Topic: Tattoo Thread - including current policy [MERGED]

[Lumber]

I'm looking for some personal anecdotes.

"Officers and visible tattoos." I'm specifically referring to tattoos that would be visible in short sleeves; so, manily arm tattoos, whether full sleeve or just individual ones on your forearms or triceps. The kind that you would notice RIGHT away.

If you're not an officer with visible tattoos, whats has your opinion of those officers been? Did you immediately judge them (whether positive or negative) when you saw their tattoss? If you are an officer with visible tattoos, what's your experience been? Has is ever negatively affected your careers?

Merci!

[CountDC]

Don't judge people by tattoos as it really isn't an indication of what the person is really like.  Some get them thinking it will make them look cool or tough when it doesn't, others get them simply because they like them and some get ones that have special meaning.  Mine was designed by my wife and she now wants to change it after many years.  Anyone know a good and safe artist in Toronto?

My only thought is when I see the ones that are over the face or what some might deem vulgar is did the person really think of their future when they did that?

[smallzeroman445]

Ok thanks for the info.. I was told the policy’s were just changed in recent weeks.. which would make it after I applied.. it’s ok, before I was told as long as it was small and was not offensive, then it would be ok... but because the policy’s just changed and I hadn’t had my interview yet that it’s not allowed now.. I have a consult on the 23rd for removal.. I got the tatts 10 yrs ago right after the birth of my twin boys.. ( they are the hand prints from child , one behind each ear on my neck)never thought I’d have another chance at joining the army. From the quote ( sent pictures) it’s notnthat much and a small price to pay to join now. Just takes times 6-8 months for treatments to be complete, thats due to wait times between treatmeants. Just a speed bump in the process. That’s if come
Monday I’m told I’m disqualified cuz of them. Not gonna wait to get the process started thanks for the info. The centre wasn’t sure and had to call out to Ottawa to ask about it. Glad I did.

[Lumber]

Don't judge people by tattoos as it really isn't an indication of what the person is really like.  Some get them thinking it will make them look cool or tough when it doesn't, others get them simply because they like them and some get ones that have special meaning.  Mine was designed by my wife and she now wants to change it after many years.  Anyone know a good and safe artist in Toronto?

My only thought is when I see the ones that are over the face or what some might deem vulgar is did the person really think of their future when they did that?

What I'm asking is, has any officers in the CAF ran into "barriers" career goals (whether upward movement or simply desired posting), as the result of having visible tattoos?

[mariomike]

What I'm asking is, has any officers in the CAF ran into "barriers" career goals (whether upward movement or simply desired posting), as the result of having visible tattoos?

If the tattoos were within policy, would the officer actually be told - verbally or in writing - they were the reason?

If not told, how would they ever know?

[Lumber]

If the tattoos were within policy, would the officer actually be told - verbally or in writing - they were the reason?

If not told, how would they ever know?

This is why I was asking for anecdotes. I'm not expecting peer reviewed proof of career interference based on a conservative view of body art.

[mariomike]

I'm not expecting peer reviewed proof of career interference based on a conservative view of body art.

Neither am I.

Because if they were told, even anecdotally, and the tattoos were within official policy, could that lead to this? :

Redress of Grievance – Mega thread [MERGED]





 

[Lumber]

Neither am I.

Because if they were told, even anecdotally, and the tattoos were within official policy, could that lead to this? :

Redress of Grievance – Mega thread [MERGED]

I'm looking for something as simple as a Col telling one of his Maj's to wear long sleeve instead of short sleeve to the meet and greet with the new defence attaché.

I'm looking for someone being told by a friend a friend of a friend that they were passed over for a position because of their tattoos, but because person that was selected was just as qualified, they can't prove it was because of the tattoos.

[Pusser]

Ok thanks for the info.. I was told the policy’s were just changed in recent weeks.. which would make it after I applied.. it’s ok, before I was told as long as it was small and was not offensive, then it would be ok... but because the policy’s just changed and I hadn’t had my interview yet that it’s not allowed now.. I have a consult on the 23rd for removal.. I got the tatts 10 yrs ago right after the birth of my twin boys.. ( they are the hand prints from child , one behind each ear on my neck)never thought I’d have another chance at joining the army. From the quote ( sent pictures) it’s notnthat much and a small price to pay to join now. Just takes times 6-8 months for treatments to be complete, thats due to wait times between treatmeants. Just a speed bump in the process. That’s if come
Monday I’m told I’m disqualified cuz of them. Not gonna wait to get the process started thanks for the info. The centre wasn’t sure and had to call out to Ottawa to ask about it. Glad I did.

The policy isn't that new.  This is what the Dress Manual actually says:

As of September 26th, 2012, members are not to acquire any tattoos that are visible on the head, face or ears.

The policy has been in place for almost six years now and note that it doesn't matter whether the tattoo is deemed offensive or not (that criteria applies to other areas of the body).

[LogOLife]

If you are an officer with visible tattoos, what's your experience been? Has is ever negatively affected your careers?

I've never had an issue with it. I have visible tattoos on both arms. I've never had a negative experience because of it. There are definitely some folks - both officers and non-commissioned - who believe that officers shouldn't have visible tattoos. There are also many who love it and it is a great conversation starter. I know plenty of officers with visible tattoos (everything from small symbols to full sleeves) and have never heard of any of them being given a hard time because of it.

Doesn't mean it won't happen, but I wouldn't worry about it.

[Simian Turner]

I'm looking for some personal anecdotes.

"Officers and visible tattoos." I'm specifically referring to tattoos that would be visible in short sleeves; so, manily arm tattoos, whether full sleeve or just individual ones on your forearms or triceps. The kind that you would notice RIGHT away.

If you're not an officer with visible tattoos, whats has your opinion of those officers been? Did you immediately judge them (whether positive or negative) when you saw their tattoss? If you are an officer with visible tattoos, what's your experience been? Has is ever negatively affected your careers?

Merci!

Here is something to think about from a recent co-worker's experience.  He was nominated to go the National Health Care Leadership Conference in St John's NF in June 2018.  He is looking to retire from the military and is seeking civilian employment. He has many skulls and other rock band-esque forearm tattoos from his rowdier times.  He requested through the chain of command to wear DEU tunic and tie so that when he was meeting with potential civilian health care employers during several breakfast speed-dating opportunities he would look professional with r without his tunic.  The chain of command denied his request and said the dress of the day for military personnel attending the conference was DEU 3B short sleeve and he could always wear a sweater.  So off he went to the conference with his sweater to hide his tattoos while his peers were comfortable in their short sleeves.  I told him he should own his tattoos and not hide them because sooner or later the CEO would find out if they hired him.  If he was being honest with self and them then he should let his conversation/intelligence, resume and experience leave the impression and not his forearms.

[ArmyDoc]

I'm looking for something as simple as a Col telling one of his Maj's to wear long sleeve instead of short sleeve to the meet and greet with the new defence attaché.

I'm looking for someone being told by a friend a friend of a friend that they were passed over for a position because of their tattoos, but because person that was selected was just as qualified, they can't prove it was because of the tattoos.

I am aware of at least one MARS Officer who made it to Capt(N), with two sleeves of tattoos on his arms. He released from the CAF shortly after promotion to 4 ringer, but, likely could have made Cmdre. Conversely, I am aware of another officer with neck tats who was unlikely to make it to GOFO - but, the tats were likely not the sole reason.

[mariomike]

He requested through the chain of command to wear DEU tunic and tie so that when he was meeting with potential civilian health care employers during several breakfast speed-dating opportunities he would look professional with r without his tunic.

I've never had a tattoo, but I worked for a municipal health care employer.

So off he went to the conference with his sweater to hide his tattoos while his peers were comfortable in their short sleeves.

There seems to be an underlying belief that the department will not see a tattoo before a candidate is hired. That they can be hidden under a business suit, long-sleeve shirt or a sweater.

In reality, there is no “hiding” a tattoo from them. In addition to the physical exam, the department will conduct a thorough medical examination. They now require candidates to show up for their oral interview in a short sleeve shirt.

 

[smallzeroman445]

The policy isn't that new.  This is what the Dress Manual actually says:

As of September 26th, 2012, members are not to acquire any tattoos that are visible on the head, face or ears.

The policy has been in place for almost six years now and note that it doesn't matter whether the tattoo is deemed offensive or not (that criteria applies to other areas of the body).

They told the policy was just recently changed ( he said back
Of the neck was fine before )but as of this year sometime it was changed.. I even
Called out to Ottawa for some info and the person I spoke to said it was with in the last few weeks but not all the recruitment centres were updated yet... I don’t no .. seems to me everyone I talk to has a different answer.. I see army with neck tatts all the time .. way bigger then the 2 small hand prints I have.. it is what it is.. until I hear back ( I called but no ones got back to me as of yet) then I won’t make any decisions on what to do
Next..

