Bronze Star Medal woes cause problems
Our buddy Jeff Schogol sent us a link yesterday to the Air Force Times story about the Bronze Star “winners” we talked about last week. Apparently the two female airmen have been getting harassed over the award;
Stories about both awards were posted on the Air Force website and drew dozens of comments attacking the women as well as the decision to award them Bronze Stars. The Air Force removed the story about Gamez “because no one deserves that level of criticism for meritorious service in a combat zone,” David Smith, a spokesman for Air Education and Training Command, told the Times.
Many commenters said that the women should not have gotten awards simply for doing their jobs, and that the Air Force awards too many medals.
[Tech. Sgt. Sharma Haynes] could not be reached for comment by press time. In the story about her award, she said she was busy while deployed to Afghanistan, but it was time well spent.
“I know when most people see the news and read the papers, the majority of what they see are the bad things that occur here, but the U.S. presence is making a positive impact on this country,” she said in the story.
[Tech. Sgt. Christina Gamez] declined to comment for this story. In the Air Force story that was taken off the Web, she was modest about receiving the award.
“Ask me to recognize anyone else and I can talk for days, but to brag about myself, I’m not the best,” she said in the story. “I feel like I did my job, kept a very busy pace and made improvements any place I could.”
While I understand the sentiment expressed by many, that clerical work doesn’t really rise to the level of deserving a Bronze Star Medal just because it happened while the Sergeants were receiving imminent danger pay, neither is it their fault and they probably don’t deserve the abuse that’s directed at them.
I’ve told the story before that when my commander in Desert Storm told me he was putting me in for a Bronze Star Medal, I was violently opposed to it. I begged him not to give it to me and physically threatened him (COB6 will tell you that I physically threatened that moron at least once a week), but that didn’t stop him. Our First Sergeant had been awarded a Bronze Star in Vietnam for pulling his squad’s collective ass out of an ambush, and I didn’t think that anything I did rose to that level of proficiency or bravery.
Obviously, my Bronze Star Medal meant more to my commander than it did to me, but there was no way I could convince him to not give me it. So, because of my experience, I don’t blame anyone for the awards they get. I didn’t blame Jessica Lynch, and I don’t blame these two young ladies.
Giving them shit on the internet about it probably isn’t going to change the whole situation. Anyone who is bullying them should probably take a bottle of chill pills. Get pissed at their commanders, or the Air Force, or the culture that made someone think it was a good idea, but it’s certainly not their fault.
And I don’t think any of us want to be the squad leader of the patrol which everyone seems to think that those two airmen need to “earn” their BSM. There are enough things to be scared of outside the wire without giving an Air Force finance clerk a loaded weapon and putting them in a free-fire-zone.
April 17th, 2012 at 12:28 pm
I’ think I’ve said this before, the Reg Army BN I was attached to in OIFIII was giving Bronze Stars out to anybody E-7 and above…even if they never left the camp. the camp mayor, a female E7 got one because she never lost any keys to our rooms I guess. She spent most days watching DVDs. I had a few soldiers I thought did a great job and went outside the wire almost everyday…they got nothing.
April 17th, 2012 at 12:36 pm
“There are enough things to be scared of outside the wire without giving an Air Force finance clerk a loaded weapon and putting them in a free-fire-zone.”
GOOD LORD.
April 17th, 2012 at 12:37 pm
Oops, posted too soon.
GOOD LORD. Don’t say things like that, Jonn. It was bad enough when they were sending me outside the wire on a regular basis (career MI geek). LOL.
April 17th, 2012 at 12:43 pm
Blame the system, blame the lazy who make no effort to make sense of the system, or any of a number of issues all of us know to be problems. Or just go on doing what you are being paid to do without pointing fingers at those who are rewarded for whatever it is that they do.
Just as doing their jobs correctly probably wasn’t really bronze star worthy, neither should it be getting them a bunch of grief.
Until we hear differently, all we can say is that most likely someone else put them in for awards. Blame them.
Meanwhile, should we expect these two to continue to strive for excellence? When doing so seems to result in their being castigated for it?? Let’s hope that they both rise above the criticism.
April 17th, 2012 at 12:44 pm
I remember my 1st Sgt talking about his Purple Heart. He had received some pretty minor shrapnel wounds (didn’t know he had them until he took his pants off later) When he received his Purple Heart he said he was in a formation with guys missing limbs, on crutches, and in wheel chairs. He said he felt completely ridiculous…. In Desert Storm his HUMV hit a mine and blew the front tire off of the passenger side, fortunately no one was injured. The driver of that HUMV is now a CSM and we were just talking about the Purple Heart story the other day…talk about a small world!
April 17th, 2012 at 12:56 pm
Awards are always subjective.. someone is going to get pissed over someone else. It’s the way it is. Get over it.
April 17th, 2012 at 1:03 pm
Are we still talking about this?…….get over it, this medal is an attaboy as well as a valor!……and given out to E-7′s and above like candy!
April 17th, 2012 at 1:07 pm
“Get pissed at their commanders, or the Air Force, or the culture that made someone think it was a good idea.”
Well said, and absodamnlutely!
April 17th, 2012 at 1:16 pm
Hate to say it, but when I was deployed (USAF) the general rule of thumb was for ANY unit commander that had been deployed for a year or more to get a Bronze Star. Absolute BS, imho, but still was done. Embarrassing for the Air Force to do this, but don’t blame the recipients.
April 17th, 2012 at 1:17 pm
Yet the maintainers busting their asses on the line can’t even get an acheivment medal for all of their hard work. Its stuff like this that makes me sick about the way the Air Force works.
April 17th, 2012 at 1:30 pm
Amen, Jonn. As I think I’ve repeatedly made clear elsewhere: IMO if they did the requisite level of work for a MSM/BSM and actually served in a place where active hostilities are ongoing, I don’t have any problem with a BSM EOT award. BSMs can be awarded for service as well as heroic action. And I’d personally rather see someone get an award slightly higher than deserved than get slighted.
If the awards weren’t deserved, it’s their chains-of-command that are to blame – not these 2 NCOs.
They only way the individuals could be deserving of blame is if they intentionally “gamed” the system or put themselves in for the award. And they’re in the wrong specialty area to have a real opportunity to do that.
April 17th, 2012 at 1:35 pm
I put myself in for a BSM for my time in Kuwait. Not because I deserved it, but because I knew all of the punks who got kicked up to brigade staff were getting put in for them as well. In the end, I got an arcom, and the staff weenies got MSMs. Well, two of them probably deserved it, but the S1 was worthless.
April 17th, 2012 at 1:39 pm
What’s next…PH for a paper cut?
April 17th, 2012 at 1:44 pm
@Hondo – I differ a bit on this. I have a problem with EOT awards in the first place. The award system [in the Army at least] has been inflated to the point where each grade is virtually assigned a level of award for merely doing their job without overtly stepping on their cranks.
Pandora’s box is well beyond open now, but I really wish awards such as the BSM/MSM/ARCOM, etc…..were actually awarded for merit rather than doing time.
April 17th, 2012 at 2:00 pm
Good grief. You physically threatened an officer over an award recommendation? I think that says a lot more about you than it does about him. Flame away, but where is that behavior in the NCO Creed?
April 17th, 2012 at 2:05 pm
CI: without EOT awards, how would you propose to recognize those who performed no act of heroism, or no exceptional single act – but who nonetheless performed beyond expectations over a prolonged period? In my book, EOT awards are exactly how you reward such performance. And the EOT award can vary from the norm – all the way from above the service norm down to no award at all.
I once saw a LTC get an EOT award of ARCOM for service in SWA – and he was returning to CONUS to retire. While IMO that probably adequately captured his level of performance for his year in-theater, I thought that was a bit chintzy for what was essentially his retirement award. I also saw another LTC return to CONUS who reportedly received either no award or an AAM. So they’re not exactly handed out per some “table of mandatory EOT awards” based on rank.
Then again, these two officers’ chain-of-command knew them better than I did – so maybe that’s all they really deserved. I just find that kinda hard to believe for the individual who did 20+ years on AD and retired as an O5.
Commanders with award authority have near-absolute discretion regarding those awards. I don’t have much problem with how they hand out awards unless they show obvious favorites or ignore service regs while making them. But if they choose to make awards, I think they should at least consider current service norms. They’re also damn well bound to follow service regulations in doing so, whether they choose to grant decorations liberally or as strictly. But I’ve seen what I’m personally convinced was either obvious favoritism or service regulations blatantly being ignored – if not both – in granting awards.
April 17th, 2012 at 2:12 pm
#15, Soldier; If you had him for a commander, you’d understand.
April 17th, 2012 at 2:32 pm
I just wonder why no one is questioning SMA Chandler about his BSM? You know if someone is screwing with a couple airforce Tech Sgts maybe the should look top down not bottom up…call me crazy.
April 17th, 2012 at 3:03 pm
My 2 both have Vs…….1 in 68 and 1 in 70.
Semper Fi
April 17th, 2012 at 3:34 pm
While I was on active duty, there was basically a rank criteria to receive medals. I said receive, instead of earn, because there was no way anyone E-6 and under would receive a MSM Meritorous Service Medal. that was reserved for E-7 and higher, regardless of the actions. After about 10 years on active duty, I started to see who was getting medals and what for and would be embarrassed to receive some of them. I agree we should not talk bad about the ones receiving the medals. They had no part in the process. Most times you do not even know you are receiving a medal, until you are notified to be at commander’s call.
April 17th, 2012 at 4:03 pm
If I’m a troop in the field, I want the cooks that feed me, the clerks that make sure I get paid, and the supply personnel who make sure I have the beans and bullets necessary to do my job to ALL be so capable they deserve a Bronze Star.
April 17th, 2012 at 5:22 pm
My battalion once did an awards cerremony after completion of JRTC in Fort Polk, LA. It was basically a bunch of AAMs and a few ARCOMs. I think my response to this story was about the same as when I heard the adjutant anounce an AAM for successful completion of SRP in a timely manner and another for “100% motivation”: Meh…
These BSMs were political and morale based. That unit’s espirit de corps probably skyrocketed after a few BSMs were given, and in the end a lot of awards go to women under these circumstances because they aren’t awarded nearly as frequently to women for legitimate acts in combat because women aren’t in combat as much as men. I was put in for a Silver Star for saving the lives of two of my guys during an ambush on the same hill SSG Sal Giunta got his MOH, and it was downgraded to a BSM-V because I was a specialist at the time General Scaparotti signed it. During the same ceremony when General Casey pinned it on my chest, a SFC platoon sergeant who happened to be a Ranger got a Silver Star for calling up a 9-Line medevac request (which I did during that ambush). That’s when I realized awards are primarily based on politics and moral.
April 17th, 2012 at 5:57 pm
I was an 88M20 in Iraq, our Trans Company numbered 148 in personnel and was a self contained individual ‘theater asset’ assigned to the Multi National Division, rather than belonging to one of the local Trans Battalions as a Corp asset.
Myself and 7 other gents provided dedicated, mobile, convoy security in teams of two for over many, many missions in Iraq in 2003-04, something we were decidedly not trained for prior to deployment. (Though many of us had prior service experience in combat arms. One of the reasons we were picked.) We each individually logged in the neighborhood of 100,000 to 150,000 escort miles in 10 months of active operations. I’m just guessing here, but I’d say we spent well over 70% of our time in country outside the wire. I personally turned down a couple of R&R trips to subordinates that really needed it, and skipped my mid tour leave to stay on missions. Others did the same.
When we redeployed to Kuwait and had our awards ceremony, we were astounded to discover that our Platoon Sergeant had to fight like crazy just to get us Commendation Medals (no V device) while our cross eyed, slacking, two timing, trouble making, chicken little platoon leader received a BSM. There were a couple other terribly undeserved awards made as well which really left a bad taste in some of our mouths.
Like I’ve said before, the person imbues the award with it’s ultimate value, the award doesn’t necessarily describe the person, and is mostly just a bit of cloth and metal.
April 17th, 2012 at 6:05 pm
@Hondo – “CI: without EOT awards, how would you propose to recognize those who performed no act of heroism, or no exceptional single act – but who nonetheless performed beyond expectations over a prolonged period?”
I have always been more satisfied with plaques or other heartfelt presentations from my unit and my little band of hooahs.
This may just be my experience, but receiving the requisite level of award for doing my time wasn’t worth the trouble nor near as satisfying.
April 17th, 2012 at 6:08 pm
@Hondo – And I should have added: when you write “but who nonetheless performed ‘beyond’ expectations over a prolonged period”……
I could agree with that….the problem is that these awards are virtually automatic for “performed at expectations”.
April 17th, 2012 at 6:10 pm
“There are enough things to be scared of outside the wire without giving an Air Force finance clerk a loaded weapon and putting them in a free-fire-zone.”
Way back in the early 90′s when the big AF brass was on the big “we are all WARRIORS kick” they actually had a combat challenge for the AF finance clerks…I always had the thought that if all the Sec Forces were gone and Finance was the final line of defence you had already lost.
April 17th, 2012 at 7:02 pm
I agree that threats and harassing remarks aren’t called for. But you think the Air Force Times would be smart enough not to make the ‘bullying’ their cover story. Just dragging things out for the 2 clerks.
April 17th, 2012 at 7:44 pm
Basically this is a case of ,”Don’t hate the player(Gamez/Haynes),…hate the game(retarded awards system).”
April 17th, 2012 at 8:32 pm
CI: in principle, I agree with you that that’s the way things should be. Unfortunately, in practice that’s not current reality. And there’s a hidden issue with trying to be the “Lone Ranger”, ignoring service norms, and unilaterally “fixing” what you can.
Yes, awards are often skewed by rank, and are quite often awarded for performing up to expectation. However, if one commander decides he/she will “fix” their part of the system by not granting decorations to anyone except true “world beaters”, then that commander is in essence screwing their subordinates. Because the rest of their service isn’t playing by those rules, and is still granting awards more liberally.
When those subordinates PCS without the normal awards expected by a solid performer of their rank and experience, everyone at their next unit will assume they know why – e.g., that the new guy/gal is “low speed/high drag”. They won’t be correct, of course, but the individual’s reputation will take a hit before they even get started in their next job. Ditto for their chances with central selection boards, local promotion packets and points computations, etc . . . . They’ll be behind their peers through no fault of their own.
The same situation exists with evals; they’re skewed too. (IMO, they’re even more skewed than awards.) Best I can tell, all you have to do to screw someone is to be an honest hardass when writing their eval. One “stinker” from someone who’s trying to unilaterally reform the system, and an individual is behind the proverbial 8-ball. Or worse.
Reforming a badly skewed system has to be done system-wide and simultaneously. Otherwise, you end up with a lot of “winners” based on “luck of the draw” regarding whether their last commander worked or bucked the system vice individual merit.
In short: yeah, the game is rigged, and that really stinks. But it’s still the only game in town, and ya gotta play anyway.
April 17th, 2012 at 10:34 pm
@24 – Right on CI, plaques (usually made by a unit member or members), WWII rifles, ceremonial swords and such were always how our detachment recognized people we really wanted to recognize. The personal touch was embraced by the entire detachment and usually reflected the overwhelming majority opinion of a particular soldier’s worth to the unit, as such they were much more coveted than medals and ribbons.
April 18th, 2012 at 11:34 am
The awards system is broken. The Navy and air force are way to generous and the army, while also generous is not nearly as bad as the other two. The Marine Corps is way too strict, so much so that Colonel Hackworth addressed the issue in one of his columns.
There is a casualty to award survey and though I no longer have it I know the Marine Corps award to casualty ratio was a joke. The only service that had awarded more valor awards than it had sustained casualties was the air force.
But I do have this from govexec.com and while old it is still a useful measure.
” The Marines are even more reserved about decorating their fighters. Leathernecks have made up only 12 percent of the U.S. forces deployed, yet account for a staggering 27 percent of deaths. But the Corps has awarded only 17 percent of the total number of Silver Stars, 21 percent of the Bronze Stars with V, and 39 percent of the Commendation Medals with V.
Not only are the Marines stingier with decorations than the Army overall, but, in a reverse of the Army pattern, the Corps is progressively more generous with lesser decorations at lower ranks.”
As to end of tour awards, I do not like them. I spent 24 years in the Marine Corps and retired as a Master Sergeant. In that time I had a successful tour on recruiting duty, was a rifle squad leader in Just Cause and the Gulf. As a Sergeant E-5, I commanded a rifle platoon for six months. I never recieved a personal award until I was awarded an Achievement Medal for service as a platoon sergeant during Urban Warrior. I recieved my only end of tour from a joint command and an MSM upon my retirement.
Not complaining, I think the standards should be tight but I do think the Corps is too far one way. I think the fix would be to have a DoD wide standard (at least for combat or combat related awards) that is somewhere between the army and the Corps. That would be fair.
I think end of tour awards should go away. I think KIAs should all be awarded Purple Hearts; not Purple Hearts and Bronze Stars as is now common with the lone exception being the Corps.
The system is broken.
April 18th, 2012 at 12:06 pm
Jack: no major argument from me about the system being at least partially broken, and being inequitable when comparing services. But IMO, leaders gotta play the hand they’re dealt until the guys in charge at the top formally enforce changes. Otherwise, their subordinates are the ones to suffer.
My background was Army, and therefore I tend to think the USMC is simply way too stingy with awards. And I firmly believe that EOT and impact awards can be used properly in order to recognize excellent performance. But I could be persuaded to tighten things up greatly – PROVIDED the change was made across-the-board.
Otherwise, it’s the folks in units that “tighten up” get screwed while everyone else gets the bennies.
April 18th, 2012 at 12:11 pm
You are right about people getting screwed and, while I love the Corps, this almost strikes me as a simple we gotta be harder than everyone else just because kind of BS.
The kids that get screwed the most are our Corpsmen. They can leave an infantry battalion with zero personal awards except for a CAR. They check in at a hospital and everyone there is sporting multiple NAMs and Comms.
I am with you in that we do needa fix, it needs to be across the board and the standard should be established by the army and the Corps.
Years ago (after Kosovo) the army and the Corps pushed hard to restrict the award of the BSM to people actually ashore. The navy and air force were able to fight that off so it is unlikely they could be forced to raise standards.
I also agree that the issue is with the leaders and it is wrong to blame the kids getting medals that maybe are too high for whatever they are doing.
April 18th, 2012 at 1:37 pm
@ 31 Jack, this is kind of a tricky one. On the one hand my beloved Corps is too tight with handing out awards but on the other hand, anyone that ‘knows’ knows that everything on a Marine’s uniform has been ‘earned’. I, and every Marine, knows that what pathetic little sh1t I wore on my left breast means something.
When I graduated the NCO Academy I got a purty piece of paper that said I was now a leader of Marines. After spending a summer supporting the training of various Reserve units, the Skipper wrote me a nice letter saying I done good because no one got killed and I didn’t blow up any of my Amtracs. In other branches these would have been ribbons, in the Corps all they said was I did my job.
April 18th, 2012 at 2:00 pm
Jack: the effort to tighten BSM eligibility actually worked, though too late to affect the Kosovo BSM fiasco. As part of the 2001 NDAA, Congress made it a statutory requirement that prospective BSM recipients now must be in receipt of Hostile Fire Pay/Imminent Danger Pay to be eligible. However, DoD managed to game that one by declaring pretty much all of SWA a combat zone in 1991 – and never revoking the declaration. They’ve also grossly extended combat zone tax bennies to even more locations, which might have the same effect. See the following:
http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=29497#comment-610278
April 19th, 2012 at 8:53 am
@Hondo – I thought you might appreciate a piece over at Abu Muqawama on this very subject, from Wednesday:
“If it were up to me, I would get rid of all medals not related to valor or campaign-specific service. Most medals awarded for “service” — from the Army Achievement Medal to the Meritorious Service Medal — seem like trinkets most often given based on the rank of the awardee on completion of a duty assignment rather than any activity soldiers actually take pride in. Maybe I am wrong. But you see a lot of soldiers out there who look like someone has spilled fruit salad on their chests when in actuality they have merely been competent in the non-combat-related aspects of the military bureaucracy. If the Army really wanted to encourage a warrior ethos, why not scrap everything but those Army Commendation Medals, Bronze Stars, Silver Stars, etc. given for valor under fire? After all, do you ever see Gen. Dempsey sporting his AAMs?”
http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawama/2012/04/open-thread-medals.html
April 19th, 2012 at 9:21 am
CI: my gut reaction is I could tolerate that, but it would be going way too far. Heroes can’t be heroes for long without proper comms, intel, logistical, and medical support.
That said, a system-wide tightening-up may well be in order. And some of the abuses I’ve seen do indeed need to be stopped.
April 19th, 2012 at 9:24 am
Addendum: if I missed mentioning a major support area above, that wasn’t intentional – and I probably should have added admin to the list. Every specialty contributes to the overall effort.
April 19th, 2012 at 9:31 am
@Hondo – “Heroes can’t be heroes for long without proper comms, intel, logistical, and medical support.”
Agreed, and I don’t necessarily concur with removing AAM’s and the like from the award inventory, but enablers and supporters to the warfighter [pointy-end-of-spear] could still be recognized for meritorious actions.
I just philosophically draw the line at mandatory and obligatory EoT awards.
April 19th, 2012 at 9:37 am
By my above comment, I don’t mean to portray CS/CSS personnel as ineligible for valorous awards.
April 19th, 2012 at 9:46 am
CI: We’ll have to agree to disagree here. IMO, EoT awards are fine. But they shouldn’t be predetermined, and should fit the performance exhibited by the individual. That means they should range from above the norm for the individual’s grade/position all the way down to nothing. Commanders shouldn’t be afraid to recognize performance significantly better than the norm, or to tell even senior personnel (as either you or someone else observed on another thread): “You got an ARCOM for ARCOM-level work.”
If an individual’s performance truly merited no award, well, that’s what they should get. I’m OK with that, too. As noted above, I’ve seen LTCs leave theater with ARCOMs and either AAMs or nothing (#16 above) – and that may well be all they deserved, given what I saw from them. But I’ve also seen what I consider examples of good people getting shorted, and favoritism – IMO, pretty damn blatantly – because of the system currently in use and/or abuse of same.
October 26th, 2012 at 10:48 am
Its nice to see comments about the awards system and the awarding of the Bronze Star. Soldiers should talk about what they think is wrong with the awards system in the military !!! Its your Duty to try to correct what you feel is wrong in the military awards system so that further abuse is stopped to make the awards valued by ‘ALL’ ranks and the standards for the awards kept honest and justified to the soldiers that receive them. You will see my comments follow along with your comments if you all go to the website ‘ History of The Bronze Star Medal ‘ A Soldiers Perspective.
November 2nd, 2012 at 11:37 am
A new executive order is needed to keep this award out of the hands of the ‘wantabees’!!!This award should be awarded for only Meritorious service or Achievement in direct combat actions against the enemy not qualifying for an award of the Bronze Star with v-device! Now Stick that up your brass !!!!!!
November 2nd, 2012 at 12:50 pm
SSG Cox: I’d suggest you further research the history of the BSM. What you suggest is not consistent with the history of the decoration.
There never has been a requirement for direct participation in ground combat for award of the BSM. The criteria for award of the BSM have been essentially the same since the medal was created by EO 9419 on 4 Feb 1944. That EO specified the criteria for award of the BSM as “heroic or meritorious achievement or service, not involving participation in aerial flight, in connection with military or naval operations against an enemy of the United States.” (emphasis added)
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9419
The above is essentially the same criteria as is found in today’s AR 600-8-22. The only significant changes in criteria since the BSM was established in 1944 have been (1) the expansion in EO 11046 (1962) of eligibility for award of the BSM to include service with allied forces in a conflict to which the US was not a party, and (2) the requirement that the recipient be in receipt of Combat Pay/Imminent Danger Pay imposed by the 2001 NDAA. Neither of those changes imposed any requirement for “direct participation in ground combat” you seem to advocate.
The bottom line: since the BSM was established, it has always been legitimate to award the BSM to support troops for combat zone service – and it still is. There never has been a requirement for direct participation in ground combat in order to receive the BSM. Rather, the BSM has always been awarded for meritorious or heroic act or service “in connection with” combat. Since 2001, there has also been the additional requirement that one be receiving combat or imminent danger pay at the time that act or service is performed.
January 9th, 2013 at 4:29 pm
Thank you for you comments Hondo !! So there is not a combat decoration for soldiers who risk there lives in DIRECT combat.TO BAD THEY HAVEN’T CREATED AN AWARD OF THE BRONZE STAR FOR MERITORIOUS COMBAT !!!! Don’t dare claim to me anyone that has a Bronze Star for Meritorious Service should be reconise as if he was in direct combat because hes a flat out lier ! Thanks for correcting me from all those who pass them self off as being in combat when they were not !!!! OR IS THAT WHAT ITS REALLY ALL ABOUT??
January 9th, 2013 at 4:42 pm
P.S. WHY ARE THEY SO DAM RELUCTANT TO AWARD INFANTRY MEN IN THE RANKS OF E-1 TO E-4 WHO FACE DIRECT COMBAT WITH THIS AWARD ??? HISTORY PROVES WHO AND HOW MANY DIE IN WAR!!!!THE INFANTRY GRUNTS AND NOT SUPPORT UNITS!!!!!!!!!
January 11th, 2013 at 9:02 am
Hondo the problem with awarding the Bronze Star is that the Army wants to lay claim that the merit it takes to be awarded this medal is the same merit for those who are not in combat as it is for those that are risking their lives in combat. Pick a combat soldier and a non-combat soldier and award both a Bronze Star for Meritorious Service or Achievement. [ BOTH CITATIONS READ THE SAME ]The risking of ones life far out ways the other in merit !! I agree with you over the history of this medal that nothing has been changed. I also know that the argument over this medal has a history itself for exactly the same reasons I have stated !! There is such a thing as { MERITORIOUS COMBAT ]!!
January 11th, 2013 at 9:43 am
P.S. a little Bronze Battle Star on the First award of the Bronze Star Medal would denote that it was given for Meritorious Combat!
January 11th, 2013 at 10:48 am
Hondo–This way all can keep their Bronze Stars with pride but still give respect for those that have actively risked their lives to receive the same award !! Now What is the problem with that???
January 11th, 2013 at 11:10 am
SSG Cox: The Army also already has awards recognizing direct, personal participation in combat. They’re called the CIB, CMB, and CAB. There’s also this thing called the “V” device. That’s awarded if the BSM (or ARCOM or Air Medal) is awarded for combat valor.
I’ll also observe that one can get wounded or killed by enemy fire – direct or indirect – on a large FOB as well as outside the wire. US forces lost troops to both enemy direct and indirect fire on large FOBs in Iraq during 2007-2008. How do I know? Because I was freaking there at the time, fella.
So please, spare me the “support troops don’t deserve any combat decorations because they don’t take any risks” BS. In the final analysis, that’s exactly what that is – BS.
If you’re getting shot at, you’re serving in combat. And people both inside and outside the wire were getting shot at in 2007-2008 while I was in theater.
January 11th, 2013 at 11:15 am
To answer your question about “reluctance”, SSG Cox: how many E1s through E4s do you know that have been awarded the MSM? The criteria for award of the MSM and a BSM for service/achievement are nearly word-for-word identical; the only regulatory distinction is whether the service was “in connection with military operations against an armed enemy”. I’d guess that’s likely at least part of the reason why.
January 11th, 2013 at 2:26 pm
Ayee…. so much fuss. E-1 to E-4: unless you have meritorious service equivalent to that of the MSM then no BSM. That’s why. Navy will award MSM in lieu of BSM because shipdrivers who decide don’t know anything about being a groundpounder. That’s why the Army is so successful in rewarding it’s soldiers. If your narrative justifies significant exposure or actual combat they will downgrade to ARCOM. This is because they do not want to have to answer when someone asks why not a BSM if the MSM reads and justifies combat exposure. Unless they have no choice, no BSM. ARCOM if you have justified the significant risk or actual combat. MSM if no risk. Concurrence was developed by Navy Leaders that cannot get BSMs. Unless you are a Commander or Master Chief riding in helo’s all over forget it. Doesn’t mater if you work with afghans with guns as a Combat Advisor 6 days a week outside the proverbial wire. They do not understand the risk associated with it unless you get shot in the head. They will disapprove it even though there should be an exception to the unstated rule for advisors. 50+ green on blue last year. Who do you think they are targeting? The guys embedded with them. Us combat advisors. I’m deployed to AFG now on my second tour. It’s funny to listen to NAVCENT reps talk about risk of exposure. They think their helo rides qualifies as significant risk. Try being embedded with the afghan police and army and have advisors killed on the FOB. Then tell me your exposed. Just one Sailor with an opinion.
January 17th, 2013 at 3:05 pm
Hondo–The MSM is a peace time award period… The Bronze Star is a Combat Zone award. The MSM is given to NCOs over a period of time for service or for doing an outstanding job in a leadership row in peace time. E-1 Thru E-4 don’t get it because they are not in that place of leadership. The Bronze Star should be given to E-1 to E-4 in Combat because of the risk of life factor. Only if they are in direct combat does it reflect the degree of merit not expected by all soldiers in a combat zone!! The same applies to E-1 thru E-4 that risk their lives in Support Units in direct combat. The CIB is nothing more than a qualification badge for Infantrymen in a combat zone. [IT IS NOT A COMBAT DECORATION !!!] To deny a soldier of any rank a Bronze Star while in direct combat with the enemy is to completely dis-respect his life and his service to his country at a grave moment we count on him to do the most for his fellow soldiers.
January 17th, 2013 at 3:41 pm
SSG Cox: per DA exception to policy in effect since 2004, the MSM may also be awarded for service in a Combat Zone if the service is deemed to have been “noncombat service”. I’ve personally seen it happen. The intent was to allow folks in safe rear areas like Qatar and Kuwait to be recognized for arduous but safe service in an area that, while technically part of a combat zone, involved no more risk to life/limb than duty in CONUS. However, that exception is abused by some commands to the detriment of folks actually getting shot at; I’ve seen that personally, too.
As I said earlier: for service or achievement (e.g., without “V” device), the regulatory criteria for the BSM and/or MSM are almost word for word identical. The only distinction between the two, by Army policy, is that one is awarded for “noncombat service” and one is awarded for “combat service”. So when receiving an award for service, if someone didn’t do MSM-level work they should not expect a BSM even in a combat zone. The ARCOM is both a combat and noncombat decoration, and can be used to recognize such service appropriately.
Now regarding “noncombat” and “combat”, here’s an easy and common-sense way of making the distinction: if you’re getting shot at periodically, THAT IS COMBAT SERVICE. And folks were getting shot at both on and off installations while I was in-theater. I understand that’s still the case today in Afghanistan. You don’t have to be outside the wire to be at risk of getting wounded or killed.
You’re also absolutely wrong about the CIB. That requires direct, personal participation – as an Infantry or SF soldier – in ground combat. Ditto the CMB (as a medic or SF soldier). The CAB is awarded in other cases. But all three require personal participation in combat – which is what you’re harping about here. So what you want (an award to recognize those who participate personally in combat) already exists.
Next time you might want to do your homework before commenting on this issue. For a start, try reading the pertinent sections of AR 600-8-22. It’s actually pretty easy to find online.
January 17th, 2013 at 4:08 pm
Its funny how a lot of you talk about {outside the wire] try fighting the enemy outside the wire and inside the wire with only 12 men in your camp. with the enemy saying [ I don't know your name but this ones for you Mike ] I don’t think they cared what your rank was because you were nothing more than a G.I. to shot at. The morning of June 4th 1970 while I was with the 173rd Airborne Brigade.—Sorry no Bronze Stars for you because you didn’t have the rank only the life to loose but if you loose your life we’ll give you one for your family . This made up story is in the 173rd history book and military records of my Battalions Daily Staff reports seem to say the same thing.
January 17th, 2013 at 4:35 pm
SSG Cox: many things have changed since Vietnam, my friend. During that war, the CAB did not exist – and by regulation, the MSM could not be awarded in a combat zone, period. Today, the CAb exists and the MSM can be awarded in a combat zone.
Award philosophies also seem to have been somewhat different 40 years ago. In Vietnam, from what I’ve seen in records of the era some units would award SP4s a BSM fairly easily; others, not so much. And the DA regulations regarding award of the CIB were, shall we say, apparently not exactly followed 100% of the time (lots of exceptions were apparently made; I’ve actually seen records of one guy who served as a COOK in Vietnam who came home with a CIB). Today, those regulations and policies usually are followed more closely – though not always, apparently. Humans being humans will sometimes bend the rules.
Today, the philosophy on awards has swung a bit in the other direction. There are units out there that inappropriately award peacetime decorations for combat service – and vice versa. And there are those who denigrate the service of their support troops – who are also at risk during a war. You can get killed just as dead by shells/rockets landing on your base as you can by a bullet.
Not knowing your history, I had you pegged as one of that latter group – wrongly. For that I do apologize. Bad assumption on my part.
I still think you’re wrong here; today the CIB/CMB/CAB recognize personal participation in ground combat, which is what you seem to be wanting. Unlike before, any soldier can now receive such recognition for being personally under fire and/or engaging the enemy. But if my tone earlier seemed unduly harsh, I offer my apologies for that as well.
January 17th, 2013 at 4:37 pm
I thought the regulation for the CIB was That you had to be personally present in an Infantry unit engaged in combat.You can be present but not engaged your self ! Please check for me because I don’t have the up graded regulations.I know of guys who were awarded but never made contact or was in a firefight.Its funny that they award Bronze Stars to E-1 to E-4 if their dead. I really feel bad when they have to twist regulations just to make a family feel good but would not give one if the pour soldier stayed alive.
January 17th, 2013 at 4:54 pm
I personally knew a black kid named Osear Dardin in my platoon who had 4 Purple Hearts awarded to him but not awarded one Bronze Star. All of them awarded for close contact either by grenade or bullets. This is why I get mad over this award.
January 17th, 2013 at 4:56 pm
SSG Cox: sounds to me like you know some guys that got cut some significant “slack” by their unit regarding their CIB.
Per the reg, yes – personal participation in ground combat is required for award of the CIB, and by DA regulation was during Vietnam as well (I’ve researched the Vietnam-era DA reg on CIBs myself in conjunction with a different issue). It also requires (1) holding an infantry (or today, an infantry or SF) MOS; (2) serving in an infantry or SF unit at Bde or lower level; and (3) performing infantry duties while engaged by or while engaging the enemy in ground combat. (There were a couple of DA-recognized exceptions to the MOS requirement, but they were rather rare occurrences.)
However, in practice it appears that significant liberties were taken in some units regarding award of the CIB during Vietnam. There were also apparently a number of USAR-V exceptions granted that DA chose not to disapprove (see my previous comment).
My impression is that’s been tightened up considerably today, and that granting everyone in a unit the CIB on the basis of a single action is not common any more – though I’ve heard accounts alleging that still occasionally happens. The addition of the CAB also has reduced the pressure to “bend the rules” to take care of troops who otherwise technically would not qualify for the CIB.
As for giving a posthumous award higher than the guy/gal would have gotten had they lived, I have to admit I’m a bit conflicted on that issue. One can argue doing that recognizes the additional sacrifice involved. But it also seems to set up a dual standard – and I really detest dual standards. However, given human nature (and the normal human desire to comfort survivors), I’m not certain how to prevent such practices – or even if I’m sure I’d want to.
January 17th, 2013 at 5:04 pm
Hondo, I don’t know all the regs but I know the packet that was required for my CIB required two sworn statements and a copy of the SIGACTS. They tightend it down more when the powers that be decided that it had to be your vehicle hit with an IED to qualify for the CIB, not the whole convoy. If I remember it correctly they even decided how far away from indirect you had to be, depending on size, to qualify.
January 17th, 2013 at 5:05 pm
#60 was me
January 17th, 2013 at 5:13 pm
Twist: As I recall, CAB requirements were pretty much the same in 2007-2008 as you describe for the CIB, with minor variations. I don’t think our command ever addressed the convoy issue (didn’t have to in the sole incident I personally know about) or specified any particular distance criteria for IDF. But yeah – 2 witness statements, copy of SIGACTS/other verification of the incident, written summary, and chain-of-command submission were all required.
IMO, this is one area where either DA-level guidance (or Theater-level guidance coordinated with DA) concerning expectations early on might have been a damn good idea.
January 17th, 2013 at 5:21 pm
I’ve personaly seen the convoy issue. My Stryker hit a badly emplaced, thank goodness, EFP and while we were chaining up the axle (laymans term) we recieved some fire. I had one replacement on ground with me, while another was in another Stryker. The one on ground got a CIB while the one still inside a Stryker did not.
I will admit I don’t know much about the CAB since it doesn’t apply to me or any Soldiers I am likely to lead.
January 17th, 2013 at 5:23 pm
When I say replacement I mean the new Privates that got sent over to Iraq after we got extended.
January 17th, 2013 at 5:29 pm
So are all of you saying that even if your Infantry in a combat zone and served a tour of duty in a combat zone that some of the Infantry won’t pickup an award of the CIB?
January 17th, 2013 at 5:31 pm
CAB criteria are essentially MOS-neutral, but require a soldier to be (1) in an area where hostile fire or imminent danger pay are authorized, and (2) “be personally present and actively engaging or being engaged by the enemy, and performing satisfactorily in accordance with the prescribed rules of engagement.”
Interestingly enough, 11-series soldiers assigned to non-infantry units (or to HQ above Bde level) apparently are eligible for the CAB (AR 600-8-22, para 8-8.c). I didn’t realize that until I looked it up just now. So it’s technically of more than academic interest to infantry soldiers. Theoretically, it’s possible for an infantryman to qualify for both.
Common practice seems to be that both IDF and DF qualifies. Makes sense to me, since both types of enemy fire can kill you just as dead.
January 17th, 2013 at 5:33 pm
SSG Cox: by the book, that’s possible. How that shakes out in actual practice? That depends.
My guess is that most units will play things pretty much “by the book” and require the DA criteria to be met by all individuals awarded the CIB. But I’m sure a few units will be quite “easy” on granting the CIB. My background isn’t Infantry, so I can’t comment from personal knowledge. Perhaps Twist can (his background is Infantry).
January 17th, 2013 at 5:40 pm
Twist: if you’re ever an IN BN/BDE HHC 1SG, CAB may indeed apply to some of your soldiers. You’ll have non-Infantry MOS soldiers working in supply, orderly room (maybe), maint, and commo.
January 17th, 2013 at 5:53 pm
Does the Army keep tack of how many Bronze Stars are awarded to Infantry that get the CIB or any other combat arms or support units. It would be interesting to see who was awarded the most v-devices,meritorious service, or achievements of this award.We can leave out E-1 to E-4 in the Infantry for meritorious service or achievement!!!
January 17th, 2013 at 6:00 pm
SSG Cox: the Army indeed publishes statistics for awards, but the CIB is technically a badge and I don’t think it’s included in the award stats. As I recall, they’re broken out by grade and reason (ret, svc, achievement). I think there’s a separate set of stats for OIF/OEF awards. But I don’t think the published stats are broken down by MOS.
Let me see if I can find the stats again. Been a couple of years since I last looked at them. They’re available somewhere on the HRC (formerly PERSCOM) website, but I’m not sure exactly where any more.
January 18th, 2013 at 10:28 am
I had argued with my own Platoon Leader over the Bronze Star the last day I left Vietnam from the 173rd Airborne Brigade because I knew he put himself in for a Bronze Star for the same action I was in on June 4th 1970.My platoon leader became our company XO. In 11 Months in Vietnam I went from PFC to SGT the day I left, was awarded the CIB, Air Medal, 2 Army Commendations and a Good Conduct Medal HA HA! Years latter I checked our Battalion Daily Staff records and found that only E-1 thru E-4 were awarded Bronze Stars if they had been KIA in my company but no problem awarding All E-5 and above this same decoration.In my company we had no problem with a loose of 10 to 20 a month KIA or WIA. The Air Medal was awarded because we were on Jump Status in Vietnam. WE could get a Bronze with v-device if we lived but very few received them. Of the 35,000 that served in that Brigade during a 6 year period of the Vietnam WAR we had 10,113 Purple Hearts awarded over 1,500 KIA.Remember we were only a Brigade not a Division with 15 CMH awarded 3 awarded for taking one hill 875 near Dak To.On JUNE 22 1967 Co.A 2nd of the 503rd with about 100 men went out on a mission and never came back only 2-3 survived but wounded in the ambush. Every war is different. Some of them you may be lucky to come out alive.In the infantry its your job to make contact so its a promise you will have far less chances of coming back because the fate of sure death and the risk of life is greater. Over the years I know that the majority of soldiers were not exposed to risking their lives on the same scale. Thats why I’m arguing at 63 about the Bronze Star even now when it doesn’t mean anything. I place value on those that risk their lives in war and rank has no place in the value over any soldiers life !!!
January 29th, 2013 at 10:52 am
Hondo find an infantry man that didn’t receive a CIB that had a tour over in a combat zone. Its like wining the lottery.By the book doesn’t count. Its not a combat decoration and if its awarded like you say then where is the decoration for being in direct combat??? I bet someone got it for doing a good job in the rear like you said!!!!
January 29th, 2013 at 11:01 am
Let….This…..Topic….Die….Please
January 29th, 2013 at 11:10 am
SSG Cox: Turns out the Army HRC does track CIB/CMB/CABs as well as personal decorations.
https://www.hrc.army.mil/TAGD/Awards%20and%20Decorations%20Statistics%20by%20Conflict
This page might require AKO login to view.
Per HRC’s stats, less than 34,000 CIBs have been awarded to soldiers serving in Afghanistan since 2001, and less than 42,000 were awarded for service in Iraq between 2003 and 2010 (when OIF technically ended).
I’m not positive, but I’m pretty sure that the total number of 11-series soldiers who served in Infantry units in Iraq and Afghanistan to date is higher than that.
The CIB information may or may not be available for Vietnam. There’s a table which has Vietnam award stats – but for the CIB it has a placeholder entry of all asterisks. If that table was created from a spreadsheet (HRC used to do exactly that and provide a link to the spreadsheets) and the number wouldn’t fit in the space allotted that’s how most spreadsheets display that fact. Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to find links to the appropriate spreadsheets – yet.
Bottom line: yes, the CIB is indeed a combat decoration (technically a combat badge). It’s not a unit award, even if many units in Vietnam (and perhaps some even today) cut “blanket orders” awarding it to all assigned in violation of the regulatory requirements. Award of the CIB requires individual participation in direct ground combat as an infantryman assigned to an infantry unit. That is precisely what the CIB is designed to recognize – that the guy wearing it was infantry and has personally “been there, done that” with respect to infantry ground combat.
I owed you this last reply since I’d said earlier that I’d see if I could find the stats. Unless I find the Vietnam stats, I’m now done with this issue.
February 2nd, 2013 at 2:11 pm
Thank you Hondo I am impressed by your ability to find information on the CIB. The number of infantry that have served in Iraq and Afghanistan is probably higher based on the number of times the same soldier that was awarded his first an only CIB would re-enter combat would make it look like a lot of Infantry wasn’t awarded the badge Ha Ha !!! What I would really like to know is how many that held the CIB were awarded Bronze Stars for meritorious service or achievement E-4 and under. It would look funny if the infantry engaged in combat were awarded far less Bronze Stars than supporting units for meritorious service or achievement or maybe thats my point!!The army has taken this award out of the hands of those that are actively risking their very lives and awarding more non-combatants this decoration.I have a problem with that and demand that truth to come out!The Bronze Star with v-device should not be the only award available to grunts who may not be the main soldier involved in a combat action but were directly involved in the same fight.
February 3rd, 2013 at 1:33 pm
Why claim the Bronze Star as a Combat Decoration???? Why not claim that the Bronze Star with V-device is the only combat decoration for actual combat!! Why not say the Bronze Star given for meritorious service or achievement is just an award given in a combat zone for non-combat??????? Magots seem to want it that why !!!!
February 3rd, 2013 at 2:17 pm
Meanwhile I will sit back at my desk and tell all the Infantry 11 series Grunts that are risking their lives in direct combat too, { Try harder and maybe they too can earn a combat decoration if die first ] !!!
February 17th, 2013 at 1:21 pm
Believe me that the awarding of the Bronze Star to NON-Combatants in a COMBAT ZONE and awarding of the Army Commendation for Direct Combat for Infantry or any other MOS in Direct Combat {{{IS }}} the total problem in todays ARMY!!!! Soldiers now are finding out the same thing as soldiers in { OTHER WARS BEFORE YOU }. I would not think for one minute that just because you have incoming rounds from artillery or mortars that justified an award of a Bronze Star–{ SORRY ONLY A PURPLE HEART } !! THOSE ROUNDS ARE ONLY FOR {WHOM IT MAY CONCERN} -NOT- THIS BULLET HAS YOUR NAME ON IT !!
February 17th, 2013 at 1:32 pm
Say,just because an infantryman gets one CIB does that mean it covers 3 deployments ???
February 17th, 2013 at 1:39 pm
NO BECAUSE AFTER THAT, HE ONLY BUILDS UP MORE ARMY COMMENDATIONS AWARDS IF HE DOES A GOOD JOB {{{ SORRY NOT A BRONZE STAR, THAT’S ONLY GIVEN TO NON-COMBATANTS TO MAKE THEM FEEL LIKE THEY’VE BEEN IN COMBAT !!!!
February 17th, 2013 at 1:40 pm
The bronze star medal is a joke today. Case in point. There was 80,000 bronze star medals awarded in Iraq alone.
The Combat Action Badge, has just been awarded over 20,000 covering both Iraq and Afghanistan.
So in effect, someone with the Combat Action Badge is far rarer then someone with the Bronze Star Medal.
I heard that all squad leaders were awarded a BSM just for deploying froma buddy deployed to Iraq in 2010 in a gaurd transportion unit.
February 17th, 2013 at 2:10 pm
Hell,everyone that was Platoon Sergeant and above in my unit got BSM’s for their tour in Asscanistan, and that was for REMFs as well as those who led outside the wire, I concur that it’s been reduced to just another piece of bling, and I’m very skeptical anymore whenever someone touts that they were awarded one, especially if it doesn’t have a “V” device!
February 17th, 2013 at 2:22 pm
Folks: if you read the reg (AR 600-8-22 or sister-service equivalent), a BSM for service or achievement is essentially a MSM for service in a combat zone. The criteria for a BSM for service or achievement is nearly word-for-word identical with that for the MSM, except that it also requires “connection with military operations against an armed enemy” and cannot involve aerial flight. And prior to 2004, award of the MSM was not authorized in a combat zone.
Add the “V”, and yes – the BSM is a very different animal, and means something very different.
The situation is no different from that of the ARCOM. The ARCOM w/V is a very different animal than one without. And like the BSM, the ARCOM can be awarded for achievement, service, or heroism in a combat zone.
February 17th, 2013 at 5:04 pm
“The criteria for a BSM for service or achievement is nearly word-for-word identical with that for the MSM, except that it also requires “connection with military operations against an armed enemy” and cannot involve aerial flight” is generally correct, the serving in any capacity proximity specifics is actually Title 10, United States Code, section 1133, (10 USC 1133) limits award of the Bronze Star Medal to service members receiving imminent danger pay. The serving capacity must also be in connection with military operations against an armed enemy; or while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.
Not involving participation in aerial flight is also a limiting stipulation already mentioned.
February 17th, 2013 at 6:08 pm
SSG Cox, from one combat grunt to another, Welcome home from ‘Nam. I have a drink for you with your name on it if you’re ever around.
As for ARCOM and BSM, you get them for being there. I got an ARCOM.
I don’t pay attention to them unless they have a “V” Device. And I definatly pay attention to Silver Star and above.
February 19th, 2013 at 11:53 am
To all of you—!!! What would you think if the Bronze Star was awarded for another reason ??? To soldiers for { Meritorious Combat }!! The V-device is awarded for a distinctive act by a soldier in combat an the citation describes the act he performs to receives this device.—– A bronze battle star in the center of a bronze star ribbon could denote that the award was given as a result of risking ones life in a direct action against the enemy but not sufficient enough to warrant a V-device. To all soldiers who qualify regardless of rank! This way the army can award it like they have for non-combat reasons and show respect for those who risk their lives directly involved in actions in war!!!
February 19th, 2013 at 12:00 pm
johca: true. But prior to the 2001 DAA, the requirement for combat-zone service to receive the BSM did not exist. That allowed the USAF and USN to award quite a number of BSMs to folks who served in CONUS or Germany/Italy for support of operations in Kosovo in 1999. The language requiring receipt of hostile fire/imminent danger pay was inserted into the 2001 DAA in reaction to precisely that abuse of the BSM.
February 19th, 2013 at 1:13 pm
Hondo, I was around when the army changed the Army Commendation to include the v-device in 1864 The Army Commendation was never meant to be awarded as a combat decoration or be one !!It was only used in a combat zone to award soldiers for non combative reasons!!! Now we in the Infantry call it -{ THE GREEN WE-NEE }because its used quite allot to give Infantrymen a combat award so they don’t have to award them a Bronze Star FOR SERVICE OR ACHIEVEMENT {MAINLY E-1 To E-4} COMPLETELY GIVING CREDIT FOR ALL ACTUAL COMBAT DONE BY INFANTRYMEN AN AWARD OF THE ARMY COMMENDATION !!!
February 19th, 2013 at 1:16 pm
Hondo, SORRY it was 1964 They changed the Army Commendation to include a V-device Ha Ha !!! That really makes me [OLD]
February 19th, 2013 at 1:44 pm
What the heck is meritorious combat? Is this nothing more than serving a period or duration of service in a combat zone? The BSM awarded for mertiourious achievement or service is nothing more than the MSM, except exemplary conduct in ground combat against an armed enemy or in close proximity (receiving imminent danger pay requirement) of ground combat distinguishes it as being a combat medal.
The Bronze Star Medal with (V)alor device indicates Heroism. Awards may be made for acts of heroism which are of lesser degree than required for the award of the Silver Star.
The Bronze Star Medal (without V device) indicates Meritorious achievement or service. Awards may be made to recognize single acts of merit and meritorious service. The lesser degree than that required for the award of the LM, must nevertheless have been meritorious and accomplished with distinction.
February 19th, 2013 at 1:57 pm
There were over 549,000 Bronze Stars given out in the Vietnam war. Out of 58,000 KIA,Over 70% KIA were Infantry or 0300 Marines. There were 10 support personnel to 1 combat arms soldier in the field. It doesn’t take to much to figure out that the Bronze Stars did not go to those fighting the war !! The Army Commendation replaced the Bronze Star with with far more battles than any in Iraq or Afganistan
February 19th, 2013 at 2:39 pm
Meritorious Combat is a combat action or contact with enemy forces where the soldier is directly involved in risking his own life. In Vietnam they called them fire fights. Not all engage in these actions. It is not serving a duration or period of service in a combat zone. {{{ Now I need to know where you were to have an ongoing battle from the time you got there to the time you left and it never stopped }}} OR ARE YOU PISSING DOWN MY BACK AND TELLING ME ITS RAINING???
February 19th, 2013 at 3:09 pm
johca, What makes you think your {{{In Combat}}} just because you set yourself down in another country for a tour of duty??? Because they call it a combat zone??? ITS NOT COMBAT TILL SOMEONE TAKES A POP AT YOUR ASS. THEN FOR SOME REASON YOU THINK YOUR NOT LONG FOR THIS WORLD!BECAUSE SOMEONE YOU HAVE NEVER MET WANTS TO MAKE YOU A KIA!!!! When you feel that from time to time it might be that you are being shot at. Then your in COMBAT!!!!
February 19th, 2013 at 3:16 pm
Certainly, Bronze Star Medals were awarded to service members who never directly participated in ground combat during the Vietnam War. Probably true of Korean War and WWII too. The total numbers of Bronze Star Medals lacks any breakdown for how many had V device authorized and how many lacked the V device. Even statistics after 2001 were not complied to show this.
The Bronze Star Medal with V device still has significant integrity behind it. There are two arguments entwined in this discussion. The first being low enlisted rank prevents being recommended and considered for the Bronze Star Medal and the second being support never being in combat get recommended awarded the Bronze Star Medal for doing administrative or not in combat support while the combat infantry doing the fighting do not.
Both have merits worthy of discussion and debate. However “acts of heroism which are of lesser degree than required for the award of the Silver Star” more so the heroism is not a function of duties and responsibilities of rank but are direct result of deliberate decision and action to do something requiring both courage and bravery. I believe if the Bronze Star with V device statistics to include age and rank could be compiled there will not be the rank disparity that is found for the Bronze Star without V device awarded for extraordinary achievement or service.
In regards to rank “and” duty position having influence in recommendation and consideration for award and presentation of Bronze Star without V device for extraordinary achievement or service, I can see rank and duty position causing an extraordinary demarcation. Extraordinary is indicating far beyond ordinary contribution and being a remarkable contribution. Meaning something special or unusual was done beyond normal authority and responsibility or normally assigned day-to-day duties.
IMO, considering NCO rank is lowest rank in the operational chain-of-command it is difficult to for an E-1 to E-3 (E-4 being lowest NCO rank in Army, Navy and Marines) and E-1 to E-4 (E-5 being the lowest NCO rank in the Air Force) to be in a duty position having authority and responsibility to do something having a war fighting impact unless they are a combatant fighting in direct combat on the battlefield. In this case the E-1 to E-3 (E-4-Air Force) would probably be recommended for the Bronze Star with V device due to their exemplary conduct in ground combat against an armed enemy that was above and beyond their rank, their level of duty responsibilities being involved.
IMO was use to emphasize I’m quantifying a demarcation in a technical way that is difficult to do so in reality as each acts and deeds resulting in extraordinary have no rank attached to it and achievement and service are not cloned accomplishments as each person’s directly participating contribution has to be assessed and evaluated on its own merits.
February 19th, 2013 at 3:21 pm
johca: Army stats for BSM w/V are now available for Vietnam and later conflicts, ditto those for ARCOM w/V:
https://www.hrc.army.mil/TAGD/Awards%20and%20Decorations%20Statistics%20by%20Conflict
February 19th, 2013 at 4:14 pm
SSG Michael Cox, wow you are in a sour mood today. Meritorious combat is being defined by you and now that you have provided your definition we have a common base line of understanding. I regards to combat action or contact with enemy forces I agree with you. Unfortunately even the recent eligibility stipulation “limits award of the Bronze Star Medal to service members receiving imminent danger pay” has not made participating in direct ground combat the eligibility requirement for Bronze Star without V device awarded for service or extraordinary achievement.
The Bronze Star Medal for meritorious service in direct support of combat operations or for service in a combat zone has no must be a combatant participating in engaging the enemy in direct combat requirement. Both the Bronze Star Medal and Meritorious Service Medal have single acts of merit and meritorious service criteria of being lesser than that required for award of the Legion of Merit. The degrees of merit criteria for the Legion of Merit are certainly officer with command or in key duty positions oriented.
Pertinent to this conversation:
After 16 January 1969 but prior to 11 September 2001, the Meritorious Service Medal is authorized to be awarded only for meritorious service or achievement while serving in a non-combat area.
And
Title 10, United States Code, section 1133, (10 USC 1133) limits award of the Bronze Star Medal to service members receiving imminent danger pay.
Until September 2001 combat area had a bit more clarity of the battlefield having behind enemy lines, battle Front lines and rear area support areas. The receiving imminent danger pay came about because in combat zones such as Iraq and Afghanistan there is no clear behind enemy lines, on the battle front, or being rear element support, but there was still clear demarcation of deployment locations being under high probability of indirect fire, suicide bombers, IEDs and such. Eligibility to be paid and receive imminent danger pay now defines being in the combat zone, whether the service member is in an active combat zone or not is certainly open to debate and differences of opinion.
The Bronze Star with V has significant specific directly engaging enemy or being directly engaged by the enemy criteria the meritorious serious and extraordinary achievement eligibility criteria lacks.
Hondo, thanks for that link. Being retired Air Force I tend to look for Air Force Stats and as of last year I was told the Air Force didn’t have those Stats.
February 19th, 2013 at 6:51 pm
I guess being an Infantry grunt E-1 to E-4 carries no weight to be recognized with a Bronze Star for service but {only} in death.I do not agree that a v-device, demanding a particular act of valor is the only way to honor soldiers who are risking their lives in direct actions against the enemy. This is why I only made a suggestion relative to this award. The Army Commendation may be the correct level of award based on rank and responsibility but it misses the total value of life while giving a bronze star {a combat zone award only}to those of rank that sit behind the desk! Speaking for myself,this is pure BS. GENERAL Marshal should have tried another way to recognize infantry men !!!
February 19th, 2013 at 7:30 pm
SSG Cox,
A General did come up with a way to honor Infantry men. It’s called the Combat Infantry Badge.
February 19th, 2013 at 10:38 pm
I’ll touch on a few points made by earlier comments:
The CIB is indeed intended to recognize the unique sacrifices and contributions made by Infantrymen. Most 11Bs I know consider it the single decoration they are most proud of. Only two awards in the US Army are exclusive to the Infantry (and SF)–the CIB and the EIB.
Blanket awards of the CIB were not uncommon earlier in the conflicts, unfortunately. My company even had a few late-2003 replacements show up and get CIBs despite seeing no combat. Those of us who had fought in Baghdad and elsewhere were not happy, but what could we do? We even had a platoon leader show up and get both a CIB and BSM despite only having three months in theater and never being under fire.
I’ve had Soldiers get their ETS awards downgraded for “lacking rank”. My recruiting battle buddy, though, had his downgraded because he didn’t play the game.
When he was close to PCS’ing and hadn’t even been put in for an award, he submitted his own. Our former Station Commander proceeded to take one of his bullets out (verbatim) for an ARCOM recommendation for another Recruiter, and then recommended a downgrade. I don’t know if it was because he was outspoken about some of the other Recruiters, or because our leadership’s pleas for him to convert fell on deaf ears, but four years and dozens of contracts meant nothing to the SC.
Long story short, I left with an AAM I barely deserved (if at all) for three years in USAREC having never written more than one contract a month. My battle buddy left with an AAM when he deserved at least the ARCOM that was standard fare for most detailed Recruiters, despite spending four years out there and writing more contracts than 90% of the company.
This was the same company, though, that gave an ARCOM to an E-7 who had spent ten years there and written well over a hundred contracts only a few months after giving a detailed Recruiter who made the MSG list an MSM.
Unless an award is given for extraordinary achievement or heroism, I could care less about it. Everything else is just a pat on the back subject to different degrees of firmness based on how honest or corrupt your leadership is.
February 19th, 2013 at 11:17 pm
True. The blanket awards are BS. However even the Army in their own words said that “Badges are tended to be veiwed as more prestigious then ribbons or medals” which is why the created the badges for us, instead of a CAR like the Navy/USMC or the new combat medal the AF has.
It’s something everyone sees on your normal fatigues, where no one would know if you had a silver star or purple heart due to them being worn on dress uniforms only.
As for the ARCOM, I was awarded one in country, but misplaced the orders on the way to turn everything in to get recorded by the clerk for our DD214, and tried to turn in the certificate later like they told me and said they needed orders, so it’s not on my DD214 even though I still have the awarding certificate with some numbers on it that may be used to locate the original orders one day, I just never cared to look into it as I was doing my job.
Besides I was used to getting fucked y the Army, wether it be awards, money, rank etc.
February 21st, 2013 at 10:06 am
Do all of you think the Army uses the ARCOM to much in awarding its soldiers and not enough awarding of the Bronze Star for justified reasons that would warrant it reguardless of rank??
February 22nd, 2013 at 10:25 am
The CIB is a one time badge and does not cover a soldiers full tour of duty in a combat zone regardless of how many combat actions the soldier may be in. Any E-1 threw E-4 in the INFANTRY in an actual engagement with the enemy is risking his life directly to be a pop up target. The evaluation of his performance rest entirely on his leaders evaluation an not some {pimp in a wimps outfit in the rear}!!If he is recommended for a Bronze Star for MERITORIOUS SERVICE its because he has put his life on the line !!! THIS ACT OUT WAYS ANY E-1 to E-9 in the rear keeping his paperwork straight or doing an outstanding job!! You can always go home standing up. COULD THAT BE THE REASON WHY WE HAVE NO LONG LINES TO JOIN THE INFANTRY????? [ COULD BE ]!!! STOP TRYING TO EVALUATE$ A GRUNTS PERFORMANCE TO A SECURED AREA ! THEY ARE NOT ONE IN THE SAME IN A COMBAT ZONE !!
February 26th, 2013 at 9:02 am
NEW PLAN!!! Let’s let the E-5 and above go out and engage the enemy and give them a Army Commendation for their efforts maybe they may not think that risking their lives to receive a non-combat award was showing value to their LIVES !!! IT WOULD SEEM VERY STRANGE IF THEY WANTED AT LEASE TO RECEIVE A COMBAT AWARD LIKE A BRONZE STAR!!! WHY??? DUH !!!
February 27th, 2013 at 10:15 am
THE PROBLEM WITH THE BRONZE STAR MEDAL IS SIMPLE—- 1.. The Army gives a [non-combat award] for [combat] The Army Commendation medal! 2.. The army gives a [combat award] for [non-combat The Bronze Star for 2 different reasons meritorious service and Achievement. This is the problem with awarding this medal!!!!THE ARMY COMMENDATION MEDAL HAS NO PLACE IN AWARDING IT TO SOLDIERS FOR COMBAT ACTIONS !!! IT WAS MADE TO AWARD SOLDIERS FOR DOING A GOOD JOB IN A COMBAT ZONE {{{ NOT COMBAT ACTIONS }}}!!!!!!!!!
February 27th, 2013 at 10:34 am
IF THERE ARE {2} REASONS TO AWARD THE BRONZE STAR FOR NON-COMBAT THEN THERE SHOULD BE {2} REASONS TO AWARD IT FOR {{ COMBAT }}!!!!
February 27th, 2013 at 10:56 am
HOW MANY IRAQ WAR VETS THAT WERE {INFANTRY } CAME BACK WITH ARMY COMMENDATIONS AND NOT BRONZE STARS??? HOW MANY WERE ENGAGED IN DIRECT COMBAT AND RECEIVED ARMY COMMENDATIONS MEDALS FOR THOSE ACTIONS ?????
February 27th, 2013 at 11:33 am
A COMBAT DECORATION FOR COMBAT IS FOR ENGAGING THE ENEMY UNLESS ITS STATED THAT ITS FOR MERITORIOUS SERVICE OR ACHIEVEMENT! TO MANY INFANTRYMEN HAVE ENGAGED THE ENEMY IN DIRECT COMBAT AN ARE NOT GIVEN A COMBAT AWARD FOR THAT ENGAGEMENT UNLESS HE RECEIVES IT FOR VALOR REASONS!THERE IS NO COMBAT DECORATION GIVEN TO INFANTRYMEN WHEN THEY ARE ALL RISKING THEIR LIVES IN AN ENGAGEMENT WITH THE ENEMY ACCEPT A NON-COMBAT DECORATION LIKE A ARMY COMMENDATION!!!!
February 27th, 2013 at 2:09 pm
A BRONZE STAR RECOMMENDATION FOR ANY E-1 TO E-4 IN THE INFANTRY IS ALWAYS KICKED DOWN TO A NON-COMBAT AWARD LIKE THE ARMY COMMENDATION. [ ONLY ] IF HE IS A KIA OR IF THE AWARD IS FOR VALOR DOES HE RECEIVE A BRONZE STAR MEDAL OR ARMY COMMENDATION WITH A V-DEVICE. E-1 TO E-4 MADE UP MOST OF THE 58,000 KIA IN VIETNAM AND THEY WERE INFANTRY !!
February 27th, 2013 at 7:24 pm
Those of you of other MOS’s should get Bronze Stars if you actively engage the enemy at the risk of your lives as well in different actions that would warrant this decoration but the army seems bent on putting other guide lines for this award such as rank and positions of authority to justify it to higher ranking soldiers.THIS IS NOT THE REQUIREMENT FOR THIS DECORATION UNDER ANY REGULATIONS!!!!!!
February 27th, 2013 at 7:44 pm
THE BRONZE STAR IS AWARDED TO ANY PERSON IN ANY CAPACITY !!!!
February 27th, 2013 at 8:03 pm
Good Lord..
February 27th, 2013 at 9:35 pm
EdUSMCleg: he is a bit single-minded, isn’t he?
February 28th, 2013 at 9:45 am
Just trying to get some reaction! Does it make sense to you people to award a bronze star only to a soldier who is killed in action in an engagement but then say he only qualifies for a Army Commendation in the same engagement if he survives because he lacks the rank ????
February 28th, 2013 at 9:51 am
SSG Cox: given the fact that the guy KIA has paid a substantial additional price compared to the guy who lived through the engagement – yeah, I can live with that. And, frankly, I’d guess both the guy who was KIA and his family would trade that BSM and PH for an ARCOM and his survival – if they were given the choice.
It might not be perfectly fair, but as JFK once said: “Life is not fair.” And IMO, the survivor with the ARCOM got the far better deal.
February 28th, 2013 at 11:11 am
While clearing my Brigade in Vietnam in our rear area, the 173rd had an awards shack. This was one of the stations we had to clear to muster out of our unit to go home at the end of our tour in Vietnam. All we had to do is show the clerk our 201 file and he would then give us our awards if we had orders for them. The line of soldiers grew outside the shack to about 50 so I had a chance to see what was being awarded to each soldier. These men were all Grunts and I knew that a lot of them had been in actions during their tour in Vietnam. All E-5′s received Bronze stars and E-4′s received Army Commendations. A lot of E-4 were very pissed off for not being recognized for risking their lives in actions they had been in. 50 years later our 173rd Association are still trying to get membership. Screw a man that risk his life in the service of his country in combat gets { O } respect in return. They are all Proud of their unit but not those that led them!
February 28th, 2013 at 12:36 pm
Hondo I agree with you 100% about the difference between a mans life and his family wanting to trade any medal. The point in this is why awarding soldiers that do survive a non-combat award in the same engagement!They all risk their lives equally in the engagement so why not award a combat award?? Why de-value their effort to a non-combat award ??
February 28th, 2013 at 1:01 pm
SSG Cox: since 1964, the ARCOM has been an authorized combat decoration. If an individual received an ARCOM in Vietnam (or in the Dominican Republic, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, or Afghanistan), they in fact received a combat decoration. It might be informally called the “green weenie”, but it’s a authorized combat decoration informally called the green weenie.
Since the individuals were (presumably) infantry, the risk they faced in combat was recognized appropriately via their receipt of a CIB. If they were infantry and participated in at least one firefight as you describe, they rated one – and presumably received it.
“Equal risk” is not the basis for award of military decorations. Decorations are based on performance/contribution/impact of the individual’s actions – not on merely being at risk. If the latter were the case, by your logic the guy who stayed in his foxhole during every attack to stay safe would be entitled to the same decoration as one who moved about the battlefield checking on his troops and directing their actions every time. That’s nonsensical.
You really would IMO be best advised to simply let this one go. Your arguments here aren’t convincing anyone, and are frankly somewhat lacking in substance.
Life is not always fair.
February 28th, 2013 at 2:17 pm
HONDO-Then according to you the PVT. and PFC. in WWII would never have been entitled to a blanket award of The Bronze Star because they already were awarded the CIB. There was nothing unique in justifying their entitlement under todays regulations.
February 28th, 2013 at 2:37 pm
DA decided long ago that the World War II BSM should be so awarded to all Infantrymen with a CIB. They didn’t ask my opinion before doing it. Bluntly: I’d have said no.
I’ve never been a fan of that decision. Blanket awards cheapen the meaning of an award. In particular, that action grossly cheapened the smaller number of BSMs that actually were awarded during World War II. When everybody gets something just for being there, it’s simply not worth as much.
Yeah, that made a number of World War II veterans happy. But IMO that was a case of DA “screwing the pooch”. By doing that, DA screwed over the smaller number of World War II veterans who had done something exceptional or meritorious and been recognized for same with a BSM sans-”V” device.
Decorations are designed to recognize outstanding performance, not participation or qualifications. We have campaign/expeditionary/service medals and badges to do the latter.
In any case, the CIB/BSM conversion was a one-time exception to policy. For over 60 years (e.g., since Korea), the BSM has been awarded independently from the CIB; the two are no longer connected. The CIB is a qualification badge showing service as an infantryman in an infantry unit during actual ground combat. The BSM is a personal decoration awarded for either heroism less than that required for the Silver Star, or for MSM-level performance of duties in a combat zone. They are thus two different items, designed to recognize two distinct and separate kinds of laudable effort.
For what it’s worth: an uncle of mine was awarded the Silver Star as an infantryman in Italy with the 82nd. He’d have rated the CIB, too. I don’t believe he ever applied for his BSM. Best I can recall, the only letters for decorations on his tombstone at Arlington are “SS” and “PH”.
March 1st, 2013 at 9:04 am
Hondo In Vietnam on the morning of JUne 4th. my camp was hit . My camp had only 12 men in my platoon and we got hit by 35 to 40 NVA we had 4 NVA sappers that made it in the camp. I was shooting at the enemy at 35 meters. They threw grenades at my position and over threw my position. I ran to our small arms Bunker and had to get more ammo even knowing they were in our camp and then went from my bunker to my Platoon Sgt. bunker to give him ammo while under fire.I recommended Sgt. Larry Metheney for a Silver Star for killing three of the sappers at 10 Feet by shoting them threw the head at 2:30 in the morning with no lights in our camp period. The only lights we had were flash lights or BIC lighters. My rank was Sp/4 11/C an was part of a 81mm mortor crew as the company gunner. We all went out on ambush every third night just like the 11/B’s. By the way, tell me your MOS and your hair raiseing story or our you just a critic that stands by his own standards whith out being part of the fun in combat group !
March 13th, 2013 at 1:41 pm
By the way. when I was in Vietnam I was awarded the GOOD CONDUCT MEDAL by the 173rd. I had no idea that just because an award was given in a combat zone that it made it a combat decoration. NO!!! A ARMY COMMENDATION IS NOT A COMBAT DECORATION !!!
March 13th, 2013 at 1:46 pm
SSG Cox: you may not like it, but the truth is that the ARCOM has been a combat decoration since the Vietnam War – since 1964, if I recall correctly. Denying that truth as you just did above isn’t going to change it.
Truth is truth – whether it’s what we want to hear or not.
March 16th, 2013 at 12:52 pm
If The Army Commendation Medal by itself is a Combat Decoration only. Then its not to be awarded in the States. Its only awarded in a combat Zone for non-combat reasons period. Only a Bronze Star can be awarded for Combat and Non-combat reasons only and only to be awarded in a combat zone! There for a Army Commendation Medal by itself without a v-device awarded in a combat zone is not a {COMBAT AWARD !!!!!}
March 16th, 2013 at 12:59 pm
JUST LIKE YOU SAY, A BRONZE STAR WITH V-DEVICE IS A COMBAT DECORATION ONLY FOR COMBAT ACTIONS !!!
March 16th, 2013 at 1:07 pm
THERE IS A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A COMBAT ZONE AWARD AND AN AWARD FOR COMBAT THAT OCCURS IN THAT ZONE !!!!!
March 16th, 2013 at 1:26 pm
OTHER THAN THE C.M.H. OR PURPLE HEART A COMBAT DECORATION ONLY HAS OUR NATIONAL COLORS THAT MAKE UP THE MEDAL !!!
March 16th, 2013 at 1:28 pm
SSG Cox: you are absolutely incorrect. And there’s no need to be rude by shouting (e.g. using ALL CAPS), either.
The only Army personal decorations that are “peacetime only” are the AAM and the MSM. And since 2004, even those can now be awarded in a combat zone for service that can legitimately be characterized as “noncombat service”. See the latest edition of AR 600-8-22 and MILPER Awards Message 181 dated 2 Dec 2007.
Conversely, the only Army personal decorations that are combat-specific are the BSM, Silver Star, DFC, and MOH. (I’m omitting discussion of the PH as it is a rather special case, as one is entitled to a PH for meeting certain criteria vice a decoration awarded by one’s chain-of-command; however, the PH is also combat-specific.) And of those, only the BSM may be awarded for either service, achievement, or specific act of valor. The other three (Silver Star, DFC, MOH) are awarded only for specific acts of combat valor.
The ARCOM, Air Medal, DFC, Soldier’s Medal, LOM, and DSM are all dual-purpose decorations (e.g., wartime/peacetime). Each can be awarded for either wartime or peacetime actions (award of the Air Medal and DFC in peacetime is rare, but it is authorized). The ARCOM, Air Medal, and DFC can be awarded for either meritorious performance of duty or for acts of valor in either wartime or peacetime. The Soldier’s Medal is awarded in either peacetime or wartime for significant acts of noncombat heroism. While theoretically the LOM can theoretically be awarded for valor, it is generally awarded for exceptional service over a period of time in duties of great responsibility – either in combat, or during peacetime – or as a retirement award. The latter is true for the DSM as well.
