Who Really Deserves A Silver Star? The Military's Unfair Rewards System

NATO AIR

Senior Member
Jun 25, 2004
4,275
285
48
USS Abraham Lincoln
good article, but i'm eager to hear what the other current and retired military folks have to say because you all have a lot more experience with this than I do and I stand to learn something

http://www.slate.com/id/2107438/
war stories Military analysis.


Who Really Deserves a Silver Star?
The military's unfair awards system.
By Owen West
Posted Wednesday, Sept. 29, 2004, at 10:13 AM PT


The General got the Croix-de-Guerre,
The son of a gun was not even there
—From "A Mademoiselle From Armentieres," a World War I soldier's song banned in most Army camps at the time.


All that glitters

The Bronze and Silver Stars that John Kerry earned in Vietnam, his crewmates will tell you, were the result of his bravery. No, counter his political enemies, Kerry contrived to earn them in order to serve his political aspirations. What permitted him to collect so many medals in so short a time, in fact, was neither extraordinary heroism nor political scheming but the bar on his collar. Kerry was an officer, and like thousands of other officers who have served in combat operations, he was subjected to a more liberal awards process than enlisted men who performed similar feats.

It's a problem that has continued to plague the military during the Iraq war, causing frustration in the ranks, and it needs to be fixed.

"Sure there's head-scratching over [Kerry's] stars, but that's not his fault," says one Marine lieutenant colonel and Iraq war veteran who is himself a Bronze Star winner. "There's a lot of head-scratching in Iraq today. Officers still get higher awards. I've never seen anyone turn a medal down. I'd say there's a double standard except that there's probably 50 standards when you consider the other services."

The current medal gap actually has three dimensions. First, the different services have different criteria for the same medals. Second, support staff are rewarded more generously than are soldiers on the front lines. Third, officers receive medals that are superior to those given to the enlisted ranks.

Start with the variance among the military branches. The Air Force awarded 2,425 Bronze Stars and 21 Silver Stars from March 2002 to August 2004 for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Twenty-seven airmen were killed in combat during that time, making the Air Force's ratio of top-level ground-combat medals to fatalities 91-to-1. (This figure doesn't include medals awarded for airborne bravery.) As of July 31, 2004, the Army had awarded 17,498 Bronze Stars and 133 Silver Stars in Operation Iraqi Freedom, while 636 soldiers have died, an awards ratio of 27-to-1. And the Marine Corps has awarded just 701 Bronze Stars, 12 Silver Stars, and six Navy Crosses (the Navy's second-highest award) for combat in Iraq, while 264 Marines died—a ratio of less than 3-to-1. Is the Marine Corps too stingy or are the other services too liberal?

"I have no doubt that the Marine Corps is more stingy—or less likely to 'give away' awards—than any of the other services," says retired Marine Maj. Gen. Ray Smith, one of the Marine Corps' most experienced combat veterans, citing a corporal who fought like a lion in Grenada but received only a commendation medal.

Compounding this problem are rules that let support staff win prestigious medals out of proportion to the risks they incur. While the Silver Star is awarded only for heroic achievement under fire, one category of Bronze Star—known as the BS, given for meritorious service in a combat zone—is technically open to those serving miles from the front lines. (The other kind of Bronze Star is the BV, or Bronze Star with Valor, which is reserved for heroism under fire.) During the Iraq war, the military has granted hundreds of Bronze Stars to soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who never set a boot inside the country. When the profiles of many BS recipients appeared recently online—including citations for logistics work onboard ship and personnel processing in Kuwait—the acronym took on its more familiar meaning in the eyes of some soldiers fighting in hot spots like Fallujah and Najaf.

"The problem with the (BS) Bronze Star is that it's confusing," says a first sergeant stationed outside Fallujah. "The troops and the public think it's for grunts in combat when the reality is that (it's) now an end-of-tour medal for staff. There's no clear standard."

Part of this is a result of the changing nature of war. Support staff now outnumber riflemen 6-to-1. In a guerrilla war with no front lines, many of these soldiers are in the thick of the fight. Further, advances in communications and logistics have stretched the battlefield. Awarding the BS for over-the-horizon performance may be perfectly appropriate. "The whole concept of reach-back support has changed," says Capt. Jonathon Riley, an Air Force spokesman. "We can operate the Predator over Iraq from the United States."

The final discrepancy is that officers have always been better rewarded than the soldiers in their charge. Today's wars are no different. The joint ground force that attacked Iraq had 25 times more enlisted men than officers. Closer to the tip of the spear, where infantry units walk among the enemy every day, the ratio approaches 40-to-1. Yet even in the Marine Corps, known to have few caste barriers, the officers are disproportionately represented among the top award winners. As of Aug. 18, Marine officers had received nine times as many Bronze Stars as the enlisted Marines (225 times as many on a per capita adjusted basis) and 1.2 times as many earned Bronze Stars with Valor (30 times as many on a per capita basis). "I believe that the awards process has always been biased towards officers," says Maj. Gen. Smith. "Part of that can honestly be explained by the 'burdens of command' consideration. ... That said, I must admit that most of the bias is unexplainable."

This skew occurs in part because officers are expected to lead from the front. In the infantry, command-and-control is most effective when it's located in the dangerous battle space where the lead elements are clashing. Indeed, in the Marine divisions, the commanding general often moves with lead companies. Casualty rates reflect these officers' dangerous positions. Removing air units from the equation, officers account for 4 percent of the total Operation Iraqi Freedom force but 8 percent of the fatalities.

Still, some soldiers criticize the preponderance of awards for officers because it encourages politicking and smacks of careerism. A letter recently written by senior enlisted soldiers in Iraq reads: "We believe that higher-ranking officers are entitled to high-level awards due to the fact that they must deal with the burden of command and are responsible for the performance of their units. However, it is critical to recognize those who have affected the successes of the command in combat."

A few simple steps can bridge these three medals gaps. In a clear action memo, the Department of Defense should insist that if the services share the same medals, they must share the same standards. Casualty counts are not necessarily indicative of service but they are certainly indicative of sacrifice. Medals should no longer be harvested in a vacuum.

Second, the Bronze Star needs to be restored to its original purpose—as an award for riflemen on the front lines. As Gen. George C. Marshall wrote in a memo to President Roosevelt on Feb. 3, 1944, explaining the need for the medal: "The fact that the ground troops, infantry in particular, lead miserable lives of extreme discomfort and are the ones who must close in personal combat with the enemy, makes the maintenance of their morale of great importance ... particularly the infantry riflemen who are now suffering the heaviest losses, air or ground ... and enduring the greatest hardships."

Certainly, senior planners and support staffs deserve recognition. But the Bronze Star is the wrong award for doing so. Pin the BV back on the chests of those exposed to the worst conditions and scrap the BS altogether. Meritorious service medals remain the appropriate awards for the staff.

These suggestions are not the only possible solutions to the medal debates. But the services need to establish some consistent standards. Until they do, some medals, like those Lt. Kerry earned on the Dong Cung River in February 1968 will continue to inspire as much resentment as they do pride.


Owen West is a former Marine who trades for Goldman Sachs. His writings can be found at www.westwrite.com.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: dmp
NATO AIR said:
good article, but i'm eager to hear what the other current and retired military folks have to say because you all have a lot more experience with this than I do and I stand to learn something

I can only say that I am well aware of the disparity in awarding medals. Just remember that the rear echelon staff has time to sit around and award themselves medals, front line troops do not. As for the burden of command, there are some good officers and some bad officers, but none would be successful if it were not for the hard work of the soldiers under them. Even the good ones often forget to reward their subordinates.
 
on my aircraft carrier, if you're not e-6 or above, you don't get Jack **** for performance. you're lucky to stay out of trouble and get your good conduct award after three years. they're real stingy with awards for everybody except the officers and chiefs (no offense to the retired, most of these guys pale in comparision to the authentic, long serving chiefs and officers on board, which is a shame but that is another story).

the corpsmen i know who went to iraq and afghanistan boast mulitiple purple hearts (with nasty scars, marks and disfigurings to prove it) but little else for their efforts, though many of them endured lengthy and fierce enemy fire or did something incredibly brave to save a marine's life (or in the case of one guy, rescue three afghan children from a minefield while being shelled by taliban forces)

yet i talk to officers who served on boats from those wars that operated aircraft off to bomb and performed intel operations and these gents have racks of ribbons and medals for their efforts.

doesn't make much sense to me but i'm young and dumb so eh...
 
I've come face-to-face with the Command Philosphy of "(insert Rank) don't get (insert awards)."

Upon my first ETS from Active Duty Army, My first line supervisor, up to my Battery Commander reccommended and approved an Army Commendation Medal for me. When the award got to the Battalion S1, a note came back that 'E4s don't get ARCOMS - re-type the award for an Army Achievement Medal' (AAM) - which is what I ended up getting for my service - the SAME award I got for competing in, and finishing well in a weekend-long "Stinger Competition". 3 years of service, in varying, increasing levels of responsibility = 1 weekend of a PT Test, Hardware knowledge, Aircraft Recognition test, and a Road March. There was a guy in another platoon who was put on a 'detail' to pack up a library which was closing shop. A few weeks after the detail, everyone who was 'picked for detail' received Army Achievement Medals. So - 3 years of service, in varying, increasing levels of responsibility = 1 weekend of a PT Test, Hardware knowledge, Aircraft Recognition test, and a Road March = being chosen for a 'moving' detail.

There are supervisors who feel 'Success is your job - why should I award you a medal for simply being outstanding?'. Then, there are supervisors who slap a Medal on your chest for simply making formation. In the first three years I had two AAMs. In the next two, I had another AAM and an ARCOM. In the last three, I had Another AAM and another ARCOM.

Commissioned Officers do tend to get a higher level of awards, depending on assignment. It does make some sense to me - The typical Platoon leader (Lieutennant) has a MUCH greater responsibilty than does the typical E4 or E5. If a 2LT has a platoon where 4 E6s got ARCOMs, does he deserve any less? After all, he 'led' them. The typical Retiring Field-Grade officer receives a Leigon of Merrit, where the typical Retiring Senior Non-Commissioned officer would get a Merritorious Service Medal; based on what I've seen. (LOM > MSM).

I shouldn't complain however, as my Marine friends don't fair so well - a Navy Achievement Medal is hard picking - Navy Commendation Medal? wow. Not very often.
 
NATO AIR said:
on my aircraft carrier, if you're not e-6 or above, you don't get Jack **** for performance. you're lucky to stay out of trouble and get your good conduct award after three years. they're real stingy with awards for everybody except the officers and chiefs (no offense to the retired, most of these guys pale in comparision to the authentic, long serving chiefs and officers on board, which is a shame but that is another story).

the corpsmen i know who went to iraq and afghanistan boast mulitiple purple hearts (with nasty scars, marks and disfigurings to prove it) but little else for their efforts, though many of them endured lengthy and fierce enemy fire or did something incredibly brave to save a marine's life (or in the case of one guy, rescue three afghan children from a minefield while being shelled by taliban forces)

yet i talk to officers who served on boats from those wars that operated aircraft off to bomb and performed intel operations and these gents have racks of ribbons and medals for their efforts.

doesn't make much sense to me but i'm young and dumb so eh...

Don't feel bad, the Air Force has awarded Bronze Stars (BS) to Predator operators who never left Florida.
 
-=d=- said:
I've come face-to-face with the Command Philosphy of "(insert Rank) don't get (insert awards)."

Upon my first ETS from Active Duty Army, My first line supervisor, up to my Battery Commander reccommended and approved an Army Commendation Medal for me. When the award got to the Battalion S1, a note came back that 'E4s don't get ARCOMS - re-type the award for an Army Achievement Medal' (AAM) - which is what I ended up getting for my service - the SAME award I got for competing in, and finishing well in a weekend-long "Stinger Competition". 3 years of service, in varying, increasing levels of responsibility = 1 weekend of a PT Test, Hardware knowledge, Aircraft Recognition test, and a Road March. There was a guy in another platoon who was put on a 'detail' to pack up a library which was closing shop. A few weeks after the detail, everyone who was 'picked for detail' received Army Achievement Medals. So - 3 years of service, in varying, increasing levels of responsibility = 1 weekend of a PT Test, Hardware knowledge, Aircraft Recognition test, and a Road March = being chosen for a 'moving' detail.

There are supervisors who feel 'Success is your job - why should I award you a medal for simply being outstanding?'. Then, there are supervisors who slap a Medal on your chest for simply making formation. In the first three years I had two AAMs. In the next two, I had another AAM and an ARCOM. In the last three, I had Another AAM and another ARCOM.

Commissioned Officers do tend to get a higher level of awards, depending on assignment. It does make some sense to me - The typical Platoon leader (Lieutennant) has a MUCH greater responsibilty than does the typical E4 or E5. If a 2LT has a platoon where 4 E6s got ARCOMs, does he deserve any less? After all, he 'led' them. The typical Retiring Field-Grade officer receives a Leigon of Merrit, where the typical Retiring Senior Non-Commissioned officer would get a Merritorious Service Medal; based on what I've seen. (LOM > MSM).

I shouldn't complain however, as my Marine friends don't fair so well - a Navy Achievement Medal is hard picking - Navy Commendation Medal? wow. Not very often.

yea the marines have much higher standards than much of the military i think... i don't care about the medals or anything, i take much more pride in my ESWS (surface warfare specialist pin) that i put hard work in for and the EAWS (air warfare specialist pin) i'm working on (because these revolve around profiency with the ship and its components) and the achievements of those around me thru their hard work that i am often a part of. i just hate to see guys whose actions were so above and beyond the norm for most people, and they get jack for their bravery and valor. it just bothers me to work with and know extraordinary sailors and marines and them not got recognized... its not a career for me, so i just want to put my honest best in for the time i have.

you're right about responsibility though. that's a hard thing for a lot of people in my paygrade and below to realize at times.
 
-=d=- said:
I've come face-to-face with the Command Philosphy of "(insert Rank) don't get (insert awards)."

Upon my first ETS from Active Duty Army, My first line supervisor, up to my Battery Commander reccommended and approved an Army Commendation Medal for me. When the award got to the Battalion S1, a note came back that 'E4s don't get ARCOMS - re-type the award for an Army Achievement Medal' (AAM) - which is what I ended up getting for my service - the SAME award I got for competing in, and finishing well in a weekend-long "Stinger Competition". 3 years of service, in varying, increasing levels of responsibility = 1 weekend of a PT Test, Hardware knowledge, Aircraft Recognition test, and a Road March. There was a guy in another platoon who was put on a 'detail' to pack up a library which was closing shop. A few weeks after the detail, everyone who was 'picked for detail' received Army Achievement Medals. So - 3 years of service, in varying, increasing levels of responsibility = 1 weekend of a PT Test, Hardware knowledge, Aircraft Recognition test, and a Road March = being chosen for a 'moving' detail.

There are supervisors who feel 'Success is your job - why should I award you a medal for simply being outstanding?'. Then, there are supervisors who slap a Medal on your chest for simply making formation. In the first three years I had two AAMs. In the next two, I had another AAM and an ARCOM. In the last three, I had Another AAM and another ARCOM.

