Posted on 02/20/2003 10:55:17 AM PST by honway
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.
Honor can create some tough dilema's.
I had in mind the professional officer people. A career is so political. Nothing I would care to endure.
I hope you find it worthwhile. Even though I'm retired from the Army now, there are times I wish I was back in uniform. My wife and kids even miss it!
. . . not to be compared with treating an officer as a WH waiter, but serious.
I wish the political game started with Eagles, but by the time they are wearing railroad tracks many are pretty well corrputed. I have tremendous respect for those officers who insist on being good officers, despite the political B.S.
He was sitting on a stage, as I recall, while someone else was speaking at some event. An aide walked up to him and handed him a note. Before he even had time to read a word or two, Clinton made this big, dramatic, shocked expression, and handed the note back to the aide. Then he just sat there shaking his head, over and over.
You really had to see it to get the full Clinton-drama effect, but he was (is) so transparent when he is faking emotion. As I said, it creeped me out at the time.
Guess again Junior. Lt Col. Roger Charles USMC Ret. working for the National Security News Service filed the FOIAs requesting the military records of a number of flag officers at the Pentagon, not just Boorda. Hackworth was late to the story as are you. Boorda was a piss poor CNO.
Boorda's Navy Record Remains Same
Admiral Committed Suicide After Questions Arose About His Combat Decorations
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (July 3) - The official record of Adm. Jeremy ''Mike'' Boorda, who committed suicide amid questions about his combat decorations, will continue to show he did not earn them, the Navy has decided.
A board of three civilians recommended last month that the record remain unaltered, Navy spokesman Capt. Mark Van Dyke said Friday. The ruling was upheld by Carolyn Becraft, who has the final say as assistant secretary of the Navy for manpower and reserve affairs.
Boorda, who joined the Navy at 16 and became the only enlisted man to rise to chief of naval operations, took his life in 1996 after 40 years of service. He was about to be asked by Newsweek reporters about why he wore Combat Vs - tiny bronze letters standing for ''valor.''
The decorations were attached to a Navy Achievement Medal awarded in 1968 and a Navy Commendation Medal awarded in 1973.
In a suicide note ''to my sailors,'' Boorda said he felt disgraced.
Last year, then-Navy Secretary John Dalton placed a memo in Boorda's file - backed by another memo from Adm. Elmo R. Zumwalt Jr., the Vietnam War-era chief of naval operations - that declared him eligible to have worn the decorations.
Dalton said only the Navy review board could officially change the record to say Boorda had the right to wear them.
The Boorda family petitioned the Board for Corrections of the Naval Records last September to change the record and show he was entitled to wear the decorations.
''The final decision was there was no error or injustice in Adm. Boorda's record and the panel was unanimous in their recommendation,'' Van Dyke said.
He provided the information to The Associated Press after an inquiry prompted by the state of Illinois' decision to award a $20,000 grant for a memorial in Boorda's hometown, Momence, about 50 miles south of Chicago.
Boorda removed the decorations from his ribbons in 1995, on the advice of the Navy's Office of Awards and Special Projects.
Dalton's memo says the citations justifying the awards ''plainly state they were awarded for service including combat operations.'' Zumwalt's memo said it was ''appropriate, justified and proper'' for Boorda to have the decorations.
Wearing an unauthorized decoration is a severe breach of military protocol.
The question you should be asking is why that decision never made it to the mainstream media.
June 25, 1998: The Supreme Court rules 6-3 that attorney-client privilege extends beyond the grave, exempting Vince Foster's conversations with his lawyers from being called as evidence in Ken Starr's presidential investigations.
June 25, 1998: White House communications aide Sidney Blumenthal testifies before Ken Starr's grand jury for the third time. Blumenthal complains that Starr's inquiry focused on what the White House was saying about his prosecution rather than Blumenthal's conversations with the president.
Just curious, in light of several active and former ADs here to the contrary, what you base this on.
I had two friends that jumped thru the hoops to get their eagles but left the service bitter because they knew no one and could never clear the political barrier.
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.