Posted on 02/17/2003 1:00:49 PM PST by W04Man
The "V" device makes the award a valor award for A INDIVIDUAL act of bravery while in combat against a armed enemy. How the hell can ANYBODY aboard a ship that is never in a battle earn a INDIVIDUAL valor award? Did Boorda maybe jump overboard with a bayonet in his teeth to fight off the mighty North Vietnamese Navy SEAL teams?
I do find it peculiar your position that American service men and women serving on combat ships can not be recognized for duty in a combat zone.
You are recogonized for duty in a combat zone by wearing one of those dweeb "I was there" awards. A valor award is a VERY different thing.
Do you maintain this postion towards only those that served in the waters off of Vietnam,
Absolutely! Name ONE Naval battle between the US Navy and the North Vietnamese Navy.
or do you apply the same standards to the men that served in the Navy and participated in the Battle of Midway?
I am going to assume you REALLY ARE that ignorant,and explain the differences to you. The Navy at Midway were actually in shooting battles with a heavily armed enemy force,and were even being attacked by submarines and aircraft. Sailors aboard these ships were dying,being wounded,and doing various and sundry heroic things while FIGHTING against the enemy. Sailors on ships off VN mostly floated around and watched movies. They were safer there than they would have been back in San Diego or Norfolk.
Do you apply the same standard to Navy personnel that served in the Persian Gulf in Gulf War I?
Tell me about the heroic deeds performed by the US Navy while fighting against the might Iraqui Navy. They float around offshore. They search a few boats. They fire a few missles. They only fight each other. They were never in combat against the Iraquis.
Would you apply the same standard to men and women serving aboard warships in the Gulf
Absolutely.
and who will soon likely be in combat?
They are NOT going to be in combat! Look up the word in a dictionary. The ONLY people in the Navy who are going to be in combat are called SEALS or US Marines. Everybody else is on a boat ride. The only possible exception to this are the pilots who fly helicopters and fighters and bombers. Even then,it's pretty much a terror-filled game of "MY machine can whip YOUR machine". They never even see the enemy they shoot at.
Does anyone know if any "V" devices were awarded to Navy personnel for service in the Persian Gulf on a warship?
If any were,they weren't earned.
Yup,and it's a lie. Hackworth KNOWS it's a lie,and he even knows the name of the retired officer who IS "America's Most Decorated War Hero". Yet he still refuses to correct anybody who introduces him this way.
The trenches were covered over and the road paved in the early 80's, but still smelled miles from shore. I remember getting a whiff down in the engine room as I sat under a blower. Shit river was still quite active, and I remember purposely, throwing the pesos well off target and seeing those girls come back up with them in their teeth.
Did not spend too much time in Olongapo(sp)...spent most of my time in Subic City or Angeles(sp) city. Angeles city had a cleaner ratio if you know what I mean...
I remember waking up butt naked on a beach in Subic City. The bastards stole all my clothes while I was out. They were nice enough to leave me my dog tags. Subic City, did not seem to mind that day when I walked down the street to a shoppe that sold clothes, and when the owner did not want to take my word I'll be back with the money, I strolled out and down the street the other way, Grabbed the mamasan of the bar I was at the night before, and had her walk back down with me to pay for the clothes. Ahhhhhh... Wasn't youth a wonderful thing??
I'll look into the link you provided. My guess is that you listed names and numbers on your post, that is why it got pulled.
Thanks for the memory jog...
SR
I do respect your knowledge and your opinion on the subject. However, I would appreciate a reference or a regulation that supports your definition of the proper award of the "V" device.
You seem to be describing the award of the "V" device with a Bronze Star or higher award. The regulations clearly authorize the award of the "V" device with Achievement and Commendation Medals. I do not believe the intent of the regulation is to hold the receipient of the "V" device on an Achievement Medal to the same standard applied to a Bronze Star receipient. If that were the case, there would be no need at all for a "V" device on the Achievement Medal and the sailor or soldier would receive the Bronze Star or higher award to meet your standard.
I suppose it would be helpful to read the citation that accompanied the awards. Absent that, it is difficult to make a definitive judgement,in my opinion, based on the regulations I have read.
WOW! A award below the commendation medal that Admirals give to each other for bravery for not fighting. Amazing.
1. President Johnson's Message to Congress August 5, 1964
Last night I announced to the American people that the North Vietnamese regime had conducted further deliberate attacks against U.S. naval vessels operating in international waters, and I had therefore directed air action against gunboats and supporting facilities used in these hostile operations. This air action has now been carried out with substantial damage to the boats and facilities. Two U.S. aircraft were lost in the action.
Are you kidding? Just because he humors Hackworth once in a while?
Hannity pulverizes the left whenever he can, and judging by the reaction and words of some of my Democratic "friends" who they tell me they hate his guts, Hannity must be doing more than something right.
Sean Hannity is indeed a warrior for conservatism.
