Marines limit tatoos

[TexasTiger 13,559]

Marines ban big, garish tattoos

By THOMAS WATKINS, Associated Press Writer Wed Mar 28, 7:39 PM ET

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."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070328/ap_on_...es_tattoo_ban_5

[saniflush 0]

As a jarhead and someone who has a tat I like the policy. I usually looked around at some of my brothers in arms and just had to laugh at the tats they were getting. I am all about freedom of choice but I also believe that looking sharp goes further than just having creases in your trousers and blouse that can cut butter.

[CCTAU 3,369]

Too many folks forget that the military is an employer. If my employer did not like the way I presented myself, they would let me know. And they already have a dress and grooming policy in place. This is not a military problem at all , it's a society problem. Every kid thinks they need a tattoo these days. Used to be that if you got a tat in the military, it meant something. I can respect that. But today, folks are getting crap that has nothing to do with their unit or friends. My son has 2 tats, neither one means ****. They are just some damn design he thought was cool.

[AUJarhead 70]

Agree with sani.

I held off from getting one in the Marines, but I did get my fraternity letters on my ankle in college.

[Captain Liger 0]

I agree with the Marine Corps policy which is a direct 180 of the new Army policy. It's just more proof that the Marines are more worried about getting quality recruits versus worrying about numbers...unlike the Army. More power to the Marine Corps. Mind you, tattoos don't bother me as I have one myself but it's on my shoulderblade so it's never visible. I see guys during PT that have these outrageous tattoos covering both forearms and, some, even their calf muscles. It's a bit much and doesn't look professional AT ALL.

Good for you, Marine Corps!

[Tiger in Spain 0]

I agree with it. The Navy implemented this last year.

[BamaGrad03 0]

One of my friends just went into the navy and he has tons of tatoos. BUT I think the rule is, as long as it can be covered with the palm of your hand, and isn't offensive, you're ok. And I think the Marines, like TIS said, have a similar rule.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

One of my friends just went into the navy and he has tons of tatoos. BUT I think the rule is, as long as it can be covered with the palm of your hand, and isn't offensive, you're ok. And I think the Marines, like TIS said, have a similar rule.

Yep. They can't be any bigger than the closed fist and can't be visible through any uniform (hard to do when you have to wear whites).

The Navy made this policy retroactive, meaning those already in with scrimshaw down their arms either had to either get it removed or are forced to wear long sleeves and patches to cover them up. Those with ridiculous crap can be administratively separated from the service.

These young thugs can't have gold teeth or any other kind of fancy grill work either. Normal dental work, but no faddish ornamentation.

Good policy in my books.

[channonc 466]

Too many folks forget that the military is an employer. If my employer did not like the way I presented myself, they would let me know. And they already have a dress and grooming policy in place. This is not a military problem at all , it's a society problem. Every kid thinks they need a tattoo these days. Used to be that if you got a tat in the military, it meant something. I can respect that. But today, folks are getting crap that has nothing to do with their unit or friends. My son has 2 tats, neither one means ****. They are just some damn design he thought was cool.

There must be some sort of weird carma going on today, but I agree with CCTAU. WHEW! That was painful.

Seriously, I am ok with dress codes, etc. for the workplace... this includes the armed forces. The Senate has rules about what you can and can't wear if you are going to be on the Senate floor. For example, everyone, including women, have to have a blazer on at all times. Dress codes are a respect issue.