Damn the tattoos!
Many readers say the Army is wrong to let soldiers bare their body art
By Kelly Kennedy
Times staff writer
When Lt. Col. John Keith’s wife had a baby in early April, her medical care was placed in part with a young soldier.
“He was very well-mannered and took great care of her,” said Keith, who is a member of the G-8 staff at the Pentagon. “I’m proud to have him in the Army.”
But above the soldier’s capable hands — and below the short sleeves of his green Army-issue scrubs — ran colorful tattoos up and down the length of his arms.
“Maybe we’re old-school,” Keith said, “but it just wasn’t appealing.”
That was the consensus of most of the several dozen Army Times readers who submitted letters about the service’s new policy allowing soldiers to have tattoos on their hands and necks. Almost all of them said soldiers whose tattoos show while in uniform don’t look professional.
“When it’s visible in uniform, that doesn’t send a good message,” Keith said. “I personally don’t think it was a well-thought-out decision.”
The policy changed in February after the Army had turned away potential recruits for tattoos that would show beyond their Class A uniforms. At the time of the change, Douglas Smith, Recruiting Command spokesman, said there were between 300 and 400 people the changed regulation could affect.
Army Regulation 670-1 now allows soldiers to have tattoos of any size or form on their hands, as long as they are not racist, sexist, extremist or offensive. Female soldiers may have permanent make-up, such as tattooed eyebrows. And soldiers may also have tattoos on the backs of their necks.
Keith’s opposition to the policy reflected those of most of the soldiers who spoke with Army Times.
“I just have to look at it and say we’re recruiting 80,000 people a year,” Keith said. “Are we bringing the numbers up that much by allowing neck tattoos? Why can’t we wear flip-flops, too? That would bring people in. My son wears his hair long, and it looks nice, and he could still do a professional job. Should we let soldiers have long hair, too?”
Since the policy went into effect two months ago, the Army has granted waivers to 62 recruits sporting hand and neck tattoos, Smith said.
Though most soldiers contacted by Army Times said they haven’t seen anyone with the newly allowed tattoos, the debate still rages between whether the service lowered standards to meet recruiting goals and whether the policy appeals to the lifestyle of a new generation.
Sgt. Maj. Oscar Daniel, who is attending Sergeants Major Academy at Fort Bliss, Texas, said he has seen soldiers flare up against new policies in the past — and has seen those policies work.
In 1987, all of the services loosened entrance requirements to allow more soldiers with General Education Degrees — and high Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery scores — to join after complaints that the prior policy excluded people from low-income brackets. The changed policy meant that 7 to 8 percent of new recruits had GEDs.
Daniel dropped out of high school, and then earned his GED when he was 17 specifically to join the Army.
“Now I’m two classes away from my master’s degree,” Daniel said. “You can’t tell me that’s lowering the standards. The Army has to adjust their ideology to fit a new group of people.”
After subsequently tightening the number of non-high-school grads allowed to join, the Army recently loosened those standards again.
At the Sergeants Major Academy, Daniel said the candidates — all E-8 or E-9 — are split pretty much down the middle on the issue of allowing soldiers to have visible tattoos.
“The flack’s going to come from the people who have been in for years and years,” he said. “But there’s a thin line between your personal views and how you let those views influence how you treat a soldier.”
But Daniel, who said he hasn’t seen any neck tattoos at the Sergeants Major Academy, said he would counsel his soldiers to think carefully before permanently inking beret-wearing skulls and other such body art where the whole world can see them 24/7.
“I’m not going to discourage them,” he said, “but I would let them know that later on in life, they need to know what they want to do.”
Some fields, such as law enforcement, might not take a civilian with visible tattoos, he said.
Staff Sgt. Paul Mercier of the 94th Regional Readiness Command got his first tattoo when he and his buddies got drunk at the end of basic training. His permanent memory reads “Hector,” in honor of the mighty Greek warrior of myth.
“Us old dogs, we have them on our arms and chests, so we don’t have a problem with tattoos,” he said. “But sticking out past your Class A’s? It gets rid of the whole look of professionalism. It makes you look like a Zulu warrior or something.”
He said he will counsel soldiers not to get tattoos on their necks or hands.
“The whole look of the military changes,” he said. “And the numbers aren’t that important to me if you’re going to degrade my Army.”
Spc. Christopher Churilla, a chaplain’s assistant at Aberdeen Proving Ground, said the stigma against tattoos may be prejudicial or untrue, but until that stigma changes, people in the military should not have tattoos that show above their uniforms.
“If I had my way, no one would have one,” he said. “I don’t have anything against tattoos, but I think the perception is that you normally see them on those who have been in gangs or those who have been in prison.”
Sgt. Dan Mascio says he has seven tattoos: the initials of four dead friends on his chest, an angel and devil dancing on his shoulder blade, a naked woman with an M16 on his calf, a heart being stuck with a Novocain syringe on his forearm, his girlfriend’s nickname inside his lip, and a serial number on his ankle “which represents my inmate number when I was locked up in maximum security in Florida,” he said.
Mascio, an indirect fire infantryman serving in Iraq, said he would consider getting a tattoo on his neck.
“I would like to wait until I’ve established a strong root on my career before I do so,” he said. “I would do it much sooner, but because it is frowned upon in the professional world, I cannot. Despite my skills or intelligence, the world would no doubt judge me.”
Sgt. 1st Class John Holmes, a National Guard soldier in Salem, N.Y., said he knows exactly why society judges those with tattoos.
“In my mind, having a tattoo is a sign of insecurity,” he said. “It’s a way of saying, ‘Hey! Look at me!’ — like having purple hair.”
Holmes said the new policy lowers Army standards because soldiers should be clean-cut and professional.
“It’s not that we want to be a bunch of cookie-cutter drones,” he said. “But theoretically, standing in formation, there should be nothing that makes you stand apart other than your rank and your accomplishments.”
But even those who disagree with the new policy said they would treat soldiers with visible tattoos the same as they would treat any soldier.
“Personally, I look for how someone performs,” Holmes said. “I would give that soldier every opportunity.”
Sgt. Maj. Daniel said all levels of leadership are going to have to get used to the idea of visible tattoos.
“We have to get over it because the Army is allowing it,” he said. “I spent a year in Iraq, and I couldn’t care less before a raid whether a soldier has a visible tattoo — as long as they’re willing to follow me into combat.”