• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

United States Army tightens rules on hair, tattoos, makeup

  • Thread starter Thread starter MikeL
  • Start date Start date
M

MikeL

Guest
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/04/army-new-tougher-hair-tattoo-makeup-regulations-among-pending-changes-041412w/

Army tightens rules on hair, tattoos, makeup




By Lance M. Bacon - Staff writer
Posted : Saturday Apr 14, 2012 9:41:55 EDT



Senior leaders are putting the final touches on 17 grooming regulation changes that cover everything from tattoos and makeup to cellphones and civilian attire. And soldiers will likely face punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice if they fail to get squared away.

The pending changes include:

• Shorter sideburns.

• Soldiers must be clean shaven on and off duty, even during leave.

• Women will be allowed to put hair into ponytails during physical training.

• Men will be prohibited from wearing cosmetics, to include nail polish.

• Women may wear cosmetics “conservatively.” That means no unnatural or exaggerated appearance, and no more fake eyelashes. Nail polish will only be worn in service, mess or dress uniforms.

• 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.)

• Soldiers will not eat, drink, smoke, or talk on cellphones while walking.

• Army Combat Uniforms will not be commercially pressed; only hand ironing will be authorized.

• Bags worn over the shoulder must be black or the color print of the uniform, without logos.

• Hair grooming standards will become more restrictive and better defined.

• 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.

• No dental ornamentation or gold teeth will be authorized.

• Soldiers will be authorized to wear authorized ballistic eyewear in garrison.

• Officers will be authorized to wear nonsubdued rank on their headgear in garrison.

• Men will be authorized to carry a black umbrella with the Army Service Uniform.

The pending changes are part of a comprehensive review of Army Regulation 670-1 led by Sergeant Major of the Army Raymond Chandler. While some soldiers have voiced opposition to such changes, Chandler has reiterated that his goal is to project a uniform and professional Army.

“You chose to join the Army,” Chandler said. “The Army didn’t choose to join you.”

Final tweaking will take place later this month when Chandler meets with his board of directors, which is composed of key command sergeants major. Final approval must come from Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno and Secretary John McHugh.

The chief is aware of all proposals, and his questions and comments thus far have focused on the issue of enforcement, Chandler said.

The new rules are neither a part of drawdown nor a tool of attrition, the sergeant major said. Instead, this is a concerted effort to project professionalism in the Army uniform and brand, and give soldiers the tools they need to educate troops and enforce the standards.

Administration and legal experts are scouring the list for legality and context. Chandler said changes must be feasible, affordable and reasonable. Some changes are not clear, as leaders have yet to determine whether a new rule is needed, or regulations can instead be better defined.

Sideburns are one example. Some soldiers have “pushed the envelope” with pointy tips and mutton chops that would make Elvis envious. Leaders responded with a new regulation that would not allow sideburns to extend below the spot where your ear connects with your head. Chandler wants to know whether that extreme is necessary, or whether clarity and stronger enforcement of the current regulation could solve the problem.

Other changes are easier to define. Chandler gave an example of a senior sergeant major who dyed her eyebrows blond. She was black, and this was clearly not her natural hair color. Another soldier tried to convince the SMA that her purple hair was actually auburn — a natural color — and therefore acceptable.

This much is certain: The Army will demand greater education and enforcement of the rules, new and old.

Tattoos in the spotlight

Rules regarding civilian attire are also under scrutiny. New regulations could follow the Marine Corps’ example and put defined rules on what you can — and must — wear when off duty. Or the Army could frame this matter as professional development, and thus convey an expectation of how a soldier should look.

But you can expect, at the least, tighter restrictions on what you wear on post.

“Bathing suits and midriffs are not OK in the post exchange and commissary,” Chandler told a gathering of 600-plus soldiers at Fort Jackson, S.C., earlier this year. “I don’t want to see all that.”

He has been equally vocal on the issue of tattoos, especially those above the neck line or containing vulgarities.

“The appearance of tattoos detracts from a uniformed service,” Chandler told the Fort Jackson soldiers. “The uniformed services, we all generally look the same. Now, if you have a tattoo that draws attention to yourself, you have to ask the question, are you a person who is committed to the Army? Because the Army says you are part of the same organization. We all generally look the same. And we do not want you to stand out from the rest of the Army. Yes, we want you to set yourself apart and do great things and so on, but that does not mean tattooing yourself or doing other extreme things that draw attention to you, the individual. You are part of something larger.”

Chandler listed a number of examples of inappropriate tattoos he has seen in the past nine months. Every one was on a noncommissioned officer who was inked while on active duty.

While waivers allowed some people to enter with tattoos of this nature, soldiers have never been allowed to get them while on active duty.

Even worse in Chandler’s eyes is the fact that none of the soldiers he used as examples were counseled for their error.

Chandler, and many other senior leaders, said these tattoos should be removed if the soldier wants to remain on active duty.

Whether the leaders have a legal leg to stand on remains to be seen. But soldiers with these tattoos could face punitive action if a new policy is not grandfathered.

edited for clarity in thread title
 
"Shorter sideburns"? I do not recall sideburns ever being a problem for them...

All I can think of is this now... http://youtu.be/Lzpk5dMhVE4

We must pick and choose out battles, hopefully we do not follow suit to that extreme and swirl that toilet bowl (though we could use some clarification on say, WALKING AROUND WITH A CELL PHONE STRAPPED TO YOUR HEAD!).
 
“The appearance of tattoos detracts from a uniformed service,” Chandler told the Fort Jackson soldiers. “The uniformed services, we all generally look the same. Now, if you have a tattoo that draws attention to yourself, you have to ask the question, are you a person who is committed to the Army? Because the Army says you are part of the same organization. We all generally look the same. And we do not want you to stand out from the rest of the Army. Yes, we want you to set yourself apart and do great things and so on, but that does not mean tattooing yourself or doing other extreme things that draw attention to you, the individual. You are part of something larger.”

I don't disagree with the overall intent, and some of the regs listed make perfect sense.

But...

The explanation comes across as questionable.

How far do we go to achieve uniformity. Do army personnel now need to undergo tanning or skin bleaching to achieve the ideal skin tone? Does everyone need to dye their hair to achieve an ideal hair color? Will personnel of a shorter stature be forced to undergo growth hormone treatments until they reach a uniform height?

Yes, there is a need for uniformity, but humans are not uniform.

And how does having a tattoo relate to your level of commitment?

This is what came to mind when I read the statement:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZEJ4OJTgg8

;D
 
cupper said:
I don't disagree with the overall intent, and some of the regs listed make perfect sense.

But...

The explanation comes across as questionable.

How far do we go to achieve uniformity. Do army personnel now need to undergo tanning or skin bleaching to achieve the ideal skin tone? Does everyone need to dye their hair to achieve an ideal hair color? Will personnel of a shorter stature be forced to undergo growth hormone treatments until they reach a uniform height?

Yes, there is a need for uniformity, but humans are not uniform.

And how does having a tattoo relate to your level of commitment?

...

All of those things in yellow are naturally occurring. Natural hair colour etc are not an issue. Purple hair certainly is.

Wearing 4 inch heals and a mini skirt in a war zone? What friggin' woman in her right mind even thinks to pack such shit into her kit (yet, it has been done).

Tattoos are also not an issue, but where they are and what they are is. They are not "naturally occurring".

The issue is one of "being professional" whilst carrying out something you've committed to do. IE: Being professional. All of his examples of the unprofessional tattoos occurred while those pers were on active duty --- there's "committed" for you.  ::)
 
Man am I ever sick of the tattoo debate.

Im more competent at my job then alot of my uninked counterparts. People need to get over it- I dont particularly care what their tastes are. I wear my uniform and follow the standard, work hard, and produce- whether you like what my body looks like under my uniform is your own issue.

And Ill fight it on all fronts!
 
Container said:
whether you like what my body looks like under my uniform is your own issue.

There is an image we didn't need. >:D
 
Container said:
Man am I ever sick of the tattoo debate.

Im more competent at my job then alot of my uninked counterparts. People need to get over it- I dont particularly care what their tastes are. I wear my uniform and follow the standard, work hard, and produce- whether you like what my body looks like under my uniform is your own issue.

And Ill fight it on all fronts!

He didn't say that tattoos made for "unprofessionals". He said that inappropriate and vulgar tattoos in visible spots were not on. Especially when one obtains those inappropriate tattoos while already on active duty (ie: when NOT following the in-place regulations pertaining to non-obscene, location etc).

Not the same case as yourself as you've indicated that you DO follow the policy. Totally different chicken than the egg these new rules are addressing. Therefore, you need to get over the thought that this guy is speaking to or about people like you and "all people, all tattoos, all the time."
 
