ArmyStudyGuide.com Community

   

ArmyStudyGuide.com's Community is an Army Forum
 
ArmyStudyGuide.com    ArmyStudyGuide Community    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Officer Business  Hop To Forums  Warrant Officer Discussion    Tattoos (NEW AR-670-1)
Page 1 2 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Tattoos (NEW AR-670-1)
 Login/Join
 

posted
Hello all,

I am a Warrant Officer Candidate and I begin school on the 16th this upcoming month. I received the Slide Show pertaining to the new AR 670-1 updates and I am a bit concerned being that I have a tattoo on my forearm. Maybe I am just worrying myself for no reason, but I would like some guidance or information since I have yet to hear anything official. In accordance with the new regs, a tattoo below the elbow, knees etc. can only be smaller than your hand. Mine is smaller length wise, but a little sticks out on the sides width side. The guidance doesn't really give more details other than, it needs to be smaller than the hand. Given inch for inch it is smaller, I just can't cover it completely. My question is: If we've been selected for WOCS and have a class date and for whatever reason we don't meet this new tattoo policy that has yet to be released officially, are we grandfathered? Again, I think I'm legit, but I am a worry wort by nature, and I will definitely not let a tattoo destroy my dreams of becoming a Warrant Officer.
 
Posts: 49 | Location: Fort Huachuca, AZ. | Registered: 08 June 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post

posted Hide Post
You should be good because you have already been selected and by the time the policy officially goes into effect you will be wearing a dot. For all future candidates though, they will not be allowed to become officers if they do not meet the tatoo policy no grandfather.

The below is from the tattoo policy slide

"Officers and Warrant Officers are also restricted to this
same policy; Enlisted Soldiers exceeding this limit cannot
request commissioning (not grandfathered)"
 
Posts: 15 | Registered: 18 March 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post

posted Hide Post
Makes sense. I just don't like uncertainty. Thank you.
 
Posts: 49 | Location: Fort Huachuca, AZ. | Registered: 08 June 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post

posted Hide Post
just posted today

25 MAR 14 - NEW AR 670-1 - TATTOO POLICY - ATTENTION ALL APPLICANTS! On 6 MAR 14, the Secretary of the Army approved the new AR 670-1. Per the DA G1, 1 JUL 14 will be the implementation date for the new tattoo policy for those already selected and in the accessions pipeline. For those applicants applying after 1 JUL 14, the applicant must request an exception to policy or forgo any officer appointment process. If you need further guidance or have additional questions, please contact your local recruiting team via email or telephonically at: http://www.usarec.army.mil/hq/...t/WOassistance.shtml
 
Posts: 31 | Registered: 24 July 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post

posted Hide Post
Yup, just read that. Good news! I actually lost sleep over that. Lol.
 
Posts: 49 | Location: Fort Huachuca, AZ. | Registered: 08 June 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post

posted Hide Post
You and I both. The start date is one day before my expected graduation. Glad they got clarification so quickly!
 
Posts: 31 | Registered: 24 July 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post

posted Hide Post
Haha. Had me worried all weekend. It's all good now though.
 
Posts: 49 | Location: Fort Huachuca, AZ. | Registered: 08 June 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post

Picture of JOSHFREE
posted Hide Post
Class 14-14?


I got nothing.
 
Posts: 308 | Location: WA | Registered: 15 April 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post

posted Hide Post
Yes 14-014
 
Posts: 49 | Location: Fort Huachuca, AZ. | Registered: 08 June 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post

Picture of DLJewell
posted Hide Post
one question a CW2 posed to me today was: "what happens in 2 years when a WO1 has to apply for full presidential commssion to CW2. At that point, is he grandfathered in, or will it be a hassle?"

We assume Big Army is aware of this and it wont be a problem, but just in case...
 
Posts: 21 | Location: Fort Gordon, GA | Registered: 06 August 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post

Picture of TheWiseChief
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by AF SSgt:
one question a CW2 posed to me today was: "what happens in 2 years when a WO1 has to apply for full presidential commssion to CW2. At that point, is he grandfathered in, or will it be a hassle?"

We assume Big Army is aware of this and it wont be a problem, but just in case...


I think that CW2 may be pulling your leg (April Fools!!). In 2011, legislation was passed that made all WO1s Commissioned (you can verify this on WONET). Prior to that, when you made CW2, you were then commissioned. So in essence, the question makes no sense.

At that time WO1s was a Secretary of the Army Promotion. Then when I pinned CW2, my Major gave me the oath of office and swore me in.

Your promotion certificate as a WO1 should be as shown below (not Secretary of the Army as mine was)



You do not have to go through what I went through. You will get commissioned at your WOCS graduation. This article shows why this WO1 was able to take command because he is commissioned.



You should still need to fill out the DA71 when you pick up CW2 because you will become Regular Army. Even active duty Warrants who are WO1s are on the Reserve list for accountability purposes. You will fill this out prior to you pinning WO1 at WOCS.

