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
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Pentagon eyeing immigrants who arrived illegally [View all]MADem
(135,425 posts)20. Army is tightening up in a big way. Placement and size are disqualifiers.
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 cant 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 cant have tattoos on their hands, fingers, wrists or inside their mouths, and any tattoo visible from a physical training uniform cant be larger than a fist. One of the Marine Corps considerations when they reviewed the tattoo policy is the assignability of individual Marinesthey serve as embassy guards around the world, in addition to other highly visible assignments. Were 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 Navys 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 Armys 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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
29 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
They probably looking at it in an event where they are struggling getting recruits
itsrobert
May 2014
#1
I've been in ten or fifteen countries on military orders and I always needed a passport.
MADem
May 2014
#9
Yes, I was, and I always had to cough up a passport. Never was able to travel without one. nt
MADem
May 2014
#21
All people caught entering illegally should have an option to serve a min of 4 years...
951-Riverside
May 2014
#5
The military doesn't want indentured servants. It's competitive. Three out of four applicants are
MADem
May 2014
#10
There is probably a need for foreign language speakers and that may be one reason they're
okaawhatever
May 2014
#16