MEN OUT OF ARMY
UNIFORMS STILL WORN
The persistence of many exservicemen in wearing articles of uniform which they are no longer entitled to wear is causing the Army authorities some concern, and it is likely that action will be taken to stop the practice. Such action is not the wish of the authorities and they make it Clear that they would prefer ex-serVicemeh to take notice of the warning and- avoid trouble.
It is thought that a wrong impression .exists that articles of uniform mty be acquired by casli purchase or retained in lieu of portion of the mufti allowance.. Nodoubt after wearing a unifor .'for a lengthy period the psychological reaction of the wearer is such that he considers he has some title to it, regardless of the fact that he did r~t have to pay for it in the first place.
The soldier is entitled to retain all articles of underwear issued to him, but the wearing, use or possession of other articles of Army uniform without lawful authority is art offence, and an offender is liable to prosecution under the Uniform and Badges Emergency Regulations, 1941. This act provides for a Sentence, on summary conviction, to a period hot exceeding three years, or to a fine not exceeding £200. For every day the offence is continued after conviction a fine of £20 may be imposed. The Army regulations prescribe that personnel not employed on fulltime service or those on leave without pay for more than 28 days are not entitled to wear uniform or any articles of uniform. When articles of Uniform are not retur: -?d and the cost is deducted from pay or mufti allowance, the transaction is hot a sale and does not confer any title on the individual.
Permanent link to this item
WARNING GIVEN, Auckland Star, Volume LXXVI, Issue 183, 4 August 1945
WARNING GIVEN Auckland Star, Volume LXXVI, Issue 183, 4 August 1945
Using This Item
This newspaper was digitised in partnership with Auckland Libraries.