When I graduated from WOCS in 2008, we had to fill out a DA71 http://www.apd.army.mil/pub/eforms/pdf/a71.pdf
 
Posts: 1902 | Registered: 04 February 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post

Picture of TheWiseChief
posted Hide Post
I found it here on page 6

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/P.../PLAW-111publ383.pdf

Authority for appointment of warrant officers in the grade of W–1
by commission and standardization of warrant officer appointing
authority (sec. 502)
The House bill contained a provision (sec. 502) that would amend
sections 571 and 12241 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize
appointments of warrant officers, W–1, in both the regular and reserve
components, to be made by warrant or commission.
The Senate committee-reported bill contained a similar provision
(sec. 509).
The agreement includes the Senate provision.
Nondisclosure of information from discussions, deliberations, notes,
and records of special selection boards (sec. 503)
The House bill contained a provision (sec. 503) that would amend
sections 613, 628 and 14104 of title 10, United States Code, to clar
ify that the nondisclosure provisions applicable to promotion selection
boards for officers on the active-duty list and on the reserve
active-status list are also applicable to promotion selection boards
for warrant officers and for special selection boards.
The Senate committee-reported bill contained a similar provision
(sec. 502).
The agreement includes the House provision.

Also, I was saw this in a WOPD message.

Commissioning of Army Warrant officers


“When and why were warrant officers commissioned?”

Short Answer: Prior to passage of the Defense Authorization Act 1986, appointments of regular and reserve chief warrant officers of the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard were made by commission; appointments of all Army WO’s, however, were made by the Secretary of the Army. The commissioned status of the Chief Warrant Officers of the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard was considered more prestigious and empowering than the appointment from Secretary of the Army. Those major considerations, along with concerns relating to the Army fully utilizing the leadership experience/capabilities of warrant officers, resulted in the initiative to commission Army warrant officers.
Brief Background: The warrant officer commissioning legislation was the result of several years of effort by both the Army and the WO association. Along with the prestige and empowerment considerations, several specific issues were offered as rationale for the commissioning initiative: authority while in a command position; the authority to enlist Soldiers; and the characterization of WO service as “commissioned”. While these issues (and others) provided specific rationale for making the legislative change, the stated official DOD intent for proposing the action was to “conform service practices concerning the appointment of WO's” and to equalize the status of Army CWO with the CWO of the sea services.
Commissioning Impact: The passage of the Act removed any limitations previously imposed by law and provided appropriate authority to coincide with warrant officer responsibilities. The legislation also eliminated statutory ambiguity concerning many duties that warrant officers already performed. For example, warrant officers already commanded small detachments and other similar units, but their authority was derived from the provisions of Executive Order No. 8938,10 Nov 1941 (No.6 F .R 5743) rather than from inherent authority provided to commissioned officers. The legal change allowed warrant officers to be designated as “commanding officer” in the commissioned context, providing (in the opinion of the 1977 reviewing legal agency) greater authority for warrant officers in the execution of their responsibilities as commanders under UCMJ.
Among the additional changes provided by the action were the authority to execute oaths and the provision that allows warrant officers tobe charged with a violation of article 133, UCMJ “conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman”.
Summary: While the commissioning of Army warrant officers is often misunderstood both by warrant and branch officers, the impact is significant and clear. Simply stated, the legislative change provides warrant officers with the same authority and status of all other commissioned officers. They can administer oaths, serve as “commanding officers” and perform any other officer duty that is allowed by policy and law. They also have the same limitations and are legally bound to adhere to the same officer standards. Perhaps however, the most significant and subtle aspect of the initiative is captured in the verbiage supporting the original 1987 DA Form 71 commissioning action: “Acceptance of the commission by the eligible CWO demonstrates the understanding that this formal step improves and enhances his or her ability to be a member of the leadership of the U .S. Army”.
 
Posts: 1902 | Registered: 04 February 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post

Picture of JOSHFREE
posted Hide Post
see you there.


I got nothing.
 
Posts: 308 | Location: WA | Registered: 15 April 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post

posted Hide Post
Hell yeah! Can't wait!
 
Posts: 49 | Location: Fort Huachuca, AZ. | Registered: 08 June 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post

posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by TheWiseChief:




You should still need to fill out the DA71 when you pick up CW2 because you will become Regular Army. Even active duty Warrants who are WO1s are on the Reserve list for accountability purposes. You will fill this out prior to you pinning WO1 at WOCS.



TheWiseChief, When you say that, when W01's pick up CW2 they will become Regular Army. What does that entail? Is it just a status change or does that mean reserve warrants will become active duty? I leave for WOCS in 10 days, but I am a reservist. I was selected for aviation, and already have a unit that is reserves on a AD post. I would actually like becoming active duty after flight school
 
Posts: 40 | Registered: 10 August 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2  
 

ArmyStudyGuide.com    ArmyStudyGuide Community    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Officer Business  Hop To Forums  Warrant Officer Discussion    Tattoos (NEW AR-670-1)

 
   
 
    
 
 
  
Google Site maps Generator Tool