Proposed Revisions to the Army Tattoo Policy

Although tattoos represent a variety of things in a person’s life, they don’t necessarily dictate how well a person is able to perform their job. For the last few months, there has been an ongoing debate about troops in the Army that have tattoos, and as a result their careers have been placed on the line. With this upcoming change, it has been specifically said that troops cannot have tattoos that extend below their knees and above their elbows and ones that reach above their neckline. Sgt. Maj. Raymond Chandler argues that tattoos cannot be racist, extremist, or sexist. If the tattoo violates that then they will have to get it removed (Freedberg). While it is assumed that this is limited to new recruits, it will also be applied to the older troops as well. Although tattoos have been around for a long time, they gained major popularity during World War II. Which was when, many soldiers who were deployed to distant places got tattoos to serve as souvenirs. As time progressed the Army increased their war activity, it led to them needing more troops. The result of that was that they over looked many of their strict policies that were in place (Dallet).Some of the policies they overlooked were criminal background, weight, and not having a high school diploma. I disagree with Chandler’s revisions to the Army grooming policy, because it violates the First Amendment. By focusing on what the First Amendment grants, which is the freedom of speech I feel that the Army will be violating that right. Simply because, it does not justify a specific way that your speech has to be expressed.
Why the Army thinks change is important
With the War on Terror and other war activity that the United States was engaged in there was a shortage of troops....

... middle of paper ...

...he soldiers and their tattoos because the first Amendment gives them freedom to express themselves too. Also I talked about how Sgt. Brinson had to get his tattoo removed that had his daughter’s name on it , he could have fought that and still be able to keep his tattoo. First he could have justified that it was only a name with no meaning behind it other than representing his daughter. Secondly, it was small and even though it was in the wrong place, he could have still kept it because it was small and could be easily covered. I stand firmly to my opposition to the changes in the policy, but I still understand at the same time what Chandler is trying to do. Once again I am looking at how this will affect dozens of families and what they possible outcome is. I feel that tattoos won’t hinder a person from doing their job and that they should be able to stay enlisted.