What the 670-1 says about Dan Choi

| August 8, 2011

There were some questions in the post about Dan Choi so I looked up when (.pdf) wearing the uniform is prohibited and the regs for retired personnel wearing the uniform from the much loved Army Regulation 670-1.

In the prohibited category, Choi seems to have hit all of the main prohibitions up to and including the headgear requirement.

Even though Choi is not retired, I included the restrictions for retirees.

So not only did he manage to hit all of the prohibitions, he hit none of the authorized events. So, any LEOs out there who happen to be at an event where Choi shows up in his “moral authority” clothing, feel free to recite these regs to him.

DoD Policy Directive 1344.10 (.pdf) dated February 19, 2008 states specifically;

4.1.4. Subject to any other restrictions in law, a member of the Armed Forces not on active duty may take the actions or participate in the activities permitted in subparagraph 4.1.1., and may take the actions and participate in the activities prohibited in subparagraph 4.1.2, provided the member is not in uniform and does not otherwise act in a manner that could reasonably give rise to the inference or appearance of official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement.

Emphasis is mine.

Category: Shitbags

12 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
DaveO

If Choi disregards Army Regulations, and the lawmen present take no action, then Choi has won and AR 670-1 is so much piffle. What civil or criminal law, that is known to LEO and District Attornies, enforces/reinforces Army regs?

Dave Thul

I am behind on the chronicles of Choi-did he ever get back in as a private or is he still a civilian? He’s wrong either way, but if he is enlisted and doing this I would like to contact his unit.

Hinton

I still say the Choi Boi needs a cu*t punt.

Raven

Didn’t he resign his commission? If so, then wearing LT bars counts as impersonating an officer doesn’t it? Or is that freedom of speech now too?

The Sniper

I think Choi is less concerned with 670-1 and more concerned with HI-V.

Doc Bailey

So here’s the major question 670-1 applies to the military, but does it apply to civilians? I know there’s a law about “impersonating an officer”. . . There’s also Stolen Valor, but to my knowledge he hasn’t worn anything he’s not authorized so aside from calling him out every chance you get, what can you do?

NHSparky

Since he isn’t authorized to wear the uniform per 670-1 (he’s not AD/Guard/Reserves/Retired) this would be closer to a “Stolen Valor” case. Now to be fair, I still have (and occasionally wear) my Navy peacoat, but with any rank removed or anything that would make it a “distinctive uniform item”.

Doc Bailey

Sparky, I don’t think there’s any law on the books, but there damned well ought to be.

Sig

You’re looking for federal law, specifically 10 USC Sec. 771, which governs wear and use of the uniform:

Except as otherwise provided by law, no person except a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps, as the case may be, may wear –
(1) the uniform, or a distinctive part of the uniform, of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps; or
(2) a uniform any part of which is similar to a distinctive part of the uniform of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps.

He is in violation of federal law.

Sig

Addendum: Keep reading down the page for more exceptions and other cases (e.g. honorably discharged veterans, retirees, etc.), but I don’t see any exemption for complete tools.

The Sniper

He is clearly in violation of US Code.

trackback

[…] I referenced Army regs in regards to Dan Choi’s clear violation of policies, but unless Winn is ready to call the Republicans an “extremist organization” I don’t think the regs would prohibit McCalister wearing his uniform to a dinner. […]