Members of the CBS6 Answers Team are standing by to help answer your questions on anything related to your money!

We have experts in all sorts of areas ready to answer your questions.

From financing your retirement, to refinancing your home, to bankruptcy, mortgages, and student loans– our panel of experts are offering their advice – FOR FREE!

Tune in to CBS6 starting at 5 p.m. to hear LIVE interviews with our experts on the local job market, government modification programs, the state of the economy and where the market is headed, and how to get your finances in order for 2012.

From 5 to 7 p.m. call 381-4939 to speak with an A-Team expert – or email your question to news@cbs6albany.com.

You can also post your question on the CBS6 Albany Facebook page, or find us on Twitter at CBS6Albany.

Tonight’s Guests:

Dennis Fagan, Fagan Associates

• Financial planning

Andrew Guzzetti, DLG Wealth Management

• Financial planning

Drew Aiello, First Niagara Mortgage

• Home loans, refinancing, foreclosures

Dean Skarlis, The College Advisor of New York

• College loans, admissions, financial aid, tuition and scholarships

Brian Brosen, Realty USA

Paul Cuda, Cusack & Company, Certified Public Accounts LLC

Jerry DeAngelus, Slocum DeAngelus & Associates, Certified Public Accounts, PC

Ben Chuckrow, Wells Fargo Advisors

• Managing investment/investment strategy, finance

Scott Dillion, Senior Bankruptcy Associate, Tully Rinckey PLLC

• Bankruptcy

Dan Moran, Next-Act

• Local job market, interviewing for new job, layoffs

Len Valletta, Albany Financial Group

• Financial planning

Tully Rinckey’s Jennifer Corcoran stops by WGNA for the “Ask the Lawyer” segment and provides legal guidance to listeners who are facing tough legal challenges in the area of divorce, living arrangements and other family matters.

The US government enacted the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) back in 1994 to make it an offense to discriminate against troops returning home on basis of their military status. Nearly 20 years later, though, a recent study reveals that a good chunk of those guilty of violating that law is the federal government itself.

In a recent Washington Post article, it’s revealed that during fiscal year 2011, nearly one-out-of-five of the complaints of violation filed regarding the USERRA were aimed at the US government. In that year alone, more than 18 percent — or 1,158 of the complaints filed — attested that the same government that sent Americans overseas to ready for war weren’t so excited to send those men and women into the workplace.

“On the one hand, the government asked me to serve in Iraq,” retired Army Brig. Gen. Michael Silva tells the Post. “On the other hand, another branch of government was not willing to protect my rights after serving.” Silva says that after serving in Iraq, he returned to the US to reclaim his job with the US Customs and Border Patrol. They had other plans.

According to the USERRA, employers are forbidden from penalizing service members due to the military service. Silva and more than a thousand other last year say that they suffered as such, however, and the guilty party was their own government. With the issue of homeless vets becoming an epidemic in America, a lack of jobs is only worsening a problem that the federal government seems unable—or unwilling — to help otherwise.

Other studies published as of late reveal that homelessness is not just a problem for American vets—it’s a practical disaster. When the 100,000 Homeless Campaign published the results of their last study in November 2011, the authors explicitly noted, “Men and women who risked their lives defending America may be far more likely to die on its streets.”

“When you come home, you’re foreclosed on, your job is gone, and then they want you to go to shelters. And shelters pretty much housing criminals, drug addicts, and a lot of us can’t tolerate that lifestyle,” homeless U.S. army veteran Joe Mangione explained to RT.

Now being denied jobs by the same country they gave their lives for, critics are calling into question how the US could ignore the same troops they called up only years earlier.

“There seems to be a feeling that the federal government can get away with what they’re doing,” said USERRA lawyer Matthew Estes adds to the Post.

Silva seems to agree, noting that although he would eventually reach a settlement with his former employers, it was a battle he didn’t see a point in fighting.

“The whole burden is put on the serving soldier to defend your case,” says Silva.

