Bronze Star Medal woes cause problems
Our buddy Jeff Schogol sent us a link yesterday to the Air Force Times story about the Bronze Star “winners” we talked about last week. Apparently the two female airmen have been getting harassed over the award;
Stories about both awards were posted on the Air Force website and drew dozens of comments attacking the women as well as the decision to award them Bronze Stars. The Air Force removed the story about Gamez “because no one deserves that level of criticism for meritorious service in a combat zone,” David Smith, a spokesman for Air Education and Training Command, told the Times.
Many commenters said that the women should not have gotten awards simply for doing their jobs, and that the Air Force awards too many medals.
[Tech. Sgt. Sharma Haynes] could not be reached for comment by press time. In the story about her award, she said she was busy while deployed to Afghanistan, but it was time well spent.
“I know when most people see the news and read the papers, the majority of what they see are the bad things that occur here, but the U.S. presence is making a positive impact on this country,” she said in the story.
[Tech. Sgt. Christina Gamez] declined to comment for this story. In the Air Force story that was taken off the Web, she was modest about receiving the award.
“Ask me to recognize anyone else and I can talk for days, but to brag about myself, I’m not the best,” she said in the story. “I feel like I did my job, kept a very busy pace and made improvements any place I could.”
While I understand the sentiment expressed by many, that clerical work doesn’t really rise to the level of deserving a Bronze Star Medal just because it happened while the Sergeants were receiving imminent danger pay, neither is it their fault and they probably don’t deserve the abuse that’s directed at them.
I’ve told the story before that when my commander in Desert Storm told me he was putting me in for a Bronze Star Medal, I was violently opposed to it. I begged him not to give it to me and physically threatened him (COB6 will tell you that I physically threatened that moron at least once a week), but that didn’t stop him. Our First Sergeant had been awarded a Bronze Star in Vietnam for pulling his squad’s collective ass out of an ambush, and I didn’t think that anything I did rose to that level of proficiency or bravery.
Obviously, my Bronze Star Medal meant more to my commander than it did to me, but there was no way I could convince him to not give me it. So, because of my experience, I don’t blame anyone for the awards they get. I didn’t blame Jessica Lynch, and I don’t blame these two young ladies.
Giving them shit on the internet about it probably isn’t going to change the whole situation. Anyone who is bullying them should probably take a bottle of chill pills. Get pissed at their commanders, or the Air Force, or the culture that made someone think it was a good idea, but it’s certainly not their fault.
And I don’t think any of us want to be the squad leader of the patrol which everyone seems to think that those two airmen need to “earn” their BSM. There are enough things to be scared of outside the wire without giving an Air Force finance clerk a loaded weapon and putting them in a free-fire-zone.
Category: Air Force
I’ think I’ve said this before, the Reg Army BN I was attached to in OIFIII was giving Bronze Stars out to anybody E-7 and above…even if they never left the camp. the camp mayor, a female E7 got one because she never lost any keys to our rooms I guess. She spent most days watching DVDs. I had a few soldiers I thought did a great job and went outside the wire almost everyday…they got nothing.
“There are enough things to be scared of outside the wire without giving an Air Force finance clerk a loaded weapon and putting them in a free-fire-zone.”
GOOD LORD.
Oops, posted too soon.
GOOD LORD. Don’t say things like that, Jonn. It was bad enough when they were sending me outside the wire on a regular basis (career MI geek). LOL.
Blame the system, blame the lazy who make no effort to make sense of the system, or any of a number of issues all of us know to be problems. Or just go on doing what you are being paid to do without pointing fingers at those who are rewarded for whatever it is that they do.
Just as doing their jobs correctly probably wasn’t really bronze star worthy, neither should it be getting them a bunch of grief.
Until we hear differently, all we can say is that most likely someone else put them in for awards. Blame them.
Meanwhile, should we expect these two to continue to strive for excellence? When doing so seems to result in their being castigated for it?? Let’s hope that they both rise above the criticism.
I remember my 1st Sgt talking about his Purple Heart. He had received some pretty minor shrapnel wounds (didn’t know he had them until he took his pants off later) When he received his Purple Heart he said he was in a formation with guys missing limbs, on crutches, and in wheel chairs. He said he felt completely ridiculous…. In Desert Storm his HUMV hit a mine and blew the front tire off of the passenger side, fortunately no one was injured. The driver of that HUMV is now a CSM and we were just talking about the Purple Heart story the other day…talk about a small world!
