Tattoo Thread - including current policy [MERGED]

[Container]

Fair enough. Did not mean to give misinformation, that is simply what I was told by a recruiter.

I wasn't trying to be a dick. It was just an internet tone thing- it can be confusing out there for sure.

When in doubt.....just do as the recruiter asks. And really- looking back. Do you need your hands and throat tattood? I dont regret them- but they will haunt my career.

 

[Goose15]

I wasn't trying to be a dick. It was just an internet tone thing- it can be confusing out there for sure.

Oh no worries I didn't think you were :cheers:

When in doubt.....just do as the recruiter asks. And really- looking back. Do you need your hands and throat tattood? I dont regret them- but they will haunt my career.

Yeah that is what I would do as well. Always easier to go for broke. Oh well as long as you don't regret them.

 

[The_Falcon]

I've found this thread particularly interesting and would like to add what I was instructed (as an applicant) regarding 'ink', both in my initial interview in 2011, as well as my update interview this past Winter/Spring.

In both instances I was asked where my ink was and what it was. After I informed the MCCs, I was asked if it held meaning to me/nature of it. Once they ascertained that it was non-offensive in any way (a butterfly on my ankle), I was then told that if I wished to get more tattoos I would have to seek permission first. To clarify, not 'notify' them, but to actually seek permission.

I didn't get the impression that the MCCs were speaking in terms of after I am enrolled. It was definitely implied that they meant from that point forward.

They didn't get into locations that would be off limits, but I would assume that's why they wanted to know my intentions beforehand should I choose to get any more.

The MCC was wrong about seeking permission plain and simple.  The tattoo policy is readily available and is fairly clear in what it says.

 

[PMedMoe]

The MCC was wrong about seeking permission plain and simple.  The tattoo policy is readily available and is fairly clear in what it says.

Yeah, I was going to say it sounded like he was on a power trip....

 

[The_Falcon]

Yeah, I was going to say it sounded like he was on a power trip....

I dunno, about going that far (although it is a possibilty), just another example of the CAF's version of broken telephone.  People seem to have this fascination with re-interpreting orders, policies, directives etc. to suit themselves and then others re-interpret those re-interpretations etc.  There is no need, when all those things are in electronic format and readily available, and in pretty simple and plain language.  But I guess ego and rank, prevent people from realizing they were misinformed from the outset..... :facepalm: 

 

[Ostrozac]

I dunno, about going that far (although it is a possibilty), just another example of the CAF's version of broken telephone.  People seem to have this fascination with re-interpreting orders, policies, directives etc. to suit themselves and then others re-interpret those re-interpretations etc.  There is no need, when all those things are in electronic format and readily available, and in pretty simple and plain language.  But I guess ego and rank, prevent people from realizing they were misinformed from the outset..... :facepalm:

Agreed. You still see a lot of people demanding that "you need a leave pass for weekend leave" if you are outside of the geographical area, or outside of the province, or outside 100km from the base, or whatever made up rule. All this even though the CF leave policy manual is extremely clear that "No CF100 is required for a member proceeding exclusively on weekend leave and/or designated holiday, except:  when travelling to a foreign country, or to a country other than the one where the member is employed; when travel benefits are requested (eg. LTA); or when required for ration accounting purposes for members authorized to draw rations on a continuous basis." If your average soldier wants to hop on his Harley and head off to Quebec City, Toronto, or Windsor on a Friday afternoon, he is well within his arcs of fire, and doesn't need a leave pass.

People see a strange need to make up fake rules on leave, and have a reluctance to actually read the rules on leave. It's the same for tattoos. Maybe I should reiterate the two key references for ink.

This is the POLICY: (from CF Dress Instructions)

Body Tattoos and Body-Piercing. As of April 1st, 2004, members are not to acquire any tattoos that are visible on the head, neck, chest or ears when an open collared shirt is worn.  Additionally, members shall not acquire visible tattoos that could be deemed to be offensive (e.g., pornographic, blasphemous, racist or containing vulgar language or design) or otherwise reflect discredit on the CF. Visible and non-visible body piercing adornments, with the exception of women’s earrings and ear sleepers described in sub-paragraph 6.a., shall not be worn by members either in uniform or on duty in civilian clothing. The meaning of the term “on duty”, for purposes of dress and appearance, is Interpreted in Chapter 1, paragraph 20.

This is the PROPOSED CHANGE: (from National Defence Clothing and Dress Committee 2012)

Proposal was made by CMP CCWO to change the wording of existing policy to permit the tattooing of the neck and forbid tattoos on the ears face and head.

 

[TCM621]

Agreed. You still see a lot of people demanding that "you need a leave pass for weekend leave" if you are outside of the geographical area, or outside of the province, or outside 100km from the base, or whatever made up rule. All this even though the CF leave policy manual is extremely clear that "No CF100 is required for a member proceeding exclusively on weekend leave and/or designated holiday, except:  when travelling to a foreign country, or to a country other than the one where the member is employed; when travel benefits are requested (eg. LTA); or when required for ration accounting purposes for members authorized to draw rations on a continuous basis." If your average soldier wants to hop on his Harley and head off to Quebec City, Toronto, or Windsor on a Friday afternoon, he is well within his arcs of fire, and doesn't need a leave pass.

People see a strange need to make up fake rules on leave, and have a reluctance to actually read the rules on leave. It's the same for tattoos. Maybe I should reiterate the two key references for ink.

Yet when you point out policy you are a baracks lawyer or "like to cause trouble". No wonder people keep fucking this stuff up.

