• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

USMC Clarifies Tattoo Policy

Blackadder1916

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,145
Points
1,160
Marines Ban Big, Garish Tattoos
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/4669961.html

By THOMAS WATKINS Associated Press Writer March 28, 2007, 7:40PM

OCEANSIDE, Calif. — Five tattooed skulls stretch from Marine Cpl. Jeremy Slaton's right elbow to his wrist, spelling out the word "Death." He planned to add a tattoo spelling "Life" on his left arm, but that's on hold because of a Marine policy taking effect Sunday.

The Marines are banning any new, extra-large tattoos below the elbow or the knee, saying such body art is harmful to the Corps' spit-and-polish image.

Slaton and other grunts are not pleased.

"I guess I'll get the other half later," grumbled the 24-year-old leatherneck from Eden Prairie, Minn. "It's kind of messed up."

For many Marines, getting a tattoo is a rite of passage. They commonly get their forearms inscribed to remember fallen comrades, combat tours or loved ones, and often ask for exotic designs that incorporate the Marine motto, Semper Fi, or "Always faithful."

Dozens of Marines from Camp Pendleton, the West Coast's biggest Marine base, made last-minute trips to tattoo parlors in nearby Oceanside before the ban kicked in.

"This is something I love to do," said Cpl. David Nadrchal, 20, of Pomona, who made an appointment to get an Iraqi flag and his deployment dates etched onto his lower leg. "The fact I can't put something on my body that I want — it's a big thing to tell me I can't do that."

Nadrchal said he is unsure whether he will re-enlist: "There's all these little things. They are slowly chipping away at us."

Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James T. Conway announced the policy change last week.

"Some Marines have taken the liberty of tattooing themselves to a point that is contrary to our professional demeanor and the high standards America has come to expect from us," he said. "I believe tattoos of an excessive nature do not represent our traditional values."

The ban is aimed primarily at "sleeve" tattoos, the large and often elaborate designs on the biceps and forearms of many Marines. Similar designs on the lower legs will be forbidden as well. So will very large tattoos on the upper arm, if they are visible when a Marine wears his workout T-shirt. Small, individual tattoos will still be allowed on the arms and legs. (The Marines already ban them on the hands.)

Marines already tattooed are exempt from the ban but cannot add to their designs; anyone caught with fresh ink in the wrong places could be barred from re-enlistment or face disciplinary action. Getting a prohibited tattoo could constitute a violation of a lawful order, punishable by up to two years in prison and a dishonorable discharge, Marine spokesman 1st Lt. Brian Donnelly said.

Unit commanders must photograph and document sleeve tattoos to ensure Marines do not add to their ink.

The Marines and the other branches of the military already ban tattoos that could be offensive or disruptive, such as images that are sexist, vulgar, gang-related or extremist.

The Army, which has been doing most of the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and is struggling to fill its ranks, actually relaxed its tattoo restrictions last year. Soldiers can now get ink on the back of their hands and the lower back of the neck.

The Navy last year decreed that tattoos visible while in short-sleeve uniform cannot be larger than the wearer's hand. The Air Force says tattoos should be covered up if they are bigger than one-quarter the size of the exposed body part.

Tattoo artist Jerry Layton at the Body Temple Tattoo Studio in Oceanside said he was booked up with Marines rushing to beat the deadline.

"These are guys that are dying in the war," Layton said. "They can fight, but they can't get a tattoo? It's ridiculous."



 
I like my tattoos, but to not re-enlist because I couldn't get anymore, or in the places I wanted?  They don't mean quite that much to me, or maybe it's just the fact that the military means more.

What I find interesting though is how the different elements in the States each have their own rulings, whereas here it is across the board.
 
airmich said:
I like my tattoos, but to not re-enlist because I couldn't get anymore, or in the places I wanted?  They don't mean quite that much to me, or maybe it's just the fact that the military means more.

What I find interesting though is how the different elements in the States each have their own rulings, whereas here it is across the board.

It's pretty disappointing really. I'm personally a big fan of tats, and have a couple on my forearms, with more coming. In addition to this, I've always found some of the military tattoo designs, particularly those on some marines, to be quite creative. There's a large page on military.com with pictures of many.