Awards are always subjective.. someone is going to get pissed over someone else. It’s the way it is. Get over it.
Are we still talking about this?…….get over it, this medal is an attaboy as well as a valor!……and given out to E-7’s and above like candy!
“Get pissed at their commanders, or the Air Force, or the culture that made someone think it was a good idea.”
Well said, and absodamnlutely!
Hate to say it, but when I was deployed (USAF) the general rule of thumb was for ANY unit commander that had been deployed for a year or more to get a Bronze Star. Absolute BS, imho, but still was done. Embarrassing for the Air Force to do this, but don’t blame the recipients.
Yet the maintainers busting their asses on the line can’t even get an acheivment medal for all of their hard work. Its stuff like this that makes me sick about the way the Air Force works.
Amen, Jonn. As I think I’ve repeatedly made clear elsewhere: IMO if they did the requisite level of work for a MSM/BSM and actually served in a place where active hostilities are ongoing, I don’t have any problem with a BSM EOT award. BSMs can be awarded for service as well as heroic action. And I’d personally rather see someone get an award slightly higher than deserved than get slighted.
If the awards weren’t deserved, it’s their chains-of-command that are to blame – not these 2 NCOs.
They only way the individuals could be deserving of blame is if they intentionally “gamed” the system or put themselves in for the award. And they’re in the wrong specialty area to have a real opportunity to do that.
I put myself in for a BSM for my time in Kuwait. Not because I deserved it, but because I knew all of the punks who got kicked up to brigade staff were getting put in for them as well. In the end, I got an arcom, and the staff weenies got MSMs. Well, two of them probably deserved it, but the S1 was worthless.
What’s next…PH for a paper cut?
@Hondo – I differ a bit on this. I have a problem with EOT awards in the first place. The award system [in the Army at least] has been inflated to the point where each grade is virtually assigned a level of award for merely doing their job without overtly stepping on their cranks.
Pandora’s box is well beyond open now, but I really wish awards such as the BSM/MSM/ARCOM, etc…..were actually awarded for merit rather than doing time.
Good grief. You physically threatened an officer over an award recommendation? I think that says a lot more about you than it does about him. Flame away, but where is that behavior in the NCO Creed?
CI: without EOT awards, how would you propose to recognize those who performed no act of heroism, or no exceptional single act – but who nonetheless performed beyond expectations over a prolonged period? In my book, EOT awards are exactly how you reward such performance. And the EOT award can vary from the norm – all the way from above the service norm down to no award at all.
I once saw a LTC get an EOT award of ARCOM for service in SWA – and he was returning to CONUS to retire. While IMO that probably adequately captured his level of performance for his year in-theater, I thought that was a bit chintzy for what was essentially his retirement award. I also saw another LTC return to CONUS who reportedly received either no award or an AAM. So they’re not exactly handed out per some “table of mandatory EOT awards” based on rank.
Then again, these two officers’ chain-of-command knew them better than I did – so maybe that’s all they really deserved. I just find that kinda hard to believe for the individual who did 20+ years on AD and retired as an O5.
Commanders with award authority have near-absolute discretion regarding those awards. I don’t have much problem with how they hand out awards unless they show obvious favorites or ignore service regs while making them. But if they choose to make awards, I think they should at least consider current service norms. They’re also damn well bound to follow service regulations in doing so, whether they choose to grant decorations liberally or as strictly. But I’ve seen what I’m personally convinced was either obvious favoritism or service regulations blatantly being ignored – if not both – in granting awards.
#15, Soldier; If you had him for a commander, you’d understand.
I just wonder why no one is questioning SMA Chandler about his BSM? You know if someone is screwing with a couple airforce Tech Sgts maybe the should look top down not bottom up…call me crazy.
My 2 both have Vs…….1 in 68 and 1 in 70.
Semper Fi
While I was on active duty, there was basically a rank criteria to receive medals. I said receive, instead of earn, because there was no way anyone E-6 and under would receive a MSM Meritorous Service Medal. that was reserved for E-7 and higher, regardless of the actions. After about 10 years on active duty, I started to see who was getting medals and what for and would be embarrassed to receive some of them. I agree we should not talk bad about the ones receiving the medals. They had no part in the process. Most times you do not even know you are receiving a medal, until you are notified to be at commander’s call.
