Military Considers Crackdown On Tattoos, Manicures & Earrings

We don't often think of strict military standards being decided over Facebook. But several weeks ago Sergeant Major Raymond F. Chandler III posted a proposal on his Facebook wall: do the army standards for personal appearance need to be stricter?

Chandler wrote:

Over the next few months, we will be revising AR 670-1. We are especially looking at Chapter 1, which deals with grooming standards. What parts of that chapter do you want to see changed? Give me your thoughts on earrings for females in ACUs, or if French-tipped fingernails should be allowed. What about tattoos? Do visible tattoos in ACUs (neck, hands, etc.) keep us from being professional Soldiers? Thanks again for all who voice their opinions but remember to keep it professional.

Chandler and his fellow military leaders are looking to tighten up the rules, he told the Army Times. "I believe that we can better visualize to the American people and the Army what it means to be an American soldier than we're doing now," he said.

One particular target is tattoos. Command Sgt. Maj. Ronald Riling, of Army Materiel Command, said to the Army Times, "The Army is a profession, and we need to relook [at] the tattoo policy. I don't like tattoos on the neck where they are visible. If they're not visible and they're covered up, I think that's a soldier's prerogative."

Some on Facebook commentators agreed, one writing, "No tattoos above the neck, behind the ear, or on the hands. it looks gang related and trashy. anything that can be covered in a class A uniform should not matter."

But others noted that the tattoo itself is no reflection on the individual, with one comment stating, "I don't think that if you have tattoos it means that you are unprofessional. Its [sic] the individual themselves that make them unprofessional in how they act."

Also up for debate: manicures. While we, style editors with no military background, immediately bristle at the thought of banning manis and pedis, some army women feel differently. Said one to the Army Times:

"We knew what we were sacrificing when we joined. This is the United States Army, and there is no time for 'pretty' here. I am a female NCO and while I embrace my womanhood, the bottom line upfront is that ponytails, French manicures, earrings, etc., will not enhance my ability to train and lead soldiers. In fact I believe it will negatively alter their view of me as a strong leader. Please don't empower me as a female, empower me as an NCO."

Read more about the debate at the Army Times and peruse some of the fascinating comments on Sergeant Major Raymond F. Chandler III's Facebook page.

Comments

[Air Assault SFC]

06:50 PM on 12/04/2011

I have served in the military for over 15 years now. My tattoos do not keep me from accomplishing my mission as a Senior NCO. I am an Army Recruiter now and have used my tattoos as ice breakers when approaching college students. I love the way Army leaders are talking about adopting new tattoo policys that would require soldiers to remove tattoos or be discharged because they are representing the Army. I would think that recent policy changes regarding sexual orientation has already damaged the militaries reputaion. Thats my OPINION!

[Demidan]

09:47 AM on 10/31/2011

Meh, but I know they do ban tattoos that show like the one on the model's finger.

[Wapitibowhunters]

08:37 AM on 10/31/2011

Unless your post is over run by the enemy, I don't see a problem giving women an hour to apply their makeup in the morning.

[DeepThought24]

08:35 AM on 10/31/2011

The military should ban women.

While there's some sarcasm there women don’t belong in combat, submarines and some other places. Just my opinion having been there.

–USMC/USN 1st Marines, I-Corps, Hue City, Vietnam 1967-68

[Demidan]

09:48 AM on 10/31/2011

Amen.

[LBJudy]

05:37 AM on 11/26/2011

I think we should ban men. Women do a better job.

[emberbb]

07:52 AM on 10/31/2011

Personally, I do not like any tats, men or women, as I find the look unclean and ugly. But that's my reaction, and nowadays people are wearing so many in places that I don't understand; again my personal opinion. No earrings is smart and for safety, unless one is off base and off duty. Short manicures and pedicures with clear or no polish is fine and clean looking, too. One has to remember that life in the armed services is very, very different from civilian life, there are rules, and they are there for health and safety reasons. A small sacrifice during your duty; those that can't and won't comply, will be rejected. If one truly wants to be in the service, they accept the rules, no matter how strict or meaningless they may seem; otherwise find another job. Remember, many companies have rules, too. Just be prepared for what others in charge require, otherwise you may be out of work for a very long time, and none of us need that, unless we have a large inheritance. It wasn't that long ago that women were not allowed to wear slacks, let alone jeans, in the professional workplace. After a while, the dress codes were so lax that anything was acceptable as long as you showed up for work. Thank you for your time.

[Guitargirl6382]

07:18 AM on 10/31/2011

Because right now, this is what is important...

[moses123]

06:59 AM on 10/31/2011

any soldier should keep his/her self clean and their uniform cleaned and pressed and boots shoned."unless their in a fox hole fighting for their life."

[moses123]

06:57 AM on 10/31/2011

women should have to cut their hair the same as men. when they join the service they should have to get their hair cut off just like the men do. i know in jail they do it :they say" to get rid of head lice. probabaly a lie but whats good for one is good for the other.