I can see the members being irritated with this new regulation, however if such a rule ever came into effect, I don't think it would be something that would prevent me from signing a new contract. I'm pretty happy with the rules we have now.
 
I can understand the policy. After all, the "USMC" on her right shoulder is really..... uh, sorry.....what was I saying?


lisamariebickels206al.jpg



;D
 
airmich said:
What I find interesting though is how the different elements in the States each have their own rulings, whereas here it is across the board.
That is simply because each "element" is distinct from one another as we are a "Unified Service".
 
From what I understand, the problem isn't with those smaller tattooes, but with those 'sleeve' style tattooes.  Which frankly, I think is pretty reasonable.  After all, the military isn't a biker gang.  It's government service.  You can't have crazy long hair, you can't have crazy big body art.  Just makes sense to me.  Though if they were to enforce a policy of no body art whatsoever, that would be a little extreme I think.
 
Maybe the marines talking about not re-enlisting are insulted because they put their life on the line fo their country, they have their 1 year long combat tours extended, yet their being told their not allowed tattoos.  Because of the "spit and polish" image?

I'd be pretty insulted too
 
Bobby Rico said:
After all, the military isn't a biker gang. It's government service.
That, sir, is stereotyping to its full extent. I have 2 full sleeves and yet am not in a biker gang nor do I own a motorcycle. Furthermore their is nothing stopping any government worker from having long hair or tattoo's making your statement baseless.

Allowing for small tattoo's but not the big ones could be seen as discriminatory, "its not a sleeve", its 25 small tattoo's next to one another. Personally I feel that the position they are taking is unbalanced by allowing one but not the other. Rather they should simply state "no more tattoo's on body parts X, Y & Z". But then that would further burden their sufferring recruiting efforts.

A can of worms which I would not be surprised to see being tossed out rather quickly.
 
+1 to both Flawed Design and PO2FinClk.

Bobby Rico said:
After all, the military isn't a biker gang.  It's government service.  You can't have crazy long hair, you can't have crazy big body art.

You can't relate government service to short hair and no tats. What about all the civilians who work for DND...There's long hair, piercings, and tats.

The limitations that exist, I agree with. Nothing on neck up. Nothing obscene, nothing vulgar, nothing offensive, nothing racist. I go beyond that, and won't get anything below the wrist.

Personally, I think your connection of sleeves and gangs lightly insulting, or at the very least condescending. Many of us have our own reasons for tattoos.
 
It wasn't my intention to necessarily group all people who have sleeve tattoos as being bikers or even in gangs.  I was just using it as an example, since most bikers in gangs do have tattoos and it is a big part of their culture.  You all are clearly missing the point of my arguement though.  The military is a national service, and there are certain rules that must be obeyed no question.  Appearance is a big one in the military.  If you think you can wear studs in your face and have a multi-colored mohawk in the military, think again.  You may argue that such things don't have as much 'personal impact' on a person that a tattoo might- I'd like to introduce you to some of my punk rocker friends who'd beg to differ however.  The point I'm trying to make is simply this- if you're bitching and moaning about the military getting a little more hard on the tattoo thing, then you might as well be encouraging people to have multi-colored dyed hair and have metal all over their face.  It all gets down to the image you as a member of the armed forces portray, and I agree with the concept that the armed forces should have very particular standards about the way their members appear.  Afterall, the police have such restrictions, and I don't hear any of them crying over it.

edit- missing words
 
I don't recall the military ever allowing purple hair or bolts through noses. Apples and bowling balls, IMO.

Which Police Services have such restrictions? Care to provide a link? I'm in the Fire Service and have never heard of anyone being called onto the carpet for their tats.
 
Bobby Rico said:
Afterall, the police have such restrictions, and I don't hear any of them crying over it.

I would suggest you do a search on the police forum here. Specifically RCMP and tattoos. There are several members here who are members of the RCMP, and I know at least one has a full sleeve.