President Barack Obama has addressed the issue repeatedly, and as recently as last month’s State of the Union Address. “I’m proposing a Veterans Job Corps that will help our communities hire veterans as cops and firefighters, so that America is as strong as those who defend her,” the president said from Washington during last month’s address

“They are coming home to an unemployment rate of about 30 percent for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. This is triple the national average,” Michael Prysner recently told RT. Although Obama insists that he will make things better for the veteransexperiencing unemployment problems, that guarantee comes from the same president who is allowing for the mobilization of troops overseas after promising to put an end to needless wars.

“Joining the US military is probably one of the stupidest retirement or career moves you can make as a human being,” investigative journalist Ted Rall told RT last year.

President Obama said last month that “our freedom endures because of the men and women in uniform who defend it.” Obama said, “As they come home, we must serve them as well as they served us. That includes giving them the care and benefits they have earned.”

For around 1,158 veterans last year, however, that is a promise that’s yet to be fulfilled.

Eastman Kodak’s bankruptcy filing last month reflected dire financial straits — huge costs associated with retirees, the film business collapsing faster than expected, desktop inkjet printer sales growing more slowly than hoped, intellectual property licensing deals failing to materialize.

But that filing for Chapter 11 protection has created difficulties for legions of other companies. Teke Machine Corp., a Rochester machine shop that has made parts for Kodak since the 1990s, says Kodak owes nearly $46,000 for deliveries not yet paid for.

That’s money that probably would have gone for employee bonuses and air conditioning upgrades, president Terry Coykendall said.

“To us, it is a big deal,” she said.

XLI Corp. not only has an unpaid bill for $36,000 but other work for Kodak that’s only partially done. And then the Rochester machine shop had to grapple with how to respond when Kodak placed another order for parts just days after the Jan. 19 bankruptcy filing.

“What do you do?” asked XLI president Peter Schott. “You can’t sell it to Canon or HP or Xerox. Nobody else would have any use for it.”

The list of companies to whom Kodak owes money ranges from a North Carolina medical supplies firm seeking $222 to Asian optics and electronics manufacturer AOF Imaging Technology Inc., which is owed $31.2 million.

As more claims by small and midsized businesses roll in, Kodak acknowledges that the 50 largest unsecured claims — the ones without any collateral — total nearly $175 million. Those major creditors include chemical, industrial and electronics manufacturers as well as some of the biggest names in the retail world, such as Best Buy, OfficeMax and Target.

The retailers’ claims stem from their participation in rebate programs or for what they spent advertising Kodak products, said company spokesman Christopher Veronda.

For all these unsecured creditors — large and small — the outlook isn’t good.

“Historically, they are going to get cents on the dollar on what they’re owed and it’s going to take years to get those cents on the dollar,” said Scott Dillon, senior bankruptcy associate with Albany law firm Tully Rinckey PLLC.

Many of the unsecured creditors will end up spending money on legal fees — not to go after Kodak but to defend themselves if Kodak paid them any money during the 90 days prior to the Jan. 19 filing.

Such lawsuits claiming “preferential transfer”— meaning one creditor received money that by rights should be divvied up among all of them — are common.

There are, in fact, boutique law firms that specialize in trying to recover money to benefit all creditors.

“If you got paid by Kodak within 90 days (before the filing), you have reasonable expectations of being sued,” Dillon said. “So not only are you getting three cents on the dollar, you’re getting poked in the eye because you have to hire a lawyer.”

Repo time

Kodak’s relationship with its suppliers has been particularly frayed in recent months. When it filed for Chapter 11, the company said that “persistent negative press” had resulted in some suppliers no longer providing goods or services, while others were demanding faster payment terms or more guarantees. Now the company is working to rebuild that supplier relationship, chief financial officer Antoinette McCorvey said Wednesday after a U.S. Bankruptcy Court hearing in New York City.

At the hearing, Kodak was given judicial OK to pay pre-Jan. 19 money owed to foreign vendors, shippers and processors.

