PurpleheartOklahoma (scroll down)

Oklahoma State and Local Agencies Disqualify Eligible OIF/OEF Veterans with visable tattoos

(E-mails)

From: Christopher DeCloud <christopher_decloud@yahoo.com>
To: Bruce Dwyer <brucedwyer@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Thu, June 10, 2010 9:17:22 PM
Subject: Oklahoma State and Local Agencies Disqualify Eligible OIF/OEF Veterans

Dear Sir,

On March 15th, 2009, I was honorably discharged from the U.S. Army.
After serving six plus years on active duty as a military policeman,
(including a 12 month tour in Iraq where I was decorated for valor and
received the purple heart) I was ready to restart my life as a civilian
police officer. However, I quickly learned that my honorable service and
military experience would not help me even put my foot in the door, due
to a memorial tattoo of a fallen buddy on my right hand.

In 2006 the Army G1 modified Army Regulation 670-1, chapter 1-8E(1) via
an ALARACT 017/2006 message. Revising the above portion of the
regulation to read: “Tattoos that are not extremist, indecent, sexist or
racist are allowed on the hands and neck. Initial entry determinations
will be made according to current guidance.”

Since 2006 many soldiers have tattooed themselves in accordance with the
revised regulation. To understand why soldiers would tattoo their hands
and necks, one needs to understand why soldiers get tattoos anyway. Some
soldiers get tattoos because of the current tattoo culture in the United
States where many young people get them for their artistic expression.
However, most soldiers get them to tell a story, display bible
scriptures, or act as a memorial for the fallen.

The Army has a culture all its own. The current culture consist of an
eight year long war in two countries in urban combat. Tattoos allow a
soldier to cary with them images of pride, home, family, religion and
remembrance. In many cases soldiers have reserved the areas of their
hands and neck (the only areas exposed in uniform) to remember and honor
the fallen and cope with the loss.

Since I have been back, I have sought employment in the law enforcement
field and have met all qualifications except the tattoo policy. I have
also come into contact with many other returning veterans in the same
situation. We have even been told to just “remove” the tattoos. But, it
would be easier to remove the hand.

A prime example of these policies is the Chief’s Directive of the
Oklahoma Highway Patrol, Subject: Body Art Standards, Number 2009-09,
12/18/09, approved by COL Van Guillotte, which stated that its purpose
is to “establish standards for a professional appearance”. In paragraph
IV, sub paragraph C, it states “ Body art is not permitted on the neck,
face, head, hands, exposed legs or any area of the chest visible in any
authorized uniform or attire.”

This directive, and other policies like it, effectively eliminates any
veteran who fought honorably for this country who has a tattoo on the
hand or neck which was considered “professional appearance” by the U.S.
Army since 2006.

I suggest that there needs to be some protection for todays returning
veterans who seek employment within the local governments of this state.
Policies or legislation that would exempt from such disqualifying
policies when they are otherwise fully qualifying.

To clarify, I don’t recommend that local departments and agencies should
be forced to change their current tattoo policies, but instead to waive
certain tattoo requirements for returning veterans who’s military
service allowed the tattoos as part of their professional appearance
standards.

As it stands, there are many returning veterans, that I have been in
contact with, who think that these directives and policies are implying
that returning veterans with disqualifying tattoos only have a
“professional appearance” to die for their country abroad, suffer
disabilities and disfigurement for the folks back home, but not for the
departments and agencies of the State of Oklahoma.

I, however, do not believe this is the case. Instead, I believe this is
a case of not being informed of the matter. My own situation is not that
bad as I am receiving compensation from the VA, however, there will be
many more soldiers returning in the upcoming years with disqualifying
tattoos who will be unable to pursue certain career fields within this
state. I advocate on their behalf.

Sincerely,

Christopher DeCloud

Hi Chris,

    We all have to learn/deal with choices we make, even if it results in a known/unknown drawback.

Wonder if this is something that would need legislation, writing your reps/Governor, changing police culture, or just time.

Or (more likely), maybe you should have that tattoo removed (and put somewhere else less visable and which meets the requirements)?

Do you know if the regs are the same on Fire Depts? I think the Border Patrol allows them.

Bruce Dwyer