Army Changes Tattoo Policy Email This Story Print This Story

Army Changes Tattoo Policy


WASHINGTON (Army News Service, Mar. 15, 2006)

The Army has revised its policy on tattoos in an effort to bolster recruitment of highly-qualified individuals who might otherwise have been excluded from joining.

Tattoos are now permitted on the hands and back of the neck if they are not “extremist, indecent, sexist or racist.” Army Regulation 670-1, which was modified via a message released Jan. 25, also now specifies: “Any tattoo or brand anywhere on the head or face is prohibited except for permanent make-up.”

For women, allowable make-up would be permanent eye-liner, eyebrows and makeup applied to fill in lips, officials said. They said permanent make-up should be conservative and complement the uniform and complexion in both style and color and will not be trendy.

The change was made because Army officials realized the number of potential recruits bearing skin art had grown enormously over the years.

About 30 percent of Americans between the ages of 25 and 34 have tattoos, according to a Scripps Howard News Service and Ohio University survey. For those under age 25, the number is about 28 percent. In all, the post-baby-boom generations are more than three times as likely as boomers to have tattoos.

As a result of tattoo attitude changes, Army Regulation 670-1, chapter 1-8E (1) has been modified via an ALARACT 017/2006 message.

Additionally, paragraph 1-8B (1) (A) was revised to state: “Tattoos that are not extremist, indecent, sexist or racist are allowed on the hands and neck. Initial entry determinations will be made according to current guidance.”

The Army has never allowed indecent tattoos on any part of the body, G1 officials pointed out.

The new policy allows recruits and all Soldiers to sport tattoos on the neck behind an imaginary line straight down and back of the jawbone, provided the tattoos don’t violate good taste.

“The only tattoos acceptable on the neck are those on the back of the neck,” said Hank Minitrez, Army G-1 Human Resources Policy spokesman. “The ‘back’ of the neck is defined as being just under the ear lobe and across the back of the head. Throat tattoos on that portion of the neck considered the front, the ear lobe forward) are prohibited.”

Soldiers who are considering putting tattoos on their hands and necks, should consider asking their chain of command prior to being inked.

“While the Army places trust in the integrity of its Soldiers and leaders, if a Soldier has a questionable case regarding tattoos, he or she should seek the advice of the local commander through the chain of command,” added Minitrez.

Should a Soldier not seek advice and have tattoos applied that aren’t in keeping with AR-670, the command will counsel the Soldier on medical options, but may not order the Soldier to have the tattoos removed. However, if a Soldier opts not to take the medical option at Army expense, the Soldier may be discharged from service.

The U.S. Coast Guard has a limitation on the size of a tattoo in percentages of a given area that will not exceed 25 percent of the space between wrist and elbow, knee and ankle, but it does not allow tattoos on the hands or neck.

The Army’s new policy, however, does not mean Soldiers should rush out and have the backs of their necks or their hands entirely covered in decorative art, Minitrez said.

“The Army does not have a percentage policy for tattoos,” Minitrez said. “As long as tattoos do not distract from good military order and discipline and are not extremist, racist, sexist or indecent they’re permitted.”

If a Soldier’s current command has no issue with his/her tattoos, the Soldier should have personnel files so notated that the Soldier is in line with AR-670, officials said. Though not mandatory, having the notation entered serves as back-up documentation at a follow-on command which might feel the Soldier’s tattoos don’t meet Army regulations.

Click here for the new 2006 Army Tattoo Policy.


Article Opinions

Mark wrote:

I think they should have left it as it was. Why change it? If you start relaxing one standard or requirement, then why not others. Soon, we will have an Army with no standards, and that won't be good.
Posted on 03/16/06 17:10:08

aaron fury wrote:

can you have a tatoo on your calf or torso
Posted on 03/16/06 18:01:32

kyle c wrote:

i have a tattoo of an american flag on my upper right arm...is that allowed???
Posted on 03/17/06 01:19:53

Naft wrote:

i have a tattoo on thу back of my neck as a pacific is it allowed?
Posted on 03/17/06 07:14:04

Brad wrote:

Who cares what we have on us.If we are willing to fight for our country, thats all that should matter
Posted on 03/17/06 09:03:57

matthew wrote:

imagine being a felon with tattoos at a young age, with no opportunity towards success, with no way out because of a disruptive standard toward the nature of young felons with no education on paper and tattoos.....the armys training alone will help an individual with many barriers improve life skills in many situations....it just sucks for them. ive been one for a few years now... finally,opportunity is looking good. in fact....army should open a seperate type of training corps for underprivelidge youth with no chance who havent thought about real values. the army can teach them value and integrity only if they voluntarily apply themselves......how many bents lives has the army fixed before? through evaluation and process of elimination these teenagers young adults and emancipated people with no chance with less chance of becoming a productive u.s citizen actually have a chance. its better to focus on OUR homeland army first before any other countrys youth and army. think about how much money the united states could have used for this type of program and how many respectable people it could create.sometimes the youth have no choice but to follow what comes first. why not make our army from tough young men and woman who have a real sense of reality...? some people learn when it is too late....im shure with all of this funding for iraq we could spare just a little bit for americans.
Posted on 03/17/06 13:09:38

Samuel wrote:

Marks right! if you let one "small" standard pass by, then all of a sudden other "small" regulations relating to that will be thrown-out the window, i dont want a languid army, where other countries are calling us "ink-boys"!
Posted on 03/17/06 13:15:13

Merry wrote:

I think it's your body, and you should be allowed to do what ever the hell y'a want to it. Regaurdless of whether or not your covered in the bad boys, it's not going to hinder you abilities to serve your county if y'a have some ink on your body or not!
Posted on 03/17/06 13:22:40

matthew wrote:

i dont think there is anything wrong with the tattoo situation....as long as the uniform isnt ruined. in fact, its intimidating to the enemy. like war paint it provides a fierce outlook on the american soldier depending on the "look" and "style" of the tattoo. when i enlist fisrt priority is to remove the tattoos on my hand.
im glad the policy has changed...now i have a real chance to better my life.
Posted on 03/17/06 13:42:21

Beverly wrote:

Tattoos are a personal choice. We all make choices everyday. Our personal choices say a lot about who we are and what is important to us. The military has a standard. There is a reason for that. When you are in the military you have personal rights but in some ways you forfeit some of those rights to become a part of something bigger. I don't think they should have changed the tattoo policy. If one standard slips it won’t be long until another one follows suit.
Posted on 03/17/06 16:25:51

Edith Brill wrote:

I have a tattoo on my back..It that allowed?
Posted on 03/18/06 23:12:51

Pearl Noriega wrote:

i think that is a great i dea, i mean there's ,amy people out that want to join the army but cant cus of their tattos and now they have a chance to do so. People dont just put on tattos just for the heck of it, some do and most of the time it is a form of showing your individuality as well as who you are, tattos arent just a bunch of ink on your skin it is also life a mark that shows wot your personality is like or how you see yourself as well as to separate yourself from society cus almost everyone has forgotten that theres more than to trying to be likfe someone else, its better being yourself and enjoying life that way as an individual.
Posted on 03/20/06 10:45:20

J.PEREZ wrote:

i have six tattos on me is that allowed for a female
Posted on 03/20/06 11:23:21

SLETH wrote:

there is always a reason for a tattoo, some find it a way of expressing themselves, while others decide its a way to tell their own personal story. Personally tattoos just do not seem that professional to me. However to each his/ her own!
Posted on 03/20/06 19:56:07

James Carter wrote:

If a person has a tattoo on the part of the body that is not allowed, and they truly feel they would like to join the service, then have the tattoo removed. That would prove to me more convincingly of their commitment than moaning and complaining about how they are being denied an opportunity. The policy should not have been changed. Just another example of the lack of discipline, sacrafice, and commitment of a large part of today's society.
Posted on 03/21/06 07:38:42

Ciera wrote:

I am 17 and a Senior who recently enlisted into the Army. I have no idea if I can get a tattoo when I turn 18 or not. I was told before I enlisted that all tattoos were to be in a place where uniform will cover. I dont believe thay should have changed the rule because that just makes room for other things to be lightened up on. I think a person within the Army should look professional at all times.
Posted on 03/22/06 12:39:14

Buelterman wrote:

I think if you fight for your country and die.
You should at least have the ink you are remembered by.
Posted on 03/22/06 18:33:39

Audrey Atkinson wrote:

I imagine seeing myself at the front lines of this war and being so proud to serve my country with my life.... Soldiers are Soldiers, even if they began or end with a tattoo. Yes standards are always good to have, however, what is the problem with a little give and take... Soldiers are doing the ultimate give and take so why does a little sway of the "standards rope" matter. In the end, when this war is over, Soldiers will be recognized for everything they did to keep us all safe... tattoo policy or not. Let's all look at the big picture... if Bill Gates never pushed for change where would we all be... maybe a little change, a little evolution, is good for the Army.
Posted on 03/23/06 00:02:18

jaejaminejae wrote:

i'm with buelterman...
Posted on 03/23/06 12:46:00

PVT Curry wrote:

I believe that it should not matter what's on our skin, but what we believe in, which is fighting and dying for the country we love.
Hints: "America the 'free'"
Posted on 03/23/06 20:00:56

JRS wrote:

I'd be interested in seeing how much money was spent on this issue by the government. I am guessing it was rather substantial. Don't we have better things to spend our money, and more importantly, TIME on?
Posted on 03/23/06 23:38:44

Josh wrote:

When someone enlists for service in the military, you are giving up being yourself to be part of something greater. the policies are in place and it is an all volunteer army.
Posted on 03/23/06 23:59:39

Andrew wrote:

i want a tattoo that is a skull burning and a cross threw it and to snakes comming out its eyes but im not goihic or any thing and i love this country im just wild is that allowed cuz when i can im going to joing the army but i will have a tattoo i kneed to know if that allowed if not they should change it
Posted on 03/24/06 17:07:40

Yea Son! wrote:

Well, now our soldiers are going to look like cool tattooed killing machines. i say let em. We can use they style. All that brown and black craps getting old.
Posted on 03/25/06 10:41:29

Spyder wrote:

I have a tattoo on my neck from the curve of my jawbone (imaginary line on my neck) back to bout mid ear (imaginary line on my neck)...it isn't big but not small either...will i be denied entry to the army because of it? And if so why?
Posted on 03/26/06 21:01:16

Dooley wrote:

MARK AND SAM,
Have Either of you ever heard of evolution?, I guess not. I hope none of you are NCOs becouse you must suck at it. Stop thinking about yourself and live in the present not the past. If a soldier wants a tattoo, let him have a tattoo. ITS that simple I think they deserve it. Dont you?...
Posted on 03/30/06 05:27:50

Dooley wrote:

Josh, You are out of control, I never read in my contract that I can no longer be myself. I think thats just somthing you manefested in your own mind, becouse you are week and want decisions to be made for you. Get with the big picture dude, let it go...
Posted on 03/30/06 05:39:44

Doris wrote:

I think, that whatever money is spent on a tatoo should be spend to better the world. Everybody can have an inprint of personal views on their bodies... but that won't do a thing to better anything. If you feel a need to express yourself, take action!! Having your beliefs or opinions permanently printed on your skin will not accomplish anything. It will permanently mark you, and that's it. Nothing else....
And when you grow old, it will look more then ridiculous.......

And that day will come sooner then you think

The world is yours.... change it, take action!!!!! and make it better
Posted on 03/31/06 21:28:27

Dooley wrote:

My god Doris did you even think about what you wrote.
Posted on 04/03/06 08:35:53

Kristina wrote:

My Opinion is simply this, 50% give or take, get a tattoo as a resembulance of something that was or that they love in their life...And in which they will cherish for the rest of their life, On the other had ppl at a young age gets a tattoo of something that in 20 years they may regret. Understood? Simply the Army shouldn't hold tose of us with tattoos from becoming a sucess. Those who do have something that is outragouse sucks as "**** the World" is very disrespectfull and I wouldn't allow it!
Posted on 04/03/06 15:10:05

Ed Robinson wrote:

In My 20+ years of service I saw many tattooed soldiers,some could not be seen in uniform, But I saw many Marines(no policy at the time )with Many tattoos that cheapened the uniform in appearance. I had several during my service, all hidden by my uniforms, after I retired Igot many more--now I look like a Biker (which I am) ---don't ruin the uniforms appearance with Tattoos that will distract. Maybe allow troops in ,and give a deadline for removal ie prior to completion of basic training.Just like a GED.
Posted on 04/03/06 15:24:03

Dana wrote:

I understand everyone's views when it comes to the issues of tattoos. Though I wonder, if the Army did not become somewhat relaxed on this issue and needed to bring back the draft, would those would be soldiers not be allowed because of their tattoos? Also I think the people that want to join that have tattoos aren't the type that would shame the Army. Extremists with very extreme tattoos aren't very likely to enlist. However those with respectable tattoos by Army standard are individuals that what to improve their lives as well as come to the aid of their country.
Posted on 04/03/06 16:49:29

lisa wrote:

my son was turned away from the army because of a tattoo does this mean he can go back and resign.
all he wants to do is fight for his country should it really mater
Posted on 04/03/06 17:30:44

Jansen Coutinho wrote:

I agree. Tattoos aren't a crime. The tattoos aren't the person's character. It's a form of art in skin.
I'm brazilian and I love the U.S.Army.
I'll want go to U.S.A. I'll fight in Bagdah for the U.S like an american citizen.
I want american citizenship.
I'll to contact the Condoleeza Rice.
I want to talk with Mr. Rice.
Thank you very much, U.S.Army
My brotherhood.
Sincerely,
Engineer Jansen Coutinho-Belo Horizonte city- Brazil.
Posted on 04/03/06 20:16:06

MARIA wrote:

the army sucks!!all id like to know why do they make people take that freaking test prior to joining?

i think it makes no sence cause they ar ethe ones who need us ! eventhough we need them but ,i juat ask why TAKE THE ABSVAB TEST? WHY? I UNDERSTAND ITS TO PICK A JOB BUT CAN THEY PICK THAT ANY OTHER WAY?
Posted on 04/03/06 21:41:39

Shelly J wrote:

I think that the ARMY should reevaluate all of the standards and I commend them on this one that they did change. I know of a lot of rules and regulations that should be amended. With time comes change and time is passing us by with a lot of rules and regulations keeping so many opportunities for Americans to become soldiers and furthermore an ARMY OF ONE.
Posted on 04/03/06 22:41:18

Patrick wrote:

i agree with brad
"Who cares what we have on us.If we are willing to fight for our country, thats all that should matter "

im not tatoo'd but i plan on getting tattoos on the inside of my forearms, and i plan on serving....so i think there shudnt be any restrictions...i see it as being a law created by conservatives back when tattoos were taboo....i do agree however with the tatoo content, i dont think it shud involve nazi/white-power symbols or be offensive. but that gets into a whole other topic of "whats offensive" ...but i think brad had a very well stated opinion
Posted on 04/04/06 00:32:25

MUSCADIN Jean Evens wrote:

please , i would like to be a soldiar in us marine but i am atian and i'm living in santo domingo
thank you so much
Posted on 04/04/06 15:13:55

Jeremiah wrote:

i have a tattoo of a rebal flag on my back. will that be a problem.
Posted on 04/04/06 15:18:52

Ericka wrote:

I think to a certain extent shoud be allowed , but not everything. Just because you are willing to fight for your country that should not allow you to do whatever you want to do. Also, if you know a Robert Walden Jr. Please conact me.
Posted on 04/04/06 17:03:29

CHASE wrote:

Hey people I have friends in the ARMY with tattoos and they are hidden and u can see them also.
My buddy has an M-16 on his left arm, its about a foot long between his wrist and elbow. He got it while in the service right after basic training and the ARMY was cool with it.
Posted on 04/04/06 20:15:14

CHASE aka Bravo Co 169RGT wrote:

I believe if you have a tattoo on your back, legs, chest, stomach thats your personal space and its also hidden when you're in uniform. You should be just fine if you have tattoos in those places and if they are unpleasant the CO's will ask you to cover them, because those fellow soldiers are your brothers not your enemy.
Posted on 04/04/06 20:24:00

ö.c.t.t.y.ö.b.821 wrote:

tatoos wil make your identification better
Posted on 04/05/06 04:33:27

Snatchison wrote:

ive got one on my right arm in memory of my brother's and grandpa. is that ok???? i think we should be able to have them if we want we aint hurtin nobody with them
Posted on 04/05/06 12:03:44

Michael wrote:

Everyone seems to be caught up on standards. Its not like they decided to draft the mentally handicapped. Tattoos are just ink. They don't represent our physical abilities or mentality. As long as its not bright red all over your face giving you off as a target I don't really see the big deal.
Posted on 04/05/06 20:20:31