I understand that the military has an image to portray. I'm personally very big into the 3 Ds, but myself, if I wear sleeve's down, you'd have no idea I have any tattoos. Purple hair and studs is a whole different deal.

*edit to add content
 
Well, the RCMP might differ because its federal, but I know for a fact that you can't have any visible tattoos in any of the municipal police forces (at least the ones in the Toronto area) as a uniformed constable- this info can be obtained by police recruiter.


In any case, this is all US Marine Corps junk anyway, arguing for or against anything they do suddenly occurs to me as a waste of time given this is Canada.
 
US Marines have been getting tattoos all over themselves since the colonists overthrew their legitimate government ( >:D).  All the marines I've ever seen have looked pretty damn snappy, snakes and skulls notwithstanding.  All of a sudden it's unprofessional?  Sounds like a small group at the top has a prejudice to ink, and now everyone gets to wear it (or not, rather).  Less ink makes one more professional?  Let's get some gubmint money to research THAT theory.  Just another arbitrary "flaps up, flaps down" rule.
 
Kat Stevens said:
US Marines have been getting tattoos all over themselves since the colonists overthrew their legitimate government ( >:D).  All the marines I've ever seen have looked pretty damn snappy, snakes and skulls notwithstanding.  All of a sudden it's unprofessional?  Sounds like a small group at the top has a prejudice to ink, and now everyone gets to wear it (or not, rather).  Less ink makes one more professional?  Let's get some gubmint money to research THAT theory.  Just another arbitrary "flaps up, flaps down" rule.


So True...they didn't even give us static when some of the guys defined the acronym USMC into "United States Masturbation Club" or "Unlimited Shit & Mass Confusion"....I guess today they wouldn't get the joke...
 
The only issue I continue to see in this thread is stereotyping and prejudicial.

And also the fact that the USMC is attempting to enforce a discriminitory and unbalanced regulation, not to say frivolous, at a time when they are struggling to recruit.
 
Of interesting note, this very topic was brought up on another military forum and the responses were quite different.  I mentioned that I was an officer who had visible tattoos and there were several posts made about me being "unprofessional" and probably looked down upon behind my back.  I was quite surprised.  All of these years in and I was under the impression that proffessionalism was more about skill sets and job compentency than my tattoos.  Tattoos, by the way, being an age old and honoured tradition in the armed services - for officers and men a like.  I even seem to recall a certain British monarch (having served in the Senior Service) being heavily tattooed.  Apparently, however, its "disgraceful" (another posters comments on my tattoos) - as reflected in this newest USMC policy.  Please don't forward this to my mother - it's her name on my forearm - and I'm pretty sure she'd be upset to find out that her name was synonomous with the above adjectives. :skull: DBF
 
blackadder1916 said:
Unit commanders must photograph and document sleeve tattoos to ensure Marines do not add to their ink.

I certainly wouldn't want to be the one having to take and catalog all of the photos and check and recheck tats. 

Oh wait, these are Marines, right?  Sorry, I take that back, I'm willing to volunteer.  >:D
 
I supoose then that the question that must be asked is, exactly at what point (size, coverage, subject matter) do tattoos start to be potentially unprofessional in appearance?  I'm sure that everyone has a line that they would draw somewhere if they had to as a commander or senior CWO (in a Canadian context) who had to make a decision from the viewpoint of the individuals being current and future representatives of their service.

And it cannot be employment/rank dependent, the "rule" selected has to apply throughout a career, so that the Pte/rifleman who becomes the WO/recruiter is still presentable in public 20 years later.

So, where would you draw the line?

 
Good questions to think about Michael.  When I look at some of the old chiefs nowadays with the bad inked naked women on their arms, it certainly isn't very presentable, but I accept it, because it's who they were and who they are now.  And who knows what society's outlook will be in 20 years either.  Maybe it will be common place for everyone to be inked everywhere.  Personally I think the standards that are currently set in place for the CF are good, for location of tattoos anyway.  I think the main discussion would be about subject matter, I'll have to think on it some more, you've got the wheels turning in my head.

Something to add to it too, do you think that the regulations should be different between men and women?  Why or why not?
 
Back
Top