If I’m a troop in the field, I want the cooks that feed me, the clerks that make sure I get paid, and the supply personnel who make sure I have the beans and bullets necessary to do my job to ALL be so capable they deserve a Bronze Star.
My battalion once did an awards cerremony after completion of JRTC in Fort Polk, LA. It was basically a bunch of AAMs and a few ARCOMs. I think my response to this story was about the same as when I heard the adjutant anounce an AAM for successful completion of SRP in a timely manner and another for “100% motivation”: Meh…
These BSMs were political and morale based. That unit’s espirit de corps probably skyrocketed after a few BSMs were given, and in the end a lot of awards go to women under these circumstances because they aren’t awarded nearly as frequently to women for legitimate acts in combat because women aren’t in combat as much as men. I was put in for a Silver Star for saving the lives of two of my guys during an ambush on the same hill SSG Sal Giunta got his MOH, and it was downgraded to a BSM-V because I was a specialist at the time General Scaparotti signed it. During the same ceremony when General Casey pinned it on my chest, a SFC platoon sergeant who happened to be a Ranger got a Silver Star for calling up a 9-Line medevac request (which I did during that ambush). That’s when I realized awards are primarily based on politics and moral.
I was an 88M20 in Iraq, our Trans Company numbered 148 in personnel and was a self contained individual ‘theater asset’ assigned to the Multi National Division, rather than belonging to one of the local Trans Battalions as a Corp asset.
Myself and 7 other gents provided dedicated, mobile, convoy security in teams of two for over many, many missions in Iraq in 2003-04, something we were decidedly not trained for prior to deployment. (Though many of us had prior service experience in combat arms. One of the reasons we were picked.) We each individually logged in the neighborhood of 100,000 to 150,000 escort miles in 10 months of active operations. I’m just guessing here, but I’d say we spent well over 70% of our time in country outside the wire. I personally turned down a couple of R&R trips to subordinates that really needed it, and skipped my mid tour leave to stay on missions. Others did the same.
When we redeployed to Kuwait and had our awards ceremony, we were astounded to discover that our Platoon Sergeant had to fight like crazy just to get us Commendation Medals (no V device) while our cross eyed, slacking, two timing, trouble making, chicken little platoon leader received a BSM. There were a couple other terribly undeserved awards made as well which really left a bad taste in some of our mouths.
Like I’ve said before, the person imbues the award with it’s ultimate value, the award doesn’t necessarily describe the person, and is mostly just a bit of cloth and metal.
@Hondo – “CI: without EOT awards, how would you propose to recognize those who performed no act of heroism, or no exceptional single act – but who nonetheless performed beyond expectations over a prolonged period?”
I have always been more satisfied with plaques or other heartfelt presentations from my unit and my little band of hooahs.
This may just be my experience, but receiving the requisite level of award for doing my time wasn’t worth the trouble nor near as satisfying.
@Hondo – And I should have added: when you write “but who nonetheless performed ‘beyond’ expectations over a prolonged period”……
I could agree with that….the problem is that these awards are virtually automatic for “performed at expectations”.
“There are enough things to be scared of outside the wire without giving an Air Force finance clerk a loaded weapon and putting them in a free-fire-zone.”
Way back in the early 90’s when the big AF brass was on the big “we are all WARRIORS kick” they actually had a combat challenge for the AF finance clerks…I always had the thought that if all the Sec Forces were gone and Finance was the final line of defence you had already lost.
I agree that threats and harassing remarks aren’t called for. But you think the Air Force Times would be smart enough not to make the ‘bullying’ their cover story. Just dragging things out for the 2 clerks.
Basically this is a case of ,”Don’t hate the player(Gamez/Haynes),…hate the game(retarded awards system).”
CI: in principle, I agree with you that that’s the way things should be. Unfortunately, in practice that’s not current reality. And there’s a hidden issue with trying to be the “Lone Ranger”, ignoring service norms, and unilaterally “fixing” what you can.