CMK wrote:

Everywhere one goes in life there are rules & these rules are usually to help control or eliminate chaos. Do tattoos cause chaos? I think not. While I am not a big fan of tattoos those who have them have them for personal expression or in memory of someone dear to them. I feel if one wants to enlist & fight for their country in an ALL Volunteer Military and qualify with or without tattoos, then so be it! I am sure if the draft was back there would be no questions asked about that bodyart Joe Smith has on his neck,leg, back or wrist. Our son has a few & the latest on is on the side of his neck and is hidden by a shirt collar, it says "FAITH".is that too extreme? Another point is this, again not a fan of them but, wouldn't a tattoo help identify a soldier if need be ie;dental records? Let's consider the quality of the person & what they can bring to our military not what art they are wearing. How many of oyu that have made these rules have tattoos?
Posted on 04/06/06 08:23:43

taty.. wrote:

my fiance had tried to get recruited but they said they had a policy that he couldnt have tatoos on so much percent of his body but then i thought that they are being ridiulous cus hey he just wants to protect the country he loves....wuts wrong with that people!?
Posted on 04/06/06 18:46:04

Kozdip wrote:

in my own personal opinion i believe the tatoo policy is just messed up.I mean its understandable for not letting people who have tatoo on their face or sexual figures not to join.But tatoo anywhere shouldnt matter,is not like people fight wars naked...and beside it all the Native Americans who lived here before all of us,they had tatoos to show the symbol of their village or culture.They fought their wars and because they had a tatoo on them it never stopped them from protecting their village.These things made them proud and probaly having a symbol on their body made them even proud to be who their were.
Posted on 04/07/06 08:58:58

Mike wrote:

I think that nobody should have a tatoo. the King James Version Bible says not to make a mark on our bodies . our bodies are to bring glory and honor to the Lord Jesus Christ. but this is America we all have a personal freedom to make for our selves .
Posted on 04/07/06 22:55:09

USMC wrote:

Wow, the Army is doing anything to fill their ranks.
Posted on 04/08/06 10:58:21

JAKI wrote:

I THINK THIS IS AWESOME! I HAVE WANTED TO JOIN FOR TWO YEARS NOW....I HAD A DQ BECUASE OF THE TATTOO ON THE BACK OF MY NECK- IM SO EXCITED I AM ABLE TO JOIN NOW- I THINK I WILL BE BENIFICIAL TO THE ARMY...I WANT TO SERVE ME COUNTRY
Posted on 04/08/06 23:37:20

claudio molina wrote:

you can put tatoos that are invisible they can only be seen under a glow in the dark light...add this to the comments list....
Posted on 04/09/06 14:41:44

porter wrote:

thats what is wrong with the milatary today. tatoos dont save lives , lead troops ,and nor kill anyone . who gives a damn get our troops a piece of mind . like fixing pay problems and etc
Posted on 04/10/06 12:20:55

tattooed soldier wrote:

I am in the army and I have 4 tattoos and now that the regs have changed i can get more and not worry about getting in trouble!
Posted on 04/11/06 18:15:59

James wrote:

alot of people dont realize why the Tattoo Regulation was in placed. One of the Main reason was a couple a service members went to Mexico and got Tattoos, and died.
Posted on 04/11/06 20:57:20

Luke wrote:

Mike you gotta watch what you say about the Bible. It says do not take the mark of the Beast (Anti-Christ), which is an insignia to identify you as a soldier of Satan during the tribulation. It doesn't say not to get a tatoo.
Posted on 04/12/06 13:27:08

joker wrote:

i think so tattoo give good luck tosome people so no need to say no tattoo in the army
Posted on 04/12/06 15:42:48

Pvt Caudell wrote:

I believe that it is your own body to do with as you please. if you want a tattoo then get one. i personally am glad that the army has changed its regulations. i mean we are fighting for our country anyways so why not get something that you like and may even remind you of your family and friends back home.
Posted on 04/13/06 08:22:15

SFC MCDONNELL wrote:

Why change the policy? I laugh at alot of the comments on here. Like " we are fighting for our country why cant we have tattoos in these places" That comment is almost as dumb as asking the Army to let us smoke pot. Young people need to grow up. If you dont meet the standard, your SOL. If you really want to come in, get them removed, show us that you really are here to serve rather then just draw a pay check or college money. We need Warriors, not War wanta be's
Posted on 04/13/06 19:23:36

Luke wrote:

If the Army wants warriors then they shouln't be making rules excluding the "bad-ass tatoo" types of people. Not to say that everyone who has tatoo is a bad ass though.
Posted on 04/14/06 12:54:06

Kenneth wrote:

hey all u morons who think it shouldn't have changed...think about it...all branches of service are kind of on a "take what we can get" phylosophy. many of the greatest men i know what tattoos...
Posted on 04/16/06 15:53:09

mandie wrote:

Tattoos are a personal choice...if you get one it's not hurting anyone else. A tattoo has not changed my ability to do anything I've done before or that I am doing now. And young people may need to grow up, but old people need to understand that things change, a tattoo doesn't change the person on the inside. I understand how people can say if you change this than everything else changes, but maybe that's exactly what needs to happen. My husband is in the Army and has a tattoo, but that doesn't make him less of a soldier or for that fact, one of America's hero's.
Posted on 04/16/06 17:46:57

SFC MCDONNELL wrote:

Mandie, Just like myself, I to also have tattoos. Just like your husband I'm sure, are within REGS. The issue isnt tattoos, its where you put them. I understand change, But to sit back and see the standards that have been put forth changed to benfit a unquilified person. Whats next, long hair being the standard. Sure the hair lenght on a soldiers dont make him a bad soldier. But could you see a Amry hippie. I dont think so.
Posted on 04/16/06 21:43:50

scott wrote:

i just returned from iraq on my 2nd tour and yes, i'm covered in tattoos. does that make me a bad soldier?? i don't think so. i say get inked and be proud of it. my next tattoo is gonna be a jihadist hanging from a tree. does that sound distasteful?? or how about a camel dragging an insurgent through the desert??
Posted on 04/17/06 11:03:16

cant say!! wrote:

Im 17 i have a tatto of a gay j on my hand is that allowed?? i also have six tattos on my body is that ok well if its not i guess i want me joining the army and i want be going to a draft if we have one.
Posted on 04/17/06 17:16:03

aarron wrote:

i think that you shuold be able to express yourself but not to the point that it is extremist or anything bad i mean i even went to the extreme as to have f#@k you! tattooed over so i could join so if you really wanna join cover it up with something decent and talk to your recruiter and see what they say first but its your body and i dont think ink in your skin is going to change the way you act it hasnt for me and i have been wanting to join since i was a little boy so go forth and have it done but remember make it something your gonna like and is not extreme or out there
Posted on 04/19/06 15:20:53

Amy wrote:

unless you are in the military and serving your country you should not have a say in this matter. Soldiers are risking there lives everyday, and unless you are a Soldier you have no idea what that means
Posted on 04/21/06 17:53:40

tyler seace wrote:

Just let the tatto go by holy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
CHRIST JESUS AMEN!!!!!!!
Posted on 05/01/06 19:04:48

Mike Johnson wrote:

Not hiring someone because of the fact that they have a tattoo is flat out discrimination. That is what is wrong with this country. We are so oppressed sexually and not free to express ourselves and THIS IS IN A FREE CONTRY??? My friend could not become a military officer because he had a tattoo of a naked woman on his arm, which was covered 99 percent of the time. They missed out on a great leader and soldier.
Posted on 07/07/06 06:34:48

juan duran wrote:

tattos should make no diffrence the persons intregaty and loyalty will be tha same boty art doesnt change that
Posted on 09/06/06 10:25:09

Steve D wrote:

I am a former soldier that is looking into reenlistment. After my first enlistment, I went out and had two pot leafs tattooed on my chest. As an "AMERICAN" I have the constitutional right to express my opinion and religious beliefs, just as you do as "AMERICAN" soldiers.
The pot leaf tattoos on my chest represent many things some religious some not. I would like to know are these tattoos, extremist, indecent, sexist or racist or do thay violate good taste. Because the last time I checked good taste is a matter of opinion am i wrong.
And to the comment left by the soldier named USMC Its ironic that you are so nieve that you still dont realize that we are all on the same team so get off your high horse and go to the marine corp web site hooah. To SFC MCDONNELL I can undrstand were you are comming from. Standards have changed many times and so have regulations are amended constantly to improve this mans army I am sure that if you were around when soldiers were not aloud to have tattoos you opinion might change.
Posted on 09/12/06 09:12:02

