New tattoo, branding & piercing policy

[SKCM Linda Reid]

All of this stuff just makes me wince!

*************************************

**********FLAG VOICE 252**********
TATTOO, BRANDING, AND PIERCING POLICY


Within the next few days, I will release an ALCOAST detailing significant changes to our current policies regarding tattoos, branding, piercing, and other forms of body art. I ask that senior leaders and command cadre make a special effort to ensure that this Flag Voice is widely disseminated to all levels of the organization. Please post it on the mess deck, reprint it in the plan of the day, or post it on the unit website so that all hands become familiar with its content as quickly as possible.

Our current policy on tattoos, branding, piercing, and other forms of body art has not changed appreciably over the past thirty years. Our standards date back to a time when tattooing was restricted to a very small portion of society, branding was almost unheard of, and piercing was limited to earlobes. Consequently, there was little practical need to spell out, in great detail, the dos and don'ts of body art. Clearly, times have changed. Tattooing has exploded in popularity and now touches all segments of our society. While branding remains far less popular, it is common in some social circles. As for piercing, one only needs to walk through the shopping mall or along the beach to see how much things have changed over the course of the last decade or so. These trends have gradually eased their way into our military workforce. However, given our role as a military service and as a federal law enforcement agency along with our level of daily contact with the general public, we cannot allow ourselves to be guided solely by social trends and fashion. Therefore, the time has come to recalibrate and affirm our standards for tattoos, branding, piercing, and other forms of body art that are consistent with the requirement to maintain a sharp, professional military image to the public we serve.

Our intent is not to draw undue attention to members of our team who already have tattoos or brands. Where appropriate, we have incorporated a grandfathering feature into certain aspects of the new policy that will apply to all current members for the remainder of their careers.

Tattoos:

When evaluating tattoos, we consider three factors - content, location, and quantity. Content is the subject of the tattoo. That is, what does the picture depict. We have long prohibited tattoos that depict racist, indecent, extremist, or lawless themes. This standard remains unchanged in the new policy and will not be grandfathered. Content issues are more common among new accessions vice those personnel already on active duty. For more than thirty years, the head, face, and neck have been off-limits to all forms of body marking. The new policy adds hands, below the wrist bone, to the list of off-limits areas. The intent of this change it to ensure that every member of the Coast Guard can appear in a service dress uniform without any visible tattoos. Again, those who currently have tattoos on their hands will be grandfathered. Quantity is the greatest area of change in the new policy. Each month, our recruiting offices are faced with a growing number of applicants with near 100% coverage on their arms and/or legs. The new policy limits tattooing of exposed arms (between the elbow and wrist bone) and legs (between the knee and ankle bone) to not more than 25% of the area based on a visual approximation. Tattoos that involve complex murals or serpentine designs that dominate a given area shall be regarded as full coverage within the bound area. Any current service member who is at or exceeds the 25% limit is prohibited from adding to the tattooed area.

Branding:

Branding, a far less accepted form of body art, with unique medical concerns, will be far more restricted. No member may have more than one brand anywhere on their body. The brand may not exceed 4 inches in diameter. As with tattoos, brands may not appear on the head, neck, face, or hands.

Piercing:

Our policy regarding body piercing is also changing significantly. No piercings, other than those for earrings as described below, shall be made through the ear, nose, tongue, chin, eyebrow, or any other body part that would be visible while in any uniform. This prohibition applies to male and female members alike and is specifically intended to limit the less than military appearance associated with vacant holes in the face and other exposed areas of the body. Other piercings concealed by the uniform such as the navel or nipples are strongly discouraged due to the potential for infection and medical complications. Under no circumstance shall such concealed piercings and accompanying jewelry be visible through, or interfere with, the professional appearance of the member in uniform. Piercings in the ear shall not exceed two per ear lobe and shall be small and inconspicuous. Additional piercings in the ear lobes and cartilage are prohibited. Guidance regarding the wearing of earrings by women while in uniform, can be found in Uniform Regulations, COMDTINST M1020.6 (series). All members are prohibited from wearing forms of facial jewelry (other than earrings for women) while in uniform, on board a military installation, or while attending a command sponsored event. Those personnel with preexisting unauthorized piercings shall discontinue the use of those piercings to allow for eventual healing.


Body Mutilation and Dental Art:

The forthcoming policy will also address, to a lesser extent, body mutilation and dental art. Both of these forms of body art are prohibited and will not be grandfathered.

Questions and Answers:

Here are a few questions I thought might arise followed by associated answers. How will we measure 25%? How will we go about grandfathering those members who currently have excessive tattooing? What will happen if a future CO challenges the tattooing? Will documenting my tattoos prevent me for being considered from certain assignments? Let me take these one at a time. First, let me make one point very clear, we are not going to conduct "tattoo inspections". As stated earlier, we are not interested in drawing undo attention to those members who have tattoos and/or brands. The 25% rule will be based on a visual approximation. Those personnel who currently have tattoos that meet or exceed the 25% rule (arms-elbow to wrist and legs-knee to ankle) will have their status documented in a standardized Administrative Remark (included in the instruction). New accessions with a borderline, but approved, amount of tattoos will have their case documented by the Recruiting Command to avoid the need for them to justify their approved status at their first unit. Once a questionable tattoo is approved and documented, it shall remain so throughout a member's Coast Guard career. Reevaluation by future commands is not required nor desired. As for assignment impacts, there are some jobs in the Coast Guard where excessive tattooing may make a member ineligible. It all depends on the degree of tattooing. These include recruiting duty, company commander duty in Cape May, Gold Badge Command Master Chief positions, and high visibility public/liaison type duty. Other than these exceptions, tattoos/brands are not a factor in the assignment process.

Heavy tattooing found its way into our organization over time. It will take time to ease our way back to a more desirable state. For those personnel seeking to join our ranks in the coming months, this is going to be a big change and may result in some applicants being turned away. This is unavoidable. For those members already a part of team Coast Guard, this will have very little impact on our current workforce.

The forthcoming ALCOAST and instruction will provide greater detail. For those contemplating a tattoo or piercing in the near future, please fully considered the new policy before acting. My point of contact is CWO Joanne Stevens. She can be reached at (202) 267-2239 by phone or jmstevens@comdt.uscg.mil by e-mail.

Kenneth T. Venuto
Rear Admiral
Assistant Commandant for Human Resources

[MKC Tony Balcer]

Was this a FYI or are we going to debate this?
Because I don't like it, not one bit.
What does having tattoos have to do with me being able to do my job? Would you not want me to be a goldbadge because I had tattoos? If you say yes, then shame on you. You just sold me short and you just judged me based on the color of my skin. I agree with the offencive or race issues. No problem there. This is not the place for burning crosses or naked murmaids.
I do have a problem with the %. So what it's going to say is that because I have my elbow to wrist 98% covered, I can't do the other 2%. Little silly don't you think? Or try this. Picture 4 equal quadrants on your fore arm. Now picture one colored completely black. What difference does it make if you had one or three? None. Here is the other thing. Are we really turning people away from bootcamp based on this? Now wait a min... You have a qualified person, wants to join the CG and we are going to turn them away because they have a 26% of one arm or leg tattooed. That does not make any sense at all!
Look, I understand the CG is high profile. And we do serve our public. But I think there are adults out there. This just seems a little high school to me. Seems like we would be more concerned about keeping people in than out.

I guess I'm going to have to be one of the grandfathers out there as I have about 98% coverage from my elbow to back of my hand. (below wrist bone by 2") and about 25% of my body done. Afterall, I'm a sailor.
You can ask my guys down in the hole, I'm the one you want on your side when the chips are down. So I don't like being disqualified from CMC or goldbadge based on the color of my skin. That pisses me off! And I find it extremely narrow minded.
I don't have any brands, but I don't have a problem with them. If they get infected, it's the same as a tattoo or piercing. That's your ass. But if I want to put a railroad spike through my eyebrow when I'm not on duty or base for that matter. What difference does it make?
MKC Tony Balcer
abalcer@cgctahoma.uscg.mil

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

based on the color of my skin.

Way to turn a phrase Tony.
Yes, instead of following society trends, it appears that someone is trying to impart their own moral views on the rest of us. Regardless of your personal views on tatoos, I've never personally heard of anyone in the water throwing a lifering back because the person who throw it to them had too many visible tatoos. When are we going to start barring enlistment for people who are just plain ugly? We can tell them that they just don't measure up to society's image of what a service member should be.

[DCCS Todd Holcomb]

..... if the CG starts banning ugly people, will people like me be grandfathered and can I be a CMC or will "UGLY' disqualify me.................

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

You're already in, so they'll let you stay. You'll just be in a back office or down in a basement out of the public view somewhere.

[DCCS Todd Holcomb]

You're already in, so they'll let you stay. You'll just be in a back office or down in a basement out of the public view somewhere.
Like the Hunchback of Notre Dame, or better yet Like the "Gimp" from Pulp Fiction. The command can say "bring out the CMC", and I'll be escorted out but my my ugliness will have to be shrouded as not to offend any pretty people.

I know I certainly wouldn't care if the person saving my life had tattoos from head to toe, probably wouldn't notice until it was over, and then still wouldn't care.

The whole granfathered thing is what gets me, some people can have them but some can't.......... What if the BM1, MKC, or newely minted Seaman has them all over but has no aspirations to do anything other than his job. No CMC, no OinC or anyother high profile job, just wants to be part of the finest seagoing service in the world. It's OK for people already in but if you're trying to get in your outta luck. I don't think it has anything to do with that persons ability to perform a job. I say let 'em in and they can hang out with me in the basement. :D

Todd

[MSTCS Tom Gentile]

I'm going to play devil's advocate for a moment.
It kills me how the members of the board can take any topic and adapt it to their point of view. An example;

"Yes, instead of following society trends, it appears that someone is trying to impart their own moral views on the rest of us. Regardless of your personal views on tatoos, I've never personally heard of anyone in the water throwing a lifering back because the person who throw it to them had too many visible tatoos."
I agree with the statement but, I get from this that we should follow society trends, So we should just roll with the piercings, branding and excessive body art. Well, using that line of reasoning, how about gays in the military, society is much more accepting of gays, so should the military as well? It appears not by how folks throw around the term "thats gay" on this discussion board (in jest I know). Correct me if I'm reading this wrong. It just seems that we take this stuff and make it what we want.

As for the throwing back the life ring, your right, but I think thats why they mention certain high profile positions such as Gold Badge and such and not the people who are where the rubber hits the road. I think its wrong to judge people by markings on their skin, but you can't tell me that Senators or Congressmen wouldn't be judgemental if the Master Chief of the Guard showed up to Capital Hill to testify with tattoos covering their body and that he wouldn't lose credibility. Again, I don't agree with it, but it is reality and I think the organization needs to give guidance so the playing field is even regardless of where a kid gets recruited. I'm off my soap box, and ready to take cover, feel free to open fire.

[MKC Tony Balcer]

MSTCS G.

First of all. Hi, how are things up in Portland? Tell MS. G I said hi also. You guys tortured the hell out of me at the CCTI in JAN. Anyway.

I don’t like to make arguments just for arguments sake. That was the motto at my CCTI, “Part time leaders are as ineffective as full time advocates.”

This is something that I feel strongly about and can’t help but feel that the CG is making a huge mistake. As to your comment about gays, well I guess you can let them in. As long as they don’t have 26% of an arm tattooed! What the hell was that all about!??

I’ve worked in M for a time and was in one of those high profile jobs you are talking about. Never had a problem. Even our COPT once told me, “If someone judged you by your appearance they would be missing the boat MK2.” That meant a lot to me, because I took my job very seriously. MSTCM Lewack and Mr. Petrick can vouch for that. The people that I dealt with in industry may have been a little stand-offish at first, but once they saw how professional I was and that I knew what I was talking about, they had nothing but respect for me. I think that there is no way my senator or congressman would loose respect for me because of my tattoos. I would approach the issues in a clear and professional manner and the color of my skin would have nothing to do with it. I know they are politicians, but at least they are adults.

BMCS S.

I wasn’t trying to “turn a phrase”. I just wanted to make a point about how shallow and narrow minded this seems to me. I agree with you, it’s someone pushing their moral views on us. I’ve seen that before from Yost, nothing good can come of this. What are we trying to do build a master race?

I do hope that someday I have the opportunity to be a CMC or Gold badge. I think I would have a lot to offer. I came from a rocky beginning in this life and in this org. I have also grown to love this org and will stay in until they make me go home. One thing is for sure, I’m no yes man. I always speak my mind. I’m still learning how to do that tactfully. It’s a process. By the time I finish the CPOA and make MKCS I’m sure I will have learned a lot. But I will always stand by my guns, to the death.

Thanks to all of you for letting me put my opinion out there. I’ll be in the basement with Todd.

MKC Tony Balcer
abalcer@cgctahoma.uscg.mil

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

First of all you guys need to come back out of the basement, we need people who aren't afraid to share their opinions out here in the light.
Tom, I don't think that society has accepted Gays. I think that TV is telling us that it has. Homosexual conduct is a violation of the UCMJ. We as a service have already given in too much on the body piercing issue. But tatoos have been part of sea longing life for hundreds of years. I understand the need to limit the type and location of tatoos.......but the amount? And if we're going to start allowing society to dictate our policies why did I have to shave my head when I came in. We were fine adhering to the established policies and following the UCMJ, we don't need to add to it.
We don't have to agree with or even like someone's decision to mark up their body, but as long as it still conforms with the Core Values, it should still be their decision.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we having a retention problem already ?
Is further limiting a service member's personal choices going to help or hinder that ?

[PAC Darrell Wilson (Ret)]

Another great response Senior Chief Slesh. This policy is just one more fine example of why I am retiring. I cant make it any plainer than that. The Coast Guard is going to judge me by my skin now. This is a big neon sign saying TIME TO LEAVE!

[MKC Tony Balcer]

Man do I hate it when people say that shit. Well.... bye! Don't let the door hit you in the ass! I'm going to stick around and try to make a difference, like the Chiefs that came before me.

BMCS S.
I agree with you. But can you expound on body piercings?
Tony

[DCCS Todd Holcomb]

Senior thank you, hello world here I am in all my ugliness.

Sure there are jobs that will need to have someone in them that don't have studs through their lips and snake skin tatooed all over their face, but if we have that member out there and they can kick ass at his/her(PC) job, what's to say it won't hold true for the person wanting to come in. They just need to sign, along with everything else they sign, something stating they understand their body art will disqualify them from high profile certain jobs, IE CMC, MCPOCG.

I know times change and so does Comdt policy, I have some known some damn fine sailors from all rates who off work you probably wouldn't recognize if you didn't already know them.

I will support these policies but I don't have to like them or even believe in them. As senoir said................Retention problem already? WHO, US? NO....

[PACS Steve Carleton]

Now when I am doing the PA candidate interviews, I need to look to see if they have too many tattoos prior to making a recommendation for them to go to A-School.

I do not have a problem with people with tattoos, even thought seriously about getting more recently.

Do I think that they detract from a person's ability to do their job, No! But do I think that in some circles, it is a distraction, Yes!

I have seen some PA's in recent years that have had some really nice work on their arms, all within the new policy, but if this person were conducting a television interview, it would be a distraction, look unprofessional and send a not so positive message to viewers.


I think that if you want tattoos, go ahead ad get them, but think about the ramifications if you choose to test the policies.

[ETCS Robert Kelley]

I must lead a sheltered life... is "branding" what it sounds like? Do people actually take a hot iron and burn a "brand" into the skin by choice? :eek:

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Tony, we used to have a very simple policy on piercings. Women only and no more than two per LOBE. The more that we have allowed, the more people have taken. I don't know how many times I seen some GUY in uniform with a tongue ring or a fishing lure dangling from his ear. The more that we have allowed with "not while in uniform", "not while on base", the more "Oh, I forgot" has crept into some people's vocabulary.
Back when body piercing was still "strictly" forbidden, there was a mishap about a guy playing volleyball who jumped up and had his nipple ring catch on the net. Another "Loss of situation awareness" with no mention of why no one at a command sponsored CG event, hadn't told the guy to remove his unauthorized jewelry. We have already given in too much. Too many people out there aren't willing to enforce the standards that we had. If we keep making concessions, soon there will be no standard left to enforce.
This new porposal reeks of someone who has a problem with tatoos and brandings, but would rather look the other way on piercings. Kinda like a don't ask, don't tell, jewelry policy.
And on the subject of branding ? I know I travel in small circles, but the only brandings I have every seen in my service career were from ex-gangbangers.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

I've seen a couple of brandings. For the people that I know that have brandings it was more of a cultural thing.

[MKC Pat Lefebvre]

Good day all! between the revised physical fitness/weight program, ULDP, IDLP and this tatoo policy, looks to me that the future CG will be thin, smart, boring clones..........It seems to me that the powers that be should spend more time worring about real issues (rescue 21, the deep shit project ETC...)than all this trivial BS. I'm going to find a WWII vet to talk to about the new CG and it's ultra PC liberal go hug a tree and a shipmate feel good crap. :mad:
BT
NNNN

[MKC Tony Balcer]

Senior:

I agree with you. But I also think the answer was within your last statement. The problem is that we are not enforcing the standard. If the instruction says you can’t wear them at a CG function or on base. Then that should be enforced. I have told people on board to take their tongue stud out. And I also told them that if I saw it again they would get a P7, and if I saw it again after that they would be standing on the carpet. Now, maybe I’m just a dick but what is good for me is also good for them. I have my ears pierced and I always make sure to take them out before I go to the ship or any CG function. I have been on libo on my motorcycle and decided to go to the PX on base. So I would have to pull over before I got to the base and take my earings out. To me it’s not that big of a deal, but if I did “forget” I would expect the MPA to be wearing my ass for a hat!

It’s all about accountability. And from what you are saying we have lost some of that. I’ll say this, I’m doing my part and I encourage people to take an active roll in leadership. Even if it means pissing some people off.

Tony

Pat:
Don't if just make you want to kick someone in the junk?

[PAC Darrell Wilson (Ret)]

Tony, sorry I hit a nerve, get thicker skin if your going to stay in much longer. Dont worry none, I wont let the door hit me in the ass, it'll be wide open when I walk thru. And if you think your going to be able to make changes like the chiefs of old, then my advice would be for you to lay off the bottle. We're not like the chiefs of old, the Coast Guard doesnt want us like that anymore, they just want coorporate people.

Pat, good post, thanks for the laugh. Those are all things added to my list of what I dont like about the New Coast Guard. I wonder how long it will be before they totally ban CCTI cause it hurt someones feelings.

[MKC Pat Lefebvre]

Tony: short answer is yes, but I'm shure that shortly after whomever got kicked, a complaint would be filled, a new policy would be written by some green ensign and endorsed by some senile admiral, banning all contact between a Chiefs foot, and somebody who desperatly needs it, ass. After that an allcoast will be sent out outlining the new policy for foot usage and negative reinforcement, with some dumb qoute about "from this point fwd, feet are to be used only for walking" It just amazes me the amount of chicken shit that the CG has aquired over the past 18yrs.


Speed safely.......

Pat

[BMC Ken Gouge]

I think they actually DID toughen up some on the piercing issue, and before I get kicked in the junk hear me out.

Check out the part where it states that "Those personnel with preexisting unauthorized piercings shall discontinue the use of those piercings to allow for eventual healing."

They aren't wearing those while in uniform, on base... anyway because they are unauthorized. Therefore the only time I would know if someone is breaking the above rule is if I happen to see them on liberty with their eyebrow stud or nose ring in.

I can't wait to see the first mast on that one... While on liberty, sober, wearing his seat belt, on the way to volunteer at the old folks home, SN Stain was found to be wearing three earings in the same ear. :)

[PAC Darrell Wilson (Ret)]

Ken, sadly I think we are fast approaching that time. Next, they'll tell us how to dress while at home on the weekend.

[MKC Tony Balcer]

Darrell:

How right you are. But, I'm still going to fight the good fight. Bottle in one hand, shotgun in the other! I will never be their whipping boy. If we all bow down and quit, they will run this thing we love right into the gournd. I mean that... I love the CG. And while I know that change is inevitable, I must continue to persue the things that I believe in.
I wish you luck with your retirement. I know you did your part to keep the torch burning while you were in. And rest assured, we will do our part to carry on.
Tony

[PAC Darrell Wilson (Ret)]

Tony, you keep fighting and I will also. I am putting my letter in at my next unit, which I will be at in 2 weeks. I think I will set the date about 18 months out so I still have a little while to cause more hate and discontent with the suits.

Tony, I really have enjoyed the Coast Guard and the people I have met but you wrote something that caught my eye. You said you love the Coast Guard. Many years ago an old salty, crusty Chief Warrant Officer passed some advice to me as he was leaving the Guard. He said, "Enjoy the Coast Guard, like the Coast Guard, have fun while your in the Coast Guard but dont love the Coast Guard cause it wont love you." It took me a few years to understand what that meant.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Darrell said the following...I wont let the door hit me in the ass, it'll be wide open when I walk thru. And if you think your going to be able to make changes like the chiefs of old, then my advice would be for you to lay off the bottle. We're not like the chiefs of old, the Coast Guard doesnt want us like that anymore, they just want coorporate people. and "Enjoy the Coast Guard, like the Coast Guard, have fun while your in the Coast Guard but dont love the Coast Guard cause it wont love you."

Darrell...I hope you don't talk like this at work to your junior personnel. You sound like the classic bitter retiree, that's too bad. If you think that you are of no value to this organization and think that you can't affect change, you need to go ahead and retiree. Don't wait to retiree for 18 months, go ahead and do it now.

Oh, and I have news for you...ALL organizations change and evolve over time. The CG is no exception and you as a Public Affairs Chief should know that better than anyone!

[PAC Darrell Wilson (Ret)]

I know there is change, I didnt say there wasnt, at least I dont think I did. Not all change is for the best though. It doesnt matter how bitter or happy I am at work, I work in a one man shop, just me, so I talk to myself a lot. :p I am not going to be a bitter retiree, read my last post again, I said I have enjoyed the Coast Guard and the people in it. I will keep working up to my retirement date then call it quits and look back with fond memories.
Senior, do you disagree with me on my statement that you highlited? I dont think we have near the pull Chiefs had 30 or 40 years ago.
And do you disagree with this? "Enjoy the Coast Guard, like the Coast Guard, have fun while your in the Coast Guard but dont love the Coast Guard cause it wont love you." As far as I am concerned, this is the absolute truth.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Darrell...I can't comment on the Chiefs from 30-40 years ago, but I can comment on the present. I've seen good chiefs and bad chiefs and those good ones have had a tremendous amount of both pull (as you say) and respect from those above them. I think what gives us "pull" is our willingness "to pull", in other words go make things happen...be the chief that others seek out for advise and counsel. I don't think thats changed in the past 30-40 years.

As far as the love me comment, I don't even know what that means. I guess I'm not that analytical!

[PAC Darrell Wilson (Ret)]

The last district office I was in the CofS passed that only an 0-1 or above could authorize early liberty for anyone. Chiefs were no longer allowed to grant early liberty to any of their crew. The mess put up a fight but lost. Its the little things like that that cause me to think the the chiefs are losing some of the "pull" or "power" they used to have.

[BMC John Phillips III]

Darrell, if I were a Chief at a District office I would grant early liberty EVERDAY. Probably to myself and anyone else I saw suffering as badly as I know I would be. So maybe that's why they made that rule? :cool:

As far as tattoos go, I say like anything else - all things in moderation. I guess I could throw in a "to each his own" but there is a such thing as too much. I have also heard that tattoos can become addictive. Does it have any bearing on how anyone can do their job? No, of course not, but it does affect your appearance and part of being in the military is having a sharp appearance or "military bearing" as I think they call it.

