He should have them touched up to look like camoflage.
Hey, I’m an American citizen (technically) and they could go and reinstate the draft at any time. You don’t see me complaining.
Maybe I should go get that tattoo I’ve been thinking about for good measure.
As long as you make sure it’s large, and you get them in excessive numbers. If a single tattoo was enough to preclude military service, quite a few people would be kicked out.
sleestak, (cool name, btw) the way I see it, there’s a spectrum. I don’t believe all people with tattoos should be excluded.
Well, I could be wrong, but I think something along the lines of “[my] vision” is the standard right now. Whether it should be is debatable, I guess. And I don’t care about religion because you can’t see what religion someone is… at least, not in the same way you’d see a bunch of tattoos on someone. Religion does not generally affect your appearance in uniform. And just because something is a personal choice, I don’t think it should be blindly allowed in the military. Piercing are a personal choice, right? Do you think a guy with piercings all over his body should be allowed in? Sure, IMO, as long as he’s willing to take them out when he’s on duty. If he won’t take them out, then he shouldn’t be allowed in.
Also, part of your excerpt regards the tattoo waiver signed by the Maj. Later in the article, it says “In Young’s case, [the Maj] admits that his decision might have differed if he’d seen the whole picture.” Leading me to believe that the wiaver was a mistake to begin with.
I have absolutely no evidence to back this up, but my gut feeling is that the average American would agree with me a man covered in tattoos from head to toe does not impart the image of a clean-cut person. And we’re not even getting into content. If he had tattoos all over his body saying “Fuck the USA” and “Communism Rules” would this be an acceptable personal choice? For a civilian, sure, but not for one of our soldiers or sailors. From the article, the Army reg states: "[tattoos that] “show an alliance with ‘extremist’ organizations; are indecent (i.e. those which are grossly offensive to modesty, decency or propriety; shock the moral sense because of their vulgar, filthy or disgusting nature; tend to incite lustful thought; or tend reasonably to corrupt morals or incite libidinous thoughts).” Do you think that tattoos with this content should be allowed? I think one or two small, well-hidden tattoos like this would be fine, but having them all over your body isn’t.
And I don’t know at what point of tattoo coverage it stops being unreasonable and becomes acceptable. But, like UncleBill points out, it appears to be a subjective call for whomever’s deciding the issue, and that’s fine with me.
What I find unfair (for lack of a better word) is that the guy obviously didn’t know about the rule before got his tattoos and decided to join the military. You really feel for him after reading the article, but I still don’t think he should be allowed in until he gets them removed. I know I must sound hard-assed and insensitive, but I believe in limits, even if they are at times subjective.
<snipped>
flyboy88, thanks, I like my name as well 
Anyway, to hit a couple of points. I also have absolutely no evidence to back this up, but I believe that tattoos are a total non issue for most Americans these days. So many poeple have tats that they are no longer linked to biker gangs and the like. Heck, look at half the Pro basketball players these days, those guys are covered in ink.
Next, the very fact that this is a very subjective call is a problem. The rules are not clear and, IMHO, that is not a good thing. It shouldn’t be hard to make a rule limiting the areas where tats could appear. For example, limit tats to areas that would be covered by a t-shirt and shorts. This does not mean I agree with the rule itself but if there is going to be a rule make it clear.
Third, the guy offered to create a timetable for the removal of the tats. I would think that would be a reasonable solution. The problem with having him remove all the tats before accepting him seems to me to be the time issue. Removing tats is exspensive. By the time he got the money to remove enough tats to get in he would probably be too old to enlist. I am assuming that there is an age limit on enlisting.
Last, you admit that you feel for the guy but seem to think that the Army shouldn’t work with the guy on this issue. I disagree. He is offering to do everything the Army wants but, since he can’t afford to do it at once, it isn’t enough for the Army. Give the guy a break. He wants in and has offered possible solutions to the problem.
In fact I sent email to my Senators-Congress people about this issue.
Slee
Before enlistment, prospective soldiers attend the nearest entrance station for an all day marathon of inspections and detections and rejections, etc. etc.
During the physical examination, everyone gets to stand around in their undies while they duly record number, type and location of tattoos.
The official policy towards tatoos has changed quite a bit in the past decade or so. New regulations have to address changing fads like nipple rings, tongue studs and earrings. The rule for Army personnel I believe states that tattoos visible when wearing short sleeved Class “B” dress uniform are a no-go.
I suspect the fellow in the original post may have run into a different problem, however. If the tattoo is obscene, drug related or of a racist/gang nature, then it probably has to be removed regardless of location.
Tedster
Can you provide a cite? The guy in the OP wouldn’t meet the policy you stated. The only problem according to the original waiver was a celtic cross that he agreed to have blacked out.
Slee
Yep, I was. Maybe I used the wrong term because I assumed that you would understand it in the form that I meant it.
Unfair discrimination.
I agree that we should have a guideline. I don’t think that a man with no legs or no arms can be an effective combat soilder (regardless of the example of Drunken Masters…)
You also say that a person who wears tatoos does not care about his personal appearance. This is utterly not true. These people have choosen to permanently adorn themselves with art of one form or another.
