United States Army tightens rules on hair, tattoos, makeup

[medicineman]

Most bases actually have that in place for anyone on leave who wants to report in to the Orderly Room or Clothing etc during their leave to conduct 'business'. Must be clean shaven, even while on leave if you are going to come in to work to obtain service(s), eat at the mess hall etc.

I'm not sure Gagetown enforces such a policy for pers who are not coming onto base for any services (or attend the mess hall) during their leave periods; if they do, that's certainly changed very recently.

People forget that when they show up on Base to do business, medical appointments, etc on leave or otherwise while in civilian attire, they are on duty - check the regs.  I don't know how many times I've had to talk at someone walking in to the B Hosp with an earing in, pants hanging around their arses or generally looking like that Irish hobo, Paddy Bag O'Shyte.  There are clear dress regulations for in and out of uniform for a reason - and it's all about public perception..."If you look like Paddy, you must be him too."  No matter how non-judgemental you think you are, what you see and or hear in front of you makes you start to form an instant impression that's hard to get out - first impressions are funny that way.  JQ Public are very judgemental and want to make sure that the people entrusted with their safety are in fact professional looking and behaving. 

There are always going to be Regs nobody agrees with - but fact is, when you sign a contract with an organization that has rules, you have to follow them or suffer the internal consequences of not doing so.  Frig, even I have dress and grooming standards working for RHA-Central Manitoba I have to conform to.  They're pretty simple and they make sense, but they are there and they're enforced.  I push the limits sometimes, especially if I'm working in the ER, but I stay within them, since I value my paycheque.

:2c: for what it's worth from an RSM (Retired Service Member).

MM

 

[armyvern]

People forget that when they show up on Base to do business, medical appointments, etc on leave or otherwise while in civilian attire, they are on duty - check the regs. ...

Too true; unfortunately, there are some locations that do not enforce it and will still provide service to Paddy without batting an eyelash.

 

[Container]

I dont think any of those rules are especially oppressive. Im not sure if its my thinking or its been drilled in to me over the years but if you have appointments with someone you shouldnt look like a bag of dicks. Its a little surprising for me to hear that its a required rule to not have gold "grillz" in while going about your business on base.

As for looking professional- thats in the eye of the beholder. I see professionalism in the way someone adjusts their kit. The position of their holster. Not wearing sunglasses on the top of their head- not wearing a suit that doesnt fit you. Not talking down to folks.....

I dont notice tattoos as part of that equation. The CF seems relatively at ease with tattoos- non offensive is fine. If only that pesky neck requirement would go away.....

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Too true; unfortunately, there are some locations that do not enforce it and will still provide service to Paddy without batting an eyelash.

I enforce it for my guys that simply show up at the armouries to use their mess. You're on a DND establishment, you're enrolled, you'll follow the rules.

 

[armyvern]

I enforce it for my guys that simply show up at the armouries to use their mess. You're on a DND establishment, you're enrolled, you'll follow the rules.

I wish all places were like you!

 

[mariomike]

As for looking professional- thats in the eye of the beholder. I see professionalism in the way someone adjusts their kit. The position of their holster. Not wearing sunglasses on the top of their head- not wearing a suit that doesnt fit you. Not talking down to folks.....

:goodpost:

Grooming standards were drilled into us when I was 16.
As far as "not talking down to folks", that is especially important in their homes. 

 

[medicineman]

Too true; unfortunately, there are some locations that do not enforce it and will still provide service to Paddy without batting an eyelash.

You should have seen some of the looks I got when I told people to get ear rings out or pull their pants up...or leave until they did.  Don't even get me going about some of the dweebs that would show up in the mess halls when I was doing Duty Dork at whatever base I was at.

MM

 

[GnyHwy]

Man am I ever sick of the tattoo debate.

Im more competent at my job then alot of my uninked counterparts. People need to get over it- I dont particularly care what their tastes are. I wear my uniform and follow the standard, work hard, and produce- whether you like what my body looks like under my uniform is your own issue.

And Ill fight it on all fronts!

Good post Troop!  I feel the same.

 

[ballz]

We don't have a policy that says "once you're in, you can't get any more tattoos" do we?
This policy, to me, does indicate that tattoos are considered unprofessional by the decision-makers, but since so many people have tattoos before they join the US Army has no choice (because they need to keep recruiting people) but to allow them in if they already had them, "but no more once you are in..."

