The restrictions are for subject matter and location. For example, an anchor on your neck or forehead would be disqualifying. So would a naked lady on your arm because it is sexist and offensive.
Submitted by Flatulent Fred (not verified) : Jun 2, 2016 5:04pm
I have no objection to small indiscriminate tattoos, but when the whole arm, neck and who knows what else is covered that is redeculous and not appropriate for those in the military.
Submitted by Ed Orr (not verified) : Jun 2, 2016 3:53pm
That is what the Army policy reverted back to, can't be seen in the dress uniform (not on hands, neck, face, or head). Also, none can be offensive or gang related.
Submitted by Flatulent Fred (not verified) : Jun 2, 2016 5:01pm
I got a tattoo when I was in the Army some 48 years ago and have never regretted doing so. When I look at it, it brings back memories of friends that I made while in the service and things that we went through in Nam and other places that we were stationed. I don't think there should be any restrictions other than the tattoo's not being offensive.
Submitted by Charles Tirpik (not verified) : Jun 2, 2016 4:29pm
Charles, besides offensive tattoos, it is the location of tattoos that have restrictions. 48 years ago, nobody outside the state pen would even think about getting a tattoo on their neck or face. But today, it seems to be the thing to do. The policy only keeps a professional appearance in military uniform, hence the prohibition on hands, neck, and face.
Submitted by Flatulent Fred (not verified) : Jun 2, 2016 5:10pm
Only speaking of Army policy, the "lenient" restrictions merely go back to original policy prior to 2011. No offensive or gang related tattoos, and no tattoos on the hands, neck, head, or face. The Army had changed the policy for a few a years because the then Sergeant Major of the Army hated tattoos and got a stricter policy approved that prohibited sleeves and limited the number on arms and legs that could be seen in the PT uniform. Well that backfired and the new SMA got it reversed. For those who voted on the 3rd choice, remember it is an all volunteer military, and many of the folks who volunteer to serve already have the tattoos before they even join so not sure how that response even makes sense.
Submitted by Flatulent Fred (not verified) : Jun 2, 2016 4:56pm
There are only general DoD guidelines concerning tattoos. It is up to each service to enact its own policy on tattoos. This topic is much to do about nothing. The Army only reverted back to its pre-2011 policy after a few years of a stricter policy on the size and number of tattoos.
Submitted by Flatulent Fred (not verified) : Jun 2, 2016 5:13pm
We guess if they do NOT show in any uniform, but we'd rather not see them on anyone. Dislike seeing it on grandkids but keep quiet unless asked. (Or Grandma trys!!)
Submitted by Tom and Muriel,... (not verified) : Jun 2, 2016 10:39pm
We ask these young men to go out and defend their country, let them do as they wish with their own bodies while they still have them. Limit No face, neck. I did 5 years in the Navy and got several and don't regret one.
Submitted by Bobby Z. (not verified) : Jun 2, 2016 8:29pm
Last week it was reported that the federal government was spending near $ 100 K to find out how to cover up tattoos. If a person thought that this body art was good let them pay for the removal or cover it up, not the tax payers!
Submitted by J Ruf (not verified) : Jun 2, 2016 10:01pm
I agree with those that said certain restrictions should be made in visible areas, such as the face, neck, lower arms. History tells us and shows us that ancient warriors had tattoos through out the world and were worn as a badge of honor, I have a couple of Veteran tattoos, but not in visible areas. Age 77
Submitted by Jess Quintero (not verified) : Jun 3, 2016 6:53am
I think if they keep them to a professional and not be seen while wearing the uniform.Some of us that are veterans that has seen a brother or sister that did not come home with us some get tattoos to show they are not forgotten.
Submitted by Albert Maddox (not verified) : Jun 3, 2016 10:34am
WHY? Why Mutilate you body? If a believer you are a part of the Body of Christ, the True Church, the One Christ said he would build & gates of Hell will not prevail against it. Do we take Christ Body & make Him a part of our depravity. Now I am just talking to Believers, because they alone understand what I mean.
Submitted by Believer in Christ (not verified) : Jun 4, 2016 10:28am
Sorry believer, butit seems to me you are over the top on your views with this issue. You sound as if you are a person who who enjoys judging others actions. Isn't there just one who is to judge others and that one is not you !!
Submitted by Mike Jarrett (not verified) : Jul 16, 2016 1:55am
Comments
Why are there restrictions?
Why are there restrictions?
People have been tattooing anchors on their arms for decades.
The restrictions are for
The restrictions are for subject matter and location. For example, an anchor on your neck or forehead would be disqualifying. So would a naked lady on your arm because it is sexist and offensive.
When you are in uniform the
When you are in uniform the tattoos should not be seen. I other words any military uniform should be able to cover up all tatoos.
I have no objection to small
I have no objection to small indiscriminate tattoos, but when the whole arm, neck and who knows what else is covered that is redeculous and not appropriate for those in the military.
The persons uniform should
The persons uniform should cover any tattoos. I had tattoos when I was in the Navy, as long as your uniform cover it no one ever said any thing.
That is what the Army policy
That is what the Army policy reverted back to, can't be seen in the dress uniform (not on hands, neck, face, or head). Also, none can be offensive or gang related.
Why not allow tattoos as long
Why not allow tattoos as long as the are not hate based. Making special arrangements for religious reasons
Why not allow tattoos as long
Why not allow tattoos as long as the are not hate based. Making special arrangements for religious reasons
Only if uniform covers them
Only if uniform covers them
Tattoo's are a military
Tattoo's are a military tradition!! As long as it's not offensive to race/religion/politics it should be no problem.
Tattoos within reason are ok.
Tattoos within reason are ok. Military personal should not look like x cons. I agree with Ed Orr.
I got a tattoo when I was in
I got a tattoo when I was in the Army some 48 years ago and have never regretted doing so. When I look at it, it brings back memories of friends that I made while in the service and things that we went through in Nam and other places that we were stationed. I don't think there should be any restrictions other than the tattoo's not being offensive.
Charles, besides offensive
Charles, besides offensive tattoos, it is the location of tattoos that have restrictions. 48 years ago, nobody outside the state pen would even think about getting a tattoo on their neck or face. But today, it seems to be the thing to do. The policy only keeps a professional appearance in military uniform, hence the prohibition on hands, neck, and face.
No face,hand,neck or head
No face,hand,neck or head tats. Body (chest, below t shirt line, & back), legs & arms are ok.
Only speaking of Army policy,
Only speaking of Army policy, the "lenient" restrictions merely go back to original policy prior to 2011. No offensive or gang related tattoos, and no tattoos on the hands, neck, head, or face. The Army had changed the policy for a few a years because the then Sergeant Major of the Army hated tattoos and got a stricter policy approved that prohibited sleeves and limited the number on arms and legs that could be seen in the PT uniform. Well that backfired and the new SMA got it reversed. For those who voted on the 3rd choice, remember it is an all volunteer military, and many of the folks who volunteer to serve already have the tattoos before they even join so not sure how that response even makes sense.
First, Why is the Air Force &
First, Why is the Air Force & Coast Guard left out? Don't they fall under the DOD regulations too???
There are only general DoD
There are only general DoD guidelines concerning tattoos. It is up to each service to enact its own policy on tattoos. This topic is much to do about nothing. The Army only reverted back to its pre-2011 policy after a few years of a stricter policy on the size and number of tattoos.
Sorry Sarg, but no on one
Sorry Sarg, but no on one count the Coast Guard is a part of Home Land Security not the DoD.
Thanks for Your Service
No Way !
No Way !
Would I allow Body Art !
Former Marine
( 85 Years old )
YOUR right/
YOUR right/
We guess if they do NOT show
We guess if they do NOT show in any uniform, but we'd rather not see them on anyone. Dislike seeing it on grandkids but keep quiet unless asked. (Or Grandma trys!!)
Limit Face, Neck, and Hands.
Limit Face, Neck, and Hands. This one was a standout from one continually i harms way. From armpit to armpit in large capital letters... INFADEL. RIP
So tired of all the P.C. B.S.
So tired of all the P.C. B.S. No ink on Hands Face and Neck that's it.
Just ask Popeye what he
Just ask Popeye what he thinks !!!!!
We ask these young men to go
We ask these young men to go out and defend their country, let them do as they wish with their own bodies while they still have them. Limit No face, neck. I did 5 years in the Navy and got several and don't regret one.
Last week it was reported
Last week it was reported that the federal government was spending near $ 100 K to find out how to cover up tattoos. If a person thought that this body art was good let them pay for the removal or cover it up, not the tax payers!
I agree with those that said
I agree with those that said certain restrictions should be made in visible areas, such as the face, neck, lower arms. History tells us and shows us that ancient warriors had tattoos through out the world and were worn as a badge of honor, I have a couple of Veteran tattoos, but not in visible areas. Age 77
Limits would be good, in my
Limits would be good, in my opinion, satisfies all. Limits to be NO hands, neck, face OR sleeves !
The Bible says you must not
The Bible says you must not put tattoo markings upon yourself. Leviticus 19:28
I guess that rule would only
I guess that rule would only apply to those who read and adhere to the Bible. For everyone else, it is the military regulations.
OK Fred - How 'bout any
OK Fred - How 'bout any personal body art be OK anywhere a Dress Uniform would cover it?
limitations should be no body
limitations should be no body art that can be seen while in uniform.
I think if they keep them to
I think if they keep them to a professional and not be seen while wearing the uniform.Some of us that are veterans that has seen a brother or sister that did not come home with us some get tattoos to show they are not forgotten.
WHY? Why Mutilate you body?
WHY? Why Mutilate you body? If a believer you are a part of the Body of Christ, the True Church, the One Christ said he would build & gates of Hell will not prevail against it. Do we take Christ Body & make Him a part of our depravity. Now I am just talking to Believers, because they alone understand what I mean.
Sorry believer, butit seems
Sorry believer, butit seems to me you are over the top on your views with this issue. You sound as if you are a person who who enjoys judging others actions. Isn't there just one who is to judge others and that one is not you !!
It makes no sense to deny a
It makes no sense to deny a soldier the very liberties and freedom for which he fights. Tattoos are merely freedom of speech on skin.