TV making a mockery of the Corps once again.

[Hotel4341]

Not to mention with the stolen valor act, I'm pretty sure they aren't allowed to wear a proper military uniform, given the fact that it's a chargeable offense nowadays if they never served or if they did, were not entitled to wear whatever rank insignia or awards they might have.

Do you even bother reading anything in a thread before you post your 2 dollars?

[BR34]

Not to mention with the stolen valor act, I'm pretty sure they aren't allowed to wear a proper military uniform, given the fact that it's a chargeable offense nowadays if they never served or if they did, were not entitled to wear whatever rank insignia or awards they might have.

F

[Matt Brzycki]

Just to make sure that I got my intel correct about the DoD providing actual uniforms and equipment on approved scripts, I called my buddy again who does location work on movies. This time, I took notes. Here's what he told me about "Battle: Los Angeles":

The DoD provided free uniforms and equipment for the movie. This was done under the supervision of an active-duty Marine LtCol. In fact, there was an entire "wardrobe trailer" available just for the uniforms.

To earn approval by the DoD, a movie script must paint a positive picture of the military.

They did some filming at Barksdale AFB in Bossier City, LA. Use of the base was free. Even though the movie is supposed to take place in Los Angeles, they did much of the filming in Louisiana. They did film at least some of the beach and ocean scenes in California.

There are "about 24" active-duty Marines in the movie as well as some airmen and army national guardsmen. The Marines were kept separate from all civilians and were not allowed to interact with each other. (Dunno about the airman and guardsmen but they were probably kept separate, too.)

Lastly, before the movie began filming, there was an "actor's boot camp" held at Camp Minden (about 20 miles east of Shreveport, LA). This lasted 7 to 10 days and was run by retired Marine SgtMaj Jim Dever "with about three other guys." The idea was to get the actors in a military mindset for the movie.

Matt Brzycki
Sergeant (1975-79)

[Vandrel]

When you look at tv and movies, you have to understand that very little of this is factual. Most shows have the same discrepancies. This is an example of how we Marines can see them.

Dr's, cops, lawyers....all see the same things as we can here

TV and movies are fake for the most part. Authenticity is not guaranteed

So true! Every movie I watch I pick it apart like a Final Drill test and it always upsets my wife hahaha. I just can't stand watching a good flick only for it to be ruined by someone wearing a chest of ribbons and shooting badges that are either falling off the uniform (Rules of Engagement - Tommy Lee Jones - Samuel L Jackson) or in the wrong order or on the wrong side. I'd rather sit and watch Heart Break Ridge with the goofy butter bar.

[Petz]

It's just a rumor that gets passed from Marine to Marine with neither of them stopping to actually see if there's any truth to it. Whatever you do, don't believe everything you read on this forum.

well, no **** but I talked to a Marine who is in the business. He played the Captain at the begining of Men In Black, the shaved head captain. he also played the guy who got a phosphorus grenade to the face in we were soldiers and was the saw gunner in the crap movie the hulk in 2003 when the hulk escapes his containment thingie.

he told me that they can't have the uniform perfect without authorization from the Corps because it falls under DoD regulations about not being authorized to wear the uniform unless you served in that branch, though the legal department says that as long as it's not in it's 100% authorized wear then it's considered a costume and the DoD can't do anything about it.

so you'll notice either the wrong size captains bars on the epillates of the alphas or you have some guy ordering the wrong chevrons from sgt grit 'cause he doesn't know there are different chevrons. It's nice to have a military consultant when you're dealing with the military so you don't have people getting disgusted by the nastiness (unless of course it's the Army, then they tell their Sarge that they saw it on TV and the sarge says "oh, well since you saw it on TV it must be the new regs." and then they get even more nasty)

This may sound like scuttlebutt BR but I assure you it's not, I read the order myself.

[BR34]

This may sound like scuttlebutt BR but I assure you it's not, I read the order myself.

Link or bust, SSgt.

[Captain Kirk]

OOOOOOO! Lets talk about Sarah Bell, PLEEEESSSEEE!

[Hotel4341]

Link or bust, SSgt.

I'm seconding this, SSgt. My service specific training included a brief on what goes on at the Hollywood PAO, and that included a very specific mention of how Hollywood isn't inaccurate because it has to be, it's because they're too cheap to actually be accurate.

[Petz]

I would agree with that, but the thing is... the DoD doesn't actually charge people unless it suits their purposes and hollywood isn't the case.

I'd have to stumble over the order again, I'm pretty sure it's in the very tail end of the clothing regulations order but I can't remember.

it doesn't cover anything with hollywood so don't get it confused.

I was adding my opinion in there too. I will say that hollywood just wants to get a uniform on someone and film the scene rather than having it perfect.

so I'll agree that a large portion of the incorrect uniforms is because they have people working on a timeline trying to get 100 extras in costume...

[sgthebert]

I don't think so, not in '69. Took more than shootin. [or maybe I killed that brain cell].

You might be right Sparkie. I went in in '74, high shooter got automatic promo then I am sure, big deal was made because two were so close.


Semper Fi.

[Sgt Leprechaun]

Matt, thanks very much for that clarification and update. Learned something new there!

And, for those who don't want to re-read, I repeat, STOLEN VALOR ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO THOSE APPEARING IN MOVIES/TV/STAGE etc.


Here is the information, complete with cites. Comes direct from the "Orders and Medals Society of America", or OMSA.


**********

Title 18, United States Code, Section 704

(a) In General. - Whoever knowingly wears, purchases, attempts to purchase, solicits for purchase, mails, ships, imports, exports, produces blank certificates of receipt, manufactures, or sells, attempts to sell, advertises for sale, trades, barters or exchanges for anything of value any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the armed forces of the United States, or any of the service medals or badges awarded to the members of such forces, or the ribbon, button, or rosette of any such badge, decoration or medal, or any colorable imitation thereof, except when authorized under regulations made pursuant to law, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both. (italics added)

(b) False Claims About Receipt of Military Medals. - Whoever falsely represents himself or herself, verbally or in writing, to have been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the armed forces of the United States, or any of the service medals or badges awarded to the member of such forces, or the ribbon button, or rosette of any such badge, decoration or medal, or any colorable imitation thereof shall be fined under this title for imprisoned not more than six months, or both,

(c) Congressional Medal of Honor. -

(1) In general. - If a decoration or medal involved in an offense under subsection (a) or (b) is a Congressional Medal of Honor, in lieu of the punishment provided in that subsection, the offender shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

(2) Definitions. -

(A) As used in subsection (a) with respect to a Congressional Medal of Honor, “sells” includes trades, barters, or exchanges for anything of value.

(B) As used in this subsection, “Congressional Medal of Honor” means -

(i) a medal of honor awarded under section 3741, 6241, or 8741 of title 10 or section 491 of title 14;

(ii) a duplicate medal of honor issued under section 3754, 6256, or 8754 of title 10 or section 504 of title 14; or

(iii) a replacement of a medal of honor provided under section 3747, 6253, or 8747 of title 10 or section 501 of title 14.

(d) Other Medals -If a decoration or medal involved in an offense under subsection (a) or (b) is a Distinguished Service Cross awarded under Section 3742 of Title 10, an Air Force Cross awarded under Section 8742 of Title 10, a Navy Cross awarded under section 6242 of Title 10, a Silver Star awarded under Section3746, 6244, or 8746 of Title 10, or a Purple Heart awarded under Section 1129 of Title 10, or any replacement or duplicate medal as authorized by statute, in lieu of the punishment provided in that subsection, the offender shall be find under this title, imprisoned not more than 1 year or both.

The Relationship Between 32 CFR §507 and 18 USC §704

To understand the meaning and impact of the law, it cannot be read alone: it has be reviewed in conjunction with 32 CFR §507.7 and §507.8 because the parenthetic statement “except when authorized under regulations made pursuant to law” refers to and is elaborated on by Parts 507.7 and 507.8 of Title 32 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which quoted in full below:

32 CFR §507.8:

(a). The articles listed in paragraphs (a) (1) through (10) of this section are authorized for manufacture and sale when made in accordance with approved specifications, purchase descriptions or drawings.

(1). All authorized insignia (AR 670-1 and AFI 36-2903)

(2). Appurtenances and devices for decorations, medals, and ribbons such as oak leaf cluster, service stars, arrowheads, V-devices, and clasps.

(3). Combat, special skill, occupational and qualification badges and bars.

(4). Identification badges.

(5). Fourrageres and lanyards

(6). Lapel buttons.

(7). Decorations, service medals, and ribbons, except for the Medal of Honor

(8). Replicas of decorations and service medals for grave markers. Replicas are to be at least twice the size prescribed for decorations and service medals.

(9). Service ribbons for decorations, service medals, and unit awards.

(10). Rosettes.

(11). Army emblem and branch of service plaques.

(b) Variations from the prescribed specifications for the items listed in paragraph (a) of this section are not permitted without prior approval, in writing, by the Institute of Heraldry.
**************

Finally, here is a note from the original AUTHOR of the Bill, with a clarification, as it appeared in the Congressional Record:

Sen. Kent Conrad [D-ND]: Mr. President, I would like to comment today on the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 that was signed into law by President Bush on December 20, 2006. I am extremely proud of authoring the Senate version of this legislation that ultimately became law. The new law that has resulted from the Stolen Valor Act strengthens and expands the protections for our Armed Forces military service awards and decorations.
Since the Stolen Valor Act was signed into law, there have been reports of concerns raised by medal collectors, historians, museums, family members that inherit medals, and persons legitimately possessing, shipping, or selling military service awards and decorations. I would like to make it clear for the Record that the intent and effect of my legislation and the resulting law is only to provide the tools law enforcement need to prosecute those fraudulently using military service awards they did not earn through service to our Armed Forces. It does not in any way restrict legitimate possession, use, shipment, or display of these awards and decorations.

Before the law was enacted, my legislation was reviewed by the Senate Judiciary Committee, the House Judiciary Committee, the Department of Justice, and the Congressional Research Service's American Law Division. All concluded that the Stolen Valor legislation does not negatively impact those legitimately in possession of military service awards and decorations.

Although the new law modifies title 18 USC, section 704, it does not impact the legitimate purchase, sale, or possession of medals. The key part of this passage is the phrase, "except when authorized under regulations made pursuant to law." That exception refers to 32 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), section 507. I believe the concerns raised by collectors and dealers of military medals and memorabilia may stem from lack of familiarity with the CFR and its relationship to statutory law. The CFR is the regulation that implements and administers statutory provisions, in this case, the provisions of 18 USC section 704 as amended by the Stolen Valor Act.
The CFR specifically states in section 507.12(b), "Mere possession by a person of any of the articles prescribed in Sec. 507.8 of this part is authorized provided that such possession is not used to defraud or misrepresent the identification or status of the individuals concerned." According to numerous legal experts consulted on the drafting of the Stolen Valor legislation, "mere possession" would include family members who inherit medals, museums, collectors, approved medals dealers, historians, and other persons in possession or selling medals that do not use them for fraudulent purposes. In addition, CFR Sec. 507.8(a) indicates, "the articles listed in paragraphs (a) (1) through (10) of this section are authorized for manufacture and sale when made in accordance with approved specifications, purchase descriptions or drawings."

The articles listed as authorized for manufacture and sale in Sec. 507.8(a) include decorations, service medals, ribbons, lapel buttons, and badges with the exception of the Medal of Honor. The CFR allows for the sale of all U.S. medals, except the Medal of Honor, and insignia, provided that an official government manufacturer has made them and that the Institute of Heraldry, IOH, approved those pieces. Thus, the Stolen Valor Act does not in any way stop collectors or dealers from selling or collecting officially made medals and insignia, whether they were made yesterday or 50 years ago.
In closing, I again want to assure those legitimately in possession of selling, displaying, or shipping military service awards that the Stolen Valor Act is only directed at those who fraudulently use military service awards and decorations. I have been to Walter Reed Hospital, Bethesda Naval Hospital, and have awarded numerous awards and decorations to soldiers and veterans. These brave men and women have given so much to ensure our freedoms. I strongly believe protecting the meaning and valor of military service awards is a very important way we can continue to honor their service and sacrifice.
I ask unanimous consent that a memo from the American Law Division at Congressional Research Service supporting this analysis be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.


*********

[EGA1957]

Surprised that with all the NCIS fans no-one has commented on the Charles Durning MOH episode (that looks like its becoming a USMC Birthday perennial).

Apparently, Durning, as Corporal Yost, may haved based or connected his performance on his actually having won the Army's Silver Star.

[Sgt Leprechaun]

I hadn't heard that part of the story, but that episode is one of my favorites. Never fails to move me!

[EGA1957]

As a tidbit, here's a little more about Charles Durning: http://www.military-money-matters.com/charles-durning.html.

What I neglected to ask in the previous post was why no-one commented about the use of a MOH in that episode, especially since the DOD (in a previous post) was said to run a tight ship.

And now my curiosity is, is the MOH that was shown and even worn on the episode, the Navy or the Army style (or an entire fabrication)?

[rickyracer]

When you look at tv and movies, you have to understand that very little of this is factual. Most shows have the same discrepancies. This is an example of how we Marines can see them.

Dr's, cops, lawyers....all see the same things as we can here

TV and movies are fake for the most part. Authenticity is not guaranteed

This one of the times I argee with Jettdawgg.