When are military uniforms allowed at political rallies? I took this picture off my TV today at a Trump town hall meeting.

I concur 100% 1SG..

MAJ Michael Flynn - Correct. Again, State of the Union is an official function of government. NOT a political rally which is OFF LIMITS to wear of the uniform. I fail to see how that is confusing. They're distintcly different.

SFC Thomas Butler - Not confusing at all. If you wear your uniform you represent the military. If you wear it to a political function, unless you are posting the colors, you in effect are showing your support for the political activity regardless of what it is. When the President says "look at my token military person sitting next to my Spouse". it can be construed that the military person supports the President and his political party. I know they all do it. That doesn't make it right in my opinion. I'm done with this. 20 years active and I never gave up my right to think and believe what I thought was true and correct. Guess that was why most of my time was with SF and not conventional units.

The state of the union is a political function which is mandated by the Constitution as a mechanism to ensure communication between the branches of government. It is NOT a political event in which the wearing of the uniform implies that an active duty officer or service member is implying that all of those who wear the uniform favor a political candidate.

CW4 (Join to see) - I'll have to go when the chief on this one. In my original post I said unless on official business, as I like to always assume there is a good explanation, but this one is hard. Maybe he is a poser.

MSgt Gerald Shoemaker - Article 92, failure to obey a lawful order or regulation...,

Sir - I respectfully disagree. Just showing up in uniform is stating an opinion

As a retiree I can tell you there are restrictions (often ignored) as to when you can wear your uniform. We may wear the uniform we wore at time of separation, or the current equivalent uniform for military functions ie: Military funerals, ceremonies, parades, we are also prohibited from wearing the uniform at political rallies, or to promote a personal business, etc. The rules for reservists, retirees and veterans are outlined in AR 670-1 Chapter 30.

But doesn't it raise the question why he would be sitting there listening in uniform? What other reason would there be in uniform, other than to show that you, as a service member is there in support? Or is it just a debate? I guess that line of questioning would depend ombré situation.

Maybe he was there to receive part of the 6 million dollars for the veterans Trump received. Oh yea he hasn't done that

SSG (Join to see) - why do you think he was chosen to stand behind him for optics?

CW4 (Join to see) - He's in violation of 1 as well as several portions of the Hatch Act of 1939.

As long as they aren't campaigning or endorsing the candidate verbally to the crowd or in support directly c'mon people.

SGT Chad Fisher -He should choose a better evening atire but I don't believe just wearing it justifies any dicipine. Forest Gump never had anything to add about that Lol.

Definitely requires discipline. He does not have to verbally endorse the candidate. Him being in his uniform next to the candidate is enough of an endorsement. As NCO's of the Army I could say the same to y'all. C'mon? We have standards and discipline for a reason. That is a clear violation of Army Regulations.

you are in correct being there is implying the government sanctions the event which is illegal and that indivdual if an Officer or NCO they should know better and be delt with.

Read Chapter 30 of AR-670-1 it is entirely about retirees, and veterans wear of the uniform. The rules are very similar to those on active duty, despite being routinely ignored.

regarding both last comments. Im not going to argue with you. Its as stupid as arguing if Obama is a US citizen by birth or not.

the bottom line is if a rule or regulation isn't routinely enforced it has no authority. Arguing if its a violation of the hatch act to merely wear the uniform to the function has so many left and right turns its a non starter. One of the reasons its left subjectively up to a persons commander to get permission. its no different than any number of laws that might still be on the books but are unenforceable. Same stands true for chapter 30 of AR 670-1. Unless you are actually subject to the UCMJ Army regulations have no enforcement associated with them. You can argue that if you are retired they can bring you back on to CM you, but you need to dig into that a bit deeper. they cant bring you back on to CM you unless you were under the authority of the military at the time the offense was committed. The supreme court has been pretty clear on this and Case law has been pretty clear that anybody can wear a uniform anywhere as long as its not to gain personal profit through deception.

You don't have to like it, you don't have to even agree, but that doesn't change the fact that its how it is.

CW3 Stephen Mills - After re-reading your initial post and your response to mine I can't argue with your logic that although this would be an offense in regard to Army Regulations - this would be totally unenforceable, since Army Regulations technically don't apply to people who aren't currently in the Army. The Hatch act from what I've read about it also only applies to current Federal Government Employees. As a retiree no longer in the reserves or IRR I'm not subject to Army Regulations, but I would and should avoid doing things that would bring discredit upon my branch of service, or the government. My sworn oath didn't end when I left service, and I still take it seriously. So although a breach of Army Uniform Regulations may not be punishable by law, it would reflect badly on me, and possibly my government so it would be something I wouldn't do. Freedom of speech allows me to legally burn a flag in protest, but because I can do it and get away with it doesn't mean I should or would ever consider it. There is no reason as a retiree to show up in full uniform at a political event like this other than to give the impression that as a member of the military he supports the candidate (from the lengthy discussions on this, it is pretty clear his action is questionable, and discredits him at a minimum). There are other ways for a retiree to identify themselves as a veteran (ball cap or T-shirt etc.) that don't violate military uniform regulations. So yes I agree with you not technically illegal, but I would say if he is a retiree or otherwise separated veteran, in my opinion his wearing of the uniform at this type of function is a failure of judgement on his part.

SSG Ray Elliott - I agree completely, just because something is legal or you can technically get away with doing it doesn't make it the right thing to do.

SSG Brian Kresge - Hard to know on my end, I get the name from my father of course who didn't really know his so who knows, it's possible! Anyway nice to make your acquaintance.

I don't believe there is an issue using footage of someone in uniform at another event in a commercial, especially when there is a big message at the bottom of the screen that clarifies that there is no military endorsement. Tulsi Gabbard is a veteran and she shouldn't have to hide that fact.

I also saw nothing to indicate that the footage of her in uniform was staged.

Have you read the 2008 directive, or are you just going off the presence of the disclaimer? Both are in there. It enters the realm of the subjective, whether that was incidental footage or not.

Kindly don't insert words in my mouth, though. I didn't say she shouldn't have to hide that she is a veteran. Just that we all must be judicious in how we apply our images in uniform. For what it's worth, I'm a state house candidate and was careful to check with JAG and our PAO to ensure I am not crossing any lines with use of images, and they were able to give clear guidance about what was appropriate and what was not.

This was not technically a political rally; it was a "town hall" hosted by Hannity on Fox News with everyone st it appatently a Trump supporter. The optics suck, though, and the term "town hall" should be examined closely by DoD to determine whether the appropriate uniforn regs and guidelines should be updated to specifically address whether a "town hall" or a political debate should be mentioned either to approve or prohibit wear of the uniform at these events.

I believe that may have been in WV and I think he is retired and running in a congressional primary, he looks like the one assaulted Last week after he event

Might be more than just his ear.

1SG Michael Blount - LMAO!