On actors portraying military personnel: UL or true?

Factual Questions
1

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?

2

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 …”

unless:

"(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. "

3

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.

4

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

5

Good info, all. Many thanks.

6

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