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.
------------------------------------------------
I think you are missing the big picture.
The Navy accepted that Boorda was entitled, but Clinton did not;thus the three member Clinton selected civilian Board.
Clinton had a lot invested in the fabricated story about the improper wearing of the "V" device. He was not going to let something like the truth to get in the way.
If you remove the "V" device story, there is no motivation for a Boorda "suicide".
If Clinton's three member civilian board had announced to the world that the record confirms Boorda was entitled to the "V" device like the Navy said, then some folks may have started questioning the "suicide".
No, I haven't. Your ability to comprehend facts is piss poor.
You want to post a link where this story was covered.
Already done.
I haven't read Jim Webbs'opinion. If you provide a link it may be worth more than your "extensive coverage" remark.
A self proclaimed expert like yourself hasn't read James Webbs' opinion? Now whose credibility is suffering. Google can help you or whoever is there helping you to find his remarks. I'm not here to make up for your laziness and lack of knowledge.
As commander of a Carrier Battle Group, he would fly backseat.
At most on an infrequent basis, if at all. Commanders of CVBGs don't spend a lot of time during a cruise in the cockpit. By the way what CVBGs did Boorda command?
Do you just make this stuff up?Have you read his OQR? Do you have a copy of it?
Have you ever seen a OQR that says "this officer is not entitled to wear the Combat V?
How about: "this officer is not entitled to wear the Medal of Honor"?
When I was stationed in Europe and still living in the barracks, circa 1990, Adm. Boorda came through for "Admiral's Call". I was working night shift or something or other, so I missed it. Several of us were chatting out on the sidewalk, when a guy who lived above us came back from Admiral's Call. He was rather excited and started telling us all about it.
He told us how he brought up the barracks maintenance problems, and Admiral Boorda was livid, and he was coming to the barracks to see it for himself. We couldn't believe he did this, but he felt comfortable because it was Admiral Boorda. This was a legitimate issue: the barracks had leaking water pipes in the walls, which were constantly being "repaired", and the residents were being reassigned rooms like they were stuck in a revolving door, but the leaks never got fixed. What added insult to injury, was that these guys were repeatedly failing room inspections for musty rooms and moldy bathrooms, and it was not their fault. He was sick and tired of failing inspection, and didn't care who in his chain of command got sore at him (his immediate supervisors were none too pleased).
So sure enough, soon afterward, Admiral Boorda came though our barracks. That sailor had told him the absolute truth, and Boorda, who really did have a geniune compassion for the "average" enlisted men and women, was fit to be tied. It was worse than he expected. Needless to say, after all the bogus maintenance that had gone on for a year or more, the problems were suddenly resolved in a very short amount of time.
Admiral Boorda had an excellent reputation before this happened, so much so that people actually wanted to go to Admiral's Call. That incident, however, showed many of us just how well-deserved that reputation was.
That was the "trouble" with Admiral Boorda. He was a no-nonsense, results-oriented, honorable man. IOW, he was surely a pox on the Xlintoon administration. I don't know how he could have been in the presence of X42, without becoming sick to his stomach.
IMO, somebody wanted to teach Admiral Boorda a lesson.
Additionally, my "extensively covered" comment in post #116 refers to your original "editorial" post: "My editorial is that this AP article never made it to the mainstream media." Quoting out of context is indicative of either disingenuousness or stupidty and you and I both know which one applies to you. The mainstream media jumped all over the original story that you posted that Boorda was entitled to wear the Combat Vs, which was at the time and still is untrue, and that reporters, namely Hackworth, drove Boorda to committing suicide. Pure Bravo Sierra. The only one responsible for Boordas' suicide is Boorda himself. He was a quitter plain and simple. People of impeccable integrity and sound mind don't off themselves. A good reporter would have known that memos slipped into an OQR after the fact don't change the truth. Notice how little coverage the decison by the Board for Corrections of Naval Records confirming that Boorda was not entitled to those two Combat Vs got. You and the media were, and in your case still are, suckers. Face it kid, you're just not very bright.
Tonight at 6pm on RadioFR! Interviews with Grover Norquist, John Hager and Michael Zak! Plus, Doug from Upland interviews Ted Hayes, homeless advocate and strong supporter of military action in Iraq!
Click HERE to listen LIVE while you FReep! HIFI broadband feed HERE!
Additionally, my "extensively covered" comment in post #116 refers to your original "editorial" post:
Fair enough. Do you have any links to a single article in the mainstream press that supports your statement about the original article?
People of impeccable integrity and sound mind don't off themselves
At least we agree on one thing. Admiral Boorda was a man of impeccable character, according to the folks I know who worked for him.
Face it kid, you're just not very bright.
I have heard that before. I do try my best to tell the truth.Please refer to reply #144.
Wrong. Women almost never, ever commit suicide with a gun.
We women are vain creatures to the very end. Even in voluntary death we do not want to damage our features. Women will, instead, cut their wrists; use gas (in the garage w/ the motor running, or the kitchen with the gas stove unlit); take poison; take sleeping pills; mix medicine-and-alcohol (Dave Berry's mother committed suicide this way), or leap from a great height.
