Pentagon to Overhaul How it Recognizes Heroism - Jan 16 Report

[Rifleman62]

First:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/01/06/pentagon-to-overhaul-how-it-recognizes-heroism-review-cases-for-modern-veterans/

Pentagon to overhaul how it recognizes heroism, review cases for modern veterans

By Dan Lamothe January 6 at 4:49 PM 

The Pentagon is poised to consider whether more than 1,000 service members should have their valor awards upgraded to higher levels, the result of a broad review that also is expected to lead to the creation of new decorations to recognize significant contributions carried out in combat and remotely through unmanned aircraft and other military technology.

The recommendations are expected to be signed by Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter on Wednesday, defense officials said Tuesday afternoon. Carter also will authorize the review of all award nominations for all service members who were recommended for the Silver Star, Distinguished Service Cross, Navy Cross, Air Force Cross and the Medal of Honor, a group that numbers well over 1,200.

The decisions follow a review called for by then-Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel in March 2014. He said at the time that he wanted to make sure modern combat veterans were appropriately recognized for their heroism and service, following years of complaints that significant acts of valor have been under-recognized.

[6 modern U.S. troops whose extreme heroism did not receive the Medal of Honor]

Just 17 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans have received the Medal of Honor — far fewer than in Vietnam, World War II and other lengthy military campaigns. No living recipient ever received a Medal of Honor during more than eight years of combat in Iraq from March 2003 to December 2011, a detail that defense officials conducting the review noted.

Carter also is expected to authorize several policy changes to speed up the process by which heroism is recognized, with nominations for valor awards initiated within 45 days of the action and all nominations for the Silver Star and up reaching the defense secretary within a year. That follows years of criticism that award investigations have languished and led to few service members receiving significant valor awards while still on active duty.


Second:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/01/06/defense-secretary-ash-carter-medal-of-honor/78352436/

Pentagon may upgrade hundreds of troops to possible Medals of Honor

Tom Vanden Brook, USA TODAY  January 6, 2016

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon will review more than 1,100 medals issued since the 9/11 terror attacks for possible upgrade to the Medal of Honor, the country's highest award issued for valor in combat, according to documents obtained by USA TODAY.

The sweeping review ordered by Defense Secretary Ash Carter would represent one of the most significant steps in decades to honor troops who have displayed extraordinary courage in combat. It stems from a study of military decorations and awards that was ordered in March 2014 by then-Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel "to ensure that after 13 years of combat the awards system appropriately recognizes the service, sacrifices and action of our service members."

Should even a fraction of the medals under review be upgraded, it's possible that dozens more troops would receive the Medal of Honor for their bravery in Iraq and Afghanistan. A formal announcement is scheduled for Thursday. The review and creation of new awards to honor the-post 9/11 generation of troops are the latest in a series of dramatic steps Carter has taken regarding military personnel; others include opening all combat jobs to women, and preparing to rescind the ban on transgender troops from serving.

Rep. Duncan Hunter, a California Republican, Marine veteran and member of the House Armed Services Committee, saluted the Pentagon's medal review but called it overdue. He blamed military red tape and too many layers of approval required for all the medals it awards for valor.

"It's a systemic problem," Hunter said. "I'm glad they're finally getting around to fixing it. This is military bureaucracy at its worst."

Among the other recommendations Carter has approved:

• A new award for troops who have directed drones over battlefields in the Middle East and Afghanistan. The "R" device would be awarded to "recognize remote impacts on combat operations."

• Establishing a standard definition for meritorious service that limits combat awards to those exposed to hostile action or at "significant risk" of exposure.

• Setting goals and guidelines to ensure Medal of Honor and other awards are made in a timely way.

The Veterans of Foreign Wars, the service organization that represents 1.7 million members, supports the review and the recognition for drone operators, said Joe Davis, a spokesman.

"For those too few who survived, and to the memories of those who did not, the VFW welcomes Secretary Carter’s decision and that of his predecessor to make sure that whenever we finally exit these wars that it is with the full confidence that we properly took care of those who took care of the mission," Davis said. "They, their families and our nation deserve nothing less."

The proposal for potential upgrades to Medal of Honor has the potential to be the most controversial. Of the 37 recommendations, it was the only one not reached by consensus, records show. It would require the Army, Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy to re-examine each of the Service Cross and Silver Star nominations they have awarded since Sept. 11, 2001. The Army alone awarded 718 Silver Stars.

The Army and Air Force plan to review the Service Crosses and Silver Stars each branch has awarded. But the Navy and Marine Corps oppose such a review, according to a briefing paper, because top officials there "believe reviewing prior decisions undermines the integrity of commanders' decisions." The Marine Corps is a department of the Navy.

A memo from Navy Secretary Ray Mabus added that such a review "may have long-term detrimental impact on our service culture and our awards program."

Mabus' memo goes on to note that the Pentagon certified in 2010 that the services' Medal of Honor "processes and standards were sound."

"Much of the prestige of our valor decorations stems from confidence in the process before awarding them," the memo says. "Reconsidering all previous valor award decisions without an evidentiary basis would reverse the longstanding policy that protects the integrity of the process by which we award our highest decorations."

Part of the rationale for the recommendation to review the Service Crosses and Silver Stars, according to another briefing paper, is that from 2001 to 2010, all the Medals of Honor for U.S. conflicts were bestowed posthumously. After this Pentagon guidance was issued, "there is no requirement to meet the 'risk of life' portion of the (Medal of Honor) award criteria all recipients have been living."

In addition, the paper notes, "Combat experience of commanders differed early in the conflict and this lack of combat experience may have led to an initial reluctance to recommend members for the (Medal of Honor)."

The review included input from more than 1,000 combat-experienced troops at 13 posts, according to another document.

Seventeen Medals of Honor have been awarded since 2001. Four were for service in Iraq, while 13 were for Afghanistan. All four medals for Iran were posthumous.

 

[PuckChaser]

Something Canada desperately needs. Reading some of the citations for SMV, and VC winners from 1st and 2nd World Wars, you'd be hard-pressed to pick the era without knowing the names.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Agreed.  I am still baffled why we did not have one or two worthy of that distinction.

 

[Underway]

Agreed.  I am still baffled why we did not have one or two worthy of that distinction.

In a Canadian context....

It's tough when reading the awards that are handed out from the single descriptive paragraph that's provided.  A couple of them probably should have been upgraded to Stars vice Medals, but the criteria is relatively clear on the Valour/Bravery distinction.

Had this discussion with a Star of Valour recipient once in the mess.  His response on the line between Star of Valour and the VC  "I wouldn't have been around to receive my VC".

There is also the case where their might have been some CANSOF members who could have been up for the VC but the press and exposure would be pretty high.  The Bravery / Valour awards go on a plaque somewhere on the Hill and the publication only reads "X number of members of CANSOFCOM recieved this award" or somesuch.

 

[The Bread Guy]

There is also the case where their might have been some CANSOF members who could have been up for the VC but the press and exposure would be pretty high.

True, but it's been done in at least one other Commonwealth military, where the member stayed in several years after winning the award (quite publicly), and stayed in the Reserves afterwards.  Mind you, his VC took from 2004 (when the event happened) to 2007 (when it was awarded) to go through the honours sausage machine, too.

BTW, I know Canada =/= New Zealand - just showing that where there's a will, there can be a way.

 

[PuckChaser]

In a Canadian context....

It's tough when reading the awards that are handed out from the single descriptive paragraph that's provided.  A couple of them probably should have been upgraded to Stars vice Medals, but the criteria is relatively clear on the Valour/Bravery distinction.

Had this discussion with a Star of Valour recipient once in the mess.  His response on the line between Star of Valour and the VC  "I wouldn't have been around to receive my VC".

