Silver Star with Combat V??????

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | August 27, 2004 | Thomas Lipscomb

[colorado tanker]

Just Googled the Navy manual and reg on this. I can't cut and paste because it's a PDF. http://neds.nebt.daps.mil/Directives/1650/1650_1g.pdf Page 1-12 recites the history and the awards eligible for the "V" device. The Silver Star is NOT one of them and never has been.

It's very clear, I don't know how the talking heads could argue about this.

So, how the heck did this appear on his DD214??

[R. Scott]

The letter regarding the third Purple Heart says that a certificate "... will be issued to you ... upon your request" and recommends that such request be made, "... upon your return to the continental United States." There is no record of Kerry making a request or the CNP responding.

Nothing strange here. Mine also has the stock phrase “A permanent certificate will be issued to you by the Chief of Naval Personnel upon your request. It is recommended that you make application for this certificate upon your return to the continental United States.”
I have made the request a couple times, but the Navy says they don’t handle awards made to Army Personnel and the Army says that as it was awarded by the Navy they can’t issue the certificate. Guess I’ll just have to make do with the letter and not the fancy certificate.

[KeyLargo]

"John Kerry is a true patriot and all people of Vietnam support him totally and look forward to reuniting with him in the White House."


His Excellency Mr. Vo Van Kiet Prime Minister of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam

Well, maybe this wasn't a published report but I am sure that the Communists consider John Kerry a hero of their cause.

The following is an article from (VNS) "Vietnam News Service" saying how helpful John Kerry was in telling about "atrocities"

Friday June 11, 2004

VIETNAM NEWS

http://vietnamnews.vnagency.com.vn/2004-06/10/Stories/16.htm

US prisoners share some smiles and a game of chess.— VNS File photos
Invoking Viet Nam to cover up Iraq abuses

The Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal calls forth questions over the American War in Viet Nam: "How were captured US troops treated?" and "How did the Americans treat the Vietnamese?"

Diem Quynh

The Voice of America has attempted to deflect criticism of American soldiers’ treatment of Iraqi prisoners by claiming recently that captured US troops were treated worse in Viet Nam.

Besides begging the fundamental question "what were the Americans doing in Viet Nam in the first place?" the claim is also patently false.

In fact, like in any of the dozens of countries they invaded, it was the Americans who perpetrated well-documented atrocities in Viet Nam, both at the individual and mass levels.


American POWs treat themselves to a refreshing game of volleyball.

My Lai is a byword for callous mass murder while the Bach Mai hospital and Kham Thien street bombings, though less well-known outside Viet Nam, were no less brutal for their manner of execution. As if to show they were not merely capable of ‘impersonal’ atrocities (by dropping bombs), the Americans helped run the notorious Con Dao prison with its ‘tiger cages’. In each of these 3m by 1.5m cages, they held five Vietnamese prisoners.

Conditions at the prison prompted a visiting US legislator, William R Anderson, to write to then-president Richard Nixon slamming the human rights violations and asking him to reconsider American involvement in the south of Viet Nam.

Candidate in this year’s American presidential elections, John Kerry, who fought in the war, went further in his criticism. In a statement to the US’ Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in 1971, he said the war crimes committed by US soldiers in Southeast Asia "were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."

But despite these abuses, the Vietnamese did not reciprocate in kind; instead, they treated captured US troops humanely.

A letter written to his family by the US navy’s Lt Stephen Anthony Rudloff shows a glimpse of the treatment received by American troops in captivity. He wrote, "Since my capture, I have been treated very well by the people of the DRVN [Democratic Republic of Viet Nam]. I am well fed, have had my injuries tended to by a doctor, and am in excellent condition."

Another navy man, Lt Albert Molinare, wrote home, "my treatment and the treatment of all the others I’ve talked to has been very fair. I feel we’re eating and living better than many Vietnamese outside the walls. I live with a group of other prisoners and we pass the time playing bridge and pingpong and doing some gardening. It’s nothing like home of course but the treatment has been a pleasant surprise."

Molinare was right that the detainees were living better than most Vietnamese who were subsisting on food rations and under extremely tough conditions.

It was also true that except for their incarceration, the American soldiers lived normal lives in prison though many of them had been caught red-handed committing crimes against humanity. They got fairly good food, exercised, played on the guitar and read books, received letters from home and celebrated Christmas with trees just like they would have at home.

They received periodic medical checks and treatment for injuries and illnesses.

In the three decades since the war, the Americans have used their hegemony over the world media – including films – and short public memory to gloss over their atrocities and to demonise Viet Nam.

The VOA report is merely another such attempt. — VNS

[sonofatpatcher2]

From: https://www.perscom.army.mil/tagd/tioh/Awards/SILVER%20STAR1.html

5. Background: a. The Citation Star was established as a result of an Act of Congress on July 9, 1918 (65th Congress, Sess II, Chapter 143, page 873) and was promulgated in War Department Bulletin No. 43 dated 1918. It was retroactive to include those cited for gallantry in action in previous campaigns back to the Spanish-American War. Per letter from General Jervey, Office of the Chief of Staff, dated February 26, 1926, is quoted in part: The Secretary of War directs as follows - The following is the amended version of paragraph 187 of Army Regulation: "No more than one Medal of Honor or one Distinguished Service Cross or one Distinguished Service Medal shall be issued to any one person, but for each succeeding or act sufficient to justify the award of a Medal of Honor or Distinguished Service Cross or Distinguished Service Medal, respectively, a bronze oak leaf cluster, shall be issued in lieu thereof; and for each citation of an officer or enlisted man for gallantry in action, published in orders from headquarters of a force commanded by a general officer, not warranting the issue of a Medal of Honor, Distinguished Service Cross or Distinguished Service Medal, he shall wear a silver star, 3/16 inch in diameter, as prescribed in Uniform Regulations." Army Regulation 600-40, paragraph 48, September 27, 1921, specified that the Citation Star would be worn above the clasp, on the ribbon of the service medal for the campaign for service in which the citations were given.

--------------------------------
To print out and wear as a Campaign Button, go HERE. Over 3,100 hits as of 9/1! Feel free to reuse this anywhere you wish...
Donate to Swift Boat Vets for the Truth HERE.

[Wil H]

Why is there any claim to any medals on Kerry's website?

He renounced them , remember?

If he renounced them, why is he now claiming them?

[A Navy Vet]

See you're following this as close as I. Here's a closeup of his testimony...notice no "V" on the SS ribbon: Post #18.

My question in other "medal" threads is exactly how did the "V" get on his 214&215's? Normally, lower enlisted personellmen or yeomen types prepare the separation documents by reviewing the service jacket. Then they are approved by the division CPO or maybe PO1 before being submitted to the division officer for signature. How is that no one in the processing chain caught this discrepancy, and Kerry even signed it, knowing no such device is given with the SS?

My guess is the original citation denotes a "V" device and some orders were given to push it through. What other answer is there for so many not to know it was erroneous. That is the job of the admin types when they process separation documents.

But the real question here is, why was he even awarded a SS for shooting ONE injured fleeing enemy behind a hut that no one can authenticate? And this was after endangering his boat by beaching it, against SOP, and leaving his command! Something about the enemy kid had a grenade launcher? And which citation is true? He beached the craft and went after the kid alone, or, he led a patrol ashore as one of his later citations reads. See below:

Comparison of Kerry's 3, repeat, THREE ever changing Silver Star citations

[kjenerette]

[silverleaf]

Nah- the Bronze Star can be awarded for exceptional service, or for exceptional valor. That's why some Bronze Star recipients get the "v" designation- to show they earned it through valor.

The Silver Star is ONLY awarded for valor, Thus, no "v" designation. No admin clerk who types orders would be stupid enough to make a mistake like this.

[sonofatpatcher2]

Re: "But the real question here is, why was he even awarded a SS for shooting ONE injured fleeing enemy behind a hut that no one can authenticate? And this was after endangering his boat by beaching it, against SOP, and leaving his command! Something about the enemy kid had a grenade launcher? And which citation is true? He beached the craft and went after the kid alone, or, he led a patrol ashore as one of his later citations reads."

Well, I guess the 'injured fleeing enemy' was thought to be a Republican. LBJ was the Prez then, wasn' he?

--------------------------------
To print out and wear as a Campaign Button, go HERE. Over 3,100 hits as of 9/1! Feel free to reuse this anywhere you wish...
Donate to Swift Boat Vets for the Truth HERE.

[elhombrelibre]

I'm not sure why you're saying that to me since we agree. Silver Star winners don't get a "V" for valor.

[Boundless]

> I've heard of the "V" with the Bronze Star plenty,
> but never with the Silver Star.

Apparently, the grounds for awarding a Silver Star
already imply the "V" circumstances, whereas that
is not the case for the Bronze.

The SStar "V" might be a case of a clerical error not
cleared up when Kerry had the chance(s). I find the
three citation situation more interesting, as well
as the apparent false reports that lead to the SStar.

Does the Senate issue medals for attendance?
If so, and Kerry has one, it's a fraud too.

[A Navy Vet]

"It clearly lists "SILVER STAR WITH COMBAT 'V'..."

That's my question...how did it get through the entire separation process without someone noticing, both the orginal 0-3 214 and the corrected 215?

Another good read about these multiple citations:
John Kerry's Puzzling Silver Star Citations: FrontPage magazine

[Bob]

My guess is the original citation denotes a "V" device and some orders were given to push it through.

It isn't indicated on any of the three that have been posted.

But the real question here is, why was he even awarded a SS for shooting ONE injured fleeing enemy behind a hut that no one can authenticate?

According to the after-action report that Kerry submitted, he had attacked a 'numerically superior force'. His report was accepted as being honest and accurate (as it would be expected and presumed to have been). The award and citation were based on the falsified claims in the after-action report.

For a Silver Star award, I believe that there would have had to be an eyewitness attest to the actions. I wonder just who it was.

