So there has been a big push recently to get the documentation process for tattoos in order. A question that I feel is fairly open for interpretation has been budding in my mind recently. I wanted to open this up for discussion and get a feel for the general consensus. Any feedback on the matter would be appreciated.
According to the current standard COMDTINST 1000.1A 5.a. Location: No tattoo or brand, of any type, is authorized on the head, face, neck, or hands. The dark blue Coast Guard T-shirt collar shall be the reference point for the back and sides of the neck; i.e., no tattoo or brand may be visible above the collar of the T-shirt on the neck.
Correct me if I am wrong but in the previous edition of that manual it stated the top of your collar, which I assume was the top of your working blue shirt or maybe your trops, since we didn't have an ODU t-shirt as that uniform didn't exist.
In the grandfather clause of the new manual it clearly states Current active, reserve, and delayed enlistment personnel with excessive tattooing or branding on exposed limbs, including on the hands, prior to the date of this Instruction shall be “grandfathered" indefinitely, and are prohibited from getting additional tattoos or branding in the exposed area(s) already determined to be excessive. These cases shall be documented using an Administrative Remarks, Form CG-3307, in accordance with the sample provided in enclosure.
So I interpret this as if you already had it then you are exempted from discharge but you can add no further additions.
Now here is the hitch... (1). Tattoos or branding that are prohibited by paragraph 5.a. or 5.b. are not grandfathered.
So the situation is: If someone had gotten a tattoo that was well below the collar of the working blue uniform and done so long before the Alpha edition change, but it is above the collar line of an ODU t-shirt. It is not inappropriate in content or size, the only question is the location. At that it is barely above the collar line. On a tight t-**** it would be completely covered, but on a looser unit t-shirt it would be visible. It also does not span the neck far enough that it is visible with the ODU top on. So the only question is whether set individual is grandfathered from the change to t-shirt or not.
Also if you check out ALCOAST 340/05, it states: "The intent of this change is to ensure that every member of the coast guard can appear in a service dress uniform without any visible tattoos."
So the question is: Is this member in violation and are they allowed to be grandfathered?
If there was any question in the members mind the neck tattoo may be exposed he/she should have requested a 3307 to document it.
I don't currently have the source msg in front of me however I do seem to recall there was only a small window of time to document and submit the paperwork in order to qualify for the grandfather clause.
I haven't seen anything stating a timeline for the documentation, but this specific case is documented. I am more just curious of other persons take on the same situation.
