PDA

View Full Version : Soldiers told new rules governing tattoos, grooming standards on the way



Measure Man
09-24-2013, 11:00 PM
.........

Pullinteeth
09-25-2013, 01:34 PM
I thought the Army was already complaining about finding qualified candidates...now they are going to eliminate a huge population for no good reason other than, "us old guys think they aren't cool."

That is partly the reason. They AREN'T hurting for recruits. In fact, they are starting to cut thousands of those already in and as the AF has shown, one way to reduce the # of people you have to axe is to reduce the # you bring in...

MSMUROTC
09-25-2013, 03:52 PM
It's also an excellent way to appear as though you're doing something (upholding standards!) while actually doing absolutely nothing to uphold standards that actually translate directly into one's ability to soldier.

Why not remove everyone who can't pass an APFT or exceeds height / weight? Why not remove anyone who doesn't have a 111111 profile? Why not remove everyone who has a GT score below a certain level? Or has had consistently low NCOER/OER ratings?

Those aren't all necessarily valid reasons to kick someone out / prevent someone from coming in, but they're a hell of a lot more rational than someone's arm tattoos. It's nothing more than the fashion sensibility and morality of 50 year old white southern baptist males. It's silly.

Pullinteeth
09-27-2013, 08:30 PM
Why not remove everyone who can't pass an APFT or exceeds height / weight? Why not remove anyone who doesn't have a 111111 profile? Why not remove everyone who has a GT score below a certain level? Or has had consistently low NCOER/OER ratings?

That would be a quick way to reduce the Army. Kick out everyone with glasses or ANY hearing loss...

Rusty Jones
09-27-2013, 08:35 PM
That would be a quick way to reduce the Army. Kick out everyone with glasses or ANY hearing loss...

Exactly. If you were allowed IN with something, you shouldn't be kicked out BECAUSE of it.

If you want to find bullshit to kick people out for, fine; but at least make it for things that happened DURING their service.

Pullinteeth
09-30-2013, 06:41 PM
Exactly. If you were allowed IN with something, you shouldn't be kicked out BECAUSE of it.

If you want to find bullshit to kick people out for, fine; but at least make it for things that happened DURING their service.

When the AF came out with theirs, the rule was either you get it taken off at your own expense or GTFO.... Saddest part is that with PT gear no longer considered a uniform (for this rule and this rule only), most of the "excessive" tats would now be perfectly fine-for males legs no longer matter and for arms, just keep your sleeves down. Neck and hands would still be an issue but that # would have to be small compared to those with sleeves...

CORNELIUSSEON
11-05-2013, 09:51 PM
In the first place, everyone here is arguing as if this was a new subject. When the war in Iraq came to an end, I said then that the Garrison rule book was being dusted off and everyone needed to get ready. Well, now, the day has arrived, and the Army is now making the return to Garrison life a fact. Everything that has taken place and or is yet to come, is chapter and verse from the Garrison rule book. If you know that you don’t want to adjust your behavior to Garrison standards, then it is time to find a new home. Courtesy Patrols are now in business at Fort Gordon (Where I took Basic Training, 46 Years ago.), Fort Bliss, Foot Hood, Fort Carson, Fort Campbell, and Schofield Barracks, with Schofield Barracks being the place where the return to Garrison Rules is at its fullest.

I see that some of the people who came in since 9-11-01 are screaming the loudest. That is understandable, since they know nothing other than the past 10 years, but those who were in the Army before the Garrison Rules were relaxed to Wartime Rules should know better. This is NOT a time to complain about how mean the Army is treating you or how they are treating you like children. Many of you and your friends brought it on yourself by not changing with the time when given the earliest warnings. Well, if you don’t like how the Army is treating you today, then make it easy on yourselves and leave at your earliest ETS date. Otherwise, the Army will push your out at their pleasure, and the Army will continue to function without you. Oh, yes, if you have families who live on base, or come on base to shop or make use of the recreational facilities, you need to sit them down and bring them up to date because the Army can ban them from the post for behavior reasons, and they can punish you for their behavior as well.

As far as squeezing out people by raising standards, that actually can be done. Until the end of the Korean War, the minimum GT score necessary for intake and re-enlistment was 80. Since then, it has risen and fallen as necessary to achieve required enlistment numbers. There is absolutely nothing to prevent it.

As for Tattoos, they have been banned in the Army for a very long time. It has been only the Navy and Marine Corps that has tolerated Tattoos. The Army has relaxed its Tattoo rule when it needed numbers to make their Enlistment Quotas, but it has never remained relaxed for very long.

TomTom093
11-08-2013, 10:50 PM
One quick note I'd like to make: if we have enough soldiers to do the Courtesy Patrols, we have too many damn soldiers.