by Hess Sherrod

Created on: March 24, 2007   Last Updated: September 09, 2008

The Marines are now getting restrictive on the subject of tattoos. Simply put, no: sleeves, quarter-sleeves, or anything above the collar of a t-shirt. Existing tattoos may be "grandfathered in" if they are photographed and noted (and signed by the Marine in question) on the "Bad Marine" page of your Service Record Book. So what does this mean? All Marines have until 1 July to get their arms and legs sleeved and "Born To Kill" and blood type on their scalp!

So why is the Corps doing this? The actual order prohibits any tattoo that would be visible while wearing issued PT gear and/or "is prejudicial to good order and discipline" (specifically gang-related, anti-American, racist, sexist, offensive, explicit, etc). I believe this has a lot to do with the War on Terror; basically, increased difficulty in meeting manpower requirements have forced a decline in recruiting standards, allowing such undesirables as "former" drug users, "former" gang members, and some convicted criminals to enter the Armed Forces where it would have been difficult or impossible for them to do so before. Evidence of gang "tags" spray-painted on walls in Iraq and Afghanistan support this supposition. These individuals are more likely to have tattoos of the sort being identified, so banning the tattoos may be an attempt to bring back higher recruiting standards.
This may not be the only reason, although it is probably the most easily-defended when presented to the public. The Marine Corps has long associated itself with "Pride" and "Professionalism", two images that do not spring to the mind of a typical adult when he or she sees a tattoo. Whether true of the individual in question or not, a typical adult thinks less of a person covered in "disfiguring" visible tattoos. The leadership of the Marine Corps (and most likely the entire Department of Defense) doesn't want there to be any reason for a citizen of any nation to look at a Marine and see anything other than a professional. Rumors already run rampant that we are the barely-restrained bloodthirsty attack dogs of the President; while it is beneficial for our enemies to believe this of us, is it wise to inspire this sentiment in the American public as well?

I'm not sure that I support this policy. I personally do not now (nor will I ever have) any tattoo that violates this order, but I know many good men who do. I know that I feel it to be unprofessional to have a tattoo that cannot be concealed, but a long-sleeved button-down shirt and tie can conceal everything but your hands and neck. I'm glad that the Marine Corps is continuing to make its' moral code public (as with Gen Pace's comment concerning homosexuality... Ooh Rah, sir!), but I'm not 100% certain this is a battle they should choose to fight.

Learn more about this author, Hess Sherrod.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.