Yes, awards are often skewed by rank, and are quite often awarded for performing up to expectation. However, if one commander decides he/she will “fix” their part of the system by not granting decorations to anyone except true “world beaters”, then that commander is in essence screwing their subordinates. Because the rest of their service isn’t playing by those rules, and is still granting awards more liberally.
When those subordinates PCS without the normal awards expected by a solid performer of their rank and experience, everyone at their next unit will assume they know why – e.g., that the new guy/gal is “low speed/high drag”. They won’t be correct, of course, but the individual’s reputation will take a hit before they even get started in their next job. Ditto for their chances with central selection boards, local promotion packets and points computations, etc . . . . They’ll be behind their peers through no fault of their own.
The same situation exists with evals; they’re skewed too. (IMO, they’re even more skewed than awards.) Best I can tell, all you have to do to screw someone is to be an honest hardass when writing their eval. One “stinker” from someone who’s trying to unilaterally reform the system, and an individual is behind the proverbial 8-ball. Or worse.
Reforming a badly skewed system has to be done system-wide and simultaneously. Otherwise, you end up with a lot of “winners” based on “luck of the draw” regarding whether their last commander worked or bucked the system vice individual merit.
In short: yeah, the game is rigged, and that really stinks. But it’s still the only game in town, and ya gotta play anyway.
@24 – Right on CI, plaques (usually made by a unit member or members), WWII rifles, ceremonial swords and such were always how our detachment recognized people we really wanted to recognize. The personal touch was embraced by the entire detachment and usually reflected the overwhelming majority opinion of a particular soldier’s worth to the unit, as such they were much more coveted than medals and ribbons.
The awards system is broken. The Navy and air force are way to generous and the army, while also generous is not nearly as bad as the other two. The Marine Corps is way too strict, so much so that Colonel Hackworth addressed the issue in one of his columns. There is a casualty to award survey and though I no longer have it I know the Marine Corps award to casualty ratio was a joke. The only service that had awarded more valor awards than it had sustained casualties was the air force. But I do have this from govexec.com and while old it is still a useful measure. ” The Marines are even more reserved about decorating their fighters. Leathernecks have made up only 12 percent of the U.S. forces deployed, yet account for a staggering 27 percent of deaths. But the Corps has awarded only 17 percent of the total number of Silver Stars, 21 percent of the Bronze Stars with V, and 39 percent of the Commendation Medals with V. Not only are the Marines stingier with decorations than the Army overall, but, in a reverse of the Army pattern, the Corps is progressively more generous with lesser decorations at lower ranks.” As to end of tour awards, I do not like them. I spent 24 years in the Marine Corps and retired as a Master Sergeant. In that time I had a successful tour on recruiting duty, was a rifle squad leader in Just Cause and the Gulf. As a Sergeant E-5, I commanded a rifle platoon for six months. I never recieved a personal award until I was awarded an Achievement Medal for service as a platoon sergeant during Urban Warrior. I recieved my only end of tour from a joint command and an MSM upon my retirement. Not complaining, I think the standards should be tight but I do think the Corps is too far one way. I think the fix would be to have a DoD wide standard (at least for combat or combat related awards) that is somewhere between the army… Read more »
Jack: no major argument from me about the system being at least partially broken, and being inequitable when comparing services. But IMO, leaders gotta play the hand they’re dealt until the guys in charge at the top formally enforce changes. Otherwise, their subordinates are the ones to suffer.
My background was Army, and therefore I tend to think the USMC is simply way too stingy with awards. And I firmly believe that EOT and impact awards can be used properly in order to recognize excellent performance. But I could be persuaded to tighten things up greatly – PROVIDED the change was made across-the-board.
Otherwise, it’s the folks in units that “tighten up” get screwed while everyone else gets the bennies.
You are right about people getting screwed and, while I love the Corps, this almost strikes me as a simple we gotta be harder than everyone else just because kind of BS.
The kids that get screwed the most are our Corpsmen. They can leave an infantry battalion with zero personal awards except for a CAR. They check in at a hospital and everyone there is sporting multiple NAMs and Comms.
I am with you in that we do needa fix, it needs to be across the board and the standard should be established by the army and the Corps.
Years ago (after Kosovo) the army and the Corps pushed hard to restrict the award of the BSM to people actually ashore. The navy and air force were able to fight that off so it is unlikely they could be forced to raise standards.
