May201426
Military Tattoo Battles
11:57 AM
military tattoos.jpg
Tattoos of Staff Sgt. Adam Thorogood above.

On Friday, I wrote about one of the most popular tattoo images on those who serve and have served in the military:  the Fallen Soldier / Battlefield Cross tattoo, a tribute to those lost to war. In fact, most of my friends in the military have some form of memorial tattoo -- some citing their tattoos as personally cathartic or a way to share stories about those honored in their artwork. Considering the ancient practice of marking warriors with tattoos, it is hard to break that act of expression.

On April 30th, the newest revision to the US Army's regulation on grooming and appearance standards, AR 670-1, took effect, and it has provisions that are causing some controversy -- and even prompted a law suit.  As noted in Army Times, the rules ban tattoos below the knee or elbow, although soldiers who already have such tattoos are "grandfathered" in. A big issue, however, is that the new regulations bar any soldier with tattoos from seeking a promotion to warrant officer or commissioning as an officer.

One guardsman who served 10 years on active duty, Staff Sgt. Adam Thorogood, has filed a $100 million lawsuit in response to the ban, which has stopped him from "fulfilling a dream of joining 'The Nightstalkers,' the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment at Fort Campbell, Kentucky." 

According to this Army Times article:

The lawsuit acknowledges that troops have an abridged right to free speech, but only insofar as it hinders their mission, discipline morale or loyalty. The lawsuit argues in effect that the ban itself is hindering the Army's mission, since it is preventing the most qualified candidates from applying to become officers or warrant officers because they have certain tattoos.

The suit also argues 670-1 is an ex post facto "law" because it applies retroactively to a subsection of soldiers, acting as, "an absolute bar to an otherwise qualified group of soldiers."

Finally, though the regulation does not say so outright, according to the lawsuit's interpretation, Thorogood could be subjected to punishment under military law if he were to attempt to submit his accession packet.

Thorogood said the hefty size of the claim is not about getting rich. Rather, it is intended to get the Army's attention.

The lawsuit has gotten a lot of media attention, and it should be interesting to see how this plays out in federal court.

Also, at issue with the new revisions to AR 670-1 is whether the new grooming standards discriminate against African-American women serving in the Army, as regards to a section called "female twists and dreadlocks," which bans "any unkempt or matted braids or cornrows."

While the military has a long-standing tradition of conservative appearance regulations, many argue that they must be brought up to today's norms of appearance and reflect the diversity of its soldiers. Thorogood's lawsuit should have an impact on this debate.

Beyond the rules and regs, today is a day to reflect on those who have given their lives in service and to honor them in our own ways.


connect with us
advertisement
archives
advertisement






EDITOR IN CHIEF:
Marisa Kakoulas
CONTRIBUTORS:
Miguel Collins
Craig Dershowitz
Brian Grosz
Sean Risley
Patrick Sullivan
© ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Needles and Sins powered by Moveable Type.

Site designed and programmed by Striplab.

NS logo designed by Viktor Koen.