No later than 1964, the ARCOM became a dual peacetime/wartime decoration. Since that time (if not earlier, when it was broadened to allow award to members of foreign military for valor), it has been authorized for award to personnel for combat-zone service, achievement, or heroism. It is thus today a combat decoration as well as a peacetime decoration, and has been since at least 1964. No amount of denial on your part will change that particular fact.
Before spouting off on a subject, it’s best to know what you’re talking about. Here, SSG Cox, you simply don’t – and you are publicly displaying that fact.
March 16th, 2013 at 1:33 pm
THE ARMY COMMENDATION ONLY STATES— { FOR MILITARY MERIT } NOT HEROISM !!!!
March 16th, 2013 at 1:39 pm
I KNOW THE ARMY COMMENDATION IS FOR PEACE TIME OR WAR TIME BUT THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT A COMBAT AWARD {IT CAN BE AWARDED IN A COMBAT ZONE BUT THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT A COMBAT AWARD!!!
March 16th, 2013 at 1:45 pm
SSG Cox: And your point is . . . . ? The BSM reads “Heroic or Meritorious Achievement” – there’s nothing there that’s exclusive to wartime or combat, either. Does that mean the BSM is NOT a combat decoration either? And what part of “or” do you not understand?
March 16th, 2013 at 1:45 pm
WE ARE ON THE SAME PAGE BUT MILES APPART IN WHAT I CALL A COMBAT DECORATION!
March 16th, 2013 at 1:50 pm
HEROIC REFERS TO COMBAT IN A COMBAT AWARD LIKE THE B.S.M. NOT MILITARY MERIT!!!
March 16th, 2013 at 1:55 pm
SSG Cox: bull. The Soldier’s Medal is also awarded for heroism – but only for noncombat heroism.
It’s a free country, so you can consider whatever you like a “combat decoration”. You’ll be incorrect, but that’s your business.
However, the Army sees things very differently than you do. And it’s the Army’s opinion that matters – not yours or mine, or whether we agree. Because barring an Act of Congress, the Army – and DoD – are the ones who have final say.
I can only tell you what the Army regs and policy say on the matter; I can’t make you accept reality when you wish to remain in denial. So I’m done wasting my time here. Out.
March 21st, 2013 at 1:05 pm
In 1964 only a Army Commendation with V-device was made into a {combat decoration} PLUS !!! it cannot be awarded in the states!!!! Why do you say a medal that can be given in wartime makes it a combat decoration. Just because a medal can be awarded in a combat zone doesn’t make it a combat decoration!
March 21st, 2013 at 1:08 pm
Combat Decorations and wartime decorations are not the same !!!
March 27th, 2013 at 10:07 am
A BRONZE STAR IS THE ONLY COMBAT DECORATION THAT CAN BE GIVEN FOR NON-COMBAT REASONS IN A COMBAT ZONE!!!!! NOW LIVE WITH THAT BECAUSE THAT’S THE TRUTH!!! JUST BECAUSE YOUR IN A COMBAT ZONE DOES NOT MAKE ALL AWARDS { COMBAT }!!!!
March 27th, 2013 at 10:19 am
While I was in the 173rd Airborne Brigade in Vietnam we had { BRIGADE SOLDIER OF THE MONTH ]comp. If you WIN you received a promotion to the next rank and a ARMY COMMENDATION MEDAL. [[[ DOES THAT MAKE IT A COMBAT DECORATION????]]]
March 27th, 2013 at 10:46 am
YES, I AM PUBLICLY DISPLAYING THIS FACT !!! THANK YOU FOR YOU’RE UNDERSTANDING !!!
March 27th, 2013 at 10:53 am
SSG Cox … report to sick bay immediately for evaluation!
Any questions?
March 27th, 2013 at 10:57 am
The Caps Lock key is all the way on the left, 3rd from the bottom.
March 27th, 2013 at 11:10 am
NOTICE OFF CHANGE– Thanks for noticing the cap lock people !! To all R.E.M.F.s and all loosers in BRIGADE SOLDIER OF THE YEAR comp. like HONDO now named BOZO [I thank you for your support.
March 27th, 2013 at 11:27 am
The “Caps Lock” award (non combat) for this week goes to…….
March 27th, 2013 at 11:27 am
Twist, MCPO: your call, gents – but I recommend you (and others) simply ignore future comments here. When someone’s mind is closed and they’re not willing to listen to fact, continuing to engage them in discussion is rather pointless.
March 27th, 2013 at 11:39 am
Its nice to know by public opinion!!! Who’s mind is really closed and who is reading regulations based on people that earn their rank in the rear and bi-sect regulations to fit their needs in the rear areas in a combat zone !!!
March 27th, 2013 at 11:52 am
SSG Cox … did you report to sickbay yet? If not, report to the galley for KP duty for 60 days.
That is all!
March 28th, 2013 at 7:48 am
MCPO NYC USN [Ret] Did you know that different awards have different meanings in different branches of the service !!
April 3rd, 2013 at 12:30 pm
Any wartime award that can be awarded in peacetime too is not a [ combat decoration ]!! Its a wartime decoration! This difference separates [[[ Combat Decorations ]]]
April 3rd, 2013 at 12:44 pm
I respect this guys resolve. I really do. Hooah!
But he is slowly slipping into “clown” status.
Very sad, indeed.
April 3rd, 2013 at 12:54 pm
Keep up the good work, GT.
April 3rd, 2013 at 12:59 pm
There are few people who can come close to Hemingway’s mastery of the short sentence. You are approaching that.
May 16th, 2013 at 8:17 am
{ WHATS COMBAT }????
May 18th, 2013 at 12:04 pm
What would all of you do if you could change the award structure??? I would make the MSM a dual award like the ARCOM for wartime since its the same level as the Bronze Star. This directive may help for higher levels of performance in a combat zone and respect those that go outside the wire. AS all you put it. What is wrong with this suggestion ??? Try as hard as you can to think if this policy was in place what impact that would be in a combat zone.
May 18th, 2013 at 6:04 pm
The performance of those that reach the level of performance higher than an Army Commendation Medal could receive an award properly for a non-combative nature in a combat zone equal to that of an award of a Bronze star !!!! OR, Maybe its all about having greasy hands trying to lay false claims that you were in combat by those of a higher rank. Maybe that is what all these comments are all about !!!!
May 18th, 2013 at 6:27 pm
The standard way the Military awards the Bronze Star may be good for spreading the award over a wide range of soldiers but it overlooks those who actually engage in combat other than those that receive it with a v-device. OR Is that what all of you supporting troops think.
May 19th, 2013 at 11:31 am
The exploitation of the ranks of E-1 to E-4 is made by awarding them Army Commendations both in peace time and in war time and with a v-device but denying a higher award of the Bronze Star only in the case of death or with a v-device. This is not the same case if you are an NCO or higher and does not require a NCO or higher to be in combat to receive a Bronze Star in a combat zone. A higher award other than a Army Commendation is a MSM and could be a dual award for peace time and war time but it would then deny the NCOs and higher a combat award that is only given in a combat zone.This also apply’s to Infantry in the ranks of E-1 to E-4 who are in contact or combat far more often. THIS DOES NOT RESPECT THE REASONS WHY THE BRONZE STAR WAS CREATED AND MAKES IT AN EXCLUSIVE AWARD BASED ENTIRELY BY RANK !!!!
May 20th, 2013 at 1:34 pm
The Bronze Star is awarded to any person while serving in any capacity while serving in the Armed Forces of the United States!!!! You aren’t serving in any capacity if your E-1 to E-4 according to your Leaders !!!! Its only based on your rank !!!!
May 20th, 2013 at 2:47 pm
@ # 156
I beg to differ on your account. While I do acknowledge the fact that the award is biased towards the higher ranks, your claim that E1-E4′s do not receive or are even put in for Bronze Stars is wrong. While deployed in Baghdad in support of OIF II (2004-2005), I was able to successfully recommend one of my Soldiers for a Bronze Star. He was a Corporal and a Mechanic. I have seen many times where Soldiers perform extraordinary jobs and would have had a justified cause for deserving such a high award, but the write up by their chain looked more like an afterthought instead of support. FYI, I recommended SIX of my Soldiers as deserving, but only one went through.
Personally, I have been recommended 4 times myself (4 deployments) and have none to show for it. Am I bitter? Hell no, there are more deserving Soldiers patrolling the streets that deserve it than me. Do I think the award system is broken? You bet.
FYI to your 152 comment, my last downgraded award was TO an MSM, so those are being awarded in theater and this was in 2010.
May 20th, 2013 at 6:46 pm
You were very lucky to have a recommendation go thru. Most of the time it gets kicked back as a ARCOM with the story from the company clerk saying it wasn’t wrote up good enough. MAINLY because it started out by saying SP/4 !!!! As a Vietnam vet in the Infantry with the 173rd Airborne Brigade we had soldiers receiving purple hearts with lose of limbs for life that didn’t qualify for Bronze Stars because they were E-1 to E-4. I suppose its the same way in your war. That is why I hate those that have no respect for awarding this medal based by rank. I guess those that receive these awards for non-combat reasons never think about other soldiers and what they go thru.
May 21st, 2013 at 8:25 am
Supportive units have greatly out numbered Infantry units in combat zones! In some cases 10-1 so when its time to award the Bronze Star for Meritorious Service the Infantry receives extremely less and engage the enemy the most.The fact that this is true are in the deaths of over 75% in a war like Vietnam.{That people are just Infantry numbers alone}!!!! Their meritorious service can not be measured by rank. Their meritorious service must be measured by combat at the risk of their lives.This is not the occupation of Supportive Units!!!Everyone can get into combat is true but it doesn’t add up soldiers and you all know it at all levels.
May 21st, 2013 at 8:36 am
I personally want to thank all those in supportive units for the long lines of volunteers to join the Infantry !!!!!
May 21st, 2013 at 5:53 pm
WWII Infantry received The Bronze Star for meritorious service if they were awarded the CIB. Some say its was given for no reason and have a hard time with accepting that.They forget to mention that Infantry made up over 70% of the deaths in WWII.
May 22nd, 2013 at 9:11 am
Being in the theater is not a combat zone like Thailand during the Vietnam war. The MSM was probably awarded in Kuwait not in Iraq itself.
May 22nd, 2013 at 9:48 am
The Bronze Star is not being awarded the way it was intended to be awarded !!!! When the Army decided { meritorious } only meant non-combat!!!