The new AR-670-1

Didn't see any new threads about this, so I'm going to go ahead and open this can of worms. I just got done reading the new reg, and for me it is about damn time. As a proud Army veteran, I feel this will put the organization back on track. The only thing that bothers me is the tattoo policy. I have a full sleeve on my right arm and with this new regulation I can no longer follow through with my plan to seek a commission to go back in on the other side. Not a big deal really, but this made me curious as to what my fellow veterans and current active duty soldiers think about this new reg. Opinions have been running wild so I figured here (or on Rally Point) I could get some constructive views on the new policy. Have at it and let the shit storm begin.

 

In my opinion, the only real changes are the tattoos.....the others are just clarified. Been in for 15 yrs, and all that stuff was there, just left for interpretation....

 

The clarification was much needed. The tattoo policy is a killer for a lot of Joes. The change I am a little torn between is that infractions are punitive and no longer a counseling statement corrected deficiency.

 

It being punitive isn't a change either. Once a counseling is done, UCMJ is inevitable for failure to follow orders....As a leader you still need to counsel and do corrective training or you are just failing your Joes....

 

I agree, but the problem becomes who defines what is and isn't offensive.

Religious art will be offensive to members of another religion (and ink itself is offensive to many).
Gang-related work may or may not be recognized as such by command staff.
For that matter, some work may have double meanings that the owner is not aware of... and obvious example would be the fact that the swastika is prevalent in Native American and many other art forms that predate WWII by centuries.

But I agree, a bigger deal is made of ink than should be. Our Services need to be professional, and there's no reason they can't be just because someone has some ink. We're not talking the majority of military members are planning to obtain a commission.
For commissioned officers, I can understand a higher standard. It can be hard to demand the respect of the non-comms when some will view ink as a dumb decision.

 

You both make good points. My thing is though that the DA bent over backwards to change standards to conform to religious practices with facial hair and headwear. That, and a shaving profile (which is highly abused) still exists as an option for these Joes to cop out on a basic discipline. How do tattoos affect my ability to lead in any way shape or form? Either commissioned or non-commissioned? I made this point to my CSM and got the usual generic Army response. Would it really kill the DA and CSM Chandler if they would just allow sleeves based on content?

 

The tattoo policy is a joke, and will be damn near unenforcible...unfortunately, we will spend tons of organizational energy and time that we don't have trying to do it.

 

Interested in hearing your reasoning behind this statement. Not sure I agree with you.

 

Comm being more of a "management" position.
In the private sector, they would be the guys wearing button down shirts and ties. Higher ranking non-comm are your leadmen/foremen/project managers.

All of society has different standards for different levels of perceived responsibility and accountability. An eyebrow, nose, or lip piercing, or a facial tattoo will be ignored on a construction worker and even his supervisors. It would be a barrier to promotion back at the office.

All of my ink is covered by long pants and a short sleeved dress shirt. My armbands show on some polos and t-shirts.

 

My point was that I don't agree with the statement about O's having higher standards than NCO's. It should be the same standard for everyone: it's the Army.

In terms of the comparison with the civilian sector, I guess it depends some on the branch of the military as roles and responsibilities vary with each, but you're pretty far off on yout assessment. To make a comparison with the corporate sector, it's the NCO's who are actually more like the "management". I.E., a Company 1SG "manages" the company. The company commander "commands" the company. In that sense, he is more like a CEO in the corporate world.

Trust me on this.

 

Good point about the exceptions for religious practices. Religious people - or those who claim to be religious just for the goodies - can get away with a lot of things in this country.

But I disagree with your point about tattoos. The issue is not about whether or not tattoos affect your ability to lead or perform. The issue is and has always been about uniformity - although the regulation goes around a million issues on the argument. Uniformity is a foundational principle in the military. Visible tattoos disrupt uniformity, thus drawing attention to the individual(s) wearing them.

Personally, I do not have any issues with tattoos. I like them and I think they are an amazing expression of art. But I also understand where the military comes from on these issues.

You are correct about the fact standards should be the same for everybody.

However, it is a fact that officers are held to a much higher standard within the standards themselves. The higher your rank an an officer, the worse the consequences are for violating the same rules. For instance, an officer would be dismissed from command for some of the things that lower enlisted would simply get an article 15. There are no article 15 for officers, or stupid details to make up for bad behavior. Every offense big or minor carries the full extent of the punishment. Lower enlisted can get away with a lot more "counseling statements" and forgiveness in that regard.

Is it fair? No...but that's the price we pay for the given responsibility...

 

-In regards to my MOS: 11B

The tat thing is stupid. Most of your hard combat MOS types are likely to be tatted up. That's the type that you need to win wars. Thats the type of guy you need to recruit and retain. Even if your argument is that we are transitioning to peacetime, you need to retain leadership with actual combat experience because as far as I'm concerned that's critical to accomplishing the mission- "to close with the enemy and destroy him."

 

I'll just leave this here:

http://www.examiner.com/article/bla...s-hair-rule-female-troops-say-racially-biased

 

I see you point and agree. Hands, neck, and face aside, class B dress and summer pt's are the only time you would see anything below the elbow/knee. It isn't hugely degrading to uniformity when you think about the few instances you would see ink. I appreciate what the DA is trying to restore, but when you think in terms of human history, tattoos have been iconic for wear amongst warriors, and that will never die no matter how hard the DA tries to regulate.

Think of all the SOF guys slung down from shoulder to elbow. They'll be the first ones to tell you it is just as you say.

When I viewed the training slides the day before this all became public knowledge, I could almost time it to a watch that this would cause issues. In one hand I am surprised that female soldiers would be so abrasive to change. On the other I am not surprised when I reflect on my interactions with female soldiers, and their tendency to complain, question, and seek exceptions. Is this all of them? No, but the hard nosed females are greatly outweighed by their complaining counter part. This needed to happen as much as the tattoo policy and personally I feel there is no grey area when it comes to hair appearance. Get right or get out. My tats stop me from going back in, so I'll stay right here.