Army To Announce Ban On Tattoos Below Elbows, Knees VOL. sorry Popeye....

ninjahood

ninjahood

70,049
24,221
Joined
Aug 1, 2004
[h1]Army To Announce Ban On Tattoos Below Elbows, Knees[/h1]
The Huffington Post  |  By Nick Wing Posted: 09/23/2013 4:57 pm EDT  |  Updated: 09/23/2013 8:31 pm EDT



n-US-MILITARY-TROOPS-UNIFORM-large570.jpg


623

79

69

718

Get Politics Newsletters:
Subscribe

Follow:

Military, Army Regulation, Military Tattoo Restriction, Military Tattoos, Tattoo Restriction Military, Tattoo, Tattoos Army, Tattoos Military, Politics News

The U.S. Army will announce new restrictions on tattoos in a forthcoming update to regulations on the appearance of soldiers.

Sgt. Maj. of the Army Raymond Chandler confirmed to Stars and Stripes over the weekend that ink visible below the elbows or knees, as well as tattoos visible above the neck, will soon be forbidden for soldiers. Existing tattoos in those areas may be grandfathered in, however.

The changes are set to be announced in an update to Army Regulation 670-1, which already prohibits tattoos anywhere on the head, face and neck above the class A uniform collar. Army Regulation 670-1 also contains a ban on ink that is considered extremist, indecent, sexist or racist. Those restrictions will remain in place.

The new rules will reportedly lay out a process by which soldiers can meet with their unit leaders and "self identify" their tattoos. Chandler told Stars and Stripes that soldiers will be responsible for covering the cost to remove any ink that violates the new ban. Under the previous version of Army Regulation 670-1, commanders were not allowed to order the removal of a tattoo or brand. They were, however, expected to consult with soldiers about potential violations and inform them of medical procedures for possible removal.

Chandler said over the weekend that the new regulations are awaiting signature by the secretary, and that they could be officially in place within the next 30 to 60 days.

A forum on Military.com shows the popularity of tattoos on the lower arms or legs. While that ink may be exempt from the new regulations, soldiers looking to get new tattoos may run into issues when the rules are updated.
 
Dont see the big deal for currently enlisted, the armed forces have been telling its employees how to look for centuries, you know what you're signing up for when you join. Every job has a code of conduct that includes a written and unwritten standard of appearance.

On the other hand barring someone who wants to join the military cause of that seems silly because are least it's someone who wants to be in the army. Theres millions of people who wouldn't join the army unless drafted and now you're trying to turn away applicants?
 
Last edited:
H TOWN HUSTLER said:
Disrespectful to the men and women who defend our turf.
Click to expand...
yeah, its pretty stupid considering they're potentially sacrificing their lives for their country..and ya gonna judge em on some ink?
Originally Posted by Antidope  
 
Dont see the big deal, the armed forces have been telling its employees how to look for centuries, you know what you're signing up for when you join. Every job has a code of conduct that includes a written and unwritten standard of appearance.
Click to expand...
50e0bdb03eb0b.gif
 
You know what you're getting in to. They own you anyway.

And there's life after the military.

When I started getting tattoos at 18, I knew I wasn't going to do manual labor and I knew I wasn't going to wear long sleeves when it's 95 outside.
 
Last edited:
Magic1978 said:
You know what you're getting in to. They own you anyway.

And there's life after the military.

When I started getting tattoos at 18, I knew I wasn't going to do manual labor and I knew I wasn't going to wear long sleeves when it's 95 outside.
Click to expand...
Shouldn't that be a decision an individual makes for themselves, though?
 
Its always been like this in the Air Force.

I be seeing other branches tatted up like cholos! Especially Army.

Full sleeves, neck, face tats and all.

Air Force, can't cover more than 25% of a seen body part. And nothing abover the collar
 
I knew the AF was like this I'm a little surprised Army is going that route. I do agree they could be a little more strict but from my understanding (army) is like bottom tier of the military (no disrespect to any soldiers). I was told that they had the least difficulty in regards to getting accepted maybe they are trying to change that culture.
 
^
Who knows.
Wouldn't say bottom tier..maybe, IDK. I wouldn't dare join though lol


I'm Air Force and when Ive been on temporary duty on Army bases, the way they get treated is crazy.
 
ShannonsCrooks said:
 
ohmygosher said:
This is a non issue.
Click to expand...
But you are eliminating a % of the popluation that may be interested in enlisting.
Click to expand...
Maybe they're looking to thin out the herd. The army has no problem getting people to enlist. Not saying that everyone that is tatted at 18 is like this, but most people at 18 with full sleeves/visible tats are somewhat lost and have no idea what they want to do. When a mediocre life becomes a realization, they enlist in the army. 

That's not the type of soldier the army wants. 
 
Glad they did this. When I served years ago it was a joke seeing all these guys with all these tattoos. Looked so unprofessional. 
 
memphisboi55 said:
Its always been like this in the Air Force.

I be seeing other branches tatted up like cholos! Especially Army.

Full sleeves, neck, face tats and all.

Air Force, can't cover more than 25% of a seen body part. And nothing abover the collar
Click to expand...
Im in the AF and have a full sleeve...and so do most of the guys i work with...That really only comes into play when wearing blues for ceremonies or change of commands
 
This country and especially its military is ALL about appearance and presenting a certain look. I'm in the military and I know first hand that this is true, the standards on image are made very important.

As someone mentioned earlier, there are unwritten rules also. It's no coincidence that almost every president in the past century has been over 5'10" and lean. Not one has been overweight. Also I can guarantee that we'll never see a bachelor president. America is all about presenting an image of perfection and wholesomeness, the inner workings and behind the scenes procedures are another story.
 
sooperhooper said:
This country and especially its military is ALL about appearance and presenting a certain look. I'm in the military and I know first hand that this is true, the standards on image are made very important.

As someone mentioned earlier, there are unwritten rules also. It's no coincidence that almost every president in the past century has been over 5'10" and lean. Not one has been overweight. Also I can guarantee that we'll never see a bachelor president. America is all about presenting an image of perfection and wholesomeness, the inner workings and behind the scenes procedures are another story.
Click to expand...
We'll also never elect a president with a mustache, bread, or goatee again.
 
That's another thing, military doesn't allow facial hair for the most part, possibly due to the fact that a James harden beard isn't the most professional look. It annoys me because I wear a stache and goatee faithfully. If I want to serve, I've got to follow the guidelines, and this is something that my body naturally produces and it's not allowed.

People can get butt hurt about it all they want but, regardless of how accepted they become in society, tattoos look unprofessional and will be frowned upon in a business setting.
 
Last edited:
Draft dodging just got a whole lot easier.

:pimp: @ not being able to enlist even if I wanted to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom