31. Why he H*ll don't they keep the damn uniforms then? with all the need for funding, they can darn well recycle them with new recruits at least for training. Geez. This is a phony technicality and that's a cheap way to shut someone up because you don't like their point of view.

MGKiehn at 5:57PM on May 31st 2007

32. He's not in the Marines anymore, he should be able to do and say as he pleases. As for wearing the uniform with insigna, anyone can go to an army surplus store and purchase one, so whats the difference?

Traci at 5:59PM on May 31st 2007

33. I think you make a good point - I would like to know whether war supporters in uniform (or part of their uniform) are held to the same standard. I would bet that they aren't!

It is shameful that our military/government would even consider reprimanding someone who proudly served their country - and proudly exercises their right to express their opinion about what we're doing.

I wonder about the uniform rules - do they truly apply to former military? If so, the uniforms should be returned upon discharge. McDonald's gets their uniforms back when employees leave so that they can control how their company is represented, why doesn't the military, if it is so important? If it becomes personal property upon discharge, they should be allowed to do as they will with the uniforms. Maybe they would burn them - perhaps as a GWB/Rumsfeld effigy?

Amy at 6:05PM on May 31st 2007

34. TO retired, I am a military retiree also and Gulf War Vet. A Uniform is no more a military uniform if all insignia and devices are removed than if somebody totally unconnected to the military went to the Army Surplus and bought individual pieces and wore them. To be a uniform you must be wearing two distinct items i.e. rank insignia, branch insignia, etc... A set of BDU's stripped of all devices isn't any more of a uniform then you wearing your old combat boots to mow in. Doesn't the Military have better things to do like fighitng Bush's folly then to spend time looking over protesters photos to see if there is anyone to strong arm. Sounds a bit like Stalin's Russia to me.

Retired too at 6:12PM on May 31st 2007

35. My son is in the National Guard and he pays for all his own uniforms, patches, insignia, whatever he needs. Anyone can buy most of the uniform at the surplus store, so this man did not "dishonor" his uniform, he wore his own clothes without any patches or insignia.
We all claim freedom of speech but Dubya and his ilk do not believe in it when it reminds people that the adminitration made a huge mistake.
I think this fellow should be left alone.
However, as my son reminded me...when you are in the military you obey your commander in chief whether you agree with him or not. You are not free to speak out against him. Even in the privacy of his own home my son will not speak out again the president since he is the commander in chief. A war protest is speaking out against the commander in chief, directly or indirectly. So in that respect what he has done is wrong. He is not yet a VET... he is still active Individual Ready Reserve and still gets paid by the military.
I dunno - I see both sides.

Genbird at 6:16PM on May 31st 2007

36. Can't we get the lead singer of the Village People for impersonating an officer? (Remember 'In the Navy'?) We should throw the book at that guy!

vegastracon at 6:17PM on May 31st 2007

37. Of course c.c.c. how stupid of us. One should only wear they uniform when ready to die... But, to express themselves, well that's just a no..no...!! Right???
After all who gives a crap about his right to protest??? Or his right to freedom of expression! He's only fit to fight or die with that uniform. He already proved what he is willing to do for his country. Now he wants to continue the fight in a different way. I think he earned his honorable discharge and he most definetely earned my respect as a greatful American!!!

Patty at 6:19PM on May 31st 2007

38. I am a former soldier and I do not support this war.I am however supportive of the troops. Nobody especially soldiers, current and past, should dishonor those who are currently in harms way by wearing their uniform for there own political or personal interests. Let him speak and protest anytime but please do so in your own clothes.He wore that uniform for the purpose of drawing attention to himself and his plight not because he is proud to serve. Weather you hate Bush and this war or not always remember the men and women doing their jobs and risking life. And never forget all those before who have given their lives.

Greg at 6:40PM on May 31st 2007

39. would he still be in trouble had he worn hunting fatigues instead? there are many companies that make costumes and basic uniforms for military, police and security personell. and to the naked eye, they all look the same! so, had he worn a costume, or a basic uniform, would he have still gotten into troubel? i think not. they're using him as a scapegoat and an "example." so many ppl on top are tired of the facts: the war is no where near being won, nor will it EVER be and the ppl know it. from the civilan paying the taxes to make sure our military have what they need, to the ppl on the ground doing all the damn fighthing, to the bosses who put them there in the first place. so SOMEONE has to let the ppl know, that all those facts don't matter. after signing your rights away to protect your country, i think that after you get back, you should be able to say whatever the hell you want b/c you've been there. as such, you have the most experience, and more then ANYONE know what the hell you're talking about.

Devynn at 6:45PM on May 31st 2007

40. He is a disgrace to my Corp. Can you imagine a group of WWII veterans acting like him?

Chesty Puller at 6:56PM on May 31st 2007

41. Once you have completed your active duty role, you are put on an "inactive reserve" status for a specific time, albeight 2, 3 years whatever your contract says.
He WAS discharged Honorably. And he still has the right to freedom of speech. His staus should not change! If that is the case, then anybody that was discharged could have their status changed at the whims of the Pentagon. That is wrong!
He could have picked different words and been just as effective. The uniform part. Well.... in my opinion, he should have worn at some other event that would have shown the pride he had when he wore it.
Yes we still have rights that is what we fight for and never let us forget it. I hope it goes well for him and may his status not change.
Proudly served and retired!
AD2 USN RETIRED

Bart at 7:06PM on May 31st 2007

42. Bart I beg to differ. He WAS NOT honorably discharged, he still remains under the contract inactive or not. He will not be honorably discharged or any other discharg until his obligation is fulfilled or ended by the service. He WAS honorably RELEASED from active duty. By the way why did he wear that uniform? Why not throw on some shorts and a anti war t-shirt. I bet he probably wanted to seem big and bad that he was military, nothing to do with the protest.

Greg at 7:14PM on May 31st 2007

43. Just a couple of facts to throw in there to break some misconceptions (for those "veterans" on here, I don't know why you're making the same mistakes, or not correcting people).

He's on IRR status, that's means he does not drill, he does not get paid. When enlisting, everyone signs an 8 year contract, regardless of the branch. They sign for a particular amount of active or reserve time, then serve the rest of the time in the INACTIVE ready reserves, which basically allows the military to reactivate them if needed (some call it a "back-door draft"), but only when in "dire need" (i.e. WW3... or troop shortages)

Secondly, when leaving active service, he and all other veterans who have been through the process get a record of their service (DD form 214), it will talk about schools, awards, and such, to include their discharge status and reenlistment eligibilities.

For them to go back and downgrade it is something I've not often heard of, and personally think it's a bit much. They would also have to include a reason for the other than honorable, so would tack on a code that didn't occur while on active duty, and may keep him from being eligible to ever serve again, or at least requiring a waiver (though after all this, I don't think he'd want to).

JK at 7:18PM on May 31st 2007

44. Gezz half of these comment are by idiots The news report clearly states the were going to change his honorable discharge??? dipsticks that means hes out hence the term DISCHARGE Ive did over 22 years in the military the whole reason its to fight and die fo eor our freedom If you take that freedom away that leaves just fighting for some dumbass politition grow a brain people

john batey at 7:23PM on May 31st 2007

45. The DD-214 will state HONORABLE RELEASE. Not discharge. And they always tell you when you leave you must abide by the rules or your status can change.

Greg at 7:24PM on May 31st 2007