Government Fashion Critics?

As I was reading the BBC World News site I stumbled across this article.

It seems a US military panel has decided to change the discharge status of an ex-Marine based on his decision to wear fatigues to an anti-war protest. The military justifies their punishment based on a rule that prohibits the 'unauthorized wearing of uniforms.' The panels decision has left a war veteran with "kind of honourable status" according to his lawyer after their "non-punitive decision."

If the decision isn't punitive - it doesn't affect any of the benefits he will receive - and the Cpl. removed his name tag and military emblems, why has the military decided to punish this veteran? Unless the military demanded that the Cpl. return his fatigues after service, then why do they care what he does once discharged, especially if he has removed any reference to the military or his service from the attire.

No reasonable person is going to believe that the government/military is sponsoring the anti-war protest just b/c an ex-Marine is wearing fatigue pants and a fishing hat. I suppose the Cpl should have waited a week or two so that his discharge was complete, perhaps then nothing would have happened. But again, no one watching the protest will be confused or lead to falsely believe the military is protesting President Bush's War on Terror/Democracy outreach to the Middle East program. It seems that the military is just sore that one of the young men that fought for his country and served his time decided that he didn't agree with the war.