USMC anti-sleeve?

Corps bans tattoo sleeves

Policy changes also affect smaller tattoos
By Kimberly Johnson

Marines will soon be barred from getting large tattoos on their lower
arms and legs, according to a new policy announced Tuesday.

While Marines have long been prohibited from having racist or sexist
tattoos, or ink on their head or neck, new and existing leathernecks
will now be banned from getting large "sleeve" tattoos as of April 1,
according to MarAdmin 198/07.

The new policy also covers smaller tattoos.

"Half-sleeve or quarter-sleeve tattoos that are visible to the eye
when wearing standard PT gear [T-shirt and shorts] are likewise
prohibited," the MarAdmin said.

Sleeves are tattoos that cover a person's arm or leg. Half-sleeves or
quarter-sleeves are defined as a large tattoo or a collection of
smaller ones "that covers, or almost covers, the entire portion of an
arm or leg above or below the elbow or knee."

Marines who already have sleeves will be grandfathered but must
document their art by July 1. Commanders will have to include
photographs of the skin art - along with dimensions, body location and
the date of documentation - in personnel records.

The new policy is aimed at reining in tattooing and holding onto Corps
standards, the top Marine officer said Tuesday.

"Recently, I have become concerned over the growing trend of tattooing
in our Corps," Commandant Gen. James Conway said in a separate
message, AlMar 014/07. "I understand many tattoos are in good taste,
and many represent pride for our Corps or remembrance of fallen
comrades. However, I believe tattoos of an excessive nature do not
represent our traditional values."

Tattoos also have an impact on career progression for leathernecks, he
said.

"Marines must understand that acquiring excessive tattoos may
adversely affect both their retention and assignment to special duty,"
Conway said.

Conway recently spoke out about the need to clarify the service's
tattoo policy, citing complaints that existing mandates are not being
uniformly interpreted among commands.

"We've got to fix that. That's unfair to the Marines," Conway told
Missouri Marines during a town hall meeting in early March. "It's got
to be one policy interpreted one way through the entire Marine Corps."/
copy and paste from http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news...hanges_032007/
aka http://tinyurl.com/235w9h

I find it difficult to believe that a sea service has any restrictions
on tattoos. The Marine Corps paychecks all have Department of the Navy
printed on them and the Navy, ime, never said one word about sailors
and their tattoos. And, iirc, the U.S. Army has eased its restriction
re tattoos.

Hmm. Times change: http://content.hamptonroads.com/stor...648&ran=150185
And then change again: http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?...8&archive=true

The first article offers that the Navy has a 25 percent rule.

The second article states:

But the clarification eliminates the 2003 policy's "25 percent rule,"
which said that no more than 25 percent of any limb or part of the
body that does not show while in uniform, such as the back or torso,
could be tattooed.

Instead, the new rule simply says tattoos may not be visible through
the Navy's summer white uniform.

Earlier this year the Army relaxed its tattoo policies to allow head
and neck art.

But the Navy still forbids tattoos on the head, face, neck or scalp./
copy and paste

Unless the Air Force or Coast Guard is offering free hand tattoos, it
looks like the U.S. Army is the service of choice for those interested
in bodyart. Of course, I'm going to guess that the U.S. Navy would be
the service that would see the least action in your typical IED-
infested zones. Zones which can be extremely hazardous to those
tattooed limbs.

Double hmm! Re missing limbs and corresponding missing bodyart:

A few patients wandered into the makeshift studio to take a look at a
finished arm with a heart tattoo that Mr. Curtain had brought down as
a demonstration model. Mr. O'Brien, the company's "tattoo guy,"
painted the heart - the company's first effort at a tattoo - when some
soldiers began asking whether their missing body art could be
reproduced on their prosthetic limbs. He is currently working on his
first two real tattoos - a Celtic cross for an Army sergeant and the
name "Emmanuelle" for another soldier./copy and paste from
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05131/502644.stm

--
Curt

Curt wrote:
> Corps bans tattoo sleeves
>
> Policy changes also affect smaller tattoos
> By Kimberly Johnson
>
> Marines will soon be barred from getting large tattoos on their lower
> arms and legs, according to a new policy announced Tuesday.
>
> While Marines have long been prohibited from having racist or sexist
> tattoos, or ink on their head or neck, new and existing leathernecks
> will now be banned from getting large "sleeve" tattoos as of April 1,
> according to MarAdmin 198/07.
>
> The new policy also covers smaller tattoos.
>
> "Half-sleeve or quarter-sleeve tattoos that are visible to the eye
> when wearing standard PT gear [T-shirt and shorts] are likewise
> prohibited," the MarAdmin said.
>
> Sleeves are tattoos that cover a person's arm or leg. Half-sleeves or
> quarter-sleeves are defined as a large tattoo or a collection of
> smaller ones "that covers, or almost covers, the entire portion of an
> arm or leg above or below the elbow or knee."
>
> Marines who already have sleeves will be grandfathered but must
> document their art by July 1. Commanders will have to include
> photographs of the skin art - along with dimensions, body location and
> the date of documentation - in personnel records.
>
> The new policy is aimed at reining in tattooing and holding onto Corps
> standards, the top Marine officer said Tuesday.
>
> "Recently, I have become concerned over the growing trend of tattooing
> in our Corps," Commandant Gen. James Conway said in a separate
> message, AlMar 014/07. "I understand many tattoos are in good taste,
> and many represent pride for our Corps or remembrance of fallen
> comrades. However, I believe tattoos of an excessive nature do not
> represent our traditional values."
>
> Tattoos also have an impact on career progression for leathernecks, he
> said.
>
> "Marines must understand that acquiring excessive tattoos may
> adversely affect both their retention and assignment to special duty,"
> Conway said.
>
> Conway recently spoke out about the need to clarify the service's
> tattoo policy, citing complaints that existing mandates are not being
> uniformly interpreted among commands.
>
> "We've got to fix that. That's unfair to the Marines," Conway told
> Missouri Marines during a town hall meeting in early March. "It's got
> to be one policy interpreted one way through the entire Marine Corps."/
> copy and paste from http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news...hanges_032007/
> aka http://tinyurl.com/235w9h
>
> I find it difficult to believe that a sea service has any restrictions
> on tattoos. The Marine Corps paychecks all have Department of the Navy
> printed on them and the Navy, ime, never said one word about sailors
> and their tattoos. And, iirc, the U.S. Army has eased its restriction
> re tattoos.
>
> Hmm. Times change: http://content.hamptonroads.com/stor...648&ran=150185
> And then change again: http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?...8&archive=true
>
> The first article offers that the Navy has a 25 percent rule.
>
> The second article states:
>
> But the clarification eliminates the 2003 policy's "25 percent rule,"
> which said that no more than 25 percent of any limb or part of the
> body that does not show while in uniform, such as the back or torso,
> could be tattooed.
>
> Instead, the new rule simply says tattoos may not be visible through
> the Navy's summer white uniform.
>
> Earlier this year the Army relaxed its tattoo policies to allow head
> and neck art.

is it wise for an all-volunteer service to discriminate like that,
thereby eliminating from their potential candidate pool individuals
whose personal appearance in no way affects their mental or physical
ability to perform the tasks at hand? And will that then drive tatted
young people to enlist in branches of service OTHER than the Marines, or
not enlist at all? How are the Marines gonna like it when the other
servicemen start making fun of them for not having the balls to armor
their warrior spirits with ink?

