Tattoos/Piercings

lolamoral said:
I have been accepted to USNA and am filling out my body alteration form. I have both a cartilage (ear piercing) and a second hole ear piercing. I will be taking both out as soon as I attend, but was curious if either counts as a mutilation since they'll be taken out and there are no specifications on ear piercing mutilations simply other body piercings? If so should I consider this a body alteration and report it in my form or will it be ok if I simply take the piercings out?
Click to expand...

This USNA PDF should be helpful:
https://www.usna.edu/NAPS/_files/do...AINST-6240.10C-TATTOO-AND-BODY-ALTERATION.pdf

See Section 5 (b) which clearly defines the term "mutilation" per Navy guidelines.
 
Last edited:
The tattoo and piercing policies of each branch is dictated by the current and projected personnel needs of the force. Restrictions (especially on tattoos) swing back and forth.

I remember when tattoo removal was not uncommon for Airmen wanting to enlist with a tattoo that was determined to cover 30% of a body part (the limit was 25% at that time). I also distinctly remember the period where tattoos could not be visible while in service dress. There were a lot of older NCOs and SNCOs walking around in the heat of the summer with long-sleeve blues shirts because their arm tattoos were no longer allowed.

Plenty of people currently serve with tattoos. That really has no bearing on whether a branch will suddenly shift course and insist that they not be visible in uniform or service dress.

If you're going to get one while in, I'd recommend avoiding anything that cannot be easily covered up by your uniform.

The only reason the current policies have been relaxed is because we need more eligible enlistees. The same reason for a lot of the other recent restrictions being lifted.
 
I think this is a fair question, and bottom line, personal opinions about whether or not the OP should or should not want one, is not what is being asked for. It is also none of our business. The answer is in the regulations. It is true the facial piercing isn’t okay, and no hands or neck tattoos, just remember it has to be easily covered.


Onto the personal opinions. My daughter got a tattoo right before reporting for ROTC, and unless she is wearing a swim suit, no one would see it. It wasn’t my business either as she was an adult, however I will say what she got and where she got it is tasteful and extremely meaniful to her. Any someone is characterizing women that their jewelry (nose ring) is some how equal to a hog, or somehow being use to be used by men to lead her around, or that a tattoo placement somehow makes them a tramp is pretty offensive these days. I am a mother of 3 young women. All smart, bright, capable and successful. One has a tattoo, one has a facial piercing, and one has neither. It is generational and very normal to them, as I am sure the OP is also in that same category. In no way is it an invitation to be characterized as a hog or a tramp. Sorry guys, but it doesn’t make them any less capable than women or men that choose not to have a tattoo or piercing. And while everyone is completely entitled to their opinions, this forum is really valuable for helping our young men and women get good info about their desire to serve, not to judge their character based on their personal choices.

I will step off my soap box now...
 
lolamoral said:
I have been accepted to USNA and am filling out my body alteration form. I have both a cartilage (ear piercing) and a second hole ear piercing. I will be taking both out as soon as I attend, but was curious if either counts as a mutilation since they'll be taken out and there are no specifications on ear piercing mutilations simply other body piercings? If so should I consider this a body alteration and report it in my form or will it be ok if I simply take the piercings out?
Click to expand...
I would check the regulations like you mentioned. My daughter had a cartridge piercing on one warm she took it out for her DoDMERB physical and never put it back in. She also took out the second hole piercing at the same time and also has not used it since. It hasn’t been an issue, she is Army ROTC, so just double check for Navy, but you should be fine.
 
Dckc88 said:
Sorry guys, but it doesn’t make them any less capable than women or men that choose not to have a tattoo or piercing.
Click to expand...
Did anyone make that claim?

Dckc88 said:
this forum is really valuable for helping our young men and women get good info about their desire to serve, not to judge their character based on their personal choices.
Click to expand...
Those personal choices can actually affect whether or not they will be permitted accession, and may affect whether they are allowed to continue to serve.

The point is that the DoD policies on body mutilation (which covers piercings) and tattoos has changed, changes, and will change again in the future, usually with no regard to existing members' personal choices. When that policy changes (and it will), the tattooed and pierced members may be forced to choose between returning the body part to "normal" condition, or separation.

None of the above should be construed as an attack on anyone's character. Instead, it's a warning about the ever-changing DoD and service branch policies covering tattoos and body mutilation.
 
@Tbpxece totally agree with all that you said, it can affect someone’s future and that was why the OP asked the question. The truth is, lots of people serve with tattoos, and while some people would choose not to, obviously many choose to do it. So following the regulations AND common sense are the types of advice that can be helpful. The sarcasm wasn’t appreciated, and the flat out “wouldn’t do it” isn’t helpful at all, what you explained I am sure is very helpful and what the OP was looking for. Advice given in that manner is always acceptable. And you are right, no one “said” they are less capable, but women in specifics were brought up in a less than favorable way, and that could be seen as demeaning to women and in general can create an environment where someone could feel less likely to ask questions because those pictures have been painted in the past. I do not think anyone intentionally did that, And I don’t think any less of those that went down that road, it was definitely done in a joking way without intent. But as pointed out by @kinnem and @AROTC-dad - it can be interpreted in a different way. I am a very conservative “middle aged” parent, so I get the viewpoint and I personally would not be interested in having a facial piercing or tattoo, but also being a Mom of 3 young women, they all see those options differently and I respect that it is a different time, AND that the workforce is also changing their opinions based on the commonality of it. I also think that young people need to know all the right info and make smart decisions, but that it is not a all or nothing issue, even in the military. As far as the posts, I did find the visuals brought forward a little offensive since they did specifically mention women, (realizing they were meant as humor and not intentionally offered as offensive). As much as I believe no one was trying to be judgmental, I was not being judgmental also, I was offering the reality of how it can come off. If you were offended by my comments, you totally have the right to be so. But maybe realize that for young women, those visuals might not make them feel welcome here.
 
Opinions on a collar bone tattoo that would be out of sight barring a low cut top or bathing suit? What are the odds that EVER gives me any issue?

edit: would be non offensive and commemorating a friend’s death.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top