It's also curious that the Admiral chose to shoot himself in the chest-- an awkard and uncertain way to go about it: You must push the trigger away from you, and you must use your thumb(s).
First off, the "V" we are talking about is an attachment to a medal. It signifies valor in combat as opposed to other things such as sustained superior performance. Since so many posters on this thread don't understand the intricacies, here's the exact definition from the Navy Awards Manual:
...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.
Since they were not specifically authorized in the appropriate award citations, Admiral Borda was not authorized their wear on those medals/ribbons.
Now this is important. There is no "assuming" here. The citation must cite the "Combat Distinguishing Device". If it ain't in the service jacket, it ain't on your chest!
Was there confusion about the evolution of this device? Sure. That's what a review by the Navy's Office of Awards and Special Projects clears up on a case by case basis.
Based on this sloppy article, I'm not sure what, if anything, was cleared up. Was a letter from Admiral Zumwalt placed in Admiral Borda's service jacket maintaining Admiral Borda should be entitled to the V's? Sure. So what?! Many things go into service jackets. The important question is; "Were the medal citations ammended to include the combat V's?"
The article seemed to address that question thusly: The Navy also modified Boorda's record to list the V's among his other decorations... But that statement is nonsense. V's are not "listed among other decorations". They are part of specific awards. So we don't know.
That just fits in with the rest of the stupdity of the article. Such as; Admiral Borda was the first enlisted man to become CNO. No enlisted man has ever become CNO. Borda was an Admiral with four, count them, four stars. He was the first man to rise from the lowest enlisted rank to the highest Flag rank (Admiral) and serve as CNO.
Here's another whopper; "Wearing an unauthorized decoration is a severe breach of military protocol." What sophistry. It's against federal law!
And this is my all time favorite from the article; "But in 1967 the Navy retroactively upgraded all Navy Commendation for Achievement ribbons awarded between 1961 and 1967, making Boorda eligible for the award." Does anyone know what this statement means? I think it means all Navy Letters of Commendation awarded between '61-'67 were unilaterally upgraded to Navy Acheivement Medals. Deductively, Admiral Borda received one Acheivement Medal in that fashion. But it still has nothing to do with a combat V!
So, to wrap this up; Admiral Borda was not authorized the combat V devices. The Navy did not change that status. And, the author of the AP article is an idiot!
BTW, I knew one of Admiral Borda's sons and a daughter-in-law in the Navy. They were both fine officers. And so was their dad.
1. Do you believe Vince Foster committed suicide in Ft. Marcy Park?
2.Do believe six weeks after the Foster death when Jerry Parks, the former head of security for Clinton/Gore 92, was gunned down it was unrelated to Clinton?
3. Do you think it was a coincidence when Clinton was sexually assaulting Kathleen Willey adjacent to the Oval Office, her husband was dying by self inflicted gunshot wound in a parked vehicle?
4. Do you think the former wife of Clinton's co-defendant in the Jones case, Kathy Ferguson, shot herself in the head in a living room with all her bags packed in front of her?
5.Do you think Kathy's Police Officer fiance shot himself in the head by Kathy's graveside 4 weeks later?
6. Do you think former CIA Director William Colby fell out of a canoe 20 days before Boorda's suicide?
7.Do you think one of the first Clinton White House interns, Mary Mahoney received five gunshots, the last to the face, 2.5 miles from the White House in a Starbucks as a result of a botched robbery? No money was taken and two of her co-workers were murdered as well. Nobody heard a shot.
8. Do you believe the decision to give a LASIX injection to heart patient James McDougal in a federal prison hospital shortly before his death was a mediaction error?
9. Do you find it a coincidence that during the Bush Administration not a single Deputy White House Counsel, not a single member of the Joint Chiefs, or a former wife of a co-defendant of the President has committed suicide? Not a single former CIA Director has fell out of a canoe. Coincidence?
From the article:
"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.
http://www.jameswebb.com/speeches/navalinstitute.htm
I've got to agree with S.B. on this one. Boorda was not a universally popular CNO. A lot of people (including myself) felt he let the Clintoons rake the Navy over the coals for Tailhook for far too long. His abandonment of ADM Arthur was especially disgusting. The fact is, he didn't have the balls to stand up for the Navy against the politicians.
...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.
Check the date on your Navy Awards Manual.
This article does not explain the fact that the quote you provided:
In all cases, the Combat Distinguishing Device may only be worn if specifically authorized in the citation
did not exist in the Navy Awards Manual in effect at the time of the Award to Boorda.
I have read from an individual who was in the Navy during this time period that some recipients would not have it specifically stated in the citation, but when presented with an Achievement Medal at the appropriate Unit ceremony individuals woud receive a medal with a V device attached when the award was based on performance during combat operations. Sailors are warriors and not all are lawyers. If the commander presents a guy a medal with a V on it he assumes he has earned it. I have no specific source that states this happened to Boorda, only it happened to many during this time frame.
Because of the confusion the Manual was revised later. I do not believe the intent was to retroactively yank the V off of every medal presented at a ceremony because the proper clause was not in the citation.
Right. Had he stood up to them he would probably be enjoying a long and healthy retirement.
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.