[Pusser]

They told the policy was just recently changed ( he said back
Of the neck was fine before )but as of this year sometime it was changed.. I even
Called out to Ottawa for some info and the person I spoke to said it was with in the last few weeks but not all the recruitment centres were updated yet... I don’t no .. seems to me everyone I talk to has a different answer.. I see army with neck tatts all the time .. way bigger then the 2 small hand prints I have.. it is what it is.. until I hear back ( I called but no ones got back to me as of yet) then I won’t make any decisions on what to do
Next..

The order I quoted you before came directly from the Canadian Forces Dress Instructions (A-DH-265-000/AG-001), which is a published order from the Chief of the Defence Staff.  There is no room for confusion on this one.  Anyone you see in the CAF today with neck tattoos, theoretically got them before 26 September 2012.  Either that, or their chain of command simply ignored the policy and chose not to enforce it.  The fact that you talked to a number of people who should have known the policy, sadly, does not surprise me.

[LunchMeat]

The order I quoted you before came directly from the Canadian Forces Dress Instructions (A-DH-265-000/AG-001), which is a published order from the Chief of the Defence Staff.  There is no room for confusion on this one.  Anyone you see in the CAF today with neck tattoos, theoretically got them before 26 September 2012.  Either that, or their chain of command simply ignored the policy and chose not to enforce it.  The fact that you talked to a number of people who should have known the policy, sadly, does not surprise me.

They told the policy was just recently changed ( he said back
Of the neck was fine before )but as of this year sometime it was changed.. I even
Called out to Ottawa for some info and the person I spoke to said it was with in the last few weeks but not all the recruitment centres were updated yet... I don’t no .. seems to me everyone I talk to has a different answer.. I see army with neck tatts all the time .. way bigger then the 2 small hand prints I have.. it is what it is.. until I hear back ( I called but no ones got back to me as of yet) then I won’t make any decisions on what to do
Next..

The policy change has nothing to do with Dress Regulations, but rather the CAF Recruiting Handbook which establishes Policy for recruitment.

Those policies are for applicants and processing applications. The change where neck, head, hand tattoos are no longer acceptable for recruitment is alleged to have been added on 18 May 2018 and will apply to any and all applications initiated on or after that date.

Those policies are not dress regulations for serving members and the tattoo regulations found in the CFP265 that permits tattoos with the exception of the face, head still stands. Dress Regulations also do not apply to Applicants as they are not yet serving members.

[Pusser]

The policy change has nothing to do with Dress Regulations, but rather the CAF Recruiting Handbook which establishes Policy for recruitment.

Those policies are for applicants and processing applications. The change where neck, head, hand tattoos are no longer acceptable for recruitment is alleged to have been added on 18 May 2018 and will apply to any and all applications initiated on or after that date.

Those policies are not dress regulations for serving members and the tattoo regulations found in the CFP265 that permits tattoos with the exception of the face, head still stands. Dress Regulations also do not apply to Applicants as they are not yet serving members.

Then there was a major disconnect in our policies.  The Dress Manual may not apply to applicants, but it does apply the moment they become members.  How can we honestly recruit someone who will instantly be in violation of a regulation the moment they sign on the dotted line?

[LunchMeat]

Then there was a major disconnect in our policies.  The Dress Manual may not apply to applicants, but it does apply the moment they become members.  How can we honestly recruit someone who will instantly be in violation of a regulation the moment they sign on the dotted line?

But, the applicants wouldn't be in violation because the new recruiting policy is barring people with Neck, hand tattoos, yet they're permitted by the CFP265.

However, it's the face/head tattoos, people weren't being recruited if they had them in the first place. Exceptions were being made for small tattoos (like behind the ears) and the justification was that if a member is suitable for service, why bar them for placement of tattoos, and were waiving it.

Hell, I see a few guys walking around with tattoos right up to the bottom of their chin.

[Journeyman]

What I'm asking is, has any officers in the CAF ran into "barriers" career goals (whether upward movement or simply desired posting), as the result of having visible tattoos?

OK, OK..... yes, I have tattoos.... and I have not (yet) been promoted to General -- obviously  because of the ink.  Thanks for rubbing salt in that wound.   

[TrunkMonkey315]

But, the applicants wouldn't be in violation because the new recruiting policy is barring people with Neck, hand tattoos, yet they're permitted by the CFP265.

Is it? or is it because of placement of what they actually have tattooed? I rejoined last year and have hand tattoos, including knuckles, and no issues getting back in.

EDIT: Missed the part where you mention the recruiting policy change this year. That's a shame if true.