Tattoos, for example.
If the tattoos would normally be covered by the long-sleeved uniforms, what the fuck is the problem here?
The reg. states:
Hmmmm, does this mean I can’t be drafted now?
Good move ARMY, turning the guy away. :rolleyes:
Sure thing. As soon as the US Military is all about individuals (“Army of One” ad campaign notwithstanding) that’ll be just hunky dory. Yes, he got screwed by the recruiters (shocker!) not applying the strictest interpretation of the standards. Good Lord, he was going to FORT BENNING! He may have been able to get away with it at some smaller base somewhere.
The military wants recruits, sure. But they don’t want just anybody. Those standards are set in place for a reason.
Now, lest you all go out and get tattoos to get out of the rumored impending draft, keep in mind that if it ever comes, the military will need lots and lots of bodies. Selective service boards, induction stations and military commanders will be much more lenient at that point about what they’ll allow.
And pray tell, how does having some ink under your skin reduce your combat effectiveness?
Who needs to go to all the trouble to get a tattoo, when two words will do the trick:
“I’m gay.”
The military wants people, at least at the outset, to subsume their individuality and focus on working as a team. Recruits are made to look as closely alike as possible. Same uniform, same haircut. They say the exact same things in the exact same way, so that things get done in the same way all the time.
A face tattoo would be a distraction, and detract from a uniform military appearance. It would be an assertion of individuality in an environment where that isn’t welcomed, at least at the outset.
The second part of this equation was, “tattoos detrimental to good order and discipline.” One only needs to envision a soldier with Stormfront tattoos in a barracks with a lot of black and Hispanic soldiers, to understand the need for this regulation.
Not going out to get them, I already got them.
Good on ya.
Now, keep in mind Class A uniforms cover as much as a standard business suit, with shoes, does.
Do your tattoos extend past your wrists, or onto your neck or face?
Would they be considered offensive in any way?
How about a guy with a birthmark on his face, you know, one of those red splotch types? Wouldn’t black, hispanic, and asian soldiers detract from a uniform military appearance too?
An ex-marine friend of mine was (according to him) part of a highly selective unit that ran some pretty serious ops. He always maintained that tattoos were prohibited so that in the case of capture, there were less highly distinguishable identifying marks on the body.
Makes sense if you’re an undercover CIA operative I guess. But a regular Marine? An army combat medic? Puh-leeze. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
World Eater, your sleeves are far too gorgeous to place in the danger of armed combat! 
Not applicable in this case, as easily seen in both the OP and the linked story:
And your excuse for this is…?
I hear way too many stories about the piss-poor, misleading, and/or flatly wrong information recruiters give out. It’s apparently just another (bad) sales job; lying and cheating is part of the game. The military needs to crack down on their recruiters in a big way.
after preview
Mr. Moto, both the OP and the story clearly state that the tatts are only on his arms. You can see pictures of them in the linked story. They do cover most of his arms, but would not be visible under a standard business suit.
So what justifies their decision, particularly after he’s asked repeatedly to be sure there wouldn’t be a problem?
Brb, I’m off to bake you a cake. 
Hey, I don’t make the rules. There are guidelines for tattoos. They aren’t strictly prohibited, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. Seems alright by me.
I’ve made the point many times that the military isn’t a fair hiring program. There isn’t an inherent right to join. And this is one more example of that.
As for the soldiers of different races not presenting a uniform appearance, I don’t see how that would be so. Unless, of course, you see skin color as that big a deal. 
It was made very clear, when I was in boot camp, that any racial incidents weren’t going to be looked upon well. I think everybody came in with that attitude anyway. When you’re sharing a room with 75 other guys, you do your best to get along.
So it’s a silly rule that should be changed. Not a big deal, just strange that they turn away a perfectly qualified applicant. I’m sure they’ll be changing it soon enough though, as the number of people signing up is starting to dwindle.
" areas of the body that are prejudicial to good order and discipline "
This is your brain … This is your brain on religion. Any questions?
To me, this is the same type of puritanical holdover as “The Bronze Boob Scandal” or “Defense of Marraige”. The most absurd part is the way American’s sit on their high horse and talk about the burkha being so repressing to women, or the uptightness of other cultures at large … when really the christian basis for so much of our laws makes us not so far removed. I understand the utility of shaving heads (and have always been offended that women soldiers are not shaved), or barring people with swastikas, gang symbols, and the like, but to say … “you are too colorful” is no better than saying “you are the wrong color”. I am curious if such regulations exist in other countries.
People who are different are BAD!!!
Be more ashamed of yourself!!!
Recruitors fuck people over all the time. But I think that issue is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The issue here is if the Army should have let him enlist. The answer to that depends on the tatoos.
If the sole reason was the percent of arms covered, then this is bullshit and he should be allowed to enlist. I know all kinds of people with ink all over their arms.
However, if his tats extend past his writst or shoulders, then I see no problem with denying his enlistment - regardless of what the recruitors told him. Many recruitors are quota driven assholes, but that’s a subject for another thread.
Based on the story linked, the tats did not extend past his wrists or violate the regs. So I don’t see what the deal is.
Perhaps you are slow. Maybe dropped on your head as a child? Natural skin tone and birthmarks are naturally occurring physical attributes, while tattoos, blue hair, and tongue studs are CHOICES made by people to stand out from others. Tattoos, blue hair, and tongue studs are not inherently bad, nor do they automatically reduce one’s combat effectiveness, if taken in a vacuum.
The military is, to a great extent, about conformity. Someone who chooses to alter their natural appearance to a certain degree goes beyond the military’s level of acceptance.
Bolding mine.
Do you really believe that? Or are you exagerating for affect?
In their eyes, he wasn’t perfectly qualified. And since they’re doing the hiring and there’s no legislative reason NOT to discriminate based on tattoos, they’re completely within their rights.