This is a regulation that I don’t agree with. I think that it limits membership in the armed forces based on a factor that is irrelevant to the person’s ability to serve effectively.
–==the sax man==–
My Navy husband got heavily tattooed in visible areas while AD. He got a sleeve one tattoo at a time and never heard a word about it. As far as I know, it has never affected his ability to serve. [shameless wifely pride]He was recently made sailor of the quarter, and has been awarded four NAMs in the last 5 years.[/shameless wifely pride]
I hate to think that the Army or any other branch is turning down good recruits because of what is on their skin.
Tedster, you are only partially correct. In the Army, it is true that you cannot have tattoos that are visable while in uniform, but that applies to the Class A uniform, not the class B. Class A is the more formal uniform with a long-sleeved green jacket and reletively high neckline. That means there really is pretty much leeway as far as placement.
Otherwise, UncleBill is on the mark. Recruiters muct be told of and shown the candidates tattoos, and then have to get an explanation as to their meaning. If there is doubt, they do research on possible interpretations and the matter is (when deemed necessary) discussed with a higher-up.
Well, I was in the Army, but I guess that doesn’t mean anything. Heh.
I know what a Class “A” uniform is, I was merely pointing out the Army’s distaste for tatoos that show while in short sleeves. Probably half the year, soldiers wear shorts and a T-shirt for physical training, and Tatoos that show are affected by the regulations. There’s no way around it, they are not going to allow one guy to “cover up” his tats.
This brings back an old family tale of when my grandpa ( ww2/korea era) was on a south pacific island and decided in a party wiht the navites to do the manly thing and get his nose pierced as was the custom of the isle
his words was " they damn near court marshalled me with a dishonorable discharge ,fines and possibly jail time as I was us property "
He was drunk and thought it would be impressive and manly to do was the official line
I think he got off with taking it out minor discipline for a while andn ot being able to drink for a couple of weeks
It was the stereo typical ring that looked like the ring on a bulls nose it was big and he said it hurt like hel lat first ,
Tedster, I wasn’t slighting you; I was simply making a correction. And I added uniform descriptions for those Dopers without military experience. Hell, I’ve been in for more than two years and my wife doesn’t even know what the difference between officers and enlisted, so I know folks don’t know what the uniforms are.
So here’s my cite:
From Army Regulation 670-1, Wear and Appearence of Military Uniforms, Section 1-8, Subsection d
That was the most I could find of this topic out of the 186 pages of the current AR.
Sorry for the hijack.
Are there different standards for Army and Navy? My granddad, dad, and uncles all served in the Navy had tattoos a-plenty. I just sort of figured it was what most sailors did.
I would think the ability to shoot straight would be the overriding concern but I guess they prefer good looking soldiers.
Too true. I can’t fire a weapon at all and I’m still here. 
“From Army Regulation 670-1, Wear and Appearence of Military Uniforms, Section 1-8, Subsection d”
Which version of 670-1 are you using, they specifically addressed the new grooming standards in the latest update…
Interesting. My brother served in the Army in the 1990’s, and got tattoos while a member of the special operations warfare community (Rangers).
He is about to go back in, this time Special Forces (Green Beret), and he has a lovely forearm tattoo showing his Ranger tab and insignia. Nobody said a thing about it, and they sure aren’t trying to keep him out! Have you seen the bonuses they are paying experienced soldiers to reinlist? Wow.
I don’t think that a few tattoos should keep anybody from serving. However, looking at the photos in that link, we aren’t just talking about a few, are we?
FYI, my brother has 5- left bicep (design), right bicep (celtic armband), right pec (tribal sun), ankle (platoon tattoo) and forearm (ranger tab and patches with Sua Sponte).
A total non-issue? I rather doubt that.
I think that if your typical American was approached at night by a strange man, he/she would probably feel more discomfited if that person happened to be covered with tattoos. Similarly, I think most people would be more inclined to buy a used car from someone who doesn’t have any prominently visible tattoos on his person.
Have Americans become increasingly tolerant of tattoos? Certainly… but I don’t think we can claim that it’s “a total non-issue.”
According to AFI 36-2903, Dress and Appearance of Air Force Personnel, tattoos are not to cover more than 1/4 of an exposed body part and are not to be offensive in nature. In other words, it’s what your commander says it is, and you just have to suck it up and obey. They don’t actually measure, and the reg is clearly intended to give your commander all the discretion in the world to decide what is offensive or not.
That is incorrect. You have to follow the regulations as stated, otherwise you can (and at Keesler would have been) court-martialed. Otherwise, you’re fine.
There is debate on one thing, though. The question of medical responsibility has been kicking around the Air Force for a few years, with no resolution. Is the military responsible for any complications or illnesses that result from tattooing? shrug I dunno. But that’s above my pay grade.
Anyway, that’s the Air Force ruling. I don’t know about this guy specifically, but my Dorm Chief in BMT had a skin graft to get rid of a tattoo on his forearm that was too large, so I do know they enforce the rules quite vigorously.
-Dave