Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Silver Star with Combat V??????
Chicago Sun-Times ^ | August 27, 2004 | Thomas Lipscomb

Posted on 09/01/2004 4:11:22 PM PDT by 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."

(Excerpt) Read more at suntimes.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: boat; combat; combatv; efing; fing; fn; for; heart; kerry; medal; medals; militaryrecord; purple; sbv; silver; silverstar; star; swift; truth; v; vets; vietnam; war
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 last
To: sonofatpatcher2

Pooooooorrrrrr Futhermucker!!


41 posted on 09/01/2004 6:03:44 PM PDT by Waco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sonofatpatcher2

Pooooooorrrrrr Futhermucker!!


42 posted on 09/01/2004 6:05:25 PM PDT by Waco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bob
" 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.

43 posted on 09/01/2004 6:19:05 PM PDT by A Navy Vet (www.opgratitude.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Vn_survivor_67-68

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.


44 posted on 09/01/2004 6:33:17 PM PDT by A Navy Vet (www.opgratitude.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: A Navy Vet
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.

45 posted on 09/01/2004 6:34:41 PM PDT by Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Bob
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.

46 posted on 09/01/2004 6:51:05 PM PDT by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Wil H
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.

47 posted on 09/01/2004 7:01:10 PM PDT by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: thucydides

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!!!


48 posted on 09/01/2004 7:02:45 PM PDT by libs_kma (Write congress to get out of UN and UNESCO - Again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Vn_survivor_67-68

Thanks for the link!


49 posted on 09/02/2004 8:58:25 AM PDT by colorado tanker (wanna see my happy hat?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: sonofatpatcher2

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


50 posted on 09/02/2004 1:34:11 PM PDT by Prost1 (Why isn't Berger in jail?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker
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]


51 posted on 09/03/2004 4:11:27 PM PDT by nolu chan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Vn_survivor_67-68

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.



52 posted on 09/13/2004 5:48:59 AM PDT by macp (COMBAT 'V' CORRECT TERMINOLOGY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: macp

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.


53 posted on 09/13/2004 9:39:49 AM PDT by Vn_survivor_67-68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Vn_survivor_67-68

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?


54 posted on 09/19/2004 12:52:52 PM PDT by macp (COMBAT 'V' CORRECT TERMINOLOGY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson