That's the reg I was thinking of. I was just thinking of a different section - 4.3.1.2. On review, that one seems to be inapplicable. (It allows use of photographs in uniform by candidates for a limited number of political offices, if certain restrictions are followed.)

Let me do a little more poking around later - I still seem to remember there was some stir about the use of in-uniform pix on websites of either VoteVets or Iraq and Afghanistan Vets for peace a few years ago, and that the use of those pictures turned out to be totally acceptable. If that's the case, the justification would probably apply here, too.

It shouldn't have been there last year either. Nobody is bothering to enforce the rules -

Look seriously - again - What are you going to do to him - Bend his ID Card???

It doesn't matter when the photo was taken -- it's how its being use now. Before it was used to garner support for Terry. With the book, it's used to garner support for the birther movement. The only question that matters is whether or not garnering support for the birther movement "brings discredit upon the Armed Forces."

THAT is why I want to give the Army a chance to weigh in on this matter.

Actually it's not a summary, it is a directive that outlines the specifics as to when wearing a uniform is prohibited. It (and the documents it replaced) is the source document that the Army, Navy, etc. in their regulations when it comes to detailing when the wearing of a uniform is prohibited. If the standards laid out in the DOD document change, the Army, Navy, etc, have to update the changes in their regulations.

As I said in another post, there is a catch all sentence that covers things like photos, books etc. -- What matters is if his wearing of the uniform meets the standard "When wearing of the uniform may tend to bring discredit upon the Armed Forces." It is the Army and/or DOD's call if it does bring discredit to the Armed Services.

What the Army can do is to sue or do something similar that will force the removal of the photo. That's what I am trying to achieve. Terry can write anything he wants. But he doesn't have the right to disgrace the uniform.

He hasn't been cashiered yet, has he? Seems like the Army has more leverage right now to demand removal of the photo. As we all know, lawsuits take time.

I'm sure the Army can sort out which directive to apply here if prompt complaints are made.

Ex-military officers publish memoirs and other books all the time and most of them adorn their covers with pictures in uniform. Many of these books are intensely political.

Lakin's situation might be problematic in theory because he's still technically in the service, cooling his heels while they complete the formal process of defrocking him and kicking him out. So yeah, he's still subject to DOD directives.

But as a practical matter, I don't think he has the slightest legal problem. What are they going to do to him? Court martial him? Kick him out? Take away his pay, benefits and pension?

There's no way the military is going to try to suppress his book cover. Lakin's already a lost cause and his freedom of speech rights are completely restored the minute they drum him out of the stockade door. As far as this book goes, I think he's home free.

Using the photo for political purposes while still in the service does subject him to DOD authority. Afterward, he is not merely "ex" military, he is dishonorably discharged with no right to the uniform at all. Laws applying to civilians masquerading as military would likely apply to him as well, IMO.

That said, I agree with Piffle that it is unlikely the Army will take any action on this. But if anyone hopes they will, the best chance of that is now, while he's still under DOD authority.

The closest that I can come to finding the information I was looking for was a Media Matters article that basically noted the same things that others here have brought up: the regulations bar wearing of the uniform while participating in partisan political activity, do not specifically state anything about the use of photographs, and that it's not uncommon for former servicemembers and/or reservists to have pictures of themselves in uniform on their websites or in books even when they are advocating partisan positions.

On the right, the Vets for Freedom website has a number of such pictures:
http://www.vetsforfreedom.org/about/founders

On the left, there are also some on the IVAW website:
http://ivaw.org/members

On balance, it seem to be a case where there is at least a limited amount of ambiguity in the regulations. The conduct in question seems to be relatively common and widely tolerated, if not explicitly allowed. Lakin, meanwhile, is on his way out of the service with a court-martial sentence that includes dismissal. Add to that the workload that most active duty officers are currently carrying (my wife's averaged 90-110 hours/week over the last two months) and I really don't see anything coming of this. The picture is nauseating, but it's not going to go away.

Not sure...babs indicates the military must give permission for its use. Although it's pretty clear that, aside from what is listed, everything else is prohibited.

eta: oops, I should have read the next page before replying. Thanks to all for your responses. Didn't mean to stir up a hornet's nest here

I wouldn't push this. I think the jailbird deserter is perfectly within his rights to use a photograph of himself in uniform when he was entitled to wear it.

Dwight D. Eisenhower was allowed to use pictures of himself in uniform, to substantiate his biography. Ditto John McCain, JFK and Lurch.

After thinking about this all day, while I think the Lakin photo on the cover of his book may by some rational interpretation fall afoul of the regulations, the stretch required to put Lakin in violation of the regulations would also sweep all kinds of innocent or relatively innocent conduct into a zone where well-meaning people could be penalized just for falling technically afoul of an interpretation a reasonable person could easily fail to predict.

Let me add, though, that Lakin is a jerk for doing it. Not all forms of being a jerk should be punishable by law.

I like the picture. And I hope that every time he sees it, he thinks, "That's what you threw away. You moronic a$$hole."

Unfortunately for this schadenfreude, every time he sees it, it's how he still views himself.

And we're all thankful for that, ain't we?

I know I am.

REALISTICALLY FOLKS...

The main pillars of military justice is taking time, money, extra duty, and restriction to a certain area.

You can't take his money - he doesn't get paid. You can't take something that isn't there (and he has a wife and kids)
You can't make him perform any extra duty - he is not getting paid and has had is credentials pulled by the Sturgeon General. O-5s DO NOT mop floors (unless he is in his "inmate phase").

You can restrict him from certain areas. He has hospital/clinic support for him and his family, so you can't ban him from the base. You can have him escorted to certain places that he is authorized to go.

He's already lost about $2 mil on the worst odds in Vegas history.

About the only thing any one can do to him in a practical sense is BEND HIS ID CARD several times.

Frustrating, isn't it

He'll still have his medical (once he's officially separated, I mean)?

Nope - nothing , nada - persona non grata at federal functions etc...to be shunned. Once he is out - he is out.out.out. He can't even get buried at a National/Federal Cemetery. Depending on the state, his Court Martial conviction could be considered a felony. I would think that : His second amendment rights might not apply in some states.

My understanding from what our semi-resident JAG-types have said is that the dismissal from the service he's getting comes with all of the rights and privileges associated with a Dishonorable Discharge. That means all military and veterans benefits are lost, he's barred from owning a firearm by federal law, and many states will consider it to be the same as a felony conviction for things like voting.

Excellent, thanks.

Thanks to you too

When you consider all that he's lost, his pension (while substantial) is only a small part of it. What an utter fool...

He lost his honor and self respect in front of the whole country (and the world for that matter).

bugs bugs bugs on my screen

What they can do, will do and what will effect him most is ignore this silly self published book. Any actions against him because of this book will ONLY result in the word getting out to even more Birfers and will result in more money for him. WND would be pushing the headline about the Army censoring this guy etc. It's NOT worth it for the Service. Not worth it at all. Ignore the man.