U.S. Army Set to Ban Tattoos Below the Elbow or Knees

Existing ink jobs could be grandfathered in.

Sgt. Shane Herring, 23, of Marietta, Calif. with the U.S. Army's Alpha Company 2nd Battalion 27th Infantry Regiment based in Hawaii, shows his tattoos at Combat Outpost Pirtle King in Kunar province, Afghanistan.
National Journal
Brian Resnick
Sept. 23, 2013, 11:49 a.m.

The U.S. mil­it­ary and tat­toos have an en­tangled his­tory. The rise of the tat­too in pop­u­lar cul­ture star­ted with floods of inked vet­er­ans — es­pe­cially from World War II — re­turn­ing home with them. The first tat­too par­lor in New York City, es­tab­lished in 1846, served to mark up Civil War sol­diers.

It is that strong his­tory that’s prob­ably the reas­on why a blog post on the Army’s web­site de­clared in 2009, “Today, it seems, you couldn’t throw a rock in­to an Army form­a­tion without hit­ting a Sol­dier with at least one tat­too.”

So it might be strange for the Army to put forth a new rule ban­ning them on com­monly tat­tooed por­tions of the body.

At the Stars and Stripes, Josh Smith (a former Na­tion­al Journ­al re­port­er) re­ports that Sec­ret­ary of the Army John McHugh has ap­proved, but not yet signed, a change to the Army’s ap­pear­ance reg­u­la­tions that would ban tat­toos from the fore­arm, be­low the knee, or above the neck­line. The Army will also re­quire the re­mov­al of of­fens­ive tat­toos, Smith re­ports,

Cur­rent sol­diers may be grand­fathered in, but all sol­diers will still be barred from hav­ing any tat­toos that are ra­cist, sex­ist, or ex­trem­ist.

 

Once the rules are im­ple­men­ted, sol­diers will sit down with their unit lead­ers and “self identi­fy” each tat­too. Sol­diers will be re­quired to pay for the re­mov­al of any tat­too that vi­ol­ates the policy, [Sgt. Maj. of the Army Ray­mond Chand­ler] said.

For­cing the re­mov­al of of­fens­ive tat­toos is a step up in sever­ity from cur­rent reg­u­la­tions. Cur­rently, “com­mand­ers may not or­der the re­mov­al of a tat­too or brand. However, the com­mand­er must coun­sel sol­diers, and af­ford them the op­por­tun­ity to seek med­ic­al ad­vice about re­mov­al or al­ter­a­tion of the tat­too or brand.” If the sol­dier does re­spond to the coun­sel, the com­mand­er is to make sure “the sol­dier un­der­stands the policy.”

For ref­er­ence, here’s what the Army con­siders of­fens­ive in tat­toos.

(2) Tat­toos or brands that are ex­trem­ist, in­de­cent, sex­ist, or ra­cist are pro­hib­ited, re­gard­less of loc­a­tion on the body, as they are pre­ju­di­cial to good or­der and dis­cip­line with­in units.

(a) Ex­trem­ist tat­toos or brands are those af­fil­i­ated with, de­pict­ing, or sym­bol­iz­ing ex­trem­ist philo­sophies, or­gan­iz­a­tions, or activ­it­ies. Ex­trem­ist philo­sophies, or­gan­iz­a­tions, and activ­it­ies are those which ad­voc­ate ra­cial, gender, or eth­nic hatred or in­tol­er­ance; ad­voc­ate, cre­ate, or en­gage in il­leg­al dis­crim­in­a­tion based on race, col­or, gender, eth­ni­city, re­li­gion, or na­tion­al ori­gin; or ad­voc­ate vi­ol­ence or oth­er un­law­ful means of de­priving in­di­vidu­al rights un­der the U.S. Con­sti­tu­tion, fed­er­al, or state law (see para 4”“12, AR 600”“20).

(b) In­de­cent tat­toos or brands are those that are grossly of­fens­ive to mod­esty, de­cency, or pro­pri­ety; shock the mor­al sense be­cause of their vul­gar, filthy, or dis­gust­ing nature or tend­ency to in­cite lust­ful thought; or tend reas­on­ably to cor­rupt mor­als or in­cite li­bid­in­ous thoughts.

(c) Sex­ist tat­toos or brands are those that ad­voc­ate a philo­sophy that de­grades or de­means a per­son based on gender, but that may not meet the same defin­i­tion of “in­de­cent.”

(d) Ra­cist tat­toos or brands are those that ad­voc­ate a philo­sophy that de­grades or de­means a per­son based on race, eth­ni­city, or na­tion­al ori­gin.

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 4424) }}

What We're Following See More »
11 HOUSE MEMBERS NOW BEHIND HIM
Two Committee Chairs Endorse Trump
4 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Two powerful House members—Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bill Shuster (R-PA) and Veterans Affairs Committee Chair Jeff Miller (R-FL)—are throwing their support behind Donald Trump.

Source:
BUT WOULD HE THROW THE CHAIR?
Bobby Knight: Trump Would Drop the Bomb Just Like Truman
4 hours ago
THE LATEST
LAST PLACE
Trump Still Struggling for Endorsements
7 hours ago
WHY WE CARE
AT ISSUE: VENEZUELA SANCTIONS
Deal Struck to Confirm Ambassador to Mexico
9 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

"The United States is finally about to get an ambassador to Mexico. Senate Republicans who have been negotiating a way to confirm Roberta Jacobson as the nation’s top diplomat to Mexico have reached the contours of an agreement that would allow Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)—Jacobson’s chief obstacle—to secure renewed sanctions against Venezuela in exchange for lifting his objections."

Source:
THE QUESTION
How Much Is Cleveland Paying for ‘Protest Insurance’ for the GOP Convention?
9 hours ago
THE ANSWER

Ten million dollars, plus another $1.5 million for the broker who will "develop and obtain" the policy. The concern: mass protests could lead to mass arrests, which could then lead to civil rights claims against the city.

Source:
×