[medic wife]

07:28 AM on 10/31/2011

The DOC does not require inmates to have their heads shaven. I've medically assessed many inmates during intake into the DOC over the past 11 years and never, not once, under any circumstance, have I processed an inmate that was required by the DOC to shave his/her head. Inmates that do happen to come in with lice are treated for lice using medicated shampoo. This rarely happens because they are coming from county lock-up to state lock-up and have had access to facilities to care for personal hygeine, and have had access to medical care.

The length of a man's hair and facial hair are another matter and is strictly inforced by the DOC.

[moses123]

06:52 AM on 10/31/2011

if its good for women its good for men. no earrings and no makeup.tats should be ok as long as it dosnt stop or hinder their job performance. i know what some people will say"have you seen some of these women without makeup" no but all rights should be the same. they are all soldiers.

[medic wife]

07:04 AM on 10/31/2011

Exactly how does make-up prevent or hinder job performance in a way that a tattoo does not?

[Trisha Lynn Dragon]

06:32 AM on 10/31/2011

I get it, tat's are just one more way to identify yourself and thats a bad thing in a job that demands you surrender your individuality. I think it's fair to say you can do whatever you want to your body so long as I can't see it on the job. Especially given that some people get so over the top with finding things to be offended about. MIlitary has just as many whiney little brats as the civilian sector, heck maybe more so since so many peon's will use offenses to get back at you for something or another.

Banning manicures is just stupid. If they want to ban certain styles fine, but hands like feet should be as well cared for as possible. Especially with the shift from ground forces humping through various hostile terrains to tech warfare. I think it's a huge mistake to discount the role of the hands in our fighting forces.

Earrings are stupid in either direction. Hair...whatever. I don't understand how a pony tail makes you less of a leader. That NCO is sort of....stupid. It's a pain, it's a distraction, especially for some women who just quite frankly can't handle dealing with it, but it has no role in leadership unless your whining about it or its getting in the way. In which case you shouldn't need to be TOLD to cut it. Hair standards have their purpose, she doesn't need to invent nonsense.

[eSense]

06:32 AM on 10/31/2011

What about judging a soldier by his/her merit & service to the country instead of appearance? Or is that not as important? Loosen your noose, Big Brother. You should be glad to have any soldiers at all. You can't control EVERY facet of their lives.

[origamib]

06:29 AM on 10/31/2011

I think a policy of having no facial, hand, or neck tattoos is not that restrictive and any tattoos covered by a uniform would be fine.
Not allowing piercings sounds like a valid safety issue rather than a hygene or uniformity issue. Male or female, if your job requires stealth (in semi darkness, say in a combat situation) where a reflective peice of metal or plastic could tip off your team's position, or if working with machinery, or in an area where having an earing or other type of piercing jewelry could cause an injury--it should be taken out.
As to a manicure while on duty--male or female--there should be a standard for length of nails (just like in strict food service kitchens) and a standard 'clear' coat nail polish--no colors that detract from the uniform. It's neat, clean, and professional. I mean, there are standards for hair already, so this really isn't that big a deal, is it?

[John Di Saia]

05:39 PM on 10/30/2011

They already have rules on earrings and tattoos. I have had some patients need their plug holes closed to allow them to join up. Others have been told that their tattoos which do not show in military dress would be OK.

[bellaluna30]

05:37 PM on 10/30/2011

Maybe it's just me, but having grown up on base, I've seen more than my share of military-oriented tattoos (albeit on upper arms, rarely visible below a short-sleeved T-shirt) on service members.

IF the tattoo can be easily covered by the uniform; the piercings are restricted to a single set of tasteful studs on female service members; and the "manicured" nails are sufficiently short (and can be maintained while deployed) they don't interfere with job performance, that should be fine.

JUST LIKE ANY OTHER PROFESSIONAL.

[moses123]

07:06 AM on 10/31/2011

if women can wear studs men should be abl to. you dont have one set of rules for one and another for another groupe. do you know why men are allowed to wear a mustache? ill tell you what i read long ago.military tried to stop the practice but the blacks raised so much hell they were allowed to grow them. and they had to let the whites have the same rights.if women have a right to wear earrings and makeup why shouldn't men?i think it would look stupid on men but whats good for one good for the other.

[TL Macon]

07:47 PM on 10/29/2011

. . . the military is no place for "Individuals." If you want to be an individual then remain a civilian. When you are in that uniform you know exactly what & who you represent. Every person knows exactly what he or she is getting into when you they join it's presented very clear & to the point when you enlist or commissioned. You not on stage for the "Next Top Model" or "American Idol" but to be UNIFORMED within your UNIFORM. There's plenty of time for you to make a fashion statement off duty. I served in the Marines & Air Force, I wouldn't trade nothing for the time I served but when I realized I no longer wanted to conform I knew it was time to go. I left on my terms the same as I have with civilian employment. Honestly, I don't know why we are even talking about should we or shouldn't we on this topic. I currently work for an civilian insurance firm & we aren't allowed to show our Tattoos & we have a dress code as well. You either fall in line with rules or there is consequences. My advice deal with the rules & if it comes to the point you can't anymore Move On.