Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

MADem

(135,425 posts)
20. Army is tightening up in a big way. Placement and size are disqualifiers.
Wed May 21, 2014, 10:26 AM
May 2014

Army's new regs are strictest, and if you want to know why, it's because they have the MOST people to "get rid of." Those wars of choice plussed up the USA enormously, and now it has to be drawn down.

http://nation.time.com/2013/09/26/tat-us-quo-despite-strict-new-army-rules-other-branches-keep-tattoo-policies-intact/


In the Air Force, which updated its standards in 2011, tattoos cannot be “excessive”, meaning they can’t cover more than 25 percent of an exposed body part (like a forearm) when wearing any uniform. During the review leading to the policy update, the Air Force added a measuring tool so commanders can determine if a tattoo is considered excessive. A spokeswoman said the Air Force is not considering any additional changes in the near future.

The Marines last revised their tattoo policy in 2010. Commissioned and warrant officers can only have four tattoos or brands visible when wearing a physical training uniform (shorts and a t-shirt). For enlisted Marines, they can’t have tattoos on their hands, fingers, wrists or inside their mouths, and any tattoo visible from a physical training uniform can’t be larger than a fist. One of the Marine Corps’ considerations when they reviewed the tattoo policy is the “assignability” of individual Marines–they serve as embassy guards around the world, in addition to other highly visible assignments. “We’re confident that the current policy both ensures’ Marines worldwide assignability and protects our high standards of appearance and bearing,” Capt. Ty Balzer, a media officer for Headquarters Marine Corps, said in an email.

Before 2003, the Navy also had the “25 percent rule”, but updated its standards in 2006 to allow tattoos visible when wearing a uniform shirt as long as they are smaller than an extended hand. That means sailors can get all the tattoos they want on their torsos, but nothing can be visible through the white uniform. The Navy’s policy is the oldest on the books, but an official from the Navy Office of Information said there are no immediate plans to change the regulations.

The Army’s policy change has been in the works for some time. In 2006, needing more potential recruits at the height of the Iraq War, the Army began to allow tattoos on the hands and back of the neck. But now with the war in Iraq over and the one in Afghanistan winding down, the Army is poised to trim 80,000 troops in five years. With a smaller force, they can afford to be more selective, and after being promoted in 2011, Sergeant Major of the Army Raymond Chandler began speaking about a sterner tattoo policy. “The appearance of tattoos detracts from a uniformed service,” Chandler told soldiers at Fort Jackson, South Carolina last year, arguing that ink draws attention to the individual. “You are part of something larger.”

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

They probably looking at it in an event where they are struggling getting recruits itsrobert May 2014 #1
Only one-in-four Americans fit to serve in the military Jesus Malverde May 2014 #3
Yeah, but when they need recruits itsrobert May 2014 #6
The comments on that RT story are so nice.... penultimate May 2014 #18
How would that affect deployment, I wonder? MADem May 2014 #2
Most deployments don't require a passport Recursion May 2014 #4
I've been in ten or fifteen countries on military orders and I always needed a passport. MADem May 2014 #9
I was invading every country I entered on military orders Recursion May 2014 #11
Yes, I was, and I always had to cough up a passport. Never was able to travel without one. nt MADem May 2014 #21
When was this? AnalystInParadise May 2014 #22
Right up to Nine Wun Wun. MADem May 2014 #23
I believe you, but that is so strange AnalystInParadise May 2014 #25
I've had UN and NATO postings and often been required to travel. MADem May 2014 #27
Recently retired military here AnalystInParadise May 2014 #13
See post 23. MADem May 2014 #24
It's cool man. I totally believe you AnalystInParadise May 2014 #28
I wish I was 40 again! MADem May 2014 #29
All people caught entering illegally should have an option to serve a min of 4 years... 951-Riverside May 2014 #5
The Roman Imperial Army policy.... happyslug May 2014 #17
This would set a horrible precedent. Just say NO to indentured soldiers! reformist2 May 2014 #7
The military doesn't want indentured servants. It's competitive. Three out of four applicants are MADem May 2014 #10
Side note: I think the Pentagon loosened the tat requirements recently Recursion May 2014 #12
Actually they just tightened up the tattoo requirements for the Army AnalystInParadise May 2014 #14
Thanks; I just checked and that was in fact the Commandant only Recursion May 2014 #15
Army is tightening up in a big way. Placement and size are disqualifiers. MADem May 2014 #20
There is probably a need for foreign language speakers and that may be one reason they're okaawhatever May 2014 #16
That might be a possibility, particularly with people who speak MADem May 2014 #19
This is what happens when there aren't enough wars and killing boogie men going on. L0oniX May 2014 #8
oh, I don't think you will have to worry about that. olddad56 May 2014 #26
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Pentagon eyeing immigrant...»Reply #20