I also agree that the issue is with the leaders and it is wrong to blame the kids getting medals that maybe are too high for whatever they are doing.
@ 31 Jack, this is kind of a tricky one. On the one hand my beloved Corps is too tight with handing out awards but on the other hand, anyone that ‘knows’ knows that everything on a Marine’s uniform has been ‘earned’. I, and every Marine, knows that what pathetic little sh1t I wore on my left breast means something.
When I graduated the NCO Academy I got a purty piece of paper that said I was now a leader of Marines. After spending a summer supporting the training of various Reserve units, the Skipper wrote me a nice letter saying I done good because no one got killed and I didn’t blow up any of my Amtracs. In other branches these would have been ribbons, in the Corps all they said was I did my job.
Jack: the effort to tighten BSM eligibility actually worked, though too late to affect the Kosovo BSM fiasco. As part of the 2001 NDAA, Congress made it a statutory requirement that prospective BSM recipients now must be in receipt of Hostile Fire Pay/Imminent Danger Pay to be eligible. However, DoD managed to game that one by declaring pretty much all of SWA a combat zone in 1991 – and never revoking the declaration. They’ve also grossly extended combat zone tax bennies to even more locations, which might have the same effect. See the following:
http://valorguardians.com/blog/?p=29497#comment-610278
@Hondo – I thought you might appreciate a piece over at Abu Muqawama on this very subject, from Wednesday:
“If it were up to me, I would get rid of all medals not related to valor or campaign-specific service. Most medals awarded for “service” — from the Army Achievement Medal to the Meritorious Service Medal — seem like trinkets most often given based on the rank of the awardee on completion of a duty assignment rather than any activity soldiers actually take pride in. Maybe I am wrong. But you see a lot of soldiers out there who look like someone has spilled fruit salad on their chests when in actuality they have merely been competent in the non-combat-related aspects of the military bureaucracy. If the Army really wanted to encourage a warrior ethos, why not scrap everything but those Army Commendation Medals, Bronze Stars, Silver Stars, etc. given for valor under fire? After all, do you ever see Gen. Dempsey sporting his AAMs?”
http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawama/2012/04/open-thread-medals.html
CI: my gut reaction is I could tolerate that, but it would be going way too far. Heroes can’t be heroes for long without proper comms, intel, logistical, and medical support.
That said, a system-wide tightening-up may well be in order. And some of the abuses I’ve seen do indeed need to be stopped.
Addendum: if I missed mentioning a major support area above, that wasn’t intentional – and I probably should have added admin to the list. Every specialty contributes to the overall effort.
@Hondo – “Heroes can’t be heroes for long without proper comms, intel, logistical, and medical support.”
Agreed, and I don’t necessarily concur with removing AAM’s and the like from the award inventory, but enablers and supporters to the warfighter [pointy-end-of-spear] could still be recognized for meritorious actions.
I just philosophically draw the line at mandatory and obligatory EoT awards.
By my above comment, I don’t mean to portray CS/CSS personnel as ineligible for valorous awards.
CI: We’ll have to agree to disagree here. IMO, EoT awards are fine. But they shouldn’t be predetermined, and should fit the performance exhibited by the individual. That means they should range from above the norm for the individual’s grade/position all the way down to nothing. Commanders shouldn’t be afraid to recognize performance significantly better than the norm, or to tell even senior personnel (as either you or someone else observed on another thread): “You got an ARCOM for ARCOM-level work.”
If an individual’s performance truly merited no award, well, that’s what they should get. I’m OK with that, too. As noted above, I’ve seen LTCs leave theater with ARCOMs and either AAMs or nothing (#16 above) – and that may well be all they deserved, given what I saw from them. But I’ve also seen what I consider examples of good people getting shorted, and favoritism – IMO, pretty damn blatantly – because of the system currently in use and/or abuse of same.
Its nice to see comments about the awards system and the awarding of the Bronze Star. Soldiers should talk about what they think is wrong with the awards system in the military !!! Its your Duty to try to correct what you feel is wrong in the military awards system so that further abuse is stopped to make the awards valued by ‘ALL’ ranks and the standards for the awards kept honest and justified to the soldiers that receive them. You will see my comments follow along with your comments if you all go to the website ‘ History of The Bronze Star Medal ‘ A Soldiers Perspective.
