Can a platoon sgt tell a female soldier that she is required to wear a bra when in civilians?

Personally, my jaw is still unhinged from reading it, actually (audible click as it's snapped back into place, obv)....

Joke, one and all, obv....

And I do of course know it was obv a serious question, I'd just thought to add that also, honest....

SSG Dale London - Odd because that is not what I was instructed. I was instructed that off duty the ONLY restrictions for civilian life was two different scenarios.

In CONUS people can wear whatever they want as long as it is NOT part of the uniform, as long as they are not at an official function (military sanctioned) and as long as it is not against local laws.

Overseas it is completely different.. There the command decides what is authorized or not for civilian wear because they need to ensure compliance with local custom and law.

But here in the USA, it would be a violation of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution to dictate what a member can wear in full off duty status.

If you were right, that would mean that the military could tell you what underwear you can or cannot wear in your own home, what colors you can display in public, what shoes you are allowed to have on your feet while dancing... Sorry but you are way wrong on this one. And I learned this in command training.

PO1 Todd B. - I am surprised at your reposonse and I hate to disagree with you but the fact of the matter is that while you are on active duty, many of your constitutional rights are over-ridden by the UCMJ. That's why you can be restricted to barracks by your CO for any reason or no reason at all. You can be required to appear on the quarter-deck at any hour wearing any uniform your are required to maintain according to Naval regulations. You can be required to attend classes that you have no interest in, you are restricted in what you may and may not say, your quarters on base can be searched at any time without a warrant and your property can be seized on any pretext or none.
Your icon indicates you served long enough to retire. This leads me to believe you have seen these sorts of things happen in your career. It will have looked like garbage and it probably was garbage but it happened anyway and it was completely legal.
When you raise your right hand and promise to obey the officers appointed over you according to regulation and the Uniform Code of Military Justice you surrender a significant number of your constitutional rights until your term of service is over. This is the way it must be in order to maintain order and discipline in a war-fighting organization.
If you doubt me, just think what would have happened to you had you told your Division Chief to shove it sideways after being ordered on watch to cover for a sick shipmate; or what would have happened to you and your property if brought a USB stick that you purchased legally into a secured space like the CIC. And you cannot tell me that it's not common practice to order a sailor to move back into the barracks if, being married, he is consistently late for quarters.
All of this and more can be done without recourse to due process of law and all of it would be upheld as right and proper in a Courts Martial should you be foolish enough to press the point.
I will agree that it is normal for your "rights" to be observed while on active duty but that is by custom and at the discretion of the CO. This is because, while you serve, they are not actually rights but priveleges. You surrendered your rights -- albeit temporarily -- when you swore your oath and you didn't get them back until they gave you your DD214.
There are rows and rows of guys in Leavenworth who found this out the hard way.

SSG Dale London - I am not sure where you got the idea your Constitutional rights no longer are valid.. You still have full Constitutional Rights, the UCMJ does not override them rather it modifies some of them for purposes of military service.

For example, legal rights still fall under the Constitution but under military courts. You have right to attorneys. Right to be free of warrantless searches UNLESS your home is ON base/ship etc.

I would suggest you look up the actual articles because if it were as you are trying to say, then there are a whole lot of military personnel that are in major trouble. BTW, we are referring to a peacetime volunteer military, which is MUCH different than a drafted one. And there IS a difference.

I was taught the limits of military authority CONUS vs station and there are some important ones.. Other things that change include authority of military police on bases vs in the civilian world, ability for the military to decide your housing or living status on base vs civilian locations.. And much more. Or another one... protests. You have EVERY right to protest and be in protests even if they are something your superiors do not agree with. Voting, same thing. They can't tell you who to vote for just, just as they can't tell you that you have no right to protest.. again BIG distinction between ON duty, OFF duty, ON base, INSIDE the USA etc... it all depends on your status at the moment.

Just as the military cannot tell you who or what you can or cannot vote for, they cannot enter your home nor have a say in what you do or do not wear OFF duty OFF base inside the USA's own borders.

You are right WHEN you are not CONUS, then it is absolute. But within our own borders, that is not the case when you are considered OFF duty on private time AND not located on or in any military installation, as long as you are not representing, claiming to be or wearing anything military official..

PO1 Todd B. - According to the "FreeAdvice Legal" website: "Military personnel are covered by the U.S. Constitution, but not in exactly the same way as civilians are. While military personnel are not excluded from the rights set forth in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution grants Congress the power to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.
As a practical matter, most civilian Constitutional rights are afforded to military personnel but with differences judged to suit the military situation. In some areas, such as right to counsel and rights warnings, military personnel have broader protections than those contained in the Constitution. In other areas such as freedom of speech, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, and the right to privacy, they have significantly fewer protections.
Military and appellate courts interpret the strictures of the UCMJ as being consistent with Constitutional protections and this was underscored by Congress in 1963. At that time, the US house of Representatives held a series of hearings and produced a report titled "Constitutional Rights of Military Personnel." At the top of their list of conclusions, they said, "1. The safeguards provided by the Uniform Code of Military Justice have generally proved to be desireable and should not be repealed." In that report, congress acknowledged their right to change the status quo and chose not to. Nor have they chosen to do so since.
Thus, while you do not technically lose any rights when you join the military, the effect of the UCMJ places restrictions on them that you wouldn't normally face in a civilian environment. Here are a few examples:
Freedom of Speech: Service personnel may not make statements supporting or opposing a political party or position, nor participate in a political gathering while in uniform or while acting in a way that could be construed as a military endorsement. Likewise, service personnel may not speak disparagingly of their officers nor be insubordinate to their NCO's at any time or in any way -- by speech, action or inaction.
Right to Bear Arms: Service members may not possess private firearms on post unless authorized by the installation commander. In 2015, for example, the Marine Corps issued a policy requiring all post commanders to revoke permission for any private firearms on post save only for those kept permanently in storage in armories by NCOs and Officers living on post.
Lawful Search and Seizure: All billets, barracks, and other public living spaces on post may be subject to health and welfare inspections at any time. Any property that can be legally owned in civilian life but which violates DoD or post commander policy may be impounded.
Trial by a Random Jury of Your Peers: Minor violations of the UCMJ may be dealt with through punishment determined by commanders without any trial at all. The accused does have a right to demand a Court-Martial rather than accept an Article 15 but he or she will not not face a random jury of their peers. Instead the jury is hand selected by the convening body, and will consist of officers unless the accused is enlisted and specifically requests an enlisted jury -- and even then, the jury is not selected at random but in a manner most likely to elicit the decision desired by the court. The protection of judicial review of convitions by apellate court do exist but court martials are rarely overturned.
This is just a brief example of how your rights are curtailed while in service but I am pretty sure you're bored by now.
Suffice to say that if a female soldier who, having been ordered to wear a bra, fails to do so, her CO has the chops to make an Article 92 violation stick. I have seen the UCMJ stretched to cover infractions far more petty than this.