That's what he said he had.....a fairly large family crest on his forearm. Is it the end of the world? No. Is he "screwed"? No. Is this going to help him overall? No.
The bottom line is that there are likely many, many other applicants who have similar scores/grades/etc who do not have visible tats. This will make him stand out, and most likely, not in a favorable way. Now, if he rocks his tests and has a 4.0 from M.I.T. in rocket surgery, then he'll be selected tatts and all.
Now, please return to the newly revived and pointless debate of whether all of this is fair or not.
Roger, I misread. On first read I thought it was on his upper arm (basically just above the inside of the elbow). But whatever.
Policy as far as I know is that thou shalt not
get a tattoo on the arms, neck, etc, once you're in the Nav, but it's not a show-stopper for
having one when you come in.
The kink is the "good order and discipline" loophole, used by someone who dislikes tattoos, or clowns, or the cut of your jib, or they're just narrow-minded and over-literal when it comes to the regs. I've had an O-5 try to tell me I can't shave my head because regs disallow "faddish" haircuts and shaved heads are "faddish".
So I guess to sum up, there's nothing that says ink can or should keep you out of the Navy/MC as an officer, but it can be used as a reason to make your application difficult by a recruiter who is so inclined. Sucks, but
c'est la vie, c'est la guerre.