Branding? Well I haven't seen it in the CG yet but my God I have to ask what anyone who wants to do that is thinking.

Piercing, well I have to go with Chris Rock on this one. In one of his stand-up routines he says, "if a girl has a pierced tongue, she'll probably...." then follows with, "if a guy has a pierced tongue, he'll probably...."

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

Professional appearance seems like a valid reason for the policy. I know that it is not just Coast Guard, but many professional offices have similar policies. My recommendation is to chose your battles wisely if you expect to maintain your voice and credibility.

[DCCS Todd Holcomb]

Professional appearance seems like a valid reason for the policy. I know that it is not just Coast Guard, but many professional offices have similar policies. My recommendation is to chose your battles wisely if you expect to maintain your voice and credibility.
I concur 100% about the validity of the policy and yes many organizations have similar policies, but can't we still disagree with them? I will, as I expect all of us Chief's will, support and enforce policies. We have all had to enforce policies we may not fully agree with, but we do it. I don't think anyone on here is choosing to battle the policy, merely venting frustration with it. Reccomendation taken but I feel our individual and collective voices help maintain our credibility. :D

.02
Todd

[ETCS Robert Kelley]

Professional appearance seems like a valid reason for the policy. I know that it is not just Coast Guard, but many professional offices have similar policies. My recommendation is to chose your battles wisely if you expect to maintain your voice and credibility.

I whole-heartedly agree. Those of you that feel we Chiefs have lost our voice should consider what causes we lend that voice to.

I completely understand the sentiment that having tattoos does not mean you are less capable of doing your job. The problem is that you may be making your job more difficult (for you and those with you) because you may be adding a perception that has to be overcome depending on who you are dealing with. This particular policy is supported by senior leadership with some good reasons. We as a service have to work with the public that has some expectations. They expect to deal with the professionals they are paying to protect them and their interests. Now before I get a bunch of flack I am not implying that tattoos make anyone less professional but it does change some people’s first impression and that may very well be the only one you have time to make. This is a change in both society and our organization. In the past it was the stereotypical Chief who yelled most of the time had a coffee cup in hand while at work and a drink while playing hard and a cigarette all the time, tattooed arms, chest and back along with a full beard. Getting tattoos in liberty ports was basically required by peer pressure or a desire to impress the Chief that you were maturing into a sailor. This was also the time period that society feared their daughters falling for a sailor and put keep off the grass signs for dogs and sailors. Do we really think this is a fight the Mess should take on? I remember the big commotion that accompanied policy change when beards became unauthorized some of it by guys that had worn them for more than 15 years and who’s family (wife included) had never seen them without one. We seem to have survived that change and we will survive this one too (in time).


Just my opinion.

[BMCS Don Zoll]

I don't know about the rest of you ( probably to new to the guard ) but I for 1 miss my beard! It seems as though we have another Yost on our hands. I have to say "Tony you rule man"! At least you have the B@(($ to say it like it is! Even though I never got pierced or painted I think the new policy stinks! As long as you look professional ( even w/a beard, pierced or painted ) in uniform what's the problem? Keep up the good work Chief!
Robert, I also remember all the hoopla w/the new beard policy, and we lost a lot of good people for no good reason. We'll probably loose a bunch more because of this junk! Remember beards and tattoos are a long time honored tradition of sailors, and we're giving that all up to be polically correct.


BMCS Don Zoll

[PAC Darrell Wilson (Ret)]

Amen Senior Chief Zoll! As long as we all hug and get along, everything is fine. Yuck. Yuck. Yuck.

"But its all about image." Sure it is, I can already see that guy sinking in the surf telling you he doesnt want you to pull him out of the water cause the arm you extend over the side of the boat is covered in tatoos.

[MKC Tony Balcer]

BMCS Z.
It’s funny you say that. I catch so much s#it for speaking my mind. My feeling is they didn’t give me this anchor so I would suck “Company” a$$. I’m going to keep on keeping on. I owe the great Chief’s before me that. And for those that don’t think I’m a professional sailor…. Need to talk to my MPA or EO. They will set you strait. God help you if you talk some smack to my FN, because you are going to get you’re a$$ kicked. I've been doing this for almost 19 years and can remember my first MK1 telling me about having to shave his beard off the summer before I got there. Said his wife cried. My first Chief was painted from head to toe and came from a time when ships were made of wood and men were made of steel. Maybe I'm just an old school bastard. But I hold dear the values of old. I just think this whole this is BS. For me. It's all about voice. Now I have a voice as a Chief. When I have the 2 stars maybe they will listen even more. I've got 11 years left to leave a legacy. So that when I'm an old man sitting on my front porch. I'll know I did the right thing. Nothing else matters.
MKC Tony Balcer

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I don't know....I look at our diversity statement.....then I look at this proposal. If the public, and I haven't heard any complaints from them yet, has a problem with what our professional sailors should look like, shouldn't we be trying to change that perception, if it is real, rather than feed into it. I've done boardings where the captain of the boat said he didn't want our female boarding team members on board his vessel. Should I have allowed their bais to undermine what the CG has been trying to overcome for years? We're looking at preventing a qualified, competent person, from doing a job that they want to do, based on their appearance, and what "someone" "might" think about it. We starting to go backward in time. Not very American.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

I respect the fact that there are people that don't like the policy. Might I suggest however, if you would like to be "heard", you make a well articulated argument and not just sound like you are "bitching". Not very "professional". I have an XPO that is peirced and painted from head to toe. Darn good XPO. Knows his stuff and does a great job. However, he will be the first to admit that he sure gets alot of stares and has some stereotypes to get over. You talk about PC. Isn't PC about "accepting" everyone in all their weirdness? Which way do you want it?