“I’d say the prior relationships we had with suppliers have allowed us to rebuild,” McCorvey said.

“We’re in the process of doing that. Are there small issues? Yes. But supply is starting to flow again.”

In the meantime, Gates packaging company RDA Container Corp. wants its $86,000 worth of stuff back.

Ditto for Singapore-based electronics contract manufacturing giant Flextronics International Ltd., which is demanding the return of $1.8 million worth of Kodak photo kiosk equipment it shipped during the six weeks leading up to Jan. 19.

Rochester-based health imaging company Carestream Health Inc. wants back its $1.3 million worth of imaging loops and film products.

And Rochester Silver Works LLC — Kodak’s former silver division, which it sold off in October — is demanding $54,624 worth of silver nitrate it shipped to Kodak between Dec. 20 and Jan. 11.

Numerous companies around the globe have filed such reclamation demands with U.S. Bankruptcy Court, essentially seeking court approval to repossess the goods they shipped to Kodak shortly before the bankruptcy.

Reclamation demands are common in bankruptcy cases, said Ingrid C. Palermo, senior counsel with Bond Schoeneck & King’s bankruptcy practice group in Pittsford, as suppliers scramble after whatever money they can get. And debtors like Kodak typically end up paying some amount instead of returning the goods, Palermo said.

But Kodak’s suppliers have business worries beyond what happens to the money they were owed on Jan. 19. Bankrupt companies typically try to reassure suppliers that any sales after the filing date will be paid for promptly and are safe. But the check for those sales could be worthless if it turns out that the debtor is insolvent, said John C. Ninfo II, who retired recently after 20 years as a U.S. Bankruptcy Court judge for the Western District of New York.

“Let’s assume you’ve been selling to Kodak post (bankruptcy) petition and the whole thing falls apart and they convert to Chapter 7 (liquidation),” Ninfo said. “The secured creditors are still going to get paid first. That’s why still some creditors will insist on (cash on delivery) even post-petition. When they look at the company’s balance sheet, they wonder if they will get paid.”

Soft spot

Ultimately, the XLI machine shop shipped some completed products to Kodak on Jan. 20, just a day after the bankruptcy filing, though XLI is now insisting that Kodak pay more promptly than its previous 60-day grace period.

“I don’t want to just throw it into the scrap bin,” Schott said. “I’m not looking to lose business today. I have some product I can sell them.”

And as head of a privately held company not answerable to shareholders, Schott said: “I can make decisions that may not always be rational. I have a soft spot for Kodak and all the business they’ve given us over the years.”

XLI still has open purchase orders with Kodak. “Operationally, it’s business as usual,” Schott said. “Behind the scenes, (bankruptcy) is the elephant.”

Georgia-based supply chain management company Servigistics Inc., which says Kodak owes it $148,000, also is keeping the Rochester company as a customer, said spokeswoman Michelle Duke.

For machine shop Teke, Kodak is a relatively small customer, representing less than 2 percent of annual sales, Coykendall said. But Teke had just shipped a batch of thousands of parts prior to Jan. 19.

If Kodak placed an additional order, Coykendall said, “At that time I guess we’d negotiate.”

Business bankruptcies spawn their own financial and legal ecosystem. Aside from law firms specializing in Chapter 11 matters, there also are firms that buy unsecured creditors’ claims — akin to the companies that advertise on daytime and late-night television offering cash now for annuities and structured settlements.

Coykendall said she has been contacted by half a dozen firms offering to buy Teke’s claim.

“It’d be nice to get something,” she said. “I didn’t expect to get anything until I got those calls.”

Syracuse design firm Ram Industrial Design Inc. on Jan. 9 delivered the fruits of three months of work — some photography-related new product designs. All it has to show for the work is a $53,700 claim.

“The work we did was some of the best work we did for any client,” said Robert Englert, head of the small, four-person operation. “I’m more disappointed that this work may not see the light of day and have the impact we wanted it to have. I would’ve loved to have been a really small firm helping a giant that faltered get back on track.

“Of course, I like my money. It’s tough as a small business. We definitely are feeling it. We hope someday we can get paid.”

Every year, more than a thousand National Guard, reserve and active-duty troops coming back from Iraq, Afghanistan or other military duties complain of being denied jobs or otherwise being penalized by employers because of their military obligations.

The biggest offender: the federal government.

It is against federal law for employers to penalize service members because of their military service. And yet, in some cases, the U.S. government has withdrawn job offers to service members unable to get released from active duty fast enough; in others, service members have been fired after absences.

In fiscal 2011, more than 18 percent of the 1,548 complaints of violations of that law involved federal agencies, according to figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

“On the one hand, the government asked me to serve in Iraq,” said retired Army Brig. Gen. Michael Silva, a reservist who commanded a brigade in Iraq and was fired from his job as a U.S. Customs and Border Patrol contractor on his return. “On the other hand, another branch of government was not willing to protect my rights after serving.”

The federal government is the largest employer of citizen-soldiers. About 123,000 of the 855,000 men and women currently serving as Guard members and reservists, or about 14 percent, have civilian jobs with the federal government. Over a fourth of federal employees are veterans.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), enacted in 1994 to ensure that members of the military do not face a disadvantage in their civilian careers because of their service, calls on the federal government be “a model employer” for service members.

But critics contend that the federal government has been far from perfect, and they fear that with troops back home from Iraq and more on the way from ­Afghanistan, violations of the law could increase.

Obama “priority”

The problems persist even though the Obama administration has made a priority of cutting the rate of veterans’ unemployment, which is significantly higher among post-9/11 veterans than in the population as a whole.

Advocates for veterans say the system set up for service members to challenge alleged USERRA violations is onerous, with no single agency having oversight. And they note that the federal government doesn’t have much incentive to improve. The federal government can be ordered to pay back wages for being in willful violation of the law, but it incurs no other penalties. A private company, by contrast, could be liable for double an employee’s lost wages.

“There seems to be a feeling that the federal government can get away with what they’re doing,” said Matthew Estes, a USERRA lawyer with the law firm Tully Rinckey.

Some federal employers have forced reservists to leave military service as a condition of their hiring, which is also against the law, according to Samuel Wright, director of the Service Members Law Center at the Reserve Officers Association.

“Federal agencies are routinely doing that,” Wright said.

The Defense Department, including the Army, Navy, Air Force and various defense agencies, had 75 USERRA cases filed with the Labor Department last year, while Veterans Affairs had the second most, with 46 complaints. Other major offenders include the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Postal Service.

Public-sector jobs, including federal, state and local, accounted for 27 percent of the 2,884 USERRA cases handled in fiscal 2011 by Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve, a Defense Department office that tries to resolve problems through informal mediation and education.

Federal officials acknowledge the violations and say that the chief challenge has been educating supervisors in the field. The VA began in-depth training in November for managers to ensure compliance with “both the spirit and the letter of USERRA,” said Mary Santiago, director of the VA’s Veteran Employment Services Office.

The Defense Department, along with the VA and six other agencies, formed a working group late last year to examine how to improve federal compliance.

For service members, high rank has not necessarily proved to be a protection. Silva, a 1978 West Point graduate, served with the Army Reserve on deployments in Qatar and Afghanistan while pursuing a civilian career in finance, and commanded the 411th Engineer Brigade, an Army Reserve unit, during a one-year deployment to Iraq.

Shortly before the brigade returned to the United States in August 2007, Silva sent a form letter to each employer for his 4,000 soldiers, including his own boss, reminding them of their obligations under USERRA law.

Silva expected to return to his job as a contract employee at a Customs and Border Patrol facility in Lorton. But a Customs contracting officer told the contractor, SPS Consulting, that the government wanted to keep Silva’s replacement in the job, and warned the contractor in an ­e-mail that Customs “would cancel the contract” if Silva was reinstated.

After being laid off, Silva filed USERRA complaints against ­Customs and SPS. The Justice Department declined to take action against the contractor, but the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, which reviews alleged government wrongdoing, won a decision holding Customs responsible.

Burden is on the vet

Silva, who reached a confidential settlement with Customs, remains angry that the Justice Department did not pursue the case. “They refused to give any kind of explanation,” he said. “The whole burden is put on the serving soldier to defend your case.”

The former brigadier general’s experience is not unusual. Some employees penalized for their military service describe being forced to wend their way through a frustrating bureaucracy before they get recourse. Sometimes, veterans and advocates say, they never get it.

In fiscal 2010, the Labor Department recommended that Justice officials pursue 43 alleged violations of USERRA. The Justice Department agreed to represent only three, but helped settle nine other cases. The department declined to represent 18 service members, despite Labor’s conclusion that their cases had merit. Another dozen cases were still being considered by Justice at the end of the fiscal year.

The Justice Department’s decisions “are always based on a careful consideration of the case from a litigation and merits standpoint,” said spokeswoman Xochitl Hinojosa.

Service members who have been refused reemployment or denied new jobs say the consequences often extend to their personal lives.

First Lt. Christopher Matthai, 31, enlisted in the Army at 18 after graduating from high school in Baltimore, and in 2006 he joined the Army Reserve. In May 2009, shortly before he married, Matthai was hired for a two-year internship by the Social Security Administration as an information technology specialist.

Soon after he started, however, the Army Reserve selected Matthai for a commission. After missing much of his first year at work for officer training, Matthai informed his civilian supervisors in April 2010 that he would be sent to Afghanistan in the fall for a year. A few days later, he was fired for “poor performance” and for being absent without leave.

“I was shocked,” Matthai recalled. “I told them, ‘At least let me resign so I can walk out of here with a clear name.’ ”

Instead, he was escorted out by a guard.

Matthai filed a complaint with the Labor Department. An investigation stretched on for months, and Matthai deployed to Afghanistan with the situation unresolved and his wife, Lindsay, pregnant with their first child. Stress from the case “was destroying my marriage,” he said. “I’m sitting overseas, banging my head against the wall.”

The Labor Department’s investigation, completed in March 2011, found that Matthai had been “wrongfully terminated” because of his military obligations and falsely accused of being absent without leave. There was no evidence of poor performance.

No enforcement power

Matthai was entitled to get his job back with lost wages and benefits and have his record cleared of any wrongdoing, according to the Labor Department. Matthai, then midway through his tour in Afghanistan, only wanted the SSA to clear his record and pay his attorney fees.

But the Labor Department’s findings carry no enforcement power. The SSA offered to pay only a small portion of his attorney fees and insisted that Matthai not seek reemployment with the SSA — a stipulation that would have been a red flag for any other federal agency considering hiring him, according to Estes, his attorney.

“The whole complaint process is totally broken,” Matthai said. “I’m a federal employee and a reservist, and I felt completely unprotected and abandoned by the federal government.”

It was only after Matthai returned from Afghanistan, when his attorney began scheduling depositions to bring the case before the Merit Systems Protection Board and his congressman, Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.), called the agency, that the SSA settled the case in ­November.

The agency dropped its demand that Matthai not seek employment with it again, paid him his full $13,500 in attorney fees and cleared his record, but it made no admission that it had violated USERRA. The agency declined to comment.

“I still feel cheated,” Matthai said. “The law needs some muscle behind it to have it mean something.”

In January, Matthai left Maryland for a one-year assignment with the Army in Texas. His wife and their now 1-year-old son, Christopher Jr., will soon follow.

“I’ve got to find some kind of employment,” he said, “and it seems the only option is the military.”

Every year, more than a thousand National Guard, reserve and active-duty troops coming back from Iraq, Afghanistan or other military duty complain of being denied jobs or otherwise being penalized by employers because of their military obligations.

The biggest offender: the federal government.

