Guardsman to sue Army for tattoo regs
PintoNag sends a link from MSN which reports that SSG Adam C. Thorogood, a Kentucky National Guardsman, plans to sue the Army over it’s new tattoo regs;
[Thorogood] said the tattoos covering his left arm from the elbow to the wrist aren’t harmful, but the Army is using the body art against him and stopping him from fulfilling a dream of joining “The Nightstalkers,” the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. Thorogood’s attorneys said the new rules are preventing their client from seeking appointment as a warrant officer.
Thorogood, 28, sued Thursday in U.S. District Court in Paducah, Kentucky, seeking to have the new rules declared unconstitutional. He is seeking $100 million in damages.
I think this is as stupid as the folks using the CBC to get the Pentagon to change hair regs. Of course, I also think that the new reg is cumbersome and stupid. We can all hope that the Army comes to the realization that they need talented warriors more than they need pretty soldiers. I have no tattoos, but that was my choice, I always figured that I’m pretty enough the way I am, so….
If the Army wants to make a previously allowed practice not allowed, then just make a cutoff date and stop it. There should be no repercussions for the people who had the tats before the date. But no one has ever accused Ray Chandler of having any smarts. And then the annual tattoo inventory is more unnecessary BS – obviously contrived by a POG who has nothing to do but inspect police call areas all day. If they’re going to be hard and fast with the inventories, they should make sergeant majors certify every inventory personally, and it should be monthly. On pay day. Then the practice would go away before it even started.
Ray wants a pretty Army and he wants to drive the ugly ones out;
“The Army is a profession, and one of the ways our leaders and the American public measure our professionalism is by our appearance,” Chandler said. “Every soldier has the responsibility to understand and follow these standards. Leaders at all levels also have a responsibility to interpret and enforce these standards, which begins by setting the example.”
Yeah, well, time travel hasn’t been invented yet, so the soldiers can’t know that some bozo sergeant major is going to change the regs on them. Of course, this is the same sergeant major of the Army who lectured the troops in Afghanistan that their cultural insensitivity was getting them killed in green-on-blue attacks – and still supported their commander’s decision to force the troops to be unarmed in a combat zone. So, we really can’t expect him to have a measure of common sense on something so simple as tattoos, can we?
Category: Big Army
Chandler? Who the fuck is this Chandler guy? Wait, wait, wait. I bet he was that GUY from 1st platoon A/11/3 that policed cig butts all day long because he wined at the senior drill sargeant about some bullshit thing he didn’t like in BCT at Knox.
“He is seeking $100 million in damages.” yeah, that’s what he would have earned as a WO over 20 years, I suppose. How’s about he loses and that’s about it.
My problem with the “new” 670-1 is this, it’s virtually the same appearance standards the army had when I first enlisted. I guess I fail to see the issue with a waiver being retracted, but what do I know.
That’s pretty much what I was thinking. If they want to change it back then fine, issue the cut-off date and make those troops wear long sleeves if its such a big deal. Suing the Army sounds like just a “look at me” crock of shit
What a crock! Tats are keeping him from getting into 160th SOAR? This joker’s not even a warrant yet. I’d love to see his FAST scores.
LebbenB: the guy’s “point” (if you can call it that) is that his tattoos now make it impossible for him to apply for a warrant, even if otherwise qualified. Previously, they apparently did not.
I think the guy’s argument is bogus; the military has every right to change both uniform/appearance standards and WO/commissioning standards as it desires. However, I can understand his argument for grandfathering, even if I don’t buy it.
His claim for $100M in damages is absurd. I’m certain that was suggested by his lawyer for publicity purposes.
How about this. If the services don’t like sleeve tats have different colored “cover up” sleeves availiablr when people are in short sleeved uniform?
Apart from the inherent difficulty in suing the government or its agencies I understand exactly where this gentleman is coming from. While the military is free to adjust appearance standards at any time as is appropriate to the mission at hand it will be difficult for anyone to argue successfully that the presence of a forearm tattoo was not a problem when the military needed everyone it could find to support a two front war in the middle east but now that we are looking at an RIF the tattoos would somehow hinder job performance. In recent months we’ve all seen the variety of steps taken by the administration and the military’s senior enlisted and officer corps to take away benefits and crete unnecessary obstacles to the troops collecting their benefits or maintaining their career path. While there has always been a certain “we can have it both ways” because we are the government attitude regarding the military at some point for the good of the national defense the government needs to be held accountable for actions that run counter to that process and abuses the very people who served honorably and fulfilled their side of their commitment. Everyone in the United States has the right to litigate, while I have no support for damages at the 100 million dollar level I am certain his attorney chose a number that would make a statement and if successful would be a number that actually left an impression with the military. If we are indeed a nation of laws the only recourse that honorable men have to effect positive change is the court system. Maybe the senior commanders can stop letting assholes like Chandler run around making changes that have nothing to do with readiness and everything thing to do with prettiness as if that ever won a war anywhere in the history of mankind. I hope his court case succeeds, then maybe senior commanders can spend days watching powerpoint presentations on how not to be complete assholes and the importance of actually being leaders of people being trained for the violent… Read more »
Actually, VOV – there are times when one does not have the right to litigate. One of those times takes its name from the case Feres v. US (1950). In one sentence, it essentially says that members of the military have no right to sue the Federal government for injuries (up to and including wrongful death) caused by the negligent acts of other members of the military.
I frankly do not see how this guy's suit will survive the government's motion to dismiss based on Feres. (While there are exceptions to Feres that allow military members to file suit, those generally involve cases where being in the military was irrelevant, and a civilian would have been harmed identically in the identical situation.) But I've been wrong before – when it comes to Federal court, you never know what some idiot judge will create as a new "right" out of whole cloth.
Actually in this case the injury is not physical and the situation would be similar to a changing work rule regarding appearance for a civilian.
I was not certain the Feres would apply here in that situation as a civilian could argue that a workplace dress code change that is only changed to target certain employees while not targeting other employees is an unfair work practice. And this change is not at all one that holds any bearing on the type of work to be performed only upon the appearance of the individual performing the work in an industry where appearance isn’t fundamentally important to job function, such as fashion model. That led me to believe it could be problematic for the military, especially if no such work rule would apply to civilian contractors employed in work areas frequented by these military employees. It’s hard to argue that tattoos were a non-issue for pilots 4 years ago but are suddenly a huge problem today.
It will be interesting to see how the court views this situation, as you point out there is no telling how any judge (idiot or genius) will perceive this issue as it doesn’t involve a serious medical injury or a fatality nor does it involve negligence. It might be dismissed outright due to the military’s ability to regulate appearance as an inherent workforce right, or it might be heard as the member in question was accepted as an appropriate person for the job with the tattoo previously.
In any event Feres doesn’t say you don’t have the right to litigate it says the government can’t be held accountable under the situations delineated in Feres, and also those in Jefferson and Griggs…which is often the trio of test cases used.
I sure won’t bet on this one, and your track record means you are probably close to the mark on this one.
Attention whore!
Not my submission this time, Jonn. I didn’t send this to you.
Two Words:
Neck Tattoos
Stupid rule and a stupid lawsuit.
No argument about the rule being stupid, Gravel.
When has something being a stupid idea ever stopped it from becoming policy?
If the colored women troops can complain to the Congressional Black Caucus, “Dat da new AY RRR 6 Sebendy das 1 be rayciss.” and “Dem dere braids and webes is part of my hairatage.” This guy has a chance. In fact, appeal directly to SECDEF Hagel.
OK, I’ll say it – I would tone that down some, Frank. I’m an old white guy and that even sounded racist to me.
In agreement. No illiterate blaccents on here, folks. Beyond the fact that I don’t know a single black person who actually talks like that, it’s stereotypical and racist.
This really isn’t the place for this video — it’s too upbeat for the discussion — but if you haven’t seen it, you should.
I guess I don’t understand. If tattoos were allowed then not allowed, you can’t just wash them off. There has to be as Jonn said a cutoff date beyond which they are not allowed by anyone under the newly prescribed manner. (showing on neck, lower arms and so forth) But to punish those who did something which they were allowed to do, after the fact makes no sense to me. It’s not the same as say, changing smoking areas on post or something simple people can immediately be compelled to comply with. I agree the young man has the right to litigate. I think he is a bit overboard about it. But then again, my opinion of Ray Chandler has changed a lot. Ray it appears is not going to outsmart anybody any time soon. In the absence of the ability to do so, he relies on his rank and authority to compensate for lack of common sense. That is a scary, dangerous type of leader.
Not a big fan of tats, but I seriously don’t care if someone else has one. Or several.
However, visible tats are as distracting as gaudy jewelry, pink umbrellas, and lots of other things which are not “uniform.”
Not that I support Chandler on this. But even he can get something almost right even for the wrong reasons occasionally. He is managing to screw this up by handling it in what appears to be his usual inept manner.
The 100mil figure is just a number that has to be put in a lawsuit.
And Chandler is a dildo…
Tats are now socially accepted personal art. Some of them have deep personal meaning.
So here’s a question: Do soldiers today go into the military with all that ink, or do they get it after they go in? My thought is, if they have it when they go in, regulating isn’t going to do much good. If the Army is trying to prevent tattooing after the soldier goes into the military, then I understand the attempts at developing regulations.
I can understand banning them, but allowing them, then banning them, then making it retroactive to ride the ass of soldiers who got them when it was allowable within the rules is a hard pill to swallow. A hundred mil is insane, but he has a valid point otherwise to my eyes.
Dumb idea to sue, but if it draws attention to idiotic draw-down type rules, so be it. Neck, face, and hands I understand, but if it can’t be seen in Class A’s it should be good to go. Unless it’s some extremist image, like the LA Clippers logo…
Fuck each other in the ass in the barracks, that’s your right.
Tattoo?
Burn’ em!
I hope there is more of this in the future. For far too long have certain people been silent and accepted it while the other side stamps their feet and uses the means to perverse official policy to their whims.
Special snowflakes now can try for $100M in damages for things they haven’t earned. Sounds exactly like what John Giduck tried doing.
Did you ever see a wrinkled old man or old woman with tats? Consequently, I can guess only that those who get the tats either expect to die young or not at all and never to grow old. When what was once firm and tight is now loose and flabby, the art goes with it.
I think this lady says it best…
http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/236x/fc/c0/49/fcc049dd06eaf6483dd0be94f1515188.jpg
The pics I had in mind–NEVER to be viewed on a full stomach–can be found here. There is some pain involved–all of it the viewer’s.
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/fashion/this-is-what-your-tatt-will-look-like-in-40-years-14-old-people-with-tattoos/story-fnks7u94-1226844349268