Steve D wrote:

Owe yeah and SFC MCDONNELL hippies would'nt be good for the army cus they dont believe in war. and young people have no choice to grow up its inevitable, so if you really think that thay sould remove thair tattoos to prove to you that thay really want to be thier then follow suit hooah
Posted on 09/12/06 09:22:09

Pupp T wrote:

If you read the regs for those of you in the service it is laid out for you. LONG HAIR - what do you consider long hair? Read the reg and your hair can have some length to it. Now if you are high and tight type of guy so be it, but I like to have a low fade. Tattoos on the hand for me knuckles are ok, but the complete hand I would not do. I have to full sleeves and no one has ever said anything to me. One is a bunch of skulls - a life death type of theme and the other oriental style. I too believe it should be up to the individual but we all must understand that the Army and any service is still trying to look professional. That is why the do not allow face tattoos and racist, sexist and whatever else. It is the same in corprate America, many businesses do not allow tattoos that can not be covered up with a shirt. The same with many piercings. They way I really see it is if you want to serve and you must remove a tattoo then do it, because if you choose not to remove it then you really were not going to join in the first place. Just my .02 cents
Posted on 10/31/06 21:20:25

benjimen harper wrote:

canta
Posted on 11/09/06 14:03:12

benjimen harper wrote:

canta
Posted on 11/09/06 14:03:15

Jarod wrote:

I have 6 tattos 5 on my left arm and one on my upper left chest, on my fore arm i havea large question mark because you never know what life is gonna send you, a cartoon image of my friend who died last year(just the head), and i have a tribal band going dont the inside of my forearm(a friend of mine told me it stands for honor in most indian tribes). i have a scorpion on the left side of my chest(because i believe the scorpion is the most feirce and honorable insect). and on the top of my arm on my bicept there are two, a tribal diamond(it is to remind me that somethings in this world are perfect), and i have a picture of calvin from the comics of "calvin and hobbes" and he is holding a rocket with a ridiculously long fuse, would i have to alter this tattoo or any of the others in order to enlist? i want to go to Iraq and serve my country but i was told that my country would never let me do so with these tattoos...please let me know as soon as you can...thank you
Posted on 01/23/07 01:37:37

LouAna wrote:

I have a tattoo in the side of my neck and i hope that i can still get in with it i will put body make up on it if i have to
Posted on 01/28/07 19:15:51

LISA wrote:

Does anyone know if a person could cover up a neck tattoo, be allowed to enlist, and have the tattoo removed while IN the army? My son wants to join, he is absolutely qualified, and his neck tattoo is ONE INCH too "forward" on his neck, so he was rejected. It is a simple black tattoo that says "PISCES" (his zodiak sign). He would just LOVE to be able to enlist and begin serving and learning instead of having to wait 6 months or more JUST BECAUSE of how long it takes for laser tattoo removal to be effective. If the army's policy on people who are already enlisted is to make them choose to remove a non-conforming tattoo OR be discharged, why can't they enlist people and automatically sign them up for tattoo removal at their own expense? It seems so simple to me.
Posted on 01/30/07 08:33:10

LISA wrote:

All the tons of military recruitment ads, materials, etc. etc. NEVER say anything about tattoos. It is only when someone tries to enlist that we find out the restrictive tattoo policies....so confusing when military people are some of the ones in our country with the MOST tattoos, so many young people probably think that tattoos will be fine, or they would avoid or at least think twice about getting the tattoo in the first place. Any thoughts? Is there any contact in the U.S. Army that people can address questions about this policy to?
Posted on 01/30/07 08:35:57

Jill G. wrote:

I think the military should be more concerned about people ready and willing to fight for their country rather than judge people by the amount of ink they have!!

Tattoos are a form of self-expression and anyone willing to judge someone by that should try opening their eyes and mind a little wider...welcome to the new generation.

God Bless the USA and our brave troops!! Much love :)
Posted on 02/20/07 22:38:28

TN Gang Fighter wrote:

The tattoos are also potential signs of gang involvement, and recruiters are the first (and possibly last) line of defense for gang member screening.

The topic of Gangs in the Military has been covered by just about every form of media. Nonetheless, many people are in doubt that there are gang members currently serving in the armed forces.

check out gangfighters dot net slash gang
Posted on 04/01/07 20:18:57

Joshua G. wrote:

I think priority number one should be to get the most qualified personel in the military to defend our country, not the ones who are the most p.c. Tattoos have absolutely nothing to do with ones effectiveness to perform a job or duty. Keeping a highly qualified and eager individual out of the military simply for a tattoo is unacceptable. I also agree with Lisa. I recently went to enlist in the military and thought nothing about my tattoos. Images of past soldiers with artwork on their bodies and a lack of info on the restrictions had me believing that their were no restrictions. As far as asking someone to remove a tattoo before enlisting is absurd. Soldiers are not asked to change their religion before enlisting. This is also a personal decision that affects no one but the recruit, and many promote their religion more than those with tattoos show them off. Bottom line is that in this day and age with nearly half of Americans having one or more tattoos, I find it hard to believe that they are offensive and unprofessional to the majority. It just makes me wonder who is seated behind a desk somewhere deciding what is acceptable for the masses.
P.S. As far as gang affiliation goes, what better rehab for a gang member than to have him enlist in the military and learn the morals and values of the biggest gang in the world.
Posted on 04/15/07 16:21:20

Joshua G. wrote:

For anyone looking to discuss this above, email me at jg.sculptur@yahoo.com.
Posted on 04/15/07 16:24:21

Strong wrote:

I have to agree w/ Jousha G. and others that are all for tatts. Ink does not effect one ability to carry out their jobs. And why exactly ARE we wasting time on such a minor subject. I guess anything to sway your attention from the actually problem, BRING OUR TROOPS HOME! Out w/ the old in w/ the new!
Posted on 04/15/07 20:25:49

trainedkilla wrote:

I have been in the military 12 years and I am glad the policy changed. I was surprised but plan to take advantage of it. I have an appointment to get my hand tattooed in a month or so. I am also a tattoo artist.

Tattoos are an art form and allow people to express themselves in a way that does not alter their personal abilities or harm others. It's just art.
Posted on 05/05/07 01:08:27

Diggs wrote:

Anyone who thinks that the Army, or any armed force, can operate on a "give-and-take" standard has no idea of what our daily mission is in the Army. We aren't talking about whether a hamburger gets flipped after 2 minutes, or 2.5 minutes on the grill. Soldiers need to meet many standards; some are lifesavers, some are not. All are known prior to enlisting. If you don't agree with the standards and think they are stupid and useless, don't join. I don't need the soldier standing beside me in wartime deciding on his own which standard he's not willing to meet that day.
Posted on 05/06/07 00:01:50

Joshua G. wrote:

Isn't having or not having a tattoo about as unimportant as the grilling time of a burger when it comes to a person's ability to do a job? Some people just want to think of themselves as being on a higher level of success and responsibility simply because they choose to conform to what society believes is acceptable. Hooray for you! You have succeeded in becoming unoriginal and incapable of personal thought. You are now obsolete and a robot can do your job. I see zero social skills and an unsuccesful civilian life in your future. Congrats.
P.S. In case you didn't notice, the rules we need to follow state that tattoos are permitted. So I don't suppose we need to be unwilling to meet that one today.
Posted on 05/08/07 19:48:00

Roger D. wrote:

As a fellow american of this great country of ours,I am not permitted(thats how they said it) to enlist in the ''U.S. Armed Services''because I made a wrong choice in the past years of my life when I was a kid. And therefor, I must pay for that mistake for the rest of my life right ? WRONG ! I mean hell, you men and women that are against this tattoo regulation polilcy change are acting like weir the frickin enemy for GODS SAKE !! And the last time I went to the bank and checked my balance, I didnt have 20,000 dollars laying in there for no other good reason other than to get my tattos removed so I could proudly go fight for my country ! I spend every damn last penny I make from working with my own two bare hands so I can support my wife and kids and make shure their taking care ofand happy...but you know what, to read some of the crap that ive read on here tonight from some of my so called ; ''Fellow Americans'', im still not the soldier type of material or, ever will be huh ? Guess I need to go pick that 20 grand off the money tree first folks so I have something to give to my country...as if my life isnt worth enough right ? GOD BLESS AMERICA (at least whats left of it ).
Posted on 05/27/07 05:04:18

Paul L. wrote:

Wow, theres alot of buzz going on about this issue. I'm about to turn 18, and I'm entering the Army ROTC program and serve in the Reserves while I'm in school. My father, a retired Colonel, told me that I shouldn't get a tattoo since I want to be an officer, and officers are expected not to have tattoos. What I wanted to get is a bayonet with a snake wrapped around it (similar to the symbol you see on ambulances, except a knife instead of a rod) down my left arm. Would this be seen as unbecoming of an officer? This tattoo has special meaning to me, and pertains to my future in the military. I don't plan on getting covered in tattoos, this would be maybe the only one I would get. I would appreciate any advice on this!
Posted on 05/30/07 09:41:54

Me wrote:

Dooley: You seriously should take a step back and realize that people can have opinions different than yours. You sit here and talk crap about everyone for their opinions... but you also talk about the freedom we should all have to make the decision to have a tattoo or not. We also have the freedom of speech, right? I just thought I'd remind you of that.
Posted on 06/13/07 14:46:41

Idea wrote:

Roger D.: Maybe you shouldn't have spent all of your money on tattoos if you are so tight on cash? Just a thought.
Posted on 06/13/07 14:48:53

Matthew wrote:

I like this change.
I have tattoo's on my wrists and I am looking to join up.

my friend has sleeves and he joined.

I think it was a good idea. They are right when saying the percentage is higher for people wanting to join with people who have tattoos.
Posted on 07/16/07 06:56:46

Army Medic wrote:

My tattoos are an expression of my religion, I have several that are by older AND newer standards "out of regs". Should I be denied the opportunity to better myself, serve my country, and support my husband (also a soldier) because of some ink on my skin?
Posted on 07/25/07 20:14:50

Sam wrote:

I tried to join the Army, they said they woulnt take me because I have Punx Not Deat tattood on my throat. Then I went back after the change to the tattoo rule, and they still wouldnt take me. I almost want to see if I have a case for filing suit against them for discrminiation against me because of the color of my skin which they say they dont do. They should at least change it to " We dont discrminate against the "NATURAL" color of your skin
Posted on 08/13/07 13:53:38

LUKE (not the bible thumper) wrote:

what is the new date and time the reg. to ar670-1 about tattoo's will change help me out
Posted on 09/14/07 18:28:05

Chris Johnson wrote:

I went in today to get the ball rolling on joining and I was told I may need to laser a portion of my neck tattoos off. These tattoos are my mother and my wifes initials on each side of my neck. Not sure how this in any way will determine my commitment to my country. I would gladly take any risk and if need be give my life to this nation and for my family if anything my tattoos demonstrate my commitment. I'm not going to say they should or shouldn't change standards, I guess my question would be why was it in there in the first place, were free and it should stay that way. I hope they let me in, I feel this would do great things for my family and I.
Posted on 09/15/07 16:08:17

Jay~Bug wrote:

i have 8 tattoos 1 on each side of my neck and i have no where to go im one of them troubled 19 years olds and my only escape is the army but i was denied becuz of my tattoos , hope fully hilary or obama can change our country for the better so youths like myself have an escape from our WORLD
Posted on 10/24/07 21:56:46

JL figueroa wrote:

I have tattoos on both forearms that are in kanji style lettering. They express courage, freedom & God. I chose kanji because I like how it looked. I also have the "69" zodiac cancer symbol inside my right forearm. I'm glad they changed the ruling because I would be crushed if they told me I couldn't join and die for my country to preserve our freedom and defend my country becasue I have tattoos. Don't judge a book by its cover.
Posted on 11/26/07 21:25:00

DYLO N wrote:

i have TATTOOS ON MY RIGHT ARM OF A DROGEN
Posted on 12/02/07 23:09:08

Spc Farris wrote:

I'm for it, I love tattoos but now you’re going to have all “the old timers” complaining that this is not the army they joined well all I have to say is different time and different Army.
Posted on 12/29/07 12:40:43

big tyme wrote:

uh, i have a millenium falcon tattooed on my ass, is that ok?
Posted on 01/05/08 18:17:38

tim wrote:

wait a sec mark ; soon we will have an army with no standards? is the us army still not the most advanced and well trained army in the world? since someone has a tatoo, then they are not as good as someone without one?
in my onpion we should be most concerned about a soldier's ability to fight and defend. if a soldier has the qualifications to lead, who cares if he has a tattoo
Posted on 01/31/08 15:06:50

CJ wrote:

Man, fuck that, u can die for this country, but can't have a tattoo in certain locations? It's an honor in itself to join volunteering, especially during war time. I'm glad they have revised this rule, times are changing people, it's damn near 2010!!
Posted on 02/04/08 07:45:38

CJ wrote:

oops, to join volunteeringly
Posted on 02/04/08 07:46:50

niks wrote:

i just recently put a tattoo on the left side of my neck i visual measured the space i can use in order to conseal it in class a uniform but when the tattoo was done i put on my class a shirt and jacket and it is very visable ..what consequences will i be facing? ive been in for 6 years this coming march i need some assistance ..
Posted on 02/10/08 00:31:43

niks wrote:

will i get the chance to be refered to see if it can get removed ?
Posted on 02/10/08 00:33:25

ARMY Veteran with TATTOOS wrote:

Wow! So many close-minded people in the year 2008. It looks like mom and dad did a great job of repeating the cycle and breeding discrimination.
Whatever happened to "live and let live"? I don't let other people bother me because they have a different style than me, because I realize we are all different. How BORING this world would be if everyone lived in the same glass box, all looked the same, thought the same, etc.

Educate yourselves, travel the world, and learn that we live in a diverse society and just because someone has a tattoo(s), oh my!! the world is not going to end because of it.

Remember, *YOU* are not the only ones that exist inside your hatred filled, pre-judice, naive little world. And to think I served my country (with tattoos) which in turn gave you the right to open your mouths and have the freedom to speak. Hmmm...
Think of all the others who give you the same right...with tattoos.
Shut your mouths and open your minds!!!!
Posted on 02/10/08 10:26:46

BulletsNBluntSmoke wrote:

What the fuck is the big deal with tattoo's. They have ZERO effect on how a soldier does his job. Half you faggots bitching are either 1. Not in the Military, 2. POGS that have never seen a day of combat in your life, or 3. Are so weak minded that you let the army think for you. I served a year in Iraq and was outside the wire every day. So don't sit here and try and tell me that when the shit hits the fan that my tattoos are going to have ANY effect whatsoever.
Posted on 02/26/08 02:05:32

Don wrote:

I am prior Navy and currently enlisting in the Army.....and am split on this topic. I saw so many Sailors with absurd tattoos they got...(usually when inebriated)..and usually regret later on. But, Even my fellow shipmates that had tattoos, were very professional and maintained a sense of dignity about them. I personally do not like tattoos but wouldnt stifle anothers right to it.
Posted on 03/11/08 20:28:54

Dawn wrote:

I have tattoos on the lower back, back of my neck, my calf, my stomach, my forearm and the top of my arm and yes my back shoulder. none of them are sexist, racial, or mean anythiing bad or rude is this ok..... the only one that is visible while clothed is the little one on my arm and that is only if I have on a short sleave shirt
Posted on 03/13/08 09:29:02

Mary wrote:

My Son has a few Tattoos and after he joined and came home for Christmas he got another one. He had the superman symbol put just above his wrist on his right arm. It is covered by his jacket and his shirt, but it completes a circle where his sons name is. I don't think it is bad as long as it is done in good taste.
Posted on 03/13/08 10:20:55

Kit wrote:

well i totally agree with everyone who says it shouldnt matter at all...tattoos dont inhibit ur ability to fight...but its just another way for big brother to still have control and set some more societal norms....but hell if they dont want some diehard americans that are tatted up to fight for them then thats their loss
Posted on 03/13/08 20:39:55

Zac wrote:

The ones that say "why dont they just remove it if they are serious about joining" It costs thousands of dollars to have them removed and numerous treatments. yah that signing bonus would cover it but they got that tattoo to represent who they are. I have my ribs and chest tattooed. my ribs are for a groupd of six friends i grew up with through high school that i got shortly after my best friend was killed in a car wreck and my chest tattoo i got after my uncle passed away. Nothing would ever make me want to remove those tattoos. they have become part of who i am and they are a rememberance for me. to me, having that removed would be like a dozer takeing out their headstone. As long as an individual is willing to serve his country a tattoo should not matter a bit so some extent. In my opinion location should not matter but content should. The old "Fuck you" tattoos that were put on the pinky side of the hand to show during a salut is wrong but if a guy wants USMC on the side of his neck how is that bad?
Posted on 03/20/08 14:00:39

SPC GATEWOOD wrote:

YOU PEOPLE ARE FORGETTING THAT YOU LOSE CERTAIN FREEDOMS WHEN YOU JOIN THE MILITARY. FOR EXAMPLE, FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION. IN THE MILITARY, YOU DO NOT HAVE SUCH RIGHTS. TATTOOS FALL UNDER THE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION. YOU ARE LUCKY THE MILITARY IS ALLOWING 'SOME' TATTOOS' BECAUSE IT USED TO BE YOU WEREN'T ALLOWED TO GET ANY! ONE COULD GET AN ARTICLE 15 FOR 'DESTRUCTION OF GOVT PROPERTY' BY GETTING A TAT WHILE BEING IN THE MILITARY. SOLDIERS ARE GOVT PROPERTY. HOOAH!

BTW, I HAVE 4 TATS, ALL OF WHICH WHILE I GOT DURING MY BREAK IN SERVICE, AND THEY ARE PATRIOTIC ANYWAY. :)
Posted on 03/20/08 21:05:47

Alicia wrote:

i have a tattoo behind my ear is that acceptable?
Posted on 03/26/08 09:49:32

MudMarine 0369 wrote:

Most of these psot over tha pst two years miss the real issue. The military is about making people become a TEAM. if everyone is an individual, the TEAM fails. why do you suppose that on enlistment, and arrival at Boot camp, a UNIFORM is issued? So that each trainee looks like the other, they are UNIFORM. There can be no individuality if we are to break down civilian thinking and make people into a UNIT. thus the reason for boot camp hair cuts, uniforms, close order drill etc. It is for these reasons that tatoos were frowned upon. If ink is a sign of your individuality, it needs to be left behind, because when you join the military, you become something bigger than yourself.
Posted on 04/22/08 13:13:58

ben wrote:

tattoos are not an issue anymore. think of how many qualified and talented individuals, like myself, want to join the army (army nurse corp for me)... would be a shame to lose good people to private sector when they could be serving their country.
Posted on 04/25/08 19:33:28

ArmyWife wrote:

i can understand the whole no facial tattoo deal. it doesnt look very professional. i have 9 tattoos and love them. i dont think that tattoos should prevent employment, yes it is discrimination, and instead of crying about it online, those that dont like the way the inked guys and dolls get treated, write a letter, call the better business bureau...DO SOMETHING about it.

as far as the army goes, when u put ur john handcock on that contract, u sacrifice freedoms, just like Spc Gatewood stated. but honestly, which is better? getting a tattoo that may or may not mean anything to u down the line, or being able to say "i served and protected our country!"

im only an army wife, and my opinion is the latter.
Posted on 04/28/08 14:24:36

Angie wrote:

i think changing the tattoo policy is a good thing...how would that make you feel if you could not serve your country because of the ink on your body...most of tattoo's can be covered up anyways and then if there not offening anyone then whats the problem with them..if you have tattoo's it does not make you a different soldier
Posted on 04/30/08 10:21:42

JBoogy wrote:

I think tattoos are a great way to express yourself, and a good way remind yourself of the things in life that should be remembered. I have tattoos, and will continue to get tattoos. I think that the peircing policy should be changed though, as long as it is not seen, I don't know what the big deal is. Anyway, I'm only a warfighter, so who am I to say, I'll let the guys behind the desk make the final decisions.
Posted on 05/23/08 16:41:51

US ARMY wrote:

why do you need a tattoo it doesent mater. We are not fighting
for tattoos we are fight for freedom
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS
Posted on 05/26/08 19:58:07

NSDQ wrote:

I have two on my forearm. the one on my left is my oldess footprents and date of birth, the other is the same but my youngest. If they have meaning then that is different. Do what you want and be happy. dont change for anyone. look at albert instine, people made fun of his hair, but did he care, no. he is one of the greates minds of the world. dont change be your self.
Posted on 06/02/08 14:22:27

Caity wrote:

So if you have tattoos on your arms you can be in the army or any section you want to join?
Posted on 06/15/08 21:17:27

Suzzanne wrote:

I don't see a problem with tattoos and the military, a tattoo doesn't effect your ability to 'serve your country'. My husband is in Iraq right now, and has NO TATTOOS, I on the other hand, am covered from chin to toe.. literally. I can't join the army event hough I wear red white and blue on the front of my throat. I guess the army is more of a fashion statement than a source of protection, right?
Posted on 06/23/08 15:44:17

Ghanja wrote:

My husband has tats all over and is in the army. I have henna type sleeves with flowers on my hands and feet. A cross on the back of my neck, and numerous black tats. I did these not for a fad but because of deep things that have happened in my life. Before I ever even considered joining the military. So even though I would be willing to fight and die for this country as is my husband...because we have tattoos on our neck and arms we arent worth retaining? We arent partriotic enough? We dont conform enough...?
Posted on 07/18/08 10:04:13

US ARMY SPOUSE wrote:

to US ARMY

""why do you need a tattoo it doesent mater. We are not fighting
for tattoos we are fight for freedom
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS
05/26/08 19:58:07 ""

UMM THAT IS FREEDOM SMART ONE. IF WE ARENT WILLING TO FIGHT FOR OUR INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS THEN WE DO NOT DESERVE IT...EVEN IF ITS A TATTOO
Posted on 07/18/08 10:06:28

rosmery wrote:

united estate freedom country uno puede hacer con su cuerpo lo que quiera
Posted on 07/20/08 00:00:06

Larry wrote:

People,tattoos is art and people like them.it doesnt matter whether a person has a tattoo or not.does that make them a criminal?because see that is what people think when they see tattoos.People are going to wars and dying.Shouldnt they be able to have tattoos if that makes them happy.they are serving the country we live in and they cant have an ounce of freedom. I think tattoos should be allowed as long as they are not out of control. When someone sees someone in the army with tattoos they dont say there is a criminal or thug,they say there is a soldier fighting for our country and if they look real closely that soldier might of been a criminal or thug back in the day but now he/she is serving your country.
Posted on 07/29/08 12:57:55

rick wrote:

the way I see it I have a tattoo and I am getting another one and if they do not let me in the military then it just shows we are not really free and the people bitching saying why can't we have tattoo's that is fighting for a freedom and at the same time fight to protect the freedoms of this nation the biggest problem now is fashism not letting someone in cause they have tattoo's that is discrimination I know I have been disciminated against my whole intire life and I still want to fight for this country no matter how corrupted it gets I am not going to let a few tattoo's keep me out of servis it is my life my body I put on it what the fuck I want when I want and the army if they have something to say about it then they can go fuck themselfs besides a tattoo is art and it is also apart of this nations culture and if you can't stop an indian from smokeing pot in a indian resorvation here then you shouldn't try to deny someone there right to inlist to fight for this country the way I see it if you are willing to die for this country then you should be allowed to fight for it no matter who you are or what you are that is all I haft to say by the way before I forget I was prepared to go into the army one time till a soldier that fought in Iraq tried to have me murderd so I could'nt inlist now I am getting another chance and to that soldier that did it you can not stop me
Posted on 08/06/08 02:06:30

Army_wife wrote:

Okay if anyone really knew how the army tattoo policey really worked you would be writing some of the things you guys are writing. I the U.S. Army you are allowed to have tattoos were ever you want them as long as they were done before you enlisted into the Army, once your enlisted in to the Army you will have to get your tattoos approved by you CO, there just going to tell were you cant get it. The reason for theses rule is so that you hold a image of what a soldier should look like and not a dumb ass with tattoos on his face. people need to educate themselve before talking shit about the U.s. Army policys.
Posted on 08/16/08 09:26:45

kc wrote:

i refuse to lose so i choose few and trust, you see my tattoos i do love, and that may just be a bust, but before i will instill trust, it may not occur to you; but tattoos aren't the only thing that i'm referring to.
Posted on 08/18/08 01:18:06

unknown wrote:

i dont think a tattoo should allow some one not to be able to protect their country
Posted on 09/02/08 07:22:46

sodlier cold wrote:

awesome. go army
Posted on 09/18/08 14:29:04

CJW wrote:

What the heck does having a tattoo have to do with "relaxing standards"? What standards? A tattoo speaks nothing of an in individual's discipline, motivation, intelligence, or ability to lead. I am a former Marine going back in the military, yet I will choose the Army because they at least have the sense to not prejudge based on my tattoos (when I was in, many Marines like myself had full sleeve tattoos). For those on here lamenting the "loss" of standards, maybe you should be a little more concerned about the Army letting people in with questionable criminal records, or not having finished high school. As a former grunt, if I was on another real world mission, I would much rather have someone watching my 6 that I knew I could trust in his abilities and character, not whether or not he has a small tattoo on his neck. You people need to get with reality.
Posted on 09/21/08 12:59:17

u.s citizen wrote:

It's nice to know that the army now allows some tattos however like anyother real job i think it should have to be covered while working i personally have no tattos the are a couple i want but they would all be coverd by the uniform and as far as felons being in the army is not hte best idea you can come up with but thats your right i dont agrere with the war but i will fight it for my country becasue i am an american and i love my freedom to choose and would hate to be enlisted with a murderer or rapist they went to jail for a reason becasue they are to ignorant to learn they're lesson unlike alot of people who go once for soemthing minor and never want to go back i know i used to be a bail bondsman i met a lot of idiots yes i will say alot of them eventuallylearn but by then it is too late they have destroyed their lives so they dont need the chance to serve thir country would you like that sex offender down the street to fight for your freedom while raping children i wouldn't i dont want their freedom
Posted on 09/24/08 13:24:19

zodiaclove wrote:

hola
I don't agree with what you said really....
please explain further a bit more for me ;D


thank you
Posted on 09/26/08 16:17:59

pfc.chris wrote:

My personal opinion on this matter would deff have to be, that tattoo's are a form of art, to express your feelings and belief's, I think that the government, and the policy is ignorant, to not let someone join because of something they have inked on the body, understandable if it is racist, or gang related. But if you have full sleeve's the regulations should allow it. We the people are fighting for not only the government, but the civilians who are at stake with fear and insecurity because of the wars etc. We should be the ones they should be saying if u have tattoos. "Not a problem" think its garbage.
Posted on 09/29/08 16:15:58

zodiaclove wrote:

hey
I do not agree with what you said really....
please explain in detail a bit more for me ;d


cheers
Posted on 10/02/08 17:41:51

mike wrote:

all of the first ones replies are funny. "aww i got an american flag on my arm is that allowed?" answer... no. because thats an awful tattoo and i hope you regret it. BUT i have both of my legs sleeved and my right arm done and here in about 2 hours i have an appointment to get on behind my left ear. now im just waiting to get out of the army so i can finish my neck and get my face done
Posted on 10/15/08 15:27:16

cocksmucher wrote:

The army is a joke. Joined up back in 2004 and already it was going down hill. I like what one of my ncos said back in Iraq, "who ever heard of a raid with no shooting?" then he threw the handmike in disgust.
Hail oh hail oh Infantry. You fucktard civilians and poges!
Posted on 11/12/08 23:35:52

sphyz wrote:

i don't have any stupid racist tattoo's but i do have alot, like 30 or more. Is that gonna prevent me from getting paid? because honestly thats all i give a fuck about.
Posted on 12/30/08 19:54:17

frank wrote:

i just recently got rufused by the air force specifically for my tribal tattoo on my arm, it wasnt offensive in any way, but i got denied. i hope that the army isnt the same way..
Posted on 01/15/09 17:16:00

Mike wrote:

Im currently in the army and have many tattoos...It is was ok before the new AR (army regulation) came out to have tattoos anywhere that your duty uniform covers..which includes back wrists ankles forearm etc. now that the new regulation has passed I have a tattoo on each side of my neck...My CSM Command Sergeant Major tried to give me a problem until i showed him the new Reg stated above....so as long as the tattoo isn't in front of your jaw or above the earlobe your good to go
Posted on 01/29/09 20:22:34

Jordan wrote:

I think you should be allowed any number of tattoos. Your fighting for your country!! i hate ignorant fucks! kill iraqis!!!! they can suck my balls fucking towel head dirt flees scared mutha fucken bussy!!!
Posted on 04/14/09 20:05:08

Debi Webi wrote:

HOW DO YOU SAY THIS GRACIOUSLY: We U.S. citizens love our Service Men no matter what color they are, ARTIFICIAL COLOR or from birth. I have tatoos, too. But seriously I'm trying to say this in a way that will make us all re-calculate what the service is for. It's for the people of the people, and YES, it takes all kinds. Now that being said I think the message the tattoo's communicate is the real issue that can't be side-stepped. Now I'm not saying anyone who wants to change their life shouldn't be given a chance, what I am going to say is a hard reality, IF you have hate, gang, racist tattoo's on you it's a refelction on the country you say you want to represent. With a good heart remove the tats that you say are holding you back. If you don't make it in the service don't let that hold you back. Make your stand for the U.S. in other positive ways, just simple by not becoming a parasite. People are constantly shredding the U.S. for one thing or another. Why give them something else to snivel about. If asking you to remove the tats you say are holding you back, then really what do you expect. You did it to yourself. Suck it up and take responsibility. It's not such an aweful gesture to have them removed, after all you are asking the government to train you and potentially where you get deployed may be to kill in the name of the U.S. It's alot to ask the Government for. Is it really so much to ask to GET YOUR LIFE IN ORDER, REMOVE THE TATOO'S, SERVE YOUR COUNTRY AND SOME DAY WHEN YOU ARRIVE HOME AT THE END OF THE RAINBOW YOU WILL HAVE EVOLVED INTO A GREAT AMERICAN. And not return home to the ol'hood into a life on the wrong side of the law...
Posted on 05/11/09 14:09:26

Ian wrote:

You people sit here and argue about tattoo's. You know the difference between people with tattoos and those without. People with tattoo's don't care if you don't have them. You want to talk about standars, lets talk about being able to pass the APFT or be in standards with AR 600-9. These standards were the first to go, and in my opinion are some of the most important standars. I have been enlisted for more then 7 years, and I have a lot of tattoos. I have deployed several times to fight for my country and you want to judge my patriotism because of some art work on my body, when there are some who cant even meet army standars which are easly obtained. What about the people in the army with no "ink" that dodge deployments or that do drugs or are sexual deviants, or have numorus DUI and DWI's. You don't judge them, but because someone has a tattoo on there neck or hands or at all they shouldn't be let in. I say that is a form of discrimination! Shame on all of you !
Posted on 06/08/09 18:55:52

mIKE wrote:

okay so I'm in ROTC. I want to get a "Man For Others" tattoo around my knee. Considering I am going to be an officer, should I avoid my self-expression??????PLEASE HELP!!!!!!!!!!!1
Posted on 06/19/09 03:26:06

guy 2 wrote:

do it do it do it!
Posted on 06/22/09 01:45:00

none of your business wrote:

I don't think having a tatoo has anything to do with your dedication or willingness/ability to fight for your country. We need more soldiers and a lot of good ones are being let go/over looked because of a stupid tatoo. Whatever. that's our country for ya
Posted on 07/01/09 23:38:51

monica wrote:

well i have 3 tattoos and i am 15 and will getting another one very soon. I thought i would get denied but I guess not, and as for lowering the armys expectations and everything, thye arent think if you really wanted to go and you were capable of handling it then you go denied because of mere body art, that would literally crush my spirts...and the army is not stupid and as for taking the asvab its required to see what kinda job you would be good at, it doesnt always mean you have to have that job. but it helps stop complaining
Posted on 08/02/09 19:00:01

Supply Sergeant wrote:

USMC, Is JarHead the standard for the Corps. If so, looks like the Corps will do anything to fill thier ranks. My Father, who is a Navy Cross, Silver Star, bronze Star, 2 time purple heart recipient had tats for his chest to his ankles. If you would have cut him open he would have bled O.D. Not only that, when he died 2 reserve marines showed for color guard. Looks like a good example of Semper-Fi!! So, if you are an NCO, which I doubt, all of your fellow Marines who have tats, print your objection and attitude and post it on your unit bulliten board.
Posted on 09/16/09 10:12:56

www.JohnnySandler.com wrote:

