New Upcoming Army Regulations on Appearance, i.e. Tattoos, Piercings and Make up

These are just some of the possible new regulations the Army is thinking about:
• Soldiers must be clean shaven on and off duty, even during leave.
• Women’s fingernail length will not exceed a quarter of an inch. No fake nails, add-ons or extensions will be authorized.
• Tattoos will not be visible above the neck line when the physical fitness uniform is worn. Tattoos will not extend below the wrist line and not be visible on the hands. Sleeve tattoos will be prohibited. (This rule may be grandfathered.)
• No visible body piercings will be allowed on or off duty. Males will not be allowed to wear earrings at any time. Ear gauging will be unauthorized.
• Civilian clothes standards, both on and off post, will be better defined.
I personally think these changes are going a little too far. It feels like the leadership in the Army wants everyone to go back to the "Clean cut, Red blooded American" of the 1940's and 1950's. This is not the American generation that is currently serving. One the number of tattooed soldiers as definitely increased in the last decade. And tattoos have a long history/tradition amongst soldiers/warriors in almost every culture. Now I can understand the ear gauging, but if it can't be seen in the Service, Mess, or Dress uniform, then why does it matter? I can't see how it affects leadership skill or ability to perform in combat. And then to put the icing on the cake, they want to add stricter regulations on the clothes that I am aloud to wear off duty and on leave! Its time for the Army's leadership to wake up and look at the grunts out on the frontlines putting their lifes on the line (all are volunteers) and look how many actually look like Forrest Gump or Gomer Pyle. They have become too out of touch with the youth of America and this can only mean that good, patriotic Americans will be turned away from service just because of a little individual expression.

I don't understand where or why these rules are coming. Has there been a spree of insubordination cases? Has there been a large amount of off-duty soldiers being more asshole than to be expected from a bunch of guys that are trained to kill other people without caring and not getting to see their family / loved ones for months on end?

Here's how I see it: you make choices. Some of those choices cut off other choices, at least for a while. That's just how life works, you simply cannot have everything you want, all at the same time. Want both a military career and full sleeves? Which one is more important. If the sleeves are more important, maybe a military career isn't really all that important to you. If it's the military career that is more important, nothing is stopping you from getting sleeves when you get out.

Don't the Marines (possibly all of the Navy) already have a no visible tattoo/body mod policy?

For the love of god people - it's ear STRETCHING, not gauging. Gauging is how you measure the size of the jewelry in the stretched piercing.

The real issue with these further restrictions on appearance isn't really the problems it presents for soldiers and prospective soldiers, it's the problems it presents the military by turning away solid recruits.

No.

It also matters if those regulations make things better or worse (especially if the thing is something important like the military). "You make choices" is sort of silly, obvious statement, and could be used to cover a wide swath of things. I mean, DODT was about choice too, right? Want a military career? then don't tell people you're gay! It's that simple/dumb!

So, what should be done instead? Where am I wrong? What comes between your dismissive "No." and "...also"? Isn't one of the things that happens when someone joins up that they give up quite a bit of control over their life?

If you want to discuss, discuss. I'm not the sort of person who will cling to an idea in the face of good arguments.

I can think of several reasons that a fighting unit wouldn't want a member with big floppy ear lobes. However, in that case it just makes far more sense to let the service member keep a neutral plug in a stretched lobe.

Yes, but it's a question of balance. The question being, "will these rules result in a worse military or a better military?" If military readiness is unaffected or improved by this change, well, okay--go for it. If it's negatively impacted, though, it's silly to keep the rule. After all, the primary (as in, uppermost in the hierarchy of response, not necessarily the first- or most-used) function of the military is to kill the people it is directed to kill and break the stuff it is directed to break. Uniformity of personnel is supposed to serve that function, not be subject to it.

Wouldn't that interfere with the helmet strap?

Serving your country isn't the time for individual expression.

And no, it's not about being a conformist. It's about maintaining a level of discipline higher than you would anywhere else. And there is a direct correlation between combat readiness and good order and discipline.

I don't know what's going on in the regular Army, but the Marine Corps is currently downsizing. So in other words, you can't get in today over an issue that could have been waivered a few years ago.

The military isn't for everyone, and it's harder to get in than most people think.

From what I had heard, it's that tattooing/body modification is generally found offensive in many predominately-Muslim countries. So these restrictions on tattooing and dress are meant to make our service men and women 'less offensive' to the people of the countries we have a tendency to send them to.