There is also the case where their might have been some CANSOF members who could have been up for the VC but the press and exposure would be pretty high.  The Bravery / Valour awards go on a plaque somewhere on the Hill and the publication only reads "X number of members of CANSOFCOM recieved this award" or somesuch.

I could buy the CANSOF angle, for sure, however that's only 5 SMVs (including those awarded to CDI members).

I don't think its correct to assume a VC winner has to be mortally wounded. There are plenty who were not awarded posthumous medals, although they were from the 1st World War.

I submit this example, VC or SMV winner:

On XXXXXXX, during XXXXX, the XXXXXX driven by Corporal XXXXXX, a member of XXXXXXX Platoon, XXXXX Company, was hit and destroyed by enemy fire. Despite being wounded, Corporal XXXXX assessed the situation, and under heavy enemy fire, moved to report the situation and bring assistance. He then returned twice to the vehicle to provide treatment to his severely wounded comrades, including the platoon medic, and to evacuate all personnel injured or killed. His brave and professional actions saved lives and allowed the orderly withdrawal of his platoon under heavy fire.

 

[dimsum]

According to Wiki, Australia has had 4 recipients for their VC (1 posthumous) for the Afghan campaign.  One is still serving in the SAS Regiment.

Interestingly, Australian Defence and other media publishes the names, pictures, etc of SOF personnel who receive medals for valour. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australian_Victoria_Cross_recipients

 

[Staff Weenie]

My personal suspicion, is that the 'burden of proof' has become ridiculously high for a Cdn VC. Unless you lose both legs, and then take out an enemy position, while a CBC news team is filming it from at least three angles, it will not happen. And, we don't want our government to be publically forced to admit that we killed bad guys without apologizing first, and having given due consideration to their distinct ethnic heritage....

 

[Eaglelord17]

My personal suspicion, is that the 'burden of proof' has become ridiculously high for a Cdn VC. Unless you lose both legs, and then take out an enemy position, while a CBC news team is filming it from at least three angles, it will not happen. And, we don't want our government to be publically forced to admit that we killed bad guys without apologizing first, and having given due consideration to their distinct ethnic heritage....

I am not sure the burden of proof has been raised, rather it was always exceptionally high. The VC has never been a common medal by any means. We haven't given out a VC since WWII (Korea never got one for Canada) and even then they only handed out 16 in WWII to Canadians. Which once you consider there was about 1.1 million Canadians serving in WWII, you realize how difficult it is to receive.

 

[dimsum]

I am not sure the burden of proof has been raised, rather it was always exceptionally high. The VC has never been a common medal by any means. We haven't given out a VC since WWII (Korea never got one for Canada) and even then they only handed out 16 in WWII to Canadians. Which once you consider there was about 1.1 million Canadians serving in WWII, you realize how difficult it is to receive.

However, the VC wasn't just a Canadian medal - it was a Commonwealth one and some countries (UK, AUS, NZ, etc) are still using it as their highest medal, albeit calling it the "VC of (country)".  However, it's not like a Canadian serviceman wouldn't know the significance of a British or Australian VC.  Just because Canada hasn't given one out since WWII could mean one of two things - either no Canadian has done anything worthy of it since then (doubtful) or that our standards are higher than the other countries that have awarded it since then.

Wouldn't it make more sense to standardize what constitutes a VC in all countries that still use it and then, if necessary, retroactively award it, instead of something like "this would get you a VC in Australia but not in Canada", for example?

 

[Kirkhill]

However, the VC wasn't just a Canadian medal - it was a Commonwealth one and some countries (UK, AUS, NZ, etc) are still using it as their highest medal, albeit calling it the "VC of (country)".  However, it's not like a Canadian serviceman wouldn't know the significance of a British or Australian VC.  Just because Canada hasn't given one out since WWII could mean one of two things - either no Canadian has done anything worthy of it since then (doubtful) or that our standards are higher than the other countries that have awarded it since then.

