Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Commandos and Special Operations Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Tattoos?? are they a bad thing?
colts    3/10/2007 1:39:37 PM
I have been thinking about getting a tattoo but logic tells me otherwise. Do tattoos hinder an individuals chances of getting through the Recon pipeline? BUD/S? SOF? I know the MEPS requirments, I want to know about farther down the line. I would think they might be bad incase you were caught and then the tat could give you away??? Honestyl Im really not sure, that is just my pathetic guess. and I was watching the discover channel, BUD/S class 226, they said canadites with tattoos were less likely to graduate. Why? I can only think of two reasons either the instructors dont like tats, or people with tats are more extraverts and show off type people that are doing it for the wrong reasons therefore DOR during training.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
BadNews       3/10/2007 2:03:37 PM
There was a period in the 70's and 80's where tatoos were frowned upon by the US Military in general, that didn't stop them from appearing.
 
Myself, I made it through 26 years of service without one, almost once in Okinawa after an Orion beer blast, but somehow the needles found their way elsewhere. I did have a force recon friend of mine that got one that night, a 1/4" woodstock bird on his shoulder, he used to get beer money by scharging people 25 cents to see it
 
A tatoo is a permament identifying mark, I suppose their are some instances where that might be of issue. As far as buds and those with tattos having a higher drop out rate, 1st how recent is that data, could be that at the time the tatooed persons mindset may have been different, who knows?
 
Tatoos right now are stylish, a fad of the current generation, but like all FADS, it someday will fade. Think twice!
 
Quote    Reply

GOP       3/10/2007 2:45:02 PM
Tats are fine dude. I don't want one or have one, but as long as they don't have any SOF related stuff on them, then they are fine. I know of some guys who had some SEAL related tatoo's and went to BUD/S (one said "The only easy day was yesterday" and the other was of a frog with NSW on it's chest), and they paid for 'em for sure. But it won't hurt you at selection as alot of people have them.
 
As far as having them while in your unit, it still isn't a problem. I read that in Army SF, some units will all get tats when they are on deployment as it is teambuilding, etc. And some of those units do SR and have a decent likelyhood of getting caught, so it can't be that bad.
 
Quote    Reply

BadNews       3/10/2007 2:53:53 PM
LOL. I didn't say they were bad, just said they were permament.
 
It isn't the 70's or 80's anymore and believe me I saw alot of different tats over the years.
 
You just remnded me of a time past and a guy who made me laugh with his unique tatoo.
 
In all honesty, I took your orignal post lite heartedly and respoonded in what I thought was similar fashion.
 
Quote    Reply

colts       3/10/2007 3:48:46 PM
thanks, honestly i still dont know if I will get one.  Part of me has wanted one for years now but I probablly will end up not getting one. thanks for the input
colts
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       3/10/2007 5:21:03 PM
I wouldn't get one anywhere which can't easily be covered by clothing.  If you ever go for a normal job interview, they will be frowned upon and rule you out of some better jobs.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier       3/10/2007 5:43:26 PM
From what I've seen, I don't think there's any validity in claims that tattoos hurt your chance of making it to operator status, at least not in the army.  For every couple of guys with no tattoos there's one with some kind of ink and another guy with sleeves and other serious work.  Unless the BUD/S cadre are retarded about the subject, I can't imagine it being any different.
 
Like GOP (I think) suggested, tattoos that overtly violate OPSEC are bad, and tattoos that reflect your hoped for career rather than existing accomplishments are a really bad idea from a training cadre perspective . . .
 
Quote    Reply

GOP       3/12/2007 12:29:29 AM

From what I've seen, I don't think there's any validity in claims that tattoos hurt your chance of making it to operator status, at least not in the army.  For every couple of guys with no tattoos there's one with some kind of ink and another guy with sleeves and other serious work.  Unless the BUD/S cadre are retarded about the subject, I can't imagine it being any different.

 

Like GOP (I think) suggested, tattoos that overtly violate OPSEC are bad, and tattoos that reflect your hoped for career rather than existing accomplishments are a really bad idea from a training cadre perspective . . .


Trust me, alot of the BUD/S cadre have them, at least according to a former 1st phase instructor I know. But they really look down on any NSW or SOF related tats, because they haven't been 'earned' and they could violate opsec (you can forget about being in ST6 if you have a NSW tatoo). Colt, I promise you don't want the attention that a FR or related tat could bring (I know that you already know that, just making sure lol).
 
 
As far as OPSEC, a normal tat is completely cool (so to speak) to have. But let's say you are in Army SF or the SEALs or whatever and are doing some intel gathering, and you have a SOF tatoo that identifies you as SOF...that could literally be a killer.
Badnews, I wasn't at all calling you out or anything, sorry if I somehow implied that. I highly respect your opinion.
Colt, you still leaning toward BRC or you looking into the Teams nowadays? I tell you what bro, I'm still comitted 100% to going NSW, but if my medical problems get in the way then I know of some good options in Law Enforcement in my area (big city PD in my area is known for almost constantly hiring, so if I get a degree and some experience in a smaller PD, then I could probably get a job at the big city PD and eventually into the SWAT division)
 
Quote    Reply

BadNews    GOP   3/12/2007 12:57:02 AM
I didn't think you were calling me out, was just clarifying my statement. Sorry if you thought otherwise.
 
Jus one point about tats, from a clear perspective saw that of a grunt or a NSW or Army SOF operator, a tat is probably no big deal,
 
From an Intell point of view, it is an Identifying mark, just another thing to consider
 
Quote    Reply

colts       3/12/2007 1:26:24 AM




From what I've seen, I don't think there's any validity in claims that tattoos hurt your chance of making it to operator status, at least not in the army.  For every couple of guys with no tattoos there's one with some kind of ink and another guy with sleeves and other serious work.  Unless the BUD/S cadre are retarded about the subject, I can't imagine it being any different.



 



Like GOP (I think) suggested, tattoos that overtly violate OPSEC are bad, and tattoos that reflect your hoped for career rather than existing accomplishments are a really bad idea from a training cadre perspective . . .




Trust me, alot of the BUD/S cadre have them, at least according to a former 1st phase instructor I know. But they really look down on any NSW or SOF related tats, because they haven't been 'earned' and they could violate opsec (you can forget about being in ST6 if you have a NSW tatoo). Colt, I promise you don't want the attention that a FR or related tat could bring (I know that you already know that, just making sure lol).

 

 

As far as OPSEC, a normal tat is completely cool (so to speak) to have. But let's say you are in Army SF or the SEALs or whatever and are doing some intel gathering, and you have a SOF tatoo that identifies you as SOF...that could literally be a killer.

Badnews, I wasn't at all calling you out or anything, sorry if I somehow implied that. I highly respect your opinion.

Colt, you still leaning toward BRC or you looking into the Teams nowadays? I tell you what bro, I'm still comitted 100% to going NSW, but if my medical problems get in the way then I know of some good options in Law Enforcement in my area (big city PD in my area is known for almost constantly hiring, so if I get a degree and some experience in a smaller PD, then I could probably get a job at the big city PD and eventually into the SWAT division)


GOP,  
The Teams really do appeal to me, and I would absolutly love it, however I do not like the idea of being in the Navy.  (no offense to seamen)  I know I will be with the navy being in the Corps but I'll be a Marine, and BRC fits me more, I dont know, the Marines have always appealed to me, dont know what will happen for sure.  I just know I will serve, and more than likely in the Corps, they are turning their programs over to SOCOM, so BRC is me.  Does that make sense?  But who knows, I mean I still think of the Teams often, the Teams do appeal to me, but the Navy doesnt and you cant have one without the other right.
Good luck with your medical, I had a horrible dream last night, I was playing basketball, then I was a sniper and my right eye was shot, I lived but lost my right eye so I could not be in the Corps, I could not be a SEAL and I could not be a fireman.  It was awfull! 
 
Quote    Reply

barne2d2       3/13/2007 1:11:55 AM
I'm with the 20th SFG as an NQP and I have two tattoos. I have asked my cadre whether tats were bad to have at selection and the verdict is no. as long as they are within ucmj u're good to go
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics