Talk:Uniformed services of the United States

message: I'm aware that control of the Coast Guard passes to DoD in time of war, but I'm not sure if it passes to the Navy specifically. Also, which branch of government decides to transfer control of the service? Congress? The president? Both in concurrence? The way it's currently stated is ambiguous. For the time being, I'm adding the "citation needed" tag. --Impaciente 03:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The definition comes direct from U.S. law, specifically Title 10 of the U.S. Code.  I will update the article to state this. Isomorphic 06:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't know how you could work groups like the Forestry Service or Border Patrol into this article.  This article covers the groups that are formally considered "uniformed".  You could put in a sentence or two explaining that while other federal services wear uniforms, they are not considered uniformed services for the purposes of Title 10.  I can't answer your question about the CIA.  International law stresses wearing a uniform as part of the definition for a legal combatant.  So if the CIA officer is wearing a U.S. uniform, acting as an agent of the U.S. government, would it matter that he isn't actually a military officer?  I don't know.  I also have no idea if the CIA would do something like that;  movies rarely resemble reality. Isomorphic 07:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the Hunt for Red October, the protagonist is 1) in disguise and 2) holds (held?) a commission in the United States Navy, having gone through the Naval Academy at Annapolis. Kdar 22:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ryan was a Marine - he TAUGHT in Annapolis 58.6.92.252 05:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Re: law enforcement (or anyone else) saluting. I know of no law anywhere that says only members of the uniformed services are entitled to salute. In fact, the Flag Code as enacted in the US Code (Title 36 I believe) specifies that anyone in uniform has to salute the flag during the national anthem, although it doesn't specify that the uniform has to be military. Yes, this does have the perverse effect of requiring McDonald's or whatever employees to salute, although the Flag Code isn't really binding because there is no punishment for violating it. Thirdgen (talk) 05:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the Flag Code 'is' binding, and by "uniformed" it refers specifically to the Title 10 uniformed services.dunerat (talk) 23:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Coast Guard in time of war

message: I heard many years ago that the USPS was included - not any more? 58.6.92.252 12:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: postal service?

message: I erased mention of TSA. The section mentioned that they were not considered a Uniformed Service, but that they were a part of the Federal Government whose members were required to wear uniforms. First off, if we are including any federal agency with a uniform, we would have to include most of them. Second, not all TSA employees have to wear a uniform, so the section was wrong --18:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur. I think the user totaly misunderstood the term "uniformed Services", and didn't understand how the article defined the term, assuming they even bothered to read it! Perhaps we ought to capitalize the "S" in "Services" to emphasize this is somthing unique, and not just any federal government entity which wears a uniform. - BillCJ (talk) 09:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: TSA

message: Before anyone gets their beaks bent and decides to remove the maritime service do your research, open a book and read. This is not the place to become territorial and dominate something that should contain all the facts not someone's personal version of the facts.46 U.S. Code § 51701 (c) Ranks, Grades, and Ratings.— The ranks, grades, and ratings for personnel of the Maritime Service shall be the same as those prescribed for personnel of the Coast Guard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clamland-Pacific (talk • contribs) 07:45, 24 February 2016
:The term "Uniformed services of the United States" has a specific legal meaning. Please provide a verifiable reliable source that the USMS meets this definition. WP is not a reliable source in and of itself. - BilCat (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestingly enough, the USMS article clearly states, "The Maritime Service is a "voluntary organization" and is not one of the seven uniformed services of the United States.10 USC § 101(a)(5)" - BilCat (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. The law as referenced above is quite clear about what is a uniformed service of the United States. USMS is not. Clamland-Pacific, I understand why you think what you think, I used to believe that as well based on lore, but please be civil and assume that other editors are acting in good faith. Especially when the USMS article is quite well referenced on the issue. ~PescoSo say•we all 02:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. Maritime Service 

message: This is not correct according to US Codes.  You correctly explain Armed Forces designation only during declared WAR by President which occurred for Spanish American war, WWI and WWII.  We have not had a declared war since.  However, these two small Officer Corps have served in these conflicts.  Military Service is not synonymous with Armed Forces.  You can serve in one of the 7 uniformed corps and it is considered military service to your country.  Military service is defined as Honorable active duty in any of the 7 uniformed services.  Source: 5 USC §8331 and 42USC §213.
Those that complete this military service are all considered Veterans.  I suggest you consider changing this title to non armed forces ? WLBaran (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: By definition, military is the armed forces of a country. And military service, by definition, is time spent serving in the armed forces. So, under those definitions, yes military service is synonymous with armed forces. You are partially correct in that any of the seven uniformed services can be considered military service, not is. You may not be aware that U.S. law does not define the NOAA Corps and the PHS as military services, unless the President, under 33 U.S. Code § 3061 - Cooperation with and transfer to military departments (NOAA Corps) and 42 U.S. Code § 217 - Use of Service in time of war or emergency (PHS), temporarily militarizes each service as a whole, or individual smaller units within each service, during a state of national emergency, or unless they are statutorily made a military service by act of Congress. The definitions you are referring to in 5 USC §8331 only applies to Subchapter III on the basis of federal service retirement benefits and 42 USC §213 is a law covering for other eligible benefits of the Public Health Service. Meaning they are eligible to receive some of the same benefits as their military counterparts. Neovu79 (talk) 05:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  USPHS and NOAA under Non-Military Services 

message: The above name is cleaner, more appropriate for an article title and is also officially used:
* https://www.dodlive.mil/2018/05/08/can-you-name-all-the-united-states-uniformed-services/
* https://www.cac.mil/Uniformed-Services-ID-Card/
* https://www.va.gov/service-member-benefits/Garuda28 (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps It may be a cleaner title for Wikipedia uses, but I don't believe there is a body like that used in U.S. law that is capitalized like that. Perhaps if you could find a reference to "United States Uniformed Services" in the United States Code (USC) or the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) I would be inclined to agree with you. The examples you gave are tenuous at best because they are used in all caps as the title for something. The example https://www.cac.mil/Uniformed-Services-ID-Card/ says that in the title and then goes on in the body to refer to the "Armed Forces". Cite Chapter and Verse if you do find something and I will change my thinking. Cuprum17 (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

text: Title 37 USC 101(3) defines the "uniformed sevices" but does not refer to them as "Uniformed Services".Cuprum17 (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  you make a good point about U.S. Code – I feel frankly a little silly having glazed over that. I completely misread those sources. I'll be withdrawing this proposal in that case. Garuda28 (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  You give up too easy! I was hoping for a spirited debate... LOL, Cheers Cuprum17 (talk) 14:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose rename to United States Uniformed Services 

message: Why do we list it as #5 and then say that its precedence has not been established?--Khajidha (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm assuming it's listed after the USAF because that what it was split off of, and all its personnel are still Air Force. But we really do need some sort of citation either way. - BilCat (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: We're under the assumption that it will be number 5, due to the service being under the Department of Defense, and the DoD services currently takes precedence over the other three services that are under other cabinet departments. This is not set in stone, as this is the first new service since 1947 and they are quite a ways from hashing out details such as this. Neovu79 (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Would like to echo that would be its likely place considering current operating procedure (and most informed place to put it for the time being). I would consider it a placeholder till the regulation gets updated, but its the most logical place to put it for now, maybe with a note saying this. Garuda28 (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That strikes me as inappropriate crystal balling. All we can really say is that the other 7 have this established order and that the placement of Space Force has not been established. --Khajidha (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Space Force order of precedence 

message: Why should the flag of the PHS be used instead of the seal of PHSCC itself? 177.9.116.128 (talk) 02:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  PHSCC 

message: You should not be edit warring on :Uniformed services of the United States that goes against wikipedia guidelines Untamed1910 (talk) 03:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Warring