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Jim, I know your XPO. It doesn't help him that he's about eight feet tall either. But he would be the perfect example of why stereotypes aren't always accurate and should then, ALWAYS be ignored.
I'm 41 and still can't grow a beard, but when I see pictures of the OLD CG, some of those with beards do like roadies from ZZ Top. There's a difference between having a beard and just not shaving. And along the lines of changing times, how many would have faired well during a urinalysis. I've heard stories about what "sailors" used to do on the fantail when the smoking lamp was lit. Not all change is bad, just as not all change is needed. What is really promoting this new proposal.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

Stu, I agree with what you have said. I think what is driving this policy is simply a re-iteration of standards that have been expected. however, with the trends of the times, things continue to evolve and so must the policy. Who has even heard of "branding" 20 years ago? That was something that cowboys did to their animals. Maybe I am "out of touch", but I think it is all about maintaining a "professional" standard in the public eye. Maybe some people think that a "sailor" should be a horny, drunk, leg humping, painted, tatooed individual with spike coming out of his forehead that is found in the gutters of downtown areas where respectable people don't go, but that is not how the Coast Guard should be represented. In most cases, this is not the truth and the powers that be don't want US to be "percieved" that way. All the tattoo's, piercings, brandings or whatever is next is not going to make someone a better or worse Coastie. It is all about professionalism and appearance. It is about the impression that we leave on the public that we serve. When was the last time you got pulled over by a cop that was a walking work of art? When was the last time you walked into a professional office and saw that? Cops that are "decorated" usually work undercover for a reason. Just food for thought.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

My problem is when it's put down in writing, once it becomes policy. Right now, the people that I know that are covered with tatoos wouldn't be looking for those CMC jobs in the first place. But once it becomes a policy that they can't have them..........bad taste in my mouth. CMCs have to screen/interview for the job in the first place. The ADM they intend to serve under can already impart any of their own bias in that process. I've seen CMCs with awnings for bellies, and who have never even heard of uniform regulations, let alone read them. I'd take the sideshow freak over another one of them, any day.
And twenty years ago is about when I was first introduced to brandings. My room mate, an ex-gang banger, and some of his friends all sported them. As Deane put it, it was a cultural thing. The reasoning behind it escapes my admittedly narrow mind.
If the bottom line is public appearance, why not move the forbidden line from the wrist to the elbow. Then anything not visible in uniform could be fair game. Not percentages, no math needed. No alterations below the elbow or above the collar. If in fact it's about professional appearances ? I still think that it's about someone forcing their view of things unto the rest of us. And they should have to spend a day with your XPO and his wife before they make the final call on that one.

[BMCS Don Zoll]

[QUOTE=BMC Jim Madsen]When was the last time you got pulled over by a cop that was a walking work of art? When was the last time you walked into a professional office and saw that? Cops that are "decorated" usually work undercover for a reason.

To answer the first quest.: Jan 11, 2004 Jax. FL got pulled over for speeding by FL Hwy Pat. Trooper had tatoos on his forearms and what looked like self made prison tattoos on his hands.
2nd Quest: Before my wife came home full time she worked in a office w/thirty + office staff all dealing directly w/the public, asked her about it she said 25% were painted some were pierced also.
The younger generations seem to be going toward this trend. This CG policy will not change that! Maybe the pres. can enact a new law to change it. Until that happens, who knows. By the way I'm not a fan of branding, I've only recently heard of it. Again maybe the Pres. can stop it. Did I mention I STILL MISS MY BEARD! Not to sound like I'm whinning but I was a new BM3 when that one went down and needless to say didn't have much of a voice then. I still saw alot of good people leave the Guard.
Sooo what about the prob. of retention? Will there be enough unpainted and unpierced youth in society to keep up w/this policy? And how many of the good folks we now have will leave? Maybe with a war on it won't matter, especially if the Army and Marines start drafting.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

I guess this policy really gets under your skin huh? (pun intended. hey, someone has to laugh here) The policy does not eliminate tattoo's, piercings, or any of that. It just restricts it. Nobody is saying that you have to remove the tattoo's, and it grandfathers those that are not in compliance with the current policy. I guess it is easy for me to be less bothered by it because I have always said that the only tattoo I will ever get is the one over my @$$ that says "EXIT ONLY".
As far as new acessions goes... The youth will have to learn that there are consequenses to their actions. If thay paint themselves to much it may close doors. I can guarantee that there will be more closed doors in the civilian world than there will in the military. At least until our PC society embraces body art as it has things like homosexuality, medicinal majiuana and the like.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

I'm confused. I'm wondering how many new people can't come in because of this new policy? Are there that many young (age 18-20) people that have that many tattoos that are trying to join the CG?

Can someone with "A Lot" of body art clear something up for me? When you came in the CG, how many tattoos did you have? Would this policy have kept you from coming in the CG, if it were in place when you joined? Have the majority of your tattoos been added after you joined?


Jim...I'm not quite sure that society has embraced homosexual behavior. I just think that TV/Film kind of sensationalize it. That doesn't mean that we have embraced it...does it?

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Yeah, until I meet the first father that says, "I'm really glad that my son is Gay.", I won't believe that OUR society embraced anything.
I have met alot of the tatoo of the month club members. I've been on a couple of ships when you could tell it was payday because "Herman" got some new work done. I've seen people get a tatoo only to cover over it with another one six months later. Nice forethought. In my lifetime I haven't seen that many tatoos that I've liked. I've seen some really nice detailed worked, and still didn't know why the person inked it on their body. I have two, from about twenty years ago, that still mean something to me. Both above the elbow.
And Jim, with the cop thing.........no matter how many tatoos they might wind up with, the uniform overshades them all. I don't know of anybody who would rip up the ticket because the person who gave it to them didn't look professional enough.

[BMC Ken Gouge]

Stu,

back to the guy not wanting the female BTM on board, you didn't mention how long it was before you un-cuffed the guy and let him off the deck...

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I never had to cuff someone, I just keep making my point until people let me have my way so I'll shut up. Surprised ? I had one guy tell me that they didn't use to allow women on board ships because it was bad luck. I countered with, we used to throw virgins in volcanos, times change. I also told him that if in fact his crew was unable to catch fish in the future they could always sue the government for loss of wages. I kept a straight face longer than he did.