Are any of these rules (except for the sleeve- which I thought was already implemented- it was for the USMC) technically any different than the current regs? I don't think so. I do like that they are going to allow females to put their hair into a pony tail during PT.

The military has dress standards for civilian dependents so it isn't like a 'you made the choice' kind of thing. No shorts with no hem, no do-rags, in Japan we weren't allowed to wear sleeveless shirts...

I could see that. Public image of the military, especially on foreign soil, does matter.

Most Muslim countries would consider the presence of U.S. troops on their soil to be offensive, period. Whether they're tattooed or not doesn't seem to me to be important.

Well, yeah. But the derps in charge are willfully oblivious to that fact. It can't be that these people don't want Democracy (TM) and Freedom (TM), so it must be our tattooed troops that are making them mad! It's like blaming violent crime on video games and heavy metal music, because as a society we're unwilling to address the real issues that lead to violent crime.

Well, there's also the fact that being in a uniform you're expected to be somewhat... uniform...

I like the idea of lots of tattoos on soldiers.

Especially with modern image recognition software (and if the tattoos were thoroughly documented), it could help speed identification in circumstances where a body is too badly mangled and other identification is missing.

It's just conjecture. I'm not in the military and don't know the procedures for such things.

They already document tattoos in your medical records. It's for that reason and also in some instances to make sure you didn't get any new ones. My husband's leg tattoos were grandfathered in because you can see them in his PT gear and they are extensive. They take photos and check along with his NCOER (end of year review?) whatever they call it in the Marines when you go in front of the board.

Like I've said before, I can understand the "no ear stretching rule" and no tattoo above the PT Shirt Neckline. I just don't understand how being clean shaven off duty and on leave is going to affect my performance or discipline, I mean I'm currently deployed to Afghanistan (my second time) and I currently don't shave everyday to no detremental effect on moral, discipline, performance of my duties, or respect shown my superiors.
Also I think the current regulations on tattoos is fine, as long as it can't be seen on the Service uniform its ok. some of my best Officers and NCOs I'm currently serving with have full sleeves. As to the Higher Standards - Yes to a point, Training, Physical Fitness, and Moral Conduct are the higher standards to set but not even more restrictive grooming standards. I get it same hair cut, look sharp, maintain equipment, its all related, but getting a tattoo that can't be seen in the Combat or Service uniform, there should be no problem there. As long as you've gotten the ok from you chain of command there should be no reason to get a tattoo above the wrist line and below the PT shirt collar.
As far as the Civilian dress code, I realize that there has been one but it is going to get even more restrictive. The whole point of leave is to blow off steam and get away from the routine of the Army and they are going to take that much more away. I think the Army is loosing touch with its soldiers. I realized the consciquences of my choice to join the Army, and will continue to follow all orders and regulations. I feel that the Army's current leadership seems to be very anti tattoo and that tattoos especially unseen tattoos in Combat or Service uniform like forearm and sleeves should never have been an issue. And as far as my life off duty and on leave, we are big boys and girls, its not like we are suddenly going to forget we are in the Army the second we stop wearing the uniform for the day or relax our grooming standards on leave. Like my old First Sergeant said I don't care what you look like on leave as long as you come back clean shaven, proper uniform, and ready to hit the ground running when you get back. And that makes sense to me.

All of this, folks.

How is this news?

There is a military group.

Not to put words in anyone's mouth, but I'm pretty sure the idea is "rules should have a reasonable justification" rather than "rules should be supported merely for being rules." My layperson's understanding of this particular situation is that there are already rules in place stricter than you'd find in most other lines of work, and furthermore they've been having trouble getting qualified people regardless of their body mods (this may not be the case, as stated by the guy above).

I guess there could be something to be said in this case for getting people used to following rules for the sake of following rules, but if that's the only consideration why not limit it to stuff that's not permanent and you can exercise control of while you're actually in the military?

Not to beat a dead horse but this isn't already part of your wear and appearance code?

The same goes for the Air Force so it seems to me if it isn't the Army is just manning up to the rest of the force.

If someone wants to grow out their sideburns on leave let them, as long as they come back after with the sideburns within the regs.
The Armys regulations (AR 670-1) has been around for awhile and hasn't changed much for the past decade. The current regulations are fine (sleeve tattoos are still aloud for now), I feel no need to tweek them.