A new executive order is needed to keep this award out of the hands of the ‘wantabees’!!!This award should be awarded for only Meritorious service or Achievement in direct combat actions against the enemy not qualifying for an award of the Bronze Star with v-device! Now Stick that up your brass !!!!!!
SSG Cox: I’d suggest you further research the history of the BSM. What you suggest is not consistent with the history of the decoration.
There never has been a requirement for direct participation in ground combat for award of the BSM. The criteria for award of the BSM have been essentially the same since the medal was created by EO 9419 on 4 Feb 1944. That EO specified the criteria for award of the BSM as “heroic or meritorious achievement or service, not involving participation in aerial flight, in connection with military or naval operations against an enemy of the United States.” (emphasis added)
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9419
The above is essentially the same criteria as is found in today’s AR 600-8-22. The only significant changes in criteria since the BSM was established in 1944 have been (1) the expansion in EO 11046 (1962) of eligibility for award of the BSM to include service with allied forces in a conflict to which the US was not a party, and (2) the requirement that the recipient be in receipt of Combat Pay/Imminent Danger Pay imposed by the 2001 NDAA. Neither of those changes imposed any requirement for “direct participation in ground combat” you seem to advocate.
The bottom line: since the BSM was established, it has always been legitimate to award the BSM to support troops for combat zone service – and it still is. There never has been a requirement for direct participation in ground combat in order to receive the BSM. Rather, the BSM has always been awarded for meritorious or heroic act or service “in connection with” combat. Since 2001, there has also been the additional requirement that one be receiving combat or imminent danger pay at the time that act or service is performed.
Thank you for you comments Hondo !! So there is not a combat decoration for soldiers who risk there lives in DIRECT combat.TO BAD THEY HAVEN’T CREATED AN AWARD OF THE BRONZE STAR FOR MERITORIOUS COMBAT !!!! Don’t dare claim to me anyone that has a Bronze Star for Meritorious Service should be reconise as if he was in direct combat because hes a flat out lier ! Thanks for correcting me from all those who pass them self off as being in combat when they were not !!!! OR IS THAT WHAT ITS REALLY ALL ABOUT??
P.S. WHY ARE THEY SO DAM RELUCTANT TO AWARD INFANTRY MEN IN THE RANKS OF E-1 TO E-4 WHO FACE DIRECT COMBAT WITH THIS AWARD ??? HISTORY PROVES WHO AND HOW MANY DIE IN WAR!!!!THE INFANTRY GRUNTS AND NOT SUPPORT UNITS!!!!!!!!!
Hondo the problem with awarding the Bronze Star is that the Army wants to lay claim that the merit it takes to be awarded this medal is the same merit for those who are not in combat as it is for those that are risking their lives in combat. Pick a combat soldier and a non-combat soldier and award both a Bronze Star for Meritorious Service or Achievement. [ BOTH CITATIONS READ THE SAME ]The risking of ones life far out ways the other in merit !! I agree with you over the history of this medal that nothing has been changed. I also know that the argument over this medal has a history itself for exactly the same reasons I have stated !! There is such a thing as { MERITORIOUS COMBAT ]!!
P.S. a little Bronze Battle Star on the First award of the Bronze Star Medal would denote that it was given for Meritorious Combat!
Hondo–This way all can keep their Bronze Stars with pride but still give respect for those that have actively risked their lives to receive the same award !! Now What is the problem with that???
SSG Cox: The Army also already has awards recognizing direct, personal participation in combat. They’re called the CIB, CMB, and CAB. There’s also this thing called the “V” device. That’s awarded if the BSM (or ARCOM or Air Medal) is awarded for combat valor.
I’ll also observe that one can get wounded or killed by enemy fire – direct or indirect – on a large FOB as well as outside the wire. US forces lost troops to both enemy direct and indirect fire on large FOBs in Iraq during 2007-2008. How do I know? Because I was freaking there at the time, fella.
So please, spare me the “support troops don’t deserve any combat decorations because they don’t take any risks” BS. In the final analysis, that’s exactly what that is – BS.
If you’re getting shot at, you’re serving in combat. And people both inside and outside the wire were getting shot at in 2007-2008 while I was in theater.