Posted on 02/17/2003 1:00:49 PM PST by W04Man
"Service in combat" has NOTHING to do with valor. The vast majority of the US Army and USMC members that actually served INSIDE Viet Nam on the ground never heard a shot fired the whole time they were there,and some were there for years. Do all these clerks and jerks deserve valor awards,too? Being in a combat zone (within 12 miles of shore)does NOT mean the same thing as being in combat.The ONLY people who could possibly think that are people who have never actually BEEN in combat. The difference is immediately and shockingly apparant.
If certain boat floaters are THIS desperate to claim valor awards,they should have joined the USMC or the US Army. Besides,how can the Captain of a ship be exhibiting "valor" by getting almost within sight of the coast of a country with no Navy,and have nobody else on his ship being "qualified" for the same bogus "valor" award? Did he put them all off on boats and take his destroyer close in to shore (the HORRORS!) by himself?
Following Navy "standards" (gag,puke)every single Soldier and Marine on shore in VN "deserves" a valor award,and every single one of the actually involved in ground combat deserves at least a Silver Star. You seem close to the Naval Service. Ask a few Marine grunts about this.
Fact it,this is just a HorseHillary award given out to make REMF's look like heroes and feel good about themselves.
Sorry it took so long for me to get back to you. I was suspended again,most likely for telling the truth about Navy awards,and pissing off the FR floaters. If I'm suspended again today,we will know this was the "reason". They didn't even bother to tell me why the last time. I guess they were embarrassed by what they were doing.
After a visit to Hong Kong, on 20 July 1965 JOHN R. CRAIG was designated flagship for a new naval gunfire support group. Her guns were rarely silent for the next 20 days as she pounded enemy targets, providing naval gunfire support for U.S. operations ashore. JOHN R. CRAIG was an initial participant in what soon became a standard Cruiser-Destroyer Force operation. On 11 August, she headed home, arriving in San Diego one month later. Her service during that year won her the Battle Efficiency 'E' for Destroyer Squadron One.
After operations off Southern California, JOHN R. CRAIG entered Hunters Point Naval Shipyard on 1 December 1965 for overhaul. Ready for action at the end of March 1966, she trained out of San Diego until sailing for the Far East on 28 July.
In August 1966, JOHN R. CRAIG again distinguished herself when it was announced that the ship had won the Marjorie Sterret Battle Ship Fund Award. This award is given annually to one Atlantic and one Pacific Fleet unit which best typifies the best ship of its type, based on competitive exercises and material readiness. Only one ship in each fleet can win each year, making competition keen and the award highly coveted.
On 13 September 1966, JOHN R. CRAIG entered the Gulf of Tonkin for plane guard duty; ten days later she provided naval gunfire support for Operation "Golden Fleece" in Quang Nga Province. Next came Operations "Sea Dragon" and "Traffic Cop", interdiction of supply lines from the North to the Demilitarized Zone. During this duty, the ship engaged enemy shore batteries and shelled North Vietnamese radar sites. On 4 December 1966, the ship departed the Gulf of Tonkin and returned home early in 1967 to prepare for future action.
My Dad was in the 1st Marine Division in WWII and was there for the Guadacanal amphibious assault, remained there until the division was relieved by the army, and was later wounded by a Zero on a strafing run during the New Britian invasion. He received a Purple Heart for the wounds he sustained in combat.
Your guess is correct. I have never spent one hour performing combat operations. The closest I ever got was combat support, and I believe if you perform an audit of all military records you will find that I am the most undecorated, non-hero in U.S. military hisory. The greatest award I received was the opportunity to serve with some of the finest people on the face of the planet.
I have the utmost respect for those who have served our nation in combat operations. Thank you for your service.
However, I believe our nation can recognize the fine service the men on the USS Brooke provided our country conducting combat operations against the enemy with an Achievement Medal with a V device and not diminish in the least the awards recognizing the valor displayed by fighting men on the ground.
I believe the "V" was used to recognize service in combat operations because a "C" on a ribbon is more ambiguous and quite frankly, would look out of place on rows of ribbons.
Please consider the USS Craig in this sentence, as well.
That's nice and all,but it ain't being in combat.
Maybe with the Navy,but not with the Army or the USMC. As far as I know,in ALL other services,the "V" signifies it is a individual award for valor while engaged in combat with a armed enemy. You get one for stuff like charging a enemy machine gun nest while they are firing at you,or exposing yourself to enemy fire to rescue a wounded fellow soldier/Marine. You do NOT get one for just being there.
I will defer to your experience on whether or not the principle put forth in the Navy Awards Manual authorizing the "V" device on an Achievement Medal awarded for activities "while operating in combat missions" is right or wrong
My main point I was trying to make is that based on the applicaple Navy Awards Manual, the citations, and common Navy practices, Boorda was entitled to wear the "V" device on his Achievement Medal.
You get one for stuff like charging a enemy machine gun nest while they are firing at you,or exposing yourself to enemy fire to rescue a wounded fellow soldier/Marine
I would hope someone who displays this level of bravery under fire would receive an award higher than an Achievement Medal.
The passage quoted is from SECNAVINST 1650.1G, the Navy and Marine Corps Awards Manual, dated 7 January 2002.
This is from the current manual. Based on what I have read, the Manual in effect when Boorda received his Medals did not include this clause.
all cases, the Combat Distinguishing Device may only be worn if specifically authorized in the citation
This clause was added years later, I understand. However, I can not find a copy of the 1965 Manual or a copy of Boorda's citations, only Dalton's description of the citations. The confusion resulted over the insertion of this clause years after Boorda was awarded his Achievement and Commendation Medals.
The Clinton Administration was masterful in the spin they gave to a simple matter of an Awards Manual being revised years after the Boorda Medals were awarded. This "spin" was used as an explanation for another "suicide" a month after the death of the Commerce Secretary and 20 days after the former Director of the CIA William Colby drowned after falling out of his canoe.
They do. In the army,it is at minimum a "Army Commendation with V-device for valor". Please note the the "V-device" desiginates valor,not just being there. The "V-device" is what makes it "real".
After reading your posts,I will never again look at a Navy man with a Bronze Star with the V-device in the same way. It's now meaningless. He could have gotten it for being the best finance clerk floating offshore from a country where people on the ground were actually in combat.
Pete, Pete,Pete...JimRob is going to send you to the "hole" for sure for that one. LMAO!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.