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?
It's pretty clear. The only tattoos and piecings that are grandfathered are described in 5.c and 5.d. Tattoos described in 5.A and 5.B. are not. It does not matter if they were pre-exisiting. They are not allowed, now you have to be allowed a chance to get them removed. If you decline to get them removed you get processed for discharge. And The T-shirt that shall be gauge, my guess would a properly fitting T-shirt. Not a tight one, not a baggy one, but a properly fitting one. Now that can be up to determination. I can guarntee that's not up to the member. But up to the command.
Now the paragraph below seems to sum up the policy for current members, it seems the only caveat for paragraph 5.A. is the hands.
f. Current Member Violations. Current active and reserve members whose tattoos or brands are determined to violate this Instruction shall be given the opportunity to seek competent medical advice regarding the removal or alteration of the disqualifying tattoo or brand. Members who refuse to take the necessary steps to satisfy the requirements of this policy shall be separated from the service. 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 (1). Tattoos or branding that are prohibited by paragraph 5.a. or 5.b. are not grandfathered. Similar documentation may be appropriate for preexisting tattoos/brands whose content requires a judgment call. This paragraph is specifically not intended to promote a service-wide inspection or evaluation of tattoos. Rather, it is intended to promote, when appropriate, an initial determination by a competent command authority, to preclude repeated reevaluation by future commands. Members who have tattoos or brands are encouraged to request their unit commander document grandfathered tattoos or brands by a Form CG-3307.
Quick thread jack: Where does it say that you need to route a chit in order to get a new tattoo in a visible area? A lot of people have told me that's what you would have to do but I haven't found anything official. Thanks.
2.A.1. Military Image Appearance in uniform is a key element in how the men and women of the Coast Guard perceive themselves and honor their county and the Coast Guard. Coast Guard personnel are responsible to maintain their personal appearance and their uniform to reflect the long and proud history and traditions of the Coast Guard. Commands and personnel in leadership positions at every level are responsible to promote and enforce high standards for uniform appearance. Coast Guard personnel must maintain a proper military decorum and present themselves with pride. For example, when walking from point to point, do not smoke, eat, drink, or keep hands in pockets. Personnel should consult with their chain of command before considering a tattoo, piercing, or body modification to be sure it is within standards. Request for waivers are submitted through the chain of command to Commandant (G-WPM). Guidance for alteration and fitting is provided in the Coast Guard Uniform and Alteration Manual, COMDTINST M1020.7 (series). Occasionally, personnel require clothing sizes that do not exist in the uniform supply system. Special measurement orders may be submitted to the Uniform Distribution Center (UDC). Guidance and order forms are available on the UDC web.
Now it does say should, not must or shall. But I do not think you are going to win that argument with your command. Also there is a paragraph just above, giving your command quite a bit of authority to tell you what you can do. If they want the whole unit to have high and tights, they have the authority to do so.
1.A.4. Command Authority and Responsibility Commands have the authority and responsibility to render judgments regarding appropriate appearance and are ultimately responsible for enforcing these regulations in the spirit and intent described above. Interpretations will be made in accordance with the traditions and discipline inherent to the Coast Guard and the Armed Forces of the United States. Since it is impossible to predict (and therefore regulate) future fads and fashion, commands shall maintain a conservative stance in interpretation of these regulations, while concurrently forwarding recommended changes via the Uniform Board process (see Section 1.C.) for those items/changes that are considered worthy of service-wide adoption. Nothing shall interfere or take precedence over a command’s discretion and responsibility to make an on-site, temporary correction when these regulations conflict with the health and safety of their assigned personnel.
Personnel should consult with their chain of command before considering a tattoo, piercing, or body modification to be sure it is within standards. Request for waivers are submitted through the chain of command to Commandant (G-WPM).
Thanks, but is consult the same as needing to route a chit if the tattoo is clearly w/ in acceptable limits? I'm guessing this is from the personnel manual, thanks I hadn't seen that.
It's in the uniform manual. I do not know? how do you consult your chain of command? I generally run a chit when I want to "consult" the chain of command.
What's the big deal. just run a chit. that way there are no suprises, you just CYA. Everyone is happy. Now let's say the command denies your perfectly legal tattoo chit. Now you can try to keep going up the chain.
but just go get the tat, and then let them say you were not suppose to that. Then you have nothing. Your guilty.
Thanks, that's pretty much exactly what I was thinking but just wanted to see where it said it in black and white. Midwatch kills me (can't ever sleep at a decent time on days off so I'm all foggy).
I'm no lawyer and don't claim to be. The policy seems very clear; one has the option of electing to get it removed or mbr is subject to discharge.
There is another issue here; lets say that the tats are older than the policy and the policy was not enforced on an individual member for a prolonged period of time (say from 2005 until now) AND say during those three years the member performed arduous sea duty and/or served in operations overseas and/or collected hazardous duty pay or imminent danger pay. In my non-lawyer opinion, I would think the member would have a leg to stand on for an appeal or civil action following discharge. Reason: you sent me to (war, adruous sea duty, etc) knowing of this condition; only now that I have completed these duties are my tattoos a problem. It seems that the policy was not enforced at the time because it was most beneficial/expedient for the service. Only now, after completing these duties, is it a problem. If the policy existed before I deployed, why was I not discharged before assigned to this duty (which by the way I completed with courage and to the best of my abilities). The answer may very well be that the member was still given an opportunity to get it removed; if the member elected not to, then they did so with full knowledge and acceptance of the consequences, so there would be no grounds for an appeal. As I said, I'm not a layter.
You are a good man OS1. Hopefully this isn't about you know who. I may get some heat about this post, but I must say that I respect you know who and all career cuttermen who perform their duties with pride and have the character to do a damn tough job without quitting or trying to get out of it. Do what you gotta do. If the CG looses you know who, it will be a big loss. Thanks for your help during TACT.
You mean like a Chief Botswainsmate XPO who has a tattoo on his hand??? I swear he told me that he was grandfathered and I didn't know what I was talking about.
I know the policy backwards and forwards. I don't like it because I like tattoos. I was 1/2 done arm sleeves when the policy came out, now I can't finish them.
Alcoast 340/05 specifically allowed members with tattoos on their hands to be grandfathered because before this new policy it was not against regs to have tattoos on your hands.
Yeah but the question is what about the people who had tattoos below the collar of the working blue, but now the reg is bellow the collar of the ODU tshirt. why are they not being protected and grandfathered?
Tattoos have always been off limits on the neck, however, you might want to consult legal on the issue as this might have been overlooked when the policy was revised. I can't find the old instruction to see what it defines as the starting point for the neck. It is very clear now.
I have also been looking for the old policy. I am not certain but I believe that i was to be below the collar line. I am just trying to get clarification. I know a good amount of coasties that have tattoos above the t-shirt line but not above the collar. I feel like they should be grandfathered. Just like the ALCOAST says "every member of the coast guard can appear in a service dress uniform without any visible tattoos".
Why not the wording " any CG uniform " instead of "service dress" ???
MM; Your suggestion would change the area of the body concentrated on. The only parts of the body exposed in 'service dress' are neck and up and wrists and down. Your suggestion would include mid bicep and down as well as knee and down.
All tattoos are visible, just depends on what your wearing. When I toss on the ole' speedo you can see all of mine. But sleeve's down you can't see any of them. Thanks for your opinion though.
\m/