It is against federal law for employers to penalize service members because of their military service. And yet, in some cases, the U.S. government has withdrawn job offers to service members unable to get released from active duty fast enough; in others, service members have been fired after absences.

In fiscal 2011, more than 18 percent of the 1,548 complaints of violations of that law involved federal agencies, according to figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

“On the one hand, the government asked me to serve in Iraq,” said retired Army Brig. Gen. Michael Silva, a reservist who commanded a brigade in Iraq and was fired from his job as a U.S. Customs and Border Patrol contractor upon his return. “On the other hand, another branch of government was not willing to protect my rights after serving.”

The federal government is the largest employer of citizen soldiers. Roughly 123,000 of the 855,000 currently serving Guard members and reservists, or about 14 percent, have civilian jobs with the federal government. Over a fourth of federal employees are veterans.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, enacted in 1994 to ensure that members of the military not face disadvantage in their civilian careers because of their service, calls on the federal government to be “a model employer” for service members.

But critics say the federal government has been far from perfect, and they fear that with troops back home from Iraq and more on the way from Afghanistan, violations of the law could increase.

The problems persist even though the Obama administration has made a priority of cutting veterans’ unemployment, which is significantly higher among post-9/11 veterans than in the population as a whole.

Advocates for veterans say the system set up for service members to challenge alleged USERRA violations is onerous, with no single agency having oversight. And they note that the federal government doesn’t have much incentive to improve. The federal government can be ordered to pay back wages for being in willful violation of the law but it incurs no other penalties. A private company, by contrast, could be liable for double an employee’s lost wages.

“There seems to be a feeling that the federal government can get away with what they’re doing,” said Matthew Estes, a USERRA lawyer with the law firm Tully Rinckey.

Some federal employers have forced reservists to leave military service as a condition of hire, which is also against the law, said Samuel Wright, director of the Service Members Law Center at the Reserve Officers Association.

The Defense Department, including the Army, Navy, Air Force and various defense agencies, had 75 USERRA cases filed with the Labor Department in 2011, while Veterans Affairs had the second-most, with 46 complaints. Other major offenders include the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Postal Service.

Federal officials acknowledge the violations and say the chief challenge has been educating supervisors in the field. The VA began in-depth training in November for managers to ensure compliance with “both the spirit and the letter of USERRA,” said Mary Santiago, director of the VA’s Veteran Employment Services Office.

The Defense Department, along with the VA and six other agencies, formed a working group in late 2011 to examine how to improve federal compliance.

For service members, high rank has not necessarily proved to be a protection. Brig. Gen. Silva, a 1978 West Point graduate, served with the Army Reserve on deployments in Qatar and Afghanistan while pursuing a civilian career in finance, and commanded the 411th Engineer Brigade, an Army Reserve unit, during a one-year deployment to Iraq.

Shortly before the brigade returned in August 2007, Silva sent a form letter to each employer for his 4,000 soldiers, including his own boss, reminding them of their obligations under USERRA law.

Silva expected to return to his job as a contract employee at a Customs and Border Patrol facility in Lorton, Va. But a Customs contracting officer told the contractor, SPS Consulting, that the government wanted to keep Silva’s replacement in the job and warned the contractor in an email that Customs “would cancel the contract” if Silva were reinstated.

After being laid off, Silva filed USERRA complaints against Customs and SPS. The Justice Department declined to take action against the contractor. But the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, which reviews alleged government wrongdoing, won a decision holding Customs responsible.

Silva, who reached a confidential settlement with Customs, remains angry that the Justice Department did not pursue the case. “They refused to give any kind of explanation,” he said. “The whole burden is put on the serving soldier to defend your case.”

Last year, more than 18 percent of the 1,548 complaints of employers penalizing service members because of military service involved federal agencies.

An Albany-based law firm with its sights set on nationwide offices in the next five years will set up its next location in Syracuse.