Commissioned Officers do tend to get a higher level of awards, depending on assignment. It does make some sense to me - The typical Platoon leader (Lieutennant) has a MUCH greater responsibilty than does the typical E4 or E5. If a 2LT has a platoon where 4 E6s got ARCOMs, does he deserve any less? After all, he 'led' them. The typical Retiring Field-Grade officer receives a Leigon of Merrit, where the typical Retiring Senior Non-Commissioned officer would get a Merritorious Service Medal; based on what I've seen. (LOM > MSM).

I shouldn't complain however, as my Marine friends don't fair so well - a Navy Achievement Medal is hard picking - Navy Commendation Medal? wow. Not very often.

Sounds sooo typical of the Army. I hated that crap and as CSM I did my damndest to level the playing field. Fortunately, I had a commander who agreed with me. I once recieved a memo from an S1 stating exactly as you described (regarding a Meritorious Service medal) so I went and paid him a personal visit. When I got doen with him, I went to see his boss who happened to be the Commanding General. The S1 was not a happy camper by the time I got through with him.
 
CSM said:
Sounds sooo typical of the Army. I hated that crap and as CSM I did my damndest to level the playing field. Fortunately, I had a commander who agreed with me. I once recieved a memo from an S1 stating exactly as you described (regarding a Meritorious Service medal) so I went and paid him a personal visit. When I got doen with him, I went to see his boss who happened to be the Commanding General. The S1 was not a happy camper by the time I got through with him.

:rock: that's awesome!
 
-=d=- said:
...it boils down to 'Taking care of troops'.
Amen! Some officers and Senior NCOs get so far removed from the troops they dont know what the heck they are doing. That same S1 told me that I could lead a horse to water and make him drink (like he knew!). I told him he was correct; I could not make the horse drink. I could drown the SOB though. We did not like each other very much; he ended up getting relieved soon after (not that I had anything todo with it :tank:
 
CSM said:
Amen! Some officers and Senior NCOs get so far removed from the troops they dont know what the heck they are doing.


I had a couple labels for NCOs...for example, I knew some who were 'Sergeants' and some who were 'simply E5s'. The difference being, a true Sergeant knows how to lead...to motivate...to take care of his troops. Someone who is simply an 'E5' has no leadership qualities; perhaps they are good 'managers' or 'administrators' but when push comes to shove, they couldn't lead their troops to and from the motorpool. I'd LOVE to see 'SP5' come back as a rank. It used to be even a Corporal was 'feared' by those non-hard stripers; back before I was in naturally. So yeah - I know there are those walking around with Chevrons and Rockers on their collars. I know I called them "Sergeant". I respect the Rank they have pinned on. Doesn't mean I 'liked' it. :)

I took it serious when I made corporal. I read the NCO Creed at my promotion. At my graduation of PLDC and later my promotion to Sergeant, I recited it from Memory. I took it seriously.

(sigh).


Oh - one little jab at our officers....when I would pass by, or otherwise talk to, say, a butter-bar Lieutennant, I'd not call him 'Sir'...I'd call him 'Cer' - as in the last half of 'Officer'. No way I was going to call a guy MY AGE Sir... :D

:p:

"Yes Cer, I'll get right on that!"
 
-=d=- said:
I had a couple labels for NCOs...for example, I knew some who were 'Sergeants' and some who were 'simply E5s'. The difference being, a true Sergeant knows how to lead...to motivate...to take care of his troops. Someone who is simply an 'E5' has no leadership qualities; perhaps they are good 'managers' or 'administrators' but when push comes to shove, they couldn't lead their troops to and from the motorpool. I'd LOVE to see 'SP5' come back as a rank. It used to be even a Corporal was 'feared' by those non-hard stripers; back before I was in naturally. So yeah - I know there are those walking around with Chevrons and Rockers on their collars. I know I called them "Sergeant". I respect the Rank they have pinned on. Doesn't mean I 'liked' it. :)

I took it serious when I made corporal. I read the NCO Creed at my promotion. At my graduation of PLDC and later my promotion to Sergeant, I recited it from Memory. I took it seriously.