[SKCM Linda Reid]

Back when body piercing was still "strictly" forbidden, there was a mishap about a guy playing volleyball who jumped up and had his nipple ring catch on the net. Another "Loss of situation awareness" with no mention of why no one at a command sponsored CG event, hadn't told the guy to remove his unauthorized jewelry.

OK, now you're in trouble because I spilled my Pepsi all over my desk when I fainted while reading this.

[MKC Tony Balcer]

Don,
I guess that would be a good way to get out of the draft.
ooooops! 26% guess I can't go to war.
Tony

[SKC Raymond Kurtz]

Chiefs are not immune to this sort of thing. A couple of years ago a Corpsman told me that he had examined a Chief with a nipple ring. I guess if you can't see it no one will find out about it, so it must be okay. NOT!

I heard that same story about the ring and the basketball hoop myself. I cringed when I first heard it and still do.

Raymond

[MKC Ryan Sinclair]

If anyone has anything pierced and its not in plain view (covered by uniform) what's the difference? I can't say I agree with piercings in the face, because the holes left while the piercings are out very noticable. However if it's covered by the uniform and no one knows about it I don't see the big deal.
I say all things in moderation, piercings and tattoos.

[MKC Tony Balcer]

Well it’s official… I’m a grandfather.
100% both arms. No more corporate man BS for me. And to think that I wanted to be a CMC when I grew up. Oh well, guess I’ll have to stay down in the hole, where they can’t see me disgracing the uniform that they love so much.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

Corportate man BS? I hope that this is an attitude that you keep within the mess and don't share with your subordinates. Last I knew, the Coast Guard was a military service. That means we give orders, and we follow orders. If that is "corporate BS", then maybe one of us is in a different organization. And lets see... I was not drafted so I made a concious CHOICE to be here, to give orders, and to follow orders.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Like it or not, anyone who has re-enlisted or become a Petty Officer is already a corporate man. Non-rates are the only ones who can afford not to be. Everyone else has already "sought" and accepted the responsibilites that make you part of the corporation. Welcome to the real world.

[MKC Tony Balcer]

Jim:
Did you read any of the other posts before my last one? Wow, did you take that out of context. Get off your soap box and chill. I'm just venting about this BS policy. I thought this thread was under policy discussion, but I guess I may have been mistaken.

BMCS S:
I guess this does fall under the "like it or not" catagory. You know I don't like it but I'll support it. What choice do I have? It's just that now I've been marked as a "Black Sheep".

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I tend to respond to the last post written as opposed to the overall comments that someone makes. I don't consider you a "black sheep". I think that you're putting forth an arguement for so many who won't. My response to the corporate man issue is not aimed at you, alone. I've heard that stance taken by many people. Some people think that following orders makes you less of ? something ? We are in the business of following orders.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

Tony, If the shoe does not fit, then don't wear it. I am sure that each one of us can identify a policy that we don't like. I personally think that this is one of the better "articulated" policies that has come out in a long time. Usually it is simply "this is how it is". As long as you are grandfathered, you have no worries. Leaders wont look at you as a "black sheep", and anyone that dies, needs to go back and review the policy. I personally have an outstanding XPO that is tatoo'd from shoulder to toe with various holes to boot. Younger coasties will look at you as an "Old Guard" guy and that is not necissarily a bad thing. Sure we are discussing policy here, but as Chief's, leadership must always be a part of us. As far as the soap box goes... That is what this forum is for isn't it? everyone should take a turn.

[BMC Mark C. Lewis]

Military Appearance has nothing to do with how you perform your job; it just means how you look in uniform. Whether we like it or not some do not thing a sharp military appearance is someone with their bodies covered in tattoos, brands, or piercing' And before anyone things that I am one of those persons you would be wrong. I have two tattoos one may be considered offensive to some (mermaid with her posterior showing) and I used to have a nipple pierced (no longer). Perceptions are important especially being in the military.

[MKC Tony Balcer]

"Whether we like it or not some do not thing a sharp military appearance is someone with their bodies covered in tattoos, brands, or piercing"


Mark,
Therein lies the problem with this policy. If some don't like them, that's fine, don't get them. But I don't have any right to enforce my "moral" standard on anyone. That's all I'm saying. It's like Yost with the whole beard thing. It was a BS way for him to push this on the service. And the way they sold it to the service was to say it was a safety issue with the OBA's. OK Cool. Now that we have Scotts, where the hell is my beard? That's the thing about rights. Once you give them up, they are gone forever. Now before you go throwing rocks at me. I understand that we are a military service and are held to a different standard than the public at large. But there is no call to take it this far. I didn't sign up to be a part of the master race. I joined to learn about machinery, to serve my country and to help the people that we serve. If you have tattoos, brands or piercings you can still uphold the highest traditions of the CG. That's the bottom line.
I also agree with you Jim that this was a well thoughout policy.
My broblem is with some of the content. What difference does 25% make? I just don't get it, because it makes no sense at all. Like I said I'm grandfathered at 100%, couldn't get another one if I wanted too. I don't like the fact that it keeps me from a Gold Badge or CMC job. That is very narrow minded. You never know, I may have some good things to offer but I never got the chance, based solely on the color of my skin and a possible public perception. In a way don't you think that this breeds prejudges? And as far as keeping people out of the CG that are over the %. That's just stupid, I have a hard enough time getting non-rates as it is.
OK, I'll pass the soap box on.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Military Appearance has nothing to do with how you perform your job; it just means how you look in uniform.

Gotta disagree with that one just on principle alone. I think that there are certain aspects of some people's jobs that depend a great deal upon their appearance in uniform. I could never stand the scrutiny of a PI coming from the guy who needs to use his hands to tell whether or not he had a belt on. And someone who looks good in uniform "usually" comes off better when doing public speaking engagements. We are a shallow society. If you don't think that you treat better looking people differently, start watching how you tip your waitresses. I'm with Tony, my problem is with the %. I'll shut up after I overhear the first person say, "I took his advice, but if he had had ONE more tattoo below his wrist......"

