State of the Awards System

[Deleted member 2517]

I was given a book- "Force Recon Command"- by a friend recently. For anyone looking to get some more info on Recon Marines in Vietnam, it's worth picking up. A character who really stuck out for me was Col. Clovis "Buck" Coffman, a mustang who saw combat in both Korea and Vietnam, receiving a battlefield commission in the mid 60's after reaching the rank of Gunnery Sergeant. I did a bit of research on the Colonel, and was amazed at his list of awards- 7 Purple Hearts, 5 BSM w/V, 3 SS and a Navy Cross awarded by LBJ himself. By all accounts, the man was an animal and a great American.

What struck me is that, while he stands out amongst his peers with the decorations he earned, there were still a number other servicemen who were as highly decorated as he was- some even more so (Col. Bob Howard, Lt. Thomas Norris, Maj. Dick Meadows all come to mind).

My question is, why are there not more men like this coming out of the GWOT? Why the major disparity between the awards being issued today and those of past conflicts? One common fact brought up is the number of MOHs awarded in the past 12 years (11) compared to Vietnam (248).

Looking through other major value awards, you'll see the difference in awards goes beyond just the MOH. Go through the Military Times Hall of Valor or any number of books based on the experiences of men in WWII, Korea and Vietnam, and you'll find dozens of troops who were awarded multiple Silver Stars and BSMs w/V, sometimes even more than one DSC/NC/AFC. From what I've been able to gather, there have been no multiple awards of the various Crosses and only a handful of second awards for the Silver Star (5, all of them in SOF, as far I've been able to gather with the info available).

After more than a decade at war, I'm surprised by this seeming disparity between the awards system of today and days past. Is this due to the system being broken? It would be easy to just say that "the wars aren't as intense as Vietnam/Europe/Korea" but between the initial Invasion to the Battles of Fallujah and the Korengal Valley, I think it's safe to say you all have had it just as rough as those who came before you.

Do you think the system can be fixed? Do you think there will be more highly decorated guys/gals emerging in the coming years as the services catch up? Every few months, we get stories about a WWII vet finally being awarded a Silver Star decades later, so I'm sure such things will continue into the future.

I know we have had this discussion before (great thread here https://shadowspear.com/vb/threads/our-broken-awards-system.5507/page-2), but I was curious to hear what some of you have to say regarding the topic.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

My experience with awards is that seniors and staffers prefer to keep award based on rank vs merit. That's not always the case, but that has been my experience.

Fixing it? Day late and a dollar short. No it won't get fixed IMHO. Hell the way things have been sounding I bet it gets pushed further down the staffer tracks of political bullshit.

But that's just my opinion.

 

[LimaOscarSierraTango]

I wasn't going to post this, but what the hell...

My question is, why are there not more men like this coming out of the GWOT? Why the major disparity between the awards being issued today and those of past conflicts? One common fact brought up is the number of MOHs awarded in the past 12 years (11) compared to Vietnam (248).

IMO, the issues are largely due to politics. When I was in Iraq, the standing order was no one below E-5 could get anything more than an ARCOM. 3 E-4s deserved MSMs for going above and beyond the entire time we were there. They worked harder than anyone else in the company by a long shot! E-6s and above were given BSMs for doing absolutely nothing. That was their deployment medal when E-5s and below received ARCOMS (even the guy given extra duties every week for being a shitbag, and the guy that never showered and was fired from 3 different jobs received ARCOMS... and the smelly E-5 threw his in the trash).

After more than a decade at war, I'm surprised by this seeming disparity between the awards system of today and days past. Is this due to the system being broken?

Partially. The other part is the human nature that is taking over. It's all about "me". My subordinates can't earn anything higher than I will get! Bullshit. Look out for those above and below you, don't look out for YOU!!!

Do you think the system can be fixed? Do you think there will be more highly decorated guys/gals emerging in the coming years as the services catch up? Every few months, we get stories about a WWII vet finally being awarded a Silver Star decades later, so I'm sure such things will continue into the future.

It won't be fixed. I believe there will always be delayed awards and some awards will be upgraded (very few), but it won't be anything like in the past. Can it be fixed? Yes, but you need too many people in leadership positions that understand how the awards system should work to make the necessary changes. And that will never happen.

 

[DA SWO]

Do away with the mindset that deploying= award.

I consider myself generous (50% generally received awards), but was considered a scrooge by my peers.

 

[racing_kitty]

My question is, why are there not more men like this coming out of the GWOT? Why the major disparity between the awards being issued today and those of past conflicts? One common fact brought up is the number of MOHs awarded in the past 12 years (11) compared to Vietnam (248).

Look at all the hell that had to be raised before an actual LIVING service member serving in GWOT was awarded the Medal of Honor, and attempt to ask that question again without losing your military bearing.

 

[AWP]

IMO, the issues are largely due to politics. When I was in Iraq, the standing order was no one below E-5 could get anything more than an ARCOM.

This. WWII had precedents wherein 2 MOH's wouldn't be awarded to the same unit for the same action or time period. I think that is what led to Dick Winters not receiving his for Brecourt Manor. A senior officer lead a bayonet charge and Winters was auto-downgraded to a DSC.