But listening to him today reminded me of why Rush is and remains on top.
He's "sloganeering" allot.. I have the same problem with Savage.
Nov. 18, 1966 - USS John R. Craig (DD 885) and USS Hamner (DD 718) returned fire after being shelled by enemy shore batteries
Following Officer Candidate School in Newport, Rhode Island, and commissioning in August 1962, Admiral Boorda served aboard USS Porterfield (DD 682) as Combat Information Center Officer. He attended Naval Destroyer School in Newport and in 1964 was assigned as Weapons Officer, USS John R. Craig (DD 885). His next tour was as Commanding Officer, USS Parrot (MSC 197).
The rules in 1965 stated simply that "V" pins were authorized for "direct participation in combat operations." Also, Boorda's combat operations citations implied that he was qualified to wear the medals.
Retired Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, who was chief of naval operations during the Vietnam War, said he believed Boorda was "completely entitled" to wear the pins.
NewsHour Online: Admiral Boorda dies of gunshot wounds to ...
June 25, 1998
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Navy has quietly accepted that Adm. Jeremy "Mike" Boorda was entitled to wear combat decorations on his uniform -- the challenged Vietnam War awards that led to his suicide two years ago.
Navy Secretary John Dalton put into Boorda's file a letter from Elmo Zumwalt Jr., the chief of naval operations during the war, which says it was "appropriate, justified and proper" for Boorda to attach the small bronze combat V's to the ribbons on his uniform. The Navy also modified Boorda's record to list the V's among his other decorations -- recognition that they were earned.
But that stops short of what Zumwalt sought -- unambiguous public recognition that Boorda violated no regulations.
Nonetheless, Zumwalt, in an interview Wednesday, called Dalton's action "posthumous validation of Admiral Boorda's right to have worn the V's based on instructions given by me when I was chief of naval operations."
"My interpretation is that retroactively he has been authorized to wear the V's," Zumwalt added.
Wearing an unauthorized decoration is a severe breach of military protocol.
Decision becomes part of naval records
On May 16, 1996, when his right to wear the decorations was about to be questioned, Boorda, 56, the first enlisted man to become the chief of naval operations in the service's 198-year history, went home, wrote a note "to my sailors," stepped into his garden and fatally shot himself in the chest.
He acted after learning that two Newsweek reporters were on their way to question him about the matter.
The decision by Dalton, who will retire at the end of the year, to place Zumwalt's memo in Boorda's file made it part of naval records.
The "V" stands for valor and signifies service in combat. Boorda served on a destroyer, the USS Craig, in 1965 and as executive officer on another destroyer, the USS Brooke, in 1973, both in combat situations.
In his suicide note, Boorda said, "I am about to be accused of wearing combat devices on two ribbons I earned during sea tours in Vietnam. It turns out I didn't really rate them. When I found out I was wrong I immediately took them off, but it was really too late."
He added: "I couldn't bear to bring dishonor to you."
The matter is complex. The regulations were ambiguous and evolving and Zumwalt said in his memo that his directions authorizing the wearing of the decorations were delivered verbally "in over 100 visits to ships and shore stations" rather than in writing.
Zumwalt's memo and Dalton's were not made public. The Washingtonian magazine reports on them in its forthcoming July issue. The magazine made copies of the memos available to The Associated Press.
Advised by the Navy's Office of Awards and Special Projects in 1995 that he was not entitled to the decorations, Boorda removed the V's from his uniform.
Navy rules revision makes Boorda eligible
In 1965, Boorda did not qualify for the Combat V, the Washingtonian said. But in 1967 the Navy retroactively upgraded all Navy Commendation for Achievement ribbons awarded between 1961 and 1967, making Boorda eligible for the award.
"Admiral Mike Boorda's citations for awards of the Navy Achievement Medal and Navy Commendation Medal plainly state they were awarded for service including `combat operations' and `while operating in combat missions,"' Dalton's memo said.
Zumwalt's said that during the war, his "statements as the official military spokesman for the Navy made it appropriate, justified and proper for Mike to wear the V."
Despite the intense attention paid to Boorda's suicide, the Navy made no acknowledgment of Dalton's action until questioned Wednesday. Dalton's "memorandum for the record" was dated April 3, 1998, almost two years after Boorda's suicide.
Boorda's widow, Bettie, could not be reached for comment. She has an unlisted telephone number. Her son, Edward, captain of the USS Russell, reported on duty in the Arabian Gulf, could not be reached. Dalton did not respond to requests, made over three days, for an interview.
In a 20,000 word investigation of the Boorda suicide in 1996, Nick Kotz wrote in the Washingtonian that the decorations dispute may have been only one factor pushing Boorda toward suicide. He cited hostility from the Navy's "old guard," who considered him a "political admiral" and felt he had appeased politicians in his handling of the Navy's Tailhook sexual harassment scandal.
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.