Tully Rinckey PLLC plans to open its local office in April with three attorneys and expects to expand to seven in the following and expects to expand to seven in the following year. The firm is aiming for 10 attorneys in Syracuse within about two years after opening here.

Tully Rinckey started in Albany about seven years ago and then expanded to Washington, D.C. and Arlington, Va. Rather than spend years and years building a large firm in a single geography through challenging local recruiting, Tully Rinckey decided to expand through establishing a number of smaller offices in different markets, Founding Partner Mathew Tully says.

For its fourth office, the firm explored markets including White Plains, Maryland, and the Springfield, Mass. area. The firm liked the potential for two offices working in the same state and so settled on starting its next location in New York.

“What really made us like Syracuse was the commonality of law with our Albany office,” Tully says.

Plus, starting up in Syracuse is far less expensive than in White Plains, near New York City, he adds.

Practice areas at Tully Rinckey include matrimonial law, trusts and estates, criminal defense, real estate, and general litigation. Filling the Syracuse office with experienced lawyers in those areas will be the firm’s top priority, Tully says.

That doesn’t mean the firm won’t expand into other areas if the right attorney with a slightly different practice focus comes along, he adds.

The firm aims to recruit mid-level lawyers from other firms and has sent nearly 3,800 letters to attorneys within an hour’s drive of Syracuse, Tully says he wants to attract attorneys with experience, but not those at a senior level.

“A mid-level person might be making $90,000 a year, but generating $400,000 in revenue for that firm,” Tully says. ”Thats the perfect candidate for us.”

One of Tully Rinckey’s experienced attorneys will move to Syracuse to help start the local office. The firm is already in talks with two local attorneys about joining, Tully adds.

After launching Syracuse, Tully Rinckey expects to continue its expansion west. The firm plans to open offices in both Rochester and Buffalo, including launching in one of those two cities by the end of 2012.

Overall, the firm’s goal is to employ more than 100 attorneys in the next three to five years, Tully says. The firm currently employs 84 people total, including more than 30 attorneys.

Tully Rinckey started in Washington D.C, in 2008. That office now has 14 attorneys. It opened its third office, in Arlington in 2010.

Q: I am very active in community events off base. How do I know when not to wear my uniform?

A: If you need to even think of the question, don’t wear your uniform.

These days, many service members risk projecting the wrong image about the military if they appear in uniform at public demonstrations, marches, rallies or unofficial public speeches. It doesn’t matter if people at such demonstrations are protesting a war or Wall Street, or rallying behind a political candidate.

Department of Defense Directive 1334.1 prohibits service members from participating in any of these events while in uniform if their uniformed appearance could imply that the military supported the event’s underlying cause.

This does not mean troops can’t participate in demonstrations. They just can’t do so while in uniform, on duty or in a way that is inconsistent “with good order and discipline and the national security,” according to DoD Directive 1325.6.

DoD Directive 1334.1 also prohibits service members from wearing their uniform to bolster their political activities, private employment or commercial interest. There are also prohibitions against wearing a uniform in a manner that “may tend to bring discredit” upon the military.

Army Regulation 670-1, Marine Corps Order 1020.34G, Navy Personnel 15665I and Air Force Instruction 36-2903 feature general uniform wear prohibitions similar to those in DoD Directive 1334.1. These regulations also establish wear prohibitions for specific types of uniforms and situations.

Needless to say, service members should be careful not to wear their uniforms at meetings or demonstrations with shady sponsors, such as terrorist groups.

Service members caught inappropriately wearing their uniform could be charged with failure to obey an order or regulation in violation of Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice or, in the case of officers, conduct unbecoming an officer in violation of Article 133.

Service members facing such charges should immediately contact a military law attorney. Depending on the circumstances, an attorney could argue that the service member did not

attempt to use his uniform to wrongly influence others, his attire did not qualify as a uniform or that he wore a uniform in a prohibited environment due to extenuating circumstances or by accident.

Mathew B. Tully is an Iraq War veteran and founding partner of the law firm Tully Rinckey PLLC. Email questions to askthelawyer@militarytimes.com The information in this column is not intended as legal advice.

Greg Rinckey is an attorney the same way the Nike swoosh is running shoes or the Big Mac is fast food.

“The Rinckey brand means federal employment and military law. I want to be known as the go-to firm for those things,” said the former JAG, now a partner of Military Times legal columnist Mathew Tully in the law firm Tully Rinckey PLLC.

On Facebook, Rinckey blogs about legislation that will help protect service members from hostile work environments. His Linkedln profile cuts right to the chase, emphasizing his areas of expertise. His profile in the national Martingale.com listing of lawyers opens with a rundown of his experience defending hundreds of cases involving service members.

Rinckey’s image is consistent everywhere you look. It’s his personal brand, and experts say it’s a powerful tool in seeking out potential employment.

“You don’t get hired just because you are looking for a job,” said Kevin Kermes, a former Army first lieutenant who heads up career coaching firm Kermes Consulting in Washington, D.C. “You get hired because of the value that you bring. You get hired because of those things that you do exceptionally well, and that’s what your brand conveys.”

Personal Brands

A personal brand doesn’t start with a Facebook blurb or a tweet. Rather, branding begins with a careful personal assessment. Understanding who you are and how you want to be perceived is nine-tenths of the game.

“I started by asking myself what I enjoyed about my last job,” Kermes said. “Did I like to steer the ship in calm seas? Did I like being in there fixing things?”

He talked with former bosses and colleagues, asking what they valued in his work. Slowly a picture of himself emerged: something partly professional, partly personal – a base upon which to build. Try this: Find five words that best describe you. List three unique skills you bring to the table. Write down a handful of experiences that show what you can do. At the end of the day, your branding effort will fizzle if the image you’ve built is not true to who you are, so keep it real.

Online Brands

Your online brand is all about purposeful packaging – “packaging with intention,” said Jessi Lacosta, a career strategist and branding guru for BluRio Strategies in San Diego. Every place your brand identity hasn’t been claimed, grab it, even if you don’t expect to use it right away. No matter what tools you choose, be consistent.

Some starting points:

User name: In most online forums, you’ll have a user name visible to the public. BillSmith123 could be anyone. A name such as BestChef makes a statement.

Facebook: Post articles and quotes that consistently reflect your chosen image. Photos, too, can speak volumes about a person’s self-definition.

LinkedIn: As a professional network, it’s a straightforward branding platform. The profile page lets you lay it out in the most direct terms: “Strategic problem solver with background in IT.” Just seven words, and your brand is fixed in people’s minds.

Email customization: Something as simple as the font in your email auto-signature can reinforce brand identity. Choose one that aligns with your overall image. That autosignature is also a great place for a tagline or quote that further defines you in the recipient’s eyes.

Make your brand public

We’re all perceived in a certain way based on what we wear, how we speak and what we have to say. Those who have personal brands bring those brands to bear in all their social interactions.

Take dress, for example. An artsy brand will dress the part (flouncy skirt), just as an outdoors professional will want to make a certain statement (sturdy boots). If nothing else, clothes can help to make a memorable impression. Wear red everywhere you go, and people will begin to recognize you automatically.

Defining your brand in public also means paying close attention to what you say.

Lacosta recommends having a series of talking points in your head at all times to demonstrate your special area of understanding.

Don’t let up

Beyond the initial work of defining who “you” are, staying on message is an ongoing task. “I don’t get on the news and talk about matrimonial law, because that’s not who I am,” Rinckey says.

It also requires the daily effort of managing email, monitoring social media and staying on message in public.

“I’ve had to invest a lot of nonbillable time,” Rinckey says.

That constant drumbeat has paid off. When people get into issues of ROTC disenrollments, for example, his name is always top of mind.

“By the time people have set up a consult with me, they already know all about my background,” he says. “Before they even consult with me, they understand that I know their specific issues. That makes it a lot easier for me from a selling point of view.”