[Vn_survivor_67-68]

the "COMBAT *V*" is total bs......the 'combat' award for the Navy/Marines is the CAR....Combat Action Ribbon.....for the Army it is the CIB Combat Infantrymans Badge.

The "V" is not a 'combat' (as such) award.......it is awarded for one thing and one thing only....VALOR. It is a misnomer to call it a "combat V" as his DD214 and the media are so fond of doing......see here:

"The BRONZE "V" device indicates an award for VALOR. It is worn on decorations authorized for both ACTS OF VALOR and other qualifications. It is not worn, for instance, on the Silver Star Medal which is ONLY awarded for combat heroism. The Army Commendation Medal can be awarded for Valor, service, or achievement. The "V" device does not denote a second award, but indicates the award was for combat heroism. Only ONE "V" device may be worn on any ribbon, but may be worn with Oak Leaf Clusters that indicate additional awards of the same medal."

http://www.homeofheroes.com/medals/ribbons/1_devices.html

the Silver Star is awarded for gallantry.....and a "V" is unnecessary and unauthorized on it....see here:

"Silver Star Medal

(All Services)

For distinguished gallantry in action against an enemy of the United States or while serving with friendly forces against an opposing enemy force.

The Silver Star is the third highest military award designated soley for heroism in combat. Established in 1918 as the Citation Star, in 1932 it was redesignated as a medal with a retroactive provision that allowed servicemen as far back as the Spanish-American War (1898) to receive it for gallant actions."

http://www.homeofheroes.com/medals/pages_wh/5_sstar.html


the fact that a DD-214 indicates a "Combat V" over a Silver Star is on its face fraudulent. The press and most of the citizenry don't seem to understand this.

[A Navy Vet]

"No admin clerk who types orders would be stupid enough to make a mistake like this."

The point I've been making for some days now, as on this thread above. It's not like some buddy of Kerry's typed up his separation papers and every one in the process chain missed it, or...........maybe that is the case, and the answer to this whole "V" device issue.

[Ed_in_NJ]

Suppose he asked, several years later (while a Senator), to have it 'corrected' - and some clerk in DC typed it up the way he asked?

[A Navy Vet]

"The SStar "V" might be a case of a clerical error not cleared up when Kerry had the chance(s)."

With due respect, unsat answer. As I have mentioned, there is a chain of command that reviews separation documents. How could they miss it twice on his 214 AND corrected 215? Even if the 215 was expedited by bureau personnel so they could knock off early, someone should have caught the erroneous "V". More importantly, Kerry having signed both separation docs would have known it was incorrect.

And for the record, after converting from "brown shoe" ABF (aviation) in the mid '80's, I was a "black shoe" Navy Counselor (administration) for the rest of my time in service and know how the system worked, not to mention Naval Reserve recruiter who reviewed separated personell jackets for qualified active reserve recruits. Unless things operated completely different in '70's (which I doubt) this is very strange to me.

[Vn_survivor_67-68]

here it is in html:

"d. Bronze "V" (Combat Distinguishing Device).
Prior to 4 April 1974, the "V" was authorized for wear on
the Legion of Merit, Bronze Star Medal, Joint Service
Commendation Medal, Navy Commendation Medal and Navy
Achievement Medal. Between 4 April 1974 and 17 January
1991, the "V" was authorized for wear on the Distinguished
Flying Cross, Bronze Star Medal, Air Medal, Joint Service
Commendation Medal and Navy Commendation Medal. On 17
January 1991, the "V" was authorized for wear on the Legion
of Merit, Distinguished Flying Cross, Bronze Star Medal,
Air Medal, Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal and
Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal. The "V" is
authorized for wear on these decorations if the award is
for acts or services involving direct participation in
combat operations. In all cases, the Combat Distinguishing
Device may only be worn if specifically authorized in the
citation. Eligibility for the Combat Distinguishing Device
shall be based solely on acts or services by individuals
who are exposed to personal hazard due to direct hostile
actions, and not upon the geographical area in which the
acts or services are performed. Each case must be judged
on its own merits."

you can use this tool to convert most pdf omline to html....for free :)

http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/access_simple_form.html

[Vn_survivor_67-68]

In all cases, the Combat Distinguishing
Device may only be worn if specifically authorized in the
citation.

In all cases, the Combat Distinguishing
Device may only be worn if specifically authorized in the
citation.

In all cases, the Combat Distinguishing
Device may only be worn if specifically authorized in the
citation.

In all cases, the Combat Distinguishing
Device may only be worn if specifically authorized in the
citation.

In all cases, the Combat Distinguishing
Device may only be worn if specifically authorized in the
citation.

[A Navy Vet]

"Suppose he asked, several years later (while a Senator), to have it 'corrected' - and some clerk in DC typed it up the way he asked?"

I suggested something similar above, but what about the orginal DD214? I just don't remember the Navy being this incompetent. My guess is the orginal 214 was pushed through to get him out of there. Bet a lot of admin personell were steaming.