The lifting of decorum standards has further implications apparently.

[CAMike]

A Marine has the courts opinion on his side re: uniform use while working part time for another employer. I realize the story link below doesn't share all the legal details, but on the surface it stinks to high heaven. I'm not sure a regular Marine would benefit from the system in the same way. Any LO's or Jag's care to chime in on what constitutes illegal commercial use of the uniform?

As I recall we older types weren't even supposed to show up at any political events with ANY part of our uniform on let alone a movie set.

http://undertheradar.military.com/2011/10/court-says-marine-porn-no-big-deal/?ESRC=soldiertech.nl

 

[MIDNJAC]

I wonder who ratted him out.......must have been awkward to explain that one..."sir I noticed while perusing some gay porn that one of our Sgt's was doing some dude while in uniform" I guess this must be the unintended consequence of DATD repeal

 

[TheBubba]

Is this different from a non military member doing the same scene while wearing a military uniform he bought somewhere? Food for thought.

 

[MIDNJAC]

Is this different from a non military member doing the same scene while wearing a military uniform he bought somewhere? Food for thought.

I'd say that it isn't, with the caveat that being a Marine, he should have known better than to do this.....whereas some civilian kid off the street probably wouldn't understand the problem.

 

[Brett327]

Is this different from a non military member doing the same scene while wearing a military uniform he bought somewhere? Food for thought.

Completely. I'll have to digest the legal findings, but I presume they were using the prohibition of being in uniform where it might be seen as either USMC endorsement or otherwise service discrediting. I remember back in the day, a chick in the squadron was stripping out in town. The command told her to knock it off or face the consequences.

Brett

 

[TheBubba]

Completely. I'll have to digest the legal findings, but I presume they were using the prohibition of being in uniform where it might be seen as either USMC endorsement or otherwise service discrediting.

Didn't think about that aspect of it. Legal or not, I will agree that this Marine could have used much better judgement in his choice of wardrobe.

 

[insanebikerboy]

Completely. I'll have to digest the legal findings, but I presume they were using the prohibition of being in uniform where it might be seen as either USMC endorsement or otherwise service discrediting. I remember back in the day, a chick in the squadron was stripping out in town. The command told her to knock it off or face the consequences.

Brett

Was that just because she was stripping or because she was using parts of her uniform? I can't see it making a difference, especially if people she worked with came to watch her strip.

 

[phrogdriver]

"Not a complete uniform?" So if someone drops his service trou and starts railing some gal/guy from behind on camera it's not discrediting the service because it's not all put together? Bizarre.

 

[CAMike]

"Not a complete uniform?" So if someone drops his service trou and starts railing some gal/guy from behind on camera it's not discrediting the service because it's not all put together? Bizarre.

Bizarre? Yes. I think so too. I also think that if the man were doing hetero movies he'd be SOL. I'd love to write his next eval. The bullet points would be epic.

 

[Brett327]

Was that just because she was stripping or because she was using parts of her uniform? I can't see it making a difference, especially if people she worked with came to watch her strip.

Just stripping, and there were, in fact, people from the command that went to see her. Legalities aside, it's a bad idea for the servicemember to go down that road, and an even worse idea for commands to not do everything in their power to stop such fourees into the adult entertainment world.

Brett

 

[squorch2]

That would probably run up against the first amendment.

 

[insanebikerboy]

Just stripping, and there were, in fact, people from the command that went to see her. Legalities aside, it's a bad idea for the servicemember to go down that road, and an even worse idea for commands to not do everything in their power to stop such fourees into the adult entertainment world.

Brett

Yeah, that's what I was getting at. I can think of only bad things happening if a few girls in our command starting stripping.

 

[Uncle Fester]

Stripping could probably be brought to mast under the "prejudicial to good order and discipline" catch-all, especially if she was doing it at a club near homeport, i.e., where people from the command would see her. Porn also, for that matter.

There were a couple of cases of Navy girls appearing in Playboy in years past. One was the infamous USNA grad NFO, another was an OS-something who appeared in the back pages...won a Hawaiian Tropic bikini conest or something. The difference between the two was that the FO was in uniform or part uniform in most of the pics - one in blues with stripper-grade makeup - and the whole point of the photo spread explicitly and repeatedly identified her as an active Navy officer. The petty officer wasn't in uniform, and it just mentioned somewhere in her bio blurb that she was in the Navy.

The FO probably should have got in trouble, as she was still on AD when the issue published, but she had already dropped her letter and the PTB apparently preferred to just let her go away.

I don't think DoD cares so much about making money off your uniform, as it is 'bringing discredit on the uniform' by how you're making money...or implying that your goods and services somehow are endorsed by the DoD.

 

[BACONATOR]

Reading the comments after the article made my mind melt.

 

[HueyCobra8151]

I actually worked a very similar case (to include calling NMCI to find out about viewing gay porn on a gov computer as part of the investigation...).

Joint Ethics Regulation 3-209: "Endorsement of a non Federal entity, event, product, service, or enterprise may be neither stated nor implied by DoD or DoD employees in their official capacities and titles, positions, or organization names may not be used to suggest official endorsement or preferential treatment of any non Federal entity except those listed in subsection 3 210., below."

That is contained within a specifically punitive portion. At least in our case, the guy had a blouse that stated his name (idiot) and US Marines. Dunno if that would apply here. There are several other applicable provisions in the J.E.R. and I am sure there are multiple orders from various subordinate units that apply as well, that is just the highest level one as it is signed by SECDEF.