Talk:Uniformed services of the United States

Coast Guard in time of war

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)

Besides the seven services listed, why aren't the many other uniformed services of the United States listed? For example, within the United States Department of the Interior there are uniformed members of the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In the United States Department of Agriculture there are uniformed members of the United States Forest Service (several different types of Park Rangers, for instance). Perhaps other operating units of the DOI and USDA also have uniformed members. Perhaps other U.S. Cabinet-level departments have uniformed members as well. Why are none of these uniformed services of the United States listed? Is it simply because they are not naval-ranked like the NOAA Commissioned Corps or the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps? Is it because they don't operate under military rules? (If so, shouldn't the title "Uniformed services of the United States" be qualified by some statement that indicates this limitation to the definition?) Or is there some other distinction?

Courtneymitchell 05:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

Thanks, I'm new to this process and appreciate the kindness. What a remarkable phenomenon is Wikipedia! I'm still interested in the other U.S. services that use uniforms such as the U. S. Park Service Park Rangers, the United States Park Police, USDA Forest Service rangers, Game Wardens, the United States Border Patrol, etc., their corresponding pay rates and rankings. The seven military services articles were very satisfying in scope and thoroughness. I'm still looking for something comparable for the other uniformed services, some of whom have extensive military training, carry weapons and put their life on the line every day.

Also of interest is the appearance of CIA operatives in Naval uniforms within the popular culture in such movies as "The Hunt for Red October" and "Clear and Present Danger". Is this a real practice and does it come from a reason to protect them against being captured as spies in a similar manner that was given for uniforming a non-military service such as the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps (in Wikipedia's ariticle Uniformed services of the United States)? Courtneymitchell 17:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

Ryan was a Marine - he TAUGHT in Annapolis 58.6.92.252 05:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You're confusing "military," the people that fight wars with "law enforcement" who while they wear uniforms are civilians. It always makes me cringe to see police officers saluting, they're not entitled to by law. The Coast Guard, while it operates in Peacetime as a civilian law enforcement agency by law, under wartime becomes part of the Department of Defense. Presently, there are Coast Guard units in the Iraqi Theatre of Operations. Very good explanation of the rationale behind the other two services, I also want to note the CIA really are spies so they're not covered under the Geneva Convention under any circumstances anyway.

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)

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)

The difference between the uniformed services and other government organizations that wear uniforms is that the NOAA Corps and PHSCC can be militarized, while those other organizations cannot.

postal service?

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

TSA

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)Thirdgen (talk)

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)

Logos

I've remove the over-large logos which are distracting, make the section take up far too much room, and are purely for decoration. In addition, as the {{United States uniformed services}} navbox has logos already, it's redundant to have any in the text at all. - BillCJ (talk) 09:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I wholly disagree. As is, it is dull, generic, and very boring. Having four bulleted lists makes the "seven" (count 'em: 11 links) wholly non-obvious and confusing. I have no problem admitting my change was, for a lack of a better word, extravagant and spacious but that's little reason to wholly negate my entire effort with it.

That and having logos on other pages is rather irrelevant to this page. Cburnett (talk) 01:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh, you missed my point on the navbox entirely: The navbox coding is on another page, but it's transcluded here in a nice little box at the bottom of the page - all you have to do is click "Show"! I do understand your motive, and always thought it was in good faith, but slapping logos and seals all over the place is not generally an accepted way of doing things on WP. Perhaps one or two pics of commissined officers in uniforms would be a better way to go. The non-military services aren't very well known as such, so we could go with one of each, and then perhaps one image with a mix of Armed Forces officers. I'll try to troll through Commons and see what I can find later this week, but feel free to add any in the mean time. Also, you might take a look at some of the other pges that deal with government services, and see if you can find a less "spacious" way of presenting the list there. I can't think of one right off though, or I'd point you too it. - BillCJ (talk) 02:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

others

Aren't there other ones or defunct ones? Such as the National Guard, Merchant Marine, United States Zeppelin Force, etc.--4.244.33.7 (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The National Guard is the state/territiorial militias of the United States, and are part of the structure of the Army and Air Force. The Merchant Marine is by statute not part of the armed services, though Merchant Marine veterans of World War II are regarded as combat veterans (my uncle was a deck officer and received burial at Arlington). The USZF sounds like something out of a steampunk novel.

The reason these services are listed as such is the U.S. Code, which defines the armed services. This does not mean other groups do not serve the nation, or do not wear uniforms.GABaker (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Order of Precedence

The Order of Precedence given at the beginning of the article is incorrect. Precedence is determined by date of creation. Could someone please fix this? TheSwordandScales (talk) 23:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. It seems to have been the subject of some recent editing. I've reverted back to an earlier version:

1. United States Army
2. United States Navy
3. United States Marine Corps
4. United States Air Force
5. United States Coast Guard
6. United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps
7. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Corps

However we should have a source for this.   Will Beback  talk  23:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you have the order of precedence wrong. The order of precedence for the Marine Corps and the Navy should be reversed. Yes, I know the Navy was created 13 October and the Marine Corps was created 10 November, BUT the Marine Corps has always from day one celebrated its birthday on 10 November while the Navy didn't even celebrate a birthday until Navy CNO, Admiral Elmo Zumwalt decided that it needed celebrating. In the armed services, tradition counts, so the order of precedence has always been Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard. Yes, The Coast Guard is older than the Air Force, but it isn't a part of the Department of Defense unless ordered as a whole to serve assigned to the Navy, in which case, the order of precedence changes. Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Coast Guard, and Air Force. Check the picture of the service flags in the article infobox and you will see the white Army flag, then the red Marine Corps flag, then the dark blue Navy flag, the lighter blue Air Force flag, and finally the white Coast Guard flag. I have served on too many color guard details in my service career to count and the order of precedence has always been Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard. Cuprum17 (talk) 01:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't doubt you. However we should be able to find a source for this.   Will Beback  talk  01:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

There are sources for this. DoD Directive 1005.8 lists the order of precedence since October 31, 1977. The reason why the Marine Corps takes precedence over the Navy is stated in the Department of the Navy Naval History & Heritage website. You can also find all this information, properly sourced, from the United States armed forces wiki page, under Order of Precedence. Neovu79 (talk) 06:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. I'll fix it and add that source.   Will Beback  talk  07:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for finding a DOD Directive for this; However, not to put too fine a point on the topic, the order shown on the Article Page is still not correct. The Order of precedence shown shown on the page has the United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps preceding the United States Coast Guard. The former, (PHS) shows a date of formation of 1798 (which may be subject to question, but that is another issue) and the latter (CG) has a formation date of 1790. I'm just sayin'. Cuprum17 (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I seem to be a bit clumsy. Would you mind fixing it so that it's correct?   Will Beback  talk  20:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

U.S. Maritime Service

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. — 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)

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." - BilCat (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

References

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. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 02:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

USPHS and NOAA under Non-Military Services

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)

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)

Propose rename to United States Uniformed Services

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)

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)

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)

@Cuprum17: 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)

@Garuda28: You give up too easy! I was hoping for a spirited debate... LOL, Cheers Cuprum17 (talk) 14:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Space Force order of precedence

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

PHSCC

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)

Edit Warring

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)

Merchant Marine section

The Merchant Marines section has problems. The text seems to be about the Maritime Service (MS) and not the Merchant Marines (MM) -- nor about MARAD which oversees both.

Also, the text has: "While the chances a Maritime Service officer being captured by an enemy is virtually impossible...". This sentence is misleading. If conflating MS and MM is deemed the same, then the "virtually impossible" part is incorrect. The MM supply battlefields during war times; they have had captured service members and ships sunk. This page from the National World War II Museum website mentions over 700 MM ships sunk during WWII and over 600 service members captured (ergo: possible not impossible). 50.248.9.65 (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)