(sigh).


Oh - one little jab at our officers....when I would pass by, or otherwise talk to, say, a butter-bar Lieutennant, I'd not call him 'Sir'...I'd call him 'Cer' - as in the last half of 'Officer'. No way I was going to call a guy MY AGE Sir... :D

:p:

"Yes Cer, I'll get right on that!"

LOL! How do you think it feels taking orders from some punk kid who has never been overseas, much less in a combat zone? I viewed it as my task to try to help educate these young men and women and hopefully help them along the way to becoming a good officer. As for NCOs, the younger ones were fun and the older ones ... well ... we all knew who was in what category. The bad ones did not last in my outfit too long.
 
Not all of us butterbars were stupid enough to try and give orders to CSMs. Although there was a LT in my battalion who tried to put a CW3 At Ease. That Cheif went straight to the BC, who gave the LT a quick education about warrant officers! :D

As far as medals go, I had a long discussion yesterday about this with a CPT I work with. My theory is that the Army should do away with "PCS" awards, and give out more "impact" awards. For example: a PFC or SPC is temporarily assigned as squad leader because of a shortfall of NCOs. During that time, the squad's performance on the PT test (for example) rises due to the new squad leader's emphasis on PT. That deserves an AAM, IMO. Or a Company Commander raises his company's training level from T3 to T1 over his 18 months of command. Certainly worth an ARCOM, just for that. Or an NCO takes extra time to train soldiers in his platoon on an MOS task that they are weak on. AAM - or ARCOM, depending.
What this would do is motivate soldiers to take extra steps to earn medals. It would also make medals worth a little bit more. Unfortunately, it will take a complete change in Army culture to effect these changes. Nevertheless, that's what I would do.
 
gop_jeff said:
Not all of us butterbars were stupid enough to try and give orders to CSMs. Although there was a LT in my battalion who tried to put a CW3 At Ease. That Cheif went straight to the BC, who gave the LT a quick education about warrant officers! :D

As far as medals go, I had a long discussion yesterday about this with a CPT I work with. My theory is that the Army should do away with "PCS" awards, and give out more "impact" awards. For example: a PFC or SPC is temporarily assigned as squad leader because of a shortfall of NCOs. During that time, the squad's performance on the PT test (for example) rises due to the new squad leader's emphasis on PT. That deserves an AAM, IMO. Or a Company Commander raises his company's training level from T3 to T1 over his 18 months of command. Certainly worth an ARCOM, just for that. Or an NCO takes extra time to train soldiers in his platoon on an MOS task that they are weak on. AAM - or ARCOM, depending.
What this would do is motivate soldiers to take extra steps to earn medals. It would also make medals worth a little bit more. Unfortunately, it will take a complete change in Army culture to effect these changes. Nevertheless, that's what I would do.

This is nothing new in the Army. There has always been this problem. It gets particularly bad during peacetime.
 
Yes, We all know that each service has its "own" standards for who rates what award. Yes, some are more liberal than others in handing them out. As a retired Marine (MGySgt 29 Years) with 17 months in the Combat Zone I can tell you that Officers do get approved for awards that they are submitted for (most of the time), while on the Enlisted side they either get downgraded or returned for rewriting. My Col recommended me for a Meritorious Service Medal for my duties in Kuwait and during Operation Enduring Freedom, the award was then routed thru an Awards board (stateside) that voted yes/no/downgrade. Got downgraded to Navy Commendation Medal. I got a little bit pissed and decided to take a look at who got what, Officers ranged from Bronze Star to Navy Achivement. Enlisted ranged from Bronze Star down to damn Letter of Appreciation. Yes, A letter of Appreciation for service in Kuwait and 6 months in Iraq. So I firmly believe that the DOD needs to come to one standard. USMC=by the book, US Army=liberal. Just some observations from an old Marine.

Been there, Done that.
Semper Fi,
The TOP
 

Forum List

Back
Top