On May 9, 4:51 pm, willard stiles <garrison...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Curt wrote:
> > Corps bans tattoo sleeves
>
> > Policy changes also affect smaller tattoos
> > By Kimberly Johnson
>
> > Marines will soon be barred from getting large tattoos on their lower
> > arms and legs, according to a new policy announced Tuesday.
>
> > While Marines have long been prohibited from having racist or sexist
> > tattoos, or ink on their head or neck, new and existing leathernecks
> > will now be banned from getting large "sleeve" tattoos as of April 1,
> > according to MarAdmin 198/07.
>
> > The new policy also covers smaller tattoos.
>
> > "Half-sleeve or quarter-sleeve tattoos that are visible to the eye
> > when wearing standard PT gear [T-shirt and shorts] are likewise
> > prohibited," the MarAdmin said.
>
> > Sleeves are tattoos that cover a person's arm or leg. Half-sleeves or
> > quarter-sleeves are defined as a large tattoo or a collection of
> > smaller ones "that covers, or almost covers, the entire portion of an
> > arm or leg above or below the elbow or knee."
>
> > Marines who already have sleeves will be grandfathered but must
> > document their art by July 1. Commanders will have to include
> > photographs of the skin art - along with dimensions, body location and
> > the date of documentation - in personnel records.
>
> > The new policy is aimed at reining in tattooing and holding onto Corps
> > standards, the top Marine officer said Tuesday.
>
> > "Recently, I have become concerned over the growing trend of tattooing
> > in our Corps," Commandant Gen. James Conway said in a separate
> > message, AlMar 014/07. "I understand many tattoos are in good taste,
> > and many represent pride for our Corps or remembrance of fallen
> > comrades. However, I believe tattoos of an excessive nature do not
> > represent our traditional values."
>
> > Tattoos also have an impact on career progression for leathernecks, he
> > said.
>
> > "Marines must understand that acquiring excessive tattoos may
> > adversely affect both their retention and assignment to special duty,"
> > Conway said.
>
> > Conway recently spoke out about the need to clarify the service's
> > tattoo policy, citing complaints that existing mandates are not being
> > uniformly interpreted among commands.
>
> > "We've got to fix that. That's unfair to the Marines," Conway told
> > Missouri Marines during a town hall meeting in early March. "It's got
> > to be one policy interpreted one way through the entire Marine Corps."/
> > copy and paste fromhttp://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/03/marine_tattoo_changes_03...
> > akahttp://tinyurl.com/235w9h
>
> > I find it difficult to believe that a sea service has any restrictions
> > on tattoos. The Marine Corps paychecks all have Department of the Navy
> > printed on them and the Navy, ime, never said one word about sailors
> > and their tattoos. And, iirc, the U.S. Army has eased its restriction
> > re tattoos.
>
> > Hmm. Times change:http://content.hamptonroads.com/stor...648&ran=150185
> > And then change again:http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?...=35968&archive...
>
> > The first article offers that the Navy has a 25 percent rule.
>
> > The second article states:
>
> > But the clarification eliminates the 2003 policy's "25 percent rule,"
> > which said that no more than 25 percent of any limb or part of the
> > body that does not show while in uniform, such as the back or torso,
> > could be tattooed.
>
> > Instead, the new rule simply says tattoos may not be visible through
> > the Navy's summer white uniform.
>
> > Earlier this year the Army relaxed its tattoo policies to allow head
> > and neck art.
>
> is it wise for an all-volunteer service to discriminate like that,
> thereby eliminating from their potential candidate pool individuals
> whose personal appearance in no way affects their mental or physical
> ability to perform the tasks at hand?

You "volunteer" for ANY job you take. Funny, we seem to hear more
about those who can't get a job because of tattoos more than we hear
about companies not being able to find unadorned people.

And yes, if you want to go into special ops, it can afffect your
ability to blend in, so you might not be able to go undercover.

> And will that then drive tatted

Do you mean those covered by lace?

> young people to enlist in branches of service OTHER than the Marines, or
> not enlist at all? How are the Marines gonna like it when the other
> servicemen start making fun of them for not having the balls to armor
> their warrior spirits with ink?-

So Marines without tattoos are pussies?

Please don't enlist. We need fewer idiots in the armed services.

Kavin

And yeah, Mr. hot-cot, 6-week journalism, Navy guy will have
something to say. He's turgid, just waiting.

willard stiles <garrison...@yahoo> wrote:
> Curt wrote:
> > Corps bans tattoo sleeves
-=snip article & urls=-

> > The first article offers that the Navy
> > has a 25 percent rule.
>
> > The second article states:
>
> > But the clarification eliminates the
> > 2003 policy's "25 percent rule,"
> > which said that no more than 25
> > percent of any limb or part of the
> > body that does not show while in
> > uniform, such as the back or torso,
> > could be tattooed.
>
> > Instead, the new rule simply says
> > tattoos may not be visible through
> > the Navy's summer white uniform.
[...]

> is it wise for an all-volunteer service
> to discriminate like that, thereby
> eliminating from their potential candidate
> pool individuals whose personal
> appearance in no way affects their
> mental or physical ability to perform
> the tasks at hand?

Wise? I'm sure more than one enlisted man has said they'd stay in the
service but the petty rules just didn't make it worth the hassle.

> And will that then drive tatted
> young people to enlist in branches
> of service OTHER than the Marines, or
> not enlist at all?

Hey, if they're not *allowed* to enlist then yeah. Not sure it's drive
so much as bar.

> How are the Marines gonna like it
> when the other servicemen start
> making fun of them for not having
> the balls to armor their warrior
> spirits with ink?

Five years in the Navy and never once did anyone spend a moment's time
"making fun" of my not having a tattoo. And that includes a year at an
all-service school.

Ask my biographer (elsewhere in this thread). ;o)

--
Curt

Kavin Taylor wrote:
[...]

> You "volunteer" for ANY job you take.

You'd think so, wouldn't you? You'd be wrong, of course.

[...]

re tatted

> Do you mean those covered by lace?

And that whole context thing just too much for you? No surprise.

[...]

> Please don't enlist. We need fewer
> idiots in the armed services.

Know a lot about enlistees and the armed services?

> Kavin
>
> And yeah, Mr. <snip> Navy guy will have
> something to say. <snip>

Cool.

--
Curt