[BMCM Deane Smith]

I guess know one is willing to answer my question(s)??? I've re-posted below in case one of you want to answer...I think it might be important to the discussion.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm confused. I'm wondering how many new people can't come in because of this new policy? Are there that many young (age 18-20) people that have that many tattoos that are trying to join the CG?

Can someone with "A Lot" of body art clear something up for me? When you came in the CG, how many tattoos did you have? Would this policy have kept you from coming in the CG, if it were in place when you joined? Have the majority of your tattoos been added after you joined?

[MKC Tony Balcer]

Deane:
I was 17 when I came in and would not have qualified for enlistment according to this policy. I have a tattoo on my right ring finger. When I enlisted I only had 2. One that could not be seen when I had a t-shirt on and the other one could not be seen if I had my CG ring on. But to answer your question. Yes.

[PACS Steve Carleton]

I'm not heavily tattooed, I only have two and they are beneath my uniform, so I cannot answer your question.

I once saw a show on tattooing on Discovery or TLC or some such cable channel, anyway, it showed highly succesful Japanese businessmen going to get full body tattoos, with the exception of the area on their arms where the shirt sleeve ends. Lokiong at these men, unless they tok their shirts off, you would have no idea that they were so heavily inked. Get ink, but think it through and don't become oblivious to what other people will think.

Of course pulling a small piece out of ALCOAST 340/05

"...ONE ONLY NEEDS TO WALK THROUGH THE SHOPPING MALL OR ALONG THE BEACH TO SEE HOW MUCH THINGS HAVE CHANGED OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST DECADE OR SO. THESE TRENDS HAVE GRADUALLY EASED THEIR WAY INTO OUR MILITARY WORKFORCE. HOWEVER, GIVEN OUR ROLE AS A MILITARY SERVICE AND AS A FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY ALONG WITH OUR LEVEL OF DAILY CONTACT WITH THE GENERAL PUBLIC, WE CANNOT ALLOW OURSELVES TO BE GUIDED SOLELY BY SOCIAL TRENDS AND FASHION."

I fully agree with that excerpt. As some have mentioned previously, it is a leadership issue, pure and simple, over time our leader's heads have been turning the other way while people continued to take a little bit more, and a little bit more.

Now the Senior Coast Guard Leadership has decided to take back some ground that was given up while we turned our heads, and we are all P***ed off about it because we are "sailors damnit, and sailors get tattoos"

Did anyone stop to think that the policy may have been the product of some Chiefs that said enough-is-enough and worked this through the system to take back the ground we lost to societal norms?

We can't have it both ways people.

[BMC Mark C. Lewis]

I cannot answer your question. I have two tatoos and both where gotten after I was in the Coast Guard for five years. Also both of my tatoos are between my knee and ankle, so unless I am wearing shorts you will not see them. I looked into getting tatoos while I was in the Army National Guard and decided back then that I would not get any that would be seen in short sleeve shirts.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

If the policy is designed to prevent tattooing because it is simply a passing fad, it makes no sense. We shouldn't be writing policy for a temporary situation.

If the policy is designed to prevent tatooing because we believe it won't stop being popular, it makes no sense. If it is becoming a societal norm, none of our "cutomers" are going to take exception with it.

As an organization, we write too much policy. What's next? A policy, prohibiting nose-picking in public?

Also, to whomever said we shouldn't be arguing about policy already put into place- you may have a point. It's not very supportive of our policy-makers. But, evidently most of us were not aware that the policy was in the making. If we haven't been afforded the opportunity to provide input at the beginning, I think the service should expect some after-the-fact feedback.
Besides, the bosses should know how the field feels about new policy. Nobody wants to operate in ignorance.

[MECM Steven Lowry]

This is my first post here, but this subject is very near and dear to me. I had Tattoos before joining that under this new policy would not have allowed me to enlist, but I do support the new policy.

Tattoos are not a "fad". 5000+ years of history should tell everyone that. The same can be said for piercings and brandings. Man (or women) have always altered their bodies for a variety of reasons or beliefs.

With that said, I believe that looking professional in a number of settings is important in today's culture. What will I be doing after the Coast Guard and would I want my son or daughter to do what I have done? should be considered by everyone. I know I don't want my Son getting tattooed to the extent I have. I believe it would limit his choices or possibly close doors to him in the future. Just as it has done for those who want to be in the CG, but now can't. The new policy is a good one, and to be honest I feel a bit priviliged that I can have so many tattoos and others can't. It makes me feel special :)

Sorry for the rambling, but I just had to counsel myself, write a P7 and witness myself sign it.

L/Arm 100%
R/Arm 70%
Tattoo on L/ring finger

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

I recently talked to a recruiter in a rural area. He said he was having trouble getting some new recruits in the Coast Guard due to the policy. He also stated that the Coast Guard is going to be closing his office and moving the more rural offices to the innercity's. I have to scratch my head and wonder if the population of the innercity is going to have more or less tattoo'd individuals simply due to different sub-cultures.
Tony, I appreciate your last post. Much more articulate argument and better debate, rather then just a PO'd Chief. You have some good points.
Dennis, I wonder if the CMC network had any input into this policy? I never heard anything.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

It all sprang on me in the flag voice. It reminds me of that old Broadsides cartoon, where hip hugging bell bottoms were coming back into fashion so the Navy had to hurry up and adopt a straight legged plants version. Tatoos are becoming more fashionable and socially acceptable, so we need to limit their use for service members so we are set apart from society ???????? Well shorter hair has become the normal, so can I have my pony tail back please ?
I also see no problem argueing the merits of a policy in a public forum. My only problem comes when people state that they won't enforce a policy.

[PACS Steve Carleton]

http://www.ucomics.com/closetohome/index.phtml

Check today's Close to Home Comicstrip

[BMC John Phillips III]

http://myjokemail.com/content/modules/mydownloads/visit.php?cid=1&lid=189 I guarantee you you haven't laughed this hard in a while! Well not from watching SNL anyway. It's very relevant to the thread topic :D