I am heavily tattooed and want to join the army. I have my neck, the whole back of my head, both arms, both legs ,whole back stomach and chest covered, like I said I am heavily tattooed. I want to join the United States Army and be a part of my country and it's defense team. Bullets don't care if skin is tattooed or not, as a matter of fact it is descrimination against tattoos and people who have them, the same kind of terony that our country is fighting to destroy. It is unconstitutional to have regulations against tattoos, we are a free country and I believe in Liberty and felt liberated enough to live in a country where I can have tattoos. If they are going to outlaw tattoos in the army then they might as well outlaw tattoos within the walls. but then again what non tattooed "self expressed" person writes these rules?
Posted on 09/17/09 21:44:11

The Army of 3 wrote:

I find it disturbing that at least 90% of the posts on here are so riddled with basic spelling/grammar errors. Come on, didn't we all learn our ABC's and I before E's? No wonder the U.S. Military is such a joke these days; we've got a gaggle of near-illiterate, braindead re-re's "fighting for our freedom." Oi.
Posted on 11/01/09 14:11:39

Jenn wrote:

Hello people, I have a brother that served in the army and was in Iraq for 16 months. I am so honored to have him back and in my life. When he joined he didn't have a lot of tattoos, but over the years he has gotten a lot of them. His tattoos are in memory of our late father and the veterans of the past. His lastest tattoo was of POW to honor the veterans he has met. He has his left arm almost covered with ink in honor of his fellow brothers that have been taken from us. He is also planning his next tattoo of all the names of the men who lost their lives over in Iraq. I know that this is off topic, but I am proud of his tattoos and the reasons behind them. I fell that if someone wants to their life on the line for me and my freedom, then let them have tattoos.
Posted on 11/01/09 23:50:52

Art wrote:

When it come's to tattoo's in the military specially the Army every one has them from lower enlisted to higher up. Now what the Army doesnt want is gang related tattoo's or anything that is racist or sexist you can have them on your back, chest, arm's , leg's , and neck even your hand's as long as you have a waiver for them and they are not any of the above I just said like gang related racist or sexist. I know all this because I was in the Army with tattoo's all over my body including my neck so if your thinking of joining dont let your tattoo's stop you.
Posted on 11/06/09 13:11:27

Danny wrote:

I can understand both sides of this, as far as an American flag tattoo, it is the American army...I do not think they will have much protest. My question is about my tattoo. I am a 19 year old German-American immigrant. I moved here with my family when I was 10, and while I am thankful that I am an American, and I love this country,and am extremely proud to live here; Germany is my home country. I have a half sleeve on my left arm of the German flag, with a black eagle (my family crest) over the top of it, and it sais "Frankfurt" across the bottom....I want to join the army, and I want to fight for my (now) country. I was raised German, and Germans (as should all countries) feel that fighting for your country isn't an obligation: it is a privelage and an honor, and I want to fight for this amazing country that gave me and my family a better hope in life. but I am concerned that I will not be permited to join the American Army, with a German tattoo.....any help would be greatly apreciated. Thank You and God Bless
Posted on 11/08/09 01:49:57

Maria wrote:

I for one am absolutely appalled by the military's strict tattoo discriminatory policies. It is absolutely absurd that an individual who is willing to risk their life for our country would be denied the opportunity simply because they have body art. This truly is a form of discrimination. Plenty of body art is done is a tasteful and meaningful fashion. There is an unfortunate and ignorant stigma in this country that tattoos are "low class" and "immature" decisions and that the military holds its personnel to higher standards. However, these stereotypes are based on ignorance. It is truly a loss to this country that several honorable, decent, hard-working individuals will never get to follow their dreams and serve their country because of discrimination and the ignorance of this country. Props to the United States Army for changing its policy, hopefully the Marine Corps will follow, although it is highly unlikely. Obviously some people feel like have quite the honorable standing and can easily pass judgement on standards when they themselves are not fans of body art, when other perfectly decent humans might be fans of this art. You snobs truly disgust me.
Posted on 11/25/09 22:54:37

Future Army. wrote:

I look at tattoos as pages of that persons life. I myself have 11 tattoos. With my right arm going to be sleaved out. And my whole back being done in the future. And they tell apart of my lifes story. They say and mean where i was at that point of my life. All my tattoos mean somthing to me. If a man/women is willing to die for what they beleaves in freedom. Than freedom is what they should be able to have. If a man/women in the U.S. military wants a tattoo. Isnt that what we fight for freedom. The freedom of that choice? To not be told how we should live are life?
Posted on 11/27/09 19:22:48

*Free* wrote:

I agree with future army. We fight for freedom. To be free. Not be told how to live are life. And many tribes and cultures used war paint or tattoos as a way of intimidaton to their enemy. So i dont see why we shouldnt be able to have tattoos. Tattoos are not as tabo as they used to be. I think about 75% of the people i know in my life have at least one tattoo. And some are even in the military.
Posted on 11/27/09 19:42:15

Joe wrote:

"I think they should have left it as it was. Why change it? If you start relaxing one standard or requirement, then why not others. Soon, we will have an Army with no standards, and that won't be good. "

...so many people are getting tattoos now we wont have an army if you don't allow tattoos like that
Posted on 12/02/09 16:08:56

Guy Serving Country With Lots of Tattoos wrote:

There are very few people that have posted anything worth reading on here. The only reason I read as much as I did is because I am bored at work. There is more to worry about than wondering if people with tattoos should be allowed to serve their counrty. Think about what you are writing before you hit that post button people. I know people that have died in combat with lots of tattoos on them so you people can sit at home and flood the world with your shallow opinions. Think about the entire picture and what you are typing before you hit that add comment button at the bottom of the page.
Posted on 12/07/09 10:21:41

Shad L. wrote:

I don't think our tattoos should matter just like I think that its crazy you have to have a High School Diploma to join if you pass your test you should be able to join any branch you want. It does not take a education to pull a trigger. I scored a 109 on my test and can't join because of my lack of education. I think it should all be revised.
Posted on 12/07/09 23:22:00

Paul wrote:

Well All I really want is to serve my country and if I have to remove certain tattoos then fine I just need to know witch ones first thats all my recruiter was very short about what to remove and never really said what I could have that at least would have been helpful. But eather way I'm still going in.

APOLLO
Posted on 12/30/09 20:33:11

Seam wrote:

i think there should be restrictions on cetin places such as the face and front of the neck but besides that if it can be covered i dont see why not. and as far as whats on them yeh that should have restrictions too.
Posted on 01/04/10 21:33:56

Dallas H wrote:

I, personally, have 2 that are not offensive on the side and back of my head. If i grow my hair 3/4 inch, you can't even SEE them. I've tried to enlist MULTIPLE times, to be shot down because they "aren't allowed." Now, I'm being told, in a nutshell, I'm not allowed to protect my country because I have a tattoo on my head? I think the top of the hands would be MORE visible than my head if I'm wearing a hat or have my hair grown out over 1/2 inch. Is there anyway I can get a petition and possibly, by petitioning, become an exception to the rule. I would enlist RIGHT NOW, if they could look past that. But they won't. America the free...right. Oh but wait, when we "sign the line" we aren't OUR OWN PERSON anymore, we belong to AMERICA..yet we can't be free about ourselves. Seems rather contradictory and hypocritical to me. I'm also an ASE certified Heavy Diesel mechanic, would I not more than likely be wearing a helmet out in the fields while getting a tank back up so our troops aren't sitting ducks? No we'd rather let them die then enlist someone with a tattoo on their HEAD. Seems rational..I suppose...If you aren't the one in need of that extra mechanic to get you mobile again.
Posted on 01/11/10 00:23:19

Jared wrote:

for everyone asking ihave this i have that ihave this many. IF YOU HAVE A TATTOO IT CANNONT BE ON THE FACE, HANDS, IT CANNONT BE OF THE RACIST GANG OR OFFENSIVE MANNER. if you have a swastika a gang sign a middle finger offensive language tattoo. then no thats not aloud. no nude pics or pin ups either. READ
Posted on 01/21/10 04:52:26

Add Your Opinion

:

:
:





Recent Items
» November is Military Family Month
» DoD Supports the MOVE Act
» TROY Ranks in Top 50 Military Friendly Schools
» National POW/MIA Recognition Day
» Troops Encouraged to Claim ‘Stop Loss’ Pay
Most Popular Items
» Army Raises Enlistment Age
» New Recruiting Age Limits
» Army Streamlines Service Uniforms
» Army Changes Tattoo Policy
» Top 5 Reasons People Fear Boot Camp


This website is not affiliated, endorsed, authorized, or associated in any way with any government, military or country.
:::::