AirGunner

Valid point, however I think most people are miffed about WHERE it was placed in the order of precidence, not the fact that it is being considered as an award.

Personally, I don't think that a medal that THEORETICALLY would be earned out of harms way should merit higher in the order of precidence than someone wounded in action. Under current guidelines you can pickle a bomb from Indian Springs and if submitted for it and approved get an award rated higher than someone who got blown up by an IED in Panjwai. To me, this is just wrong.

Additionally, there are already APPROPRIATE and EXISTING awards for the job these crews do. The last thing we need is a new gong