The best one I heard was from a Maj who said policy is for senior officers not lower ranks.

 

[OldSolduer]

A Commanding Officer has a lot of leeway. The words shall (will), may (can if he/she wants) or should (Strongly suggested) often creep up in CFAOs, DAODs etc.

You can quote policy all day long and all Niner has to say is:

Get on with it.

 

[TCM621]

A Commanding Officer has a lot of leeway. The words shall (will), may (can if he/she wants) or should (Strongly suggested) often creep up in CFAOs, DAODs etc.

You can quote policy all day long and all Niner has to say is:

Get on with it.

Its rarely the CO though, isnt it?

 

[OldSolduer]

Its rarely the CO though, isnt it?

If you are talking about a leave pass, yes it most likely is a COs policy.

 

[TCM621]

If you are talking about a leave pass, yes it most likely is a COs policy.

Not really talking about leave passes specifically.  But to use this an example, I would ask:
Is there a written policy in place?
If not what would you be doing wrong if you didn't put in a leave pass? Ie what could they charge you with?
At the court martial (because if you are willing to go this far why not take it to a court martial) if you presented the  fact that you simply followed CF leave policy IAW the policy manual, would you get off?

I understand that sometimes it is easier just to go with the flow and there is a time for questions and a time for just following orders. However, I think it is our duty to due what we can to ensure policy is followed. I can think of a half a dozen examples in my recent memory where fighting (within the system and professionally) has resulted in proper benefits for troops who had wrongly been denied them. Personally if you can prove me wrong, I am happy because I have just gotten better at my job.

 

[The_Falcon]

A Commanding Officer has a lot of leeway. The words shall (will), may (can if he/she wants) or should (Strongly suggested) often creep up in CFAOs, DAODs etc.

You can quote policy all day long and all Niner has to say is:

Get on with it.

All that is true, however, there are plenty of people at various senior rank levels, who use some of phrases to contort written policies to their own whims, and usually state something to effect of its COs/base/unit etc policy, when in fact there is no policy verbally or more important written down.  And while several orders/directives have phrases that permit discretion many others do not, nor do they permit delegation of authority.  Can a "barracks lawyer" be a pain, sure but they can also be correct,  and then it becomes a failure in the leadership and chain to properly comprehend and implement those orders and regs.  It's a two way street.

 

[TCM621]

All that is true, however, there are plenty of people at various senior rank levels, who use some of phrases to contort written policies to their own whims, and usually state something to effect of its COs/base/unit etc policy, when in fact there is no policy verbally or more important written down.  And while several orders/directives have phrases that permit discretion many others do not, nor do they permit delegation of authority.  Can a "barracks lawyer" be a pain, sure but they can also be correct,  and then it becomes a failure in the leadership and chain to properly comprehend and implement those orders and regs.  It's a two way street.

I have found that 8/9 times out of 10 the person is simply not aware they are wrong. They think they are applying policy correctly and not doing it to be jerks. The problems tend to be when someone gets pissy because they feel that they shouldn't be questioned due to their rank or position. As long as one is polite about pointing out the issue, and the other person willing to listen there should never be a problem.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

OK folks, this is starting to go down the rabbit hole.

Be mindful of the thread topic and stay on track please.

---Staff---

 

[The_Falcon]

OK folks, this is starting to go down the rabbit hole.

Be mindful of the thread topic and stay on track please.

---Staff---

Might as well merge/lock/split, since the policies haven't changed since the last time dress were updated almost a decade ago.  And neither have peoples errenonius application of said policies.

 

[Chris Wiley]

I have searched and read a number of posts about tattoos but my question I have not found.

I was wondering, if I get a tattoo while still in the recruitment process who would I have to notify that I have a tattoo that I did not have during my interview or medical?

I'm aware of the policies regarding non-offensive tattoos and locations.

Thank you in advance,

Chris

 

[The_Falcon]

If you have already found and read the existing threads, then you have your answer already.

locked.

 

[FortYorkRifleman]

Can someone shed light on the tattoo policy for this fiscal year and how tattoo waivers work?

 

[Ostrozac]

Can someone shed light on the tattoo policy for this fiscal year and how tattoo waivers work?

The tattoo policy hasn't changed in over 10 years. I remember that it was briefed in my old rifle company back in 2004 as "you guys have until the end of March to get any neck ink, then you're done".

As of April 1st, 2004, members are not to acquire any tattoos that are visible on the head, neck, chest or ears when an open collared shirt is worn.  Additionally, members shall not acquire visible tattoos that could be deemed to be offensive (e.g., pornographic, blasphemous, racist or containing vulgar language or design) or otherwise reflect discredit on the CF.

Now, as to a waiver, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Do you want to get a giant racist tattoo in violation of the policy? That's a chargeable offense. And kind of a dumb idea.

 

[FortYorkRifleman]

The tattoo policy hasn't changed in over 10 years. I remember that it was briefed in my old rifle company back in 2004 as "you guys have until the end of March to get any neck ink, then you're done".

As of April 1st, 2004, members are not to acquire any tattoos that are visible on the head, neck, chest or ears when an open collared shirt is worn.  Additionally, members shall not acquire visible tattoos that could be deemed to be offensive (e.g., pornographic, blasphemous, racist or containing vulgar language or design) or otherwise reflect discredit on the CF.

Now, as to a waiver, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Do you want to get a giant racist tattoo in violation of the policy? That's a chargeable offense. And kind of a dumb idea.

I need a waiver for my application process. I have two grim reapers that apparently, according to my MCC, may be deemed offensive