The pictorial's accompanying article mentioned the possibility of trouble for the brunette drill instructor. But when asked in the article whether it might get her in "hot water with Uncle Sam," Manhart replied: "I've been serving for 13 years, fighting for everyone's rights. Why wouldn't I be able to stand up for my own rights and participate in the freedoms that make this country what it is?"
Don't you give up some rights and freedoms when you sign up with the military? You have to do what's best for the military--not what's best for you. On the other hand, some articles indicated recruitment may be increased.
In some hands, recruitment won't be the ONLY thing on the rise.
"Don't you give up some rights and freedoms when you sign up with the military? You have to do what's best for the military--not what's best for you."
This is the crux, correctly and legally of the military's argument against the sort of publicity the woman gave herself; and in doing so drew that same publicity to the military. The military has a right to say that is not publicity that is commensurate with what they desire and expect from their people in uniform.
She should be discharged, and I would just hope they would use a simple administrative discharge procedure, requiring no court martial and providing a "general" discharge (which does not say "dishonorable", its says "under honorable conditions"). It is less than an "honorable" discharge in the military's eyes but it does not project the "dishonorable" connotation to future employers. It is generally the form used in administrative discharges, looked at in the military more like an amicable "divorce" between incompatiable partners.