Wouldn't it make more sense to standardize what constitutes a VC in all countries that still use it and then, if necessary, retroactively award it, instead of something like "this would get you a VC in Australia but not in Canada", for example?

That would mean putting back in the hands of Her Majesty as her personal token.  Just like these...

One of eight scarves Queen Victoria crocheted for presentation to members of her forces fighting in South Africa. This is the scarf awarded to Private R.R. Thompson on display at the Canadian War Museum.

 

[Eaglelord17]

However, the VC wasn't just a Canadian medal - it was a Commonwealth one and some countries (UK, AUS, NZ, etc) are still using it as their highest medal, albeit calling it the "VC of (country)".  However, it's not like a Canadian serviceman wouldn't know the significance of a British or Australian VC.  Just because Canada hasn't given one out since WWII could mean one of two things - either no Canadian has done anything worthy of it since then (doubtful) or that our standards are higher than the other countries that have awarded it since then.

Wouldn't it make more sense to standardize what constitutes a VC in all countries that still use it and then, if necessary, retroactively award it, instead of something like "this would get you a VC in Australia but not in Canada", for example?

However they are separate honours at this point thanks to the VC of (country) (Canada even has a separate metal thanks to our bilingual deal, says 'Pro Valore' rather than 'For Valour'). Realistically most if not all have the same criteria, its more a matter of you having to convince the people doing the awarding they have earned it. Standardization from my perspective is a waste of time, we have already accepted that we have different honours system at this point, it more a matter of our own country to decide what is right to award when.

As a side note when we made the Canadian Victoria Cross, we also made it so we are one of the only nations that can remove the Victoria Cross after it has been awarded (with the regular Victoria Cross you cannot do that).

 

[Old Sweat]

That would mean putting back in the hands of Her Majesty as her personal token.  Just like these...

The Queen's Scarf has no standing as a decoration for valour, although I am sure that was not the Queen's intention. I believe you can find my examination of the issue at the Regimental Rogue's page.

 

[Kirkhill]

The Queen's Scarf has no standing as a decoration for valour, although I am sure that was not the Queen's intention. I believe you can find my examination of the issue at the Regimental Rogue's page.

Seen, I think.  But surely the concept is arguable.  After all the Queen is C-in-C for all the Commonwealth countries regardless of the government.

If there is one opportunity for a common standard surely it lies there?

 

[Old Sweat]

She sent the scarfs to two different people, four to Field Marshall Lord Roberts, the Commander-in-Chief of the South African Field Force, for presentation to the most distinguished private soldiers etc in the Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and South African contingents. She sent the others to her grandson Major ( can't recall his name except the second name was Victor) with instructions that are presumed to be similar. The major, however, forwarded them to the four battalions of the Second Brigade, in which he was serving. The historical records indicates (a) Roberts knew nothing of this, and (b) these recipients all were senior NCOs.

 

[Kirkhill]

And people wonder why some are so slow to delegate.....

 

[dapaterson]

There is also the case where their might have been some CANSOF members who could have been up for the VC but the press and exposure would be pretty high.  The Bravery / Valour awards go on a plaque somewhere on the Hill and the publication only reads "X number of members of CANSOFCOM recieved this award" or somesuch.

Actually, no.  CANSOF members wear their medals and ribbons, like any other CAF member.  Including decorations for valour, bravery, and distinguished service that are gazetted in secret, with summaries released that read more or less as you've posted above.  Fortunately, most CAF members are sufficiently unknowledgeable about what different ribbons and medals mean that they can hide in plain sight.

 

[tomahawk6]

This issue would go away if the US Army would decentralize the awards process for the Silver Star and lesser awards.Awards of the DSC/DSM/DDSM and Medal of Honor would be made at the Department of the Army.Its absurd to have to wait years in many cases to get a decoration.It used to be when someone left the unit at the end of their tour they received an award,if deserving.Sometimes you didnt receive it until you arrived at your new assignment,but if at all possible you were recognized at the end of your tour.