The new regulations specify no sleeve tattoos. This is pretty ambiguous, what about half-sleeves on your upper arm (might not even be visible) or calf sleeves (definitely wouldn't be visible)... But more to the point... it doesn't say "sleeves with offensive/derogatory content," it just says "sleeves," so it seems to me that that part of it *is* just about considering tattoos unprofessional.

The explanation comes across as questionable.

How far do we go to achieve uniformity. Do army personnel now need to undergo tanning or skin bleaching to achieve the ideal skin tone? Does everyone need to dye their hair to achieve an ideal hair color? Will personnel of a shorter stature be forced to undergo growth hormone treatments until they reach a uniform height?

Yes, there is a need for uniformity, but humans are not uniform.

And how does having a tattoo relate to your level of commitment?

I agree, the quoted statement mentions nothing of offensive content, simply about "standing out," and I think it's a bit of a leap to assume people get tattoos to "stand out." No doubt they can make you stand out, and some people even do like being inked up just to stand out, but that's a minority of tattoos and a smaller minority of people.

 

[OldSolduer]

The rules stated apply to the US Army, not us.


And my second point - you signed the dotted line, obey the rules or take your release.

It's that simple.

 

[ballz]

The rules stated apply to the US Army, not us.

I realize that.

I was asking if we have something similar to their policy that says once you are in, you can't get any more tattoos.

 

[aesop081]

I was asking if we have something similar to their policy that says once you are in, you can't get any more tattoos.

We have a policy in place that restricts where one can have tattoos.

 

[Container]

I suppose Jim im coloring it with my own experience where once Ive already signed on the dotted line there is a movement to change what exactly I've agreed to.

I recall when the tattoo policy changed here in Canada there was issue with my hands being tattooed. Even if they had always been- then the policy didnt even have to do with my hands but some higher ranks went after them anyways.

Or the RCMP S/M's who like to come at me with the "forthcoming" tattoo policy which will find me at odds with policy even though I dont look any different then I always have. The agreement we had doesnt exist anymore (or wont soon).

I agree with dress and deportment. I like standards- but Im surprised when I see tattoo regulations being tightened up. I think its a lazy way to address public perception. Look like your producing a good product rather than actually producing one.

I know its the States- but it has happened here as well. Not to the same extent. But similar.....

 

[aesop081]

I suppose Jim im coloring it with my own experience where once Ive already signed on the dotted line there is a movement to change what exactly I've agreed to.

You are correct, things have changed. One always has the option of requesting to be released if one does not agree with the new terms of employment.

 

[Container]

So after years of service- and a skill set thats pretty specific. An exemplary record- and a veritable crap-tonne of money spent on creating "me". The answer is I leave because somebodies misguided idea of "professional" excludes me but includes complete hammer sacks because they seem more "uniform".

Garbage. You'll have to excuse me if I make them work for their money.

 

[Scott]

We got it. You're righteously indignant. Have you ever paused to think that a crap sack could also include the guys who choose something like tattoos, or socks in the mess, as their hill to die on?

I think there has to be a line somewhere, just like with hair and facial hair, among other things. Too bad you don't agree with the line.

 

[Container]

Have you ever paused to think that a crap sack could also include the guys who choose something like tattoos, or socks in the mess, as their hill to die on?

I think there has to be a line somewhere, just like with hair and facial hair, among other things. Too bad you don't agree with the line.

It appears nobody can agree with the line since it moves. Im in the thread too much and I think I'm just saying the same things over and over again- so I'll bow out. Controlling facial hair serves a function. So does being well groomed- its also discipline. Piercings are a safety issue. Being dressed appropriately is a sign of respect for the people you are meeting.

I disagree that tattoos have anything to do with those issues. So I dont need to add anymore to this thread.

 

[aesop081]

So after years of service- and a skill set thats pretty specific. An exemplary record- and a veritable crap-tonne of money spent on creating "me". The answer is I leave because somebodies misguided idea of "professional" excludes me but includes complete hammer sacks because they seem more "uniform".

I have tattoos where they are no longer allowed. Many people i know do as they acquired them prior to the new policy being put in place. The CF is ok with that, just told people not to get anymore. The CF hardly got rid of anyone they spent a crap-tonne on to train.

Move along junior.

 

[Container]

Oh look- name calling because you disagree. An excellent defense of a tattoo policy- “the rule changed for no articulable reason but I’m okay with it because Im grandfathered”.

 

[aesop081]

An excellent defense of a tattoo policy

Was not trying to defend it. The policy is there and it will be followed. It doesn't need me to defend it, just to enforce it.

I'm not a huge fan of our policy but i don't get to make those decisions.