January published clarifications to its regulations that further define what is acceptable body art. The change follows a celebrated case last summer in which in which officials discovered that a junior airman had split his tongue to give it a forked appearance.

The Army published a revision to its appearance standards for that service last summer. Now, Army regulations bar soldiers from having tattoos or brands on the hands, head or neck. And like the other services, the Army bans tattoos or brands elsewhere on the body that are "extremist, indecent, sexist or racist," calling them "prejudicial to good order and disicpline." Piercing also is banned, with the exception of earrings for female soldiers.

Now, for the first time, the four services apply a similar standard to their active members.

Prior-service trouble

The scrutiny potential recruits now see could mean trouble for at least some Marines: those who left active duty and want back in.

One former Marine, Mike DiGiovanni, found that out the hard way. He left active duty as a corporal in August 2002, only to find he didn't like life on the outside. After earning an associate's degree at a community college in Florida, he tried to come back to the Corps but learned the road he was about to travel had more twists than the huge dragon inked on his chest.

DiGiovanni, 25, said he had no tattoos when he first enlisted in the Corps, but he got about eight during his four-year tour. After his discharge, he had two eagles inked onto his left elbow, brass knuckles tattooed onto a bicep and an eagle, globe and anchor put on his back.

But since he had most of his tattoos while on active duty, he was shocked when his package was disqualified. "I was just dumbfounded," said DiGiovanni in an interview from his parents' home in Laurel, Md.

Then, a Marine officer from the West Coast suggested he try enlisting on the Western side of the recruiting line, telling DiGiovanni about the apparent difference in the way the tattoo policy is interpreted in the two recruiting regions.

He since has applied through a Western region office in California, but his application still hasn't gone anywhere — likely because the Corps suspended enlistment of prior-service Marines as of April 27 to give preference to combat veterans returning from Iraq with hopes of re-enlisting. The freeze was expected to last through July 1.

DiGiovanni's biggest problem with the tattoo policy is that it seems to be a double standard. Though he may not be able to enlist again, he sees many Marines who are allowed to remain on active duty despite having a dozen or more tattoos.

DiGiovanni still wants to be a Marine. He's doing construction work for now, hoping he'll hear from the Corps but knowing he probably won't.

"I think the policy is ridiculous," he said. "It doesn't show whether you can do your job or not. My record in the Marine Corps proves I could do my job."

A different view of ink

Regulations aside, some tattooed Marines see their ink differently now and have begun the expensive, protracted process of removing their artwork.

One major who plans to retire in the next year believes his tattoos might brand him as a particular kind of person in the civilian world and make it hard to get the kind of job he wants. He plans to go into public relations, where a "public presence" is key, he said.

"Rightly or wrongly, people make value judgments of others based upon physical appearance," the major said in an e-mail response to questions.

"People won't necessarily see Marine Corps service, sacrifice, honor, courage and commitment in my tattoos," he wrote. "They may well see just tattoos and based on stereotypical judgment ... their judgment of me personally, and by extension the organization I represent, could be negative."

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story.php?f=0-MARINEPAPER-1970322.php

Tacklebox! LOL!

Now that I think about it, there was ONE guy in my platoon at boot camp with a tattoo. He had a tiger on his arm. One of the Drill Instructors had both arms completely covered, including spider webs on both elbows. Drill Instructor SGT Dicks. He was about 5'4", and the baddest on the Island.

Tattoos ping. Refreshingly reasoned, rational replies, too.

I once played hockey with a guy who had so many piercings that we called him "Pin Cushion."

I'm glad to see we have our priorities in order: aesthetics before national security.

Sure, just let anyone into the Marine Corps...

Hubby did twenty. Not a tattoo on him, unless you clasify that shrapnel that "tattooed" his back.

It's not what you might think by the title. But interesting nonetheless.

Combined tattoo coverage on a particular body part cannot exceed one-quarter of the total size of that body part.

Welcome to Jamaica, have a nice day.

I too survived four years with no tats. Since I've been out, my mom has gotten two, my sister one, and my wife one. Funny how that works.

So much horseshit!