Silver Star with Combat V??????

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

[sonofatpatcher2]

The Sun-Times has put this article into their archives to be viewed for a fee. So to recap: in his last Friday article, Thomas Lipscomb said:

"In the midst of the controversy between the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and Kerry campaign representatives about Kerry's service in Vietnam, new questions have arisen.

"The Kerry campaign has repeatedly stated that the official naval records prove the truth of Kerry's assertions about his service.

"But the official records on Kerry's Web site only add to the confusion. The DD214 form, an official Defense Department document summarizing Kerry's military career posted on johnkerry.com, includes a 'Silver Star with combat V.'

"But according to a U.S. Navy spokesman, 'Kerry's record is incorrect. The Navy has never issued a "combat V" to anyone for a Silver Star.'

"Naval regulations do not allow for the use of a 'combat V' for the Silver Star, the third-highest decoration the Navy awards. None of the other services has ever granted a Silver Star 'combat V,' either."

[Waco]

Pooooooorrrrrr Futhermucker!!

[Waco]

Pooooooorrrrrr Futhermucker!!

[A Navy Vet]

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

My mistake...I knew that. I've even posted the comparisons. So again, at what point in the separation process the "V" added to his 214? And why? Is this just a case of all involved wanting to go on liberty and not paying attention? As someone pointed out regarding the corrected 215, it would be easy for it to slip by since they were just adding things and maybe some Yeoman was just typing what he was instructed to do. Still, how could everyone, including Kerry miss it, TWICE? A Silver Star is a big deal and draws attention.

[A Navy Vet]

Which it wasn't, and never has been on a SS. So how and why is it on his 214 and 215? Any ideas? And thanks for "surviving" and your service.

[Bob]

My mistake...I knew that. I've even posted the comparisons. So again, at what point in the separation process the "V" added to his 214? And why? Is this just a case of all involved wanting to go on liberty and not paying attention? As someone pointed out regarding the corrected 215, it would be easy for it to slip by since they were just adding things and maybe some Yeoman was just typing what he was instructed to do. Still, how could everyone, including Kerry miss it, TWICE? A Silver Star is a big deal and draws attention.

I haven't been able to come up with any plausible explanation for the error not to have been detected, especially considering the 2001 correction.

[El Gato]

The combat "V" notation appeared on his DD214

Well, at least the one he posted on his website. Makes you wonder if that is his real one. His rank and date of separation don't agree with other documents on his site either.

[El Gato]

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

That was then, this is now. Then there was political hay to make by renouncing them, at least in certain circles. Now there is even more hay to be made by claiming them and wrapping himself in the "hero" status he thinks he can convince people that they confer.

[libs_kma]

Everytime I see Meehan, lie and say this is already refuted, and all his records are laid out for view I get nauseous. What a John effin Kery liar!!!

[colorado tanker]

Thanks for the link!

[Prost1]

From WorldNetDaily:
MISSION: IMPLAUSIBLE
Kerry medal complaint reaches Navy secretary
Probe request comes as ex-chief Lehman calls Silver Star citation 'complete mystery'

The Department of Defense says it has informed Secretary of the Navy Gordon R. England of a formal request to investigate alleged military code violations in Sen. John Kerry's Silver Star award....

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40272

[nolu chan]

Below is the the OFFICIAL Navy Instruction, Secretary of the Navy Instruction (SECNAVINST) 1650.1G of 7 January 2002 on the Combat "V" Device. The Combat "V" may only be worn if specifically authorized in the citation.

[Complete Instruction - Adobe Acrobat PDF File - 216pp]

[Chapter 1 - Adobe Acrobat PDF File - 18pp]

SecNavInst 1650.1G, Chapter 1 - General Information, Section 2 - Miscellaneous, Paragraph 122.2(d), Page 1-12.

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.

[Underline in original]

[macp]

Actually, "combat V" is correct in the Navy's case-that's what they usually call it anyway. The actual nomenclature used by the Navy is "combat distinguishing device" and I believe the Army simply calls it a "V device".

The Army issues it for personal valor whereas the Navy's requirements are slightly more general--if the medal was earned "in combat" it rates a V. That's why Admiral Boorda either genuinely believed his V was earned, or maybe thought it easier to bend the rules as he believed his ship was in harm's way.

I can't see how this thing is forged...it has to be a typo.

[Vn_survivor_67-68]

sorry.....it is not awarded in any of the three versions of his SS citations, for which the existence of #s 2 and 3 is suspicious.....but of course one wouldn't expect to see it there, as the actual reg in the post immediately above yours shows.

Army vs Navy difference ---- based on the above re: Silver Star ---- a distinction which in no way mitigates the real issue.

[macp]

Ahhhh....I was only pointing out that that is indeed the correct (Navy) terminology, and I recognize that the army-navy difference in no way mitigates the real issue.

The point is that it's obviously a clerical error on his DD-214. What's the implication, that it was forged?