On actors portraying military personnel: UL or true?

So over at IMDB there is a list of “goofs” associated with many/most of the movies. I’m looking over the one for Crimson Tide and see this:

I get a reading on my BS detectors when I see this, but I’m not in a position to know for sure. Snopes doesn’t seem to address it one way or the other on their Military page, and I couldn’t find any threads on the topic here (although it’s entirely possible I chose my terms poorly).

Does anybody care to affirm (preferably with a citation of the “law”) or refute this claim?

Yeah, the allegation is false, but there is a nugget of truth.

10 USC 771 and 772 say:

“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 …”


"(f) While portraying a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps, an actor in a theatrical or motion-picture production may wear the uniform of that armed force if the portrayal does not tend to discredit that armed force. "

And I highly doubt you could actually sucessfuly prosecute someone for “wearing a military uniform in a movie which discredits the armed forces,” what with that pesky First Amendment and all.

In fact, in Schacht v. United States (398 U.S. 58), the Supreme Court ruled that the “tend to discredit” clause was unconstitutional.

Good info, all. Many thanks.

If James Cagney’s portrayal of the Captain in Mr. Roberts didn’t tend to discredit naval officers who command ships nothing will.