On such occasions when you are in Class A uniform. Just like it says in the regulations.
The pins designed for use with civilian attire are not the mark of an asshole, but the actual medal would be.
Tris
Isn’t the Class A jacket for the ribbons, but not the medals? I thought the medals go on the mess dress uniform only.
Nope, you’re right, at least as far as the enlisted ranks are concerned, and for social occasions:
I don’t think you can wear the full sized decorations any time you’re in Class A’s, though – can you?
You are correct. I should have said wear the decoration, rather than medal. The appropriate uniform specification may have changed, though. I believe the Medal of Honor is worn with the Green class A under some circumstances. It is worn around the neck. But it is not appropriately worn with civilian attire.
Many of the decorations given in the service have civilian badges included for wearing while not in uniform.
Tris
SCOTUS is set to review this; has anyone here changed their mind about this?
I like that the article I linked to there quotes the college term paper that seems to have prompted this law. Check out this (IMO faulty) reasoning:
Except that they aren’t impersonating “someone”; they are simply ascribing themselves with attributes they don’t have.
I have a hard time believing that SCOTUS will not uphold the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court, but then I have a hard time believing they even agreed to hear arguments about this.
I’m not wading through four pages of this thread, but does anyone know if the law addresses delusional people who genuinely believe they served, or people who wear military decorations as a memorial to a loved one who served?
As a veteran, I’m all in favor of penalties for people who wear decorations and/or uniforms with the intent to commit fraud, but as a free-speech advocate, I’d hate to see people who get caught up in an overly broad law.
I’m the OP of this thread.
I’m not a veteran, i’m opposed to the Stolen Valor Act, and i’m still in favor of penalties for people who wear decorations and/or uniforms with the intent to commit fraud. That is, in fact, the argument i’ve been making about this law from the start: we already have laws to punish fraud and other types of deception for gain, and we don’t need a law that punishes some douchebag at a party who feels the need to impress people by falsely claiming to be a veteran.
As for the issue of delusional people, there is nothing in the law that makes an exception in such cases, but i assume that this is something that would probably be dealt with under prosecutorial discretion. I doubt they’re going to charge a crazy person under the provisions of this act.
Anyway, as i said in the OP, i think the ruling was a good one, even though i suspect that the Supreme Court might end up overturning it. Now we’ll get to find out.
Doors, did you forget to toggle over to your own account again?
I’m not asking you to get hyper-technical or GQ-ish here, but I’d like to know what you mean by ‘commit fraud’? It seems that the paper quoted above equates merely holding yourself out as someone with particular status to be per se fraud. Your post indicates that it’s something more than that–that someone walking in a parade for Mauve Heart awardees is not committing fraud, but someone who after the parade walks into Starbucks and asks for a Mauve Heart-based discount is.
Assuming the latter, than the natural follow-up is whether you are saying that current fraud legislation is in need of shoring up–that the degrees of fraud law should be differentiated by (among other things) the how offensive the fraud is to society. E.g. First Degree Fraud includes impersonating a veteran, a Special Olympics athlete, or a SDMB mod; Second Degree Fraud includes impersonating a rich person, an famous actor, or a Charter Member; Third Degree Fraud…
MsRobyn was also in the USAF, if I recall correctly.
Impersonating an SDMB mod isn’t fraud, it’s stupidity. Stupidity that will be punished by having to deal with the constant complaints in ATMB. 
Navy, actually. 
I would argue that there are, indeed, degrees of fraud that range from the guy who lies about serving to look macho or to lend himself some gravitas, all the way to the guy who forges a DD-214 to claim material benefits that he’s not eligible for, or to pull an active scam. The first category might be a smack on the wrist: a fine and a warning not to do that again. The second is obviously more serious and rates jail time. It just seems to me that it’s that much worse when you’re talking about people who lie, cheat, and steal on the reputation of the military.
So you served a country in which the government has the authority to outlaw any lie (in any context or form), so long as the penalties for milder fibs start out as a misdemeanour?
I wish you served a country with a strong First Amendment. 
The article states that the 9th ruled it unconstitutional and the 10th found it to be constitutional.
Rule 10 of the Rules of the SC states that one reason they may grant Certiorari is when 2 or more Sister Circuits conflict on the same issue.
Here is the “Question Presented” and Merit briefs.
Thanks for the clarification and the link to additional information, lawbuff.
Because there are lies, and then there are lies. The guy who wears his dad’s medals to remember him? I’ve got no beef with that; there is no intent to lie because the son isn’t claiming to be a veteran. The guy who claims veteran status to get benefits he didn’t earn? I’ve got a huge problem with that, and you should too; it’s called fraud. The guy who claims veteran status to cadge beers at a bar? Still fraud, and the guy’s a scumbag, but I don’t see that as being a felony offense. The bullshit artist who pretends to be a vet to get the upper hand in an argument or to impress chicks is more of a scumbag than a criminal, hence the slap on the wrist.
Keep in mind that I’m not in a position to approach this with any real objectivity or on a purely philosophical basis. I’m a veteran who is married to a veteran. We’ve both earned what we have, be it war stories, employment preference, or VA benefits. It pisses me off that all some dirtbag has to do is flash some medals to get treatment he didn’t earn and doesn’t deserve. That’s why I have no problem with the concept; I’d just like to see some graduation of offenses so that the law isn’t overly broad.
We all of us earn what we have along those lines. Why shouldn’t it be a crime to lie about any kind of background at all in order to impress people?
It is a crime to impersonate certain occupations. Doctors, lawyers and law enforcement officers are three such examples. Why not add military to the list?
I think it’s already likely that it’s already generally illegal to impersonate a member of the military in circumstances in that are similar to those in which it’s illegal to impersonate a member of those professions, namely, circumstances in which people might make (medical, legal, etc.) decisions in reliance upon the assumed expertise or authority of those people to their detriment. It’s not illegal to pretend to be a doctor just to get someone to have sex with you.
And if it isn’t already illegal, then it should only be to the extent that someone is making such decisions, say, about personal safety or national security, like taking instructions in a time of chaos or emergency.
Either way, claiming that you have been awarded medals in the past or having served in some particular capacity doesn’t create those kinds of risks. Sometimes people are just douchebags. That’s not a reason for the law to step in.