This reminds me of diversity training a bunch of years ago.  If the CF wants diversity, they will get it, and all its unwanted parts.

I think that most of these regulations are quite reasonable, and some of them are quite comical.  Nail polish for males?  Tee hee hee.
 
Requiring soldiers to be clean shaven while off duty and on leave is ridiculous.  Other than that I agree with the other mandates.
 
GnyHwy said:
This reminds me of diversity training a bunch of years ago.  If the CF wants diversity, they will get it, and all its unwanted parts.

I think that most of these regulations are quite reasonable, and some of them are quite comical.  Nail polish for males?  Tee hee hee.

Diversity is fine. Within the regulations. Diversifying yourself AFTER enrollment in a manner contradictory to regulations is not fine. The CF already has most of these proposed changes for the US Army in place. Nothing new to us here.

And, I do not know what's up these days, but eyeliner and nail polish on guys seems to be becoming pretty popular. Although, the eyeliner and nail polish I'm seeing on men has been black colour in all cases.
 
RCDcpl said:
Requiring soldiers to be clean shaven while off duty and on leave is ridiculous.  Other than that I agree with the other mandates.

We have that policy in Gagetown.
 
Snaketnk said:
We have that policy in Gagetown.

Most bases actually have that in place for anyone on leave who wants to report in to the Orderly Room or Clothing etc during their leave to conduct 'business'. Must be clean shaven, even while on leave if you are going to come in to work to obtain service(s), eat at the mess hall etc.

I'm not sure Gagetown enforces such a policy for pers who are not coming onto base for any services (or attend the mess hall) during their leave periods; if they do, that's certainly changed very recently.
 
ArmyVern said:
And, I do not know what's up these days, but eyeliner and nail polish on guys seems to be becoming pretty popular. Although, the eyeliner and nail polish I'm seeing on men has been black colour in all cases.

Tee hee hee.  Unless you're the Crow, I am not impressed.  Tee hee hee once again.

I'm sorry, this one has me giggling uncontrollably.
 
We've been warned that going to the canex unshaven/unkempt/not properly dressed is grounds for a charge. I'm not sure where else my CoC would see me on a weekend/on leave. I can't remember the wording of the policy as it was passed on verbally, but the gist of it is "You must be clean shaven and presentable at all times, regardless of you being on leave or not"

And yes, quite recent. Came down last week or the week before.
 
Snaketnk said:
We've been warned that going to the canex unshaven/unkempt/not properly dressed is grounds for a charge. I'm not sure where else my CoC would see me on a weekend/on leave. I can't remember the wording of the policy as it was passed on verbally, but the gist of it is "You must be clean shaven and presentable at all times, regardless of you being on leave or not"

And yes, quite recent. Came down last week or the week before.

Well, in Canex at Christmas, I did see a guy (presumably a soldier on leave) slouching through Canex there with a scraggle face ... what really burnt my ass though was his ratty, holey t-shirt and the Guitar Hero pajama bottoms he was wearing.  ::)  You can probably place the blame on dirtbags like him for any new rules trying to correct this asshattedness.

I'm against shit like that for anyone - not just the troops.
 
Gizmo 421 said:
Forgive me if I am wrong but isn't this about the American Army.

You are indeed correct Sir. This is on American military in the US Military thread.  Tho, occasionally American policies do indeed bleed north. Some of the stuff in the article I do believe is necessary. Others, not so sure about. But alas, I am not the decision maker for things American military.

(The thought that it is necessary to point out that make-up and jewelry on guys is not on... Well, different times I guess. It has me giggling too.)
 
Teeps74 said:
You are indeed correct Sir. This is on American military in the US Military thread.  Tho, occasionally American policies do indeed bleed north. Some of the stuff in the article I do believe is necessary. Others, not so sure about. But alas, I am not the decision maker for things American military.

(The thought that it is necessary to point out that make-up and jewelry on guys is not on... Well, different times I guess. It has me giggling too.)

In this case, it seems that our already-in-place dress, appearance and tattoo policies are bleeding southwards.
 
Thanks, my apologies for my confusion, obviously too much blood in my caffeine system. Actually I think all of the rules mentioned in the article should be strongly enforced throughout the entire CF. Including the Reserves and the Cadets. [size=8pt]The fact that I will be retired from the CF in approx 30 days has nothing to do with my feelings on these points.[/size]  ;)
 
Back
Top