But that's where the similarities start to end. That same action at Brecourt Manor saw 3 Silver Stars and 10 Bronze Stars; all this out of 20-ish paratroopers. I'm sure if I had the time I could find similar cases throughout the war.

How many awards today are for a deployment vice a single action? I'll bet if you had a way to compare those percentages from today and wars past is where you'd see a huge disconnect.

I also find it curious that CIB's aren't what they used to be and CAB's are "nerfed" so guys can have their badges, but awards are handed out like candy if you have the proper rank.

Another number which could skew ratios and percentages is the number of awards given posthumously "just because." I hate to say it, but how many Bronze Stars w/ V were awarded in WWII just because someone was KIA? That's happened more than we'd like to admit in the GWOT.

To accurately compare awards for today vs. previous long term conflicts, I think more study would need to be done. Army Times or the AF Times had an article years ago about this, but raw numbers lack context. I know of one DSC in the GWOT which is supported by everyone who wasn't at the particular action; it appears to be inflated for whatever reason(s). During WWII you had LBJ's completely bogus Silver Star and Omar Bradley was given a Bronze Star as a consolation prize for his work duing the Battle of the Bulge (not Bradley's finest moment). So, fluff has always existed.

Anyway, I think you'd need numbers with context and it would take a lot of leg work to sort through it all. While thee's a problem today, I think it is worse than we realize.

 

[digrar]

A lot more people in Viet Nam too, over half a million Americans in the country in 1968, I'd hazard a guess that the tooth to tail ratio was higher back then too.

 

[Deleted member 2517]

Regarding the award systems of Commonwealth countries (namely the UK and Australia) it seems as though you guys are a bit more reserved when it comes to your decorations overall. Maybe the changes in the US reflect a sort of move in that direction?

A lot more people in Viet Nam too, over half a million Americans in the country in 1968, I'd hazard a guess that the tooth to tail ratio was higher back then too.

I would venture to say that there are probably more people returning for 2+ tours than there were then, so I would think those numbers would even out. I don't know if any research has been done on that- it would be interesting to see the results.

 

[digrar]

A good part of our medal system seems to be reserved for Warrant Officers (E8) and Majors and above and then along with that, a Battalion sized deployment would probably only be good for a dozen awards.

 

[0699]

Another number which could skew ratios and percentages is the number of awards given posthumously "just because." I hate to say it, but how many Bronze Stars w/ V were awarded in WWII just because someone was KIA? That's happened more than we'd like to admit in the GWOT.

IIRC, anyone that was awarded a CIB in WWII was also awarded the BS.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

Don't even get me started on the TOC bitch being awarded a CIB when he never left the wire.

 

[Kraut783]

Back in WWII, were there any bronze stars with V device? I had thought BS was a valor award during that time...criteria being "The Bronze Star Medal (without the "V" device) may be awarded to each member of the Armed Forces of the United States who, after 6 December 1941, was cited in orders or awarded a certificate for exemplary conduct in ground combat against an armed enemy after 7 December 1941." That is hardly the criteria for a service BS anymore.....

Also, criteria for CIBs was interesting..."Originally, the Regimental Commander was the lowest level at which the CIB could be approved and its award was retroactive to 7 December 1941. There was a separate provision for badge holders to receive a $10 per month pay stipend, which was rescinded in 1948."

The definition of requirement to be “engaged in active ground combat” has generated much dialogue over the years as to the original intent of the CIB. The 1943 War Department Circular required infantrymen to demonstrate “satisfactory performance of duty in action against the enemy.” The operative words “in action” connoted actual combat. A War Department determination in October 1944 specified that “action against the enemy” for purposes of award of the CIB was to be interpreted as “ground combat against enemy ground forces.”

In 1948, the regulation governing badges stipulated that “battle participation credit is not sufficient; the unit must have been in contact with the enemy.” This clearly indicated that an exchange of hostile fire or equivalent personal exposure was the intent of the Army leadership.

While the CAB is good in theory.....but as usual, the good intention has been watered down. There are some people who REALLY earned the CAB, while some were just in the "area" when a mortar hit the FOB/Camp..etc.

Always hated seeing the military channel with a story of courage where some SPC received an ARCOM with V device....knowing that the actions deserved a BS/V, but since he was a SPC, he got the ARCOM/V.......

 

[AWP]

So, I stand slightly corrected, 0699 and Kraut783 made me do some digging.

The Bronze Star was established in 1944 by Executive Order and retroactive to Dec. 7, 1941. In 1947 it was decided that that who had earned the CIB or CMB were also authorized to receive the Bronze Star for that period. It appears that the "V" device didn't appear until 1945.

The Bronze Star was created in part because the AAF had the Air Medal and the ground forces had no such similar award.

 

[Etype]

Valor awards seem to be protected by a lot of commanders, even ARCOM/Vs... Maybe it's because they don't have one.

I've seen citations that should get BSM/Vs or at least ARCOM/Vs get an impact award, and some that should be impact awards get Vs.

Read 10 valor award citations from BSMVs all the way up to MOHs and try to guess what is what, there's no way to tell- they all sound good. There's no way to quantify awards, its all about the write up, the approving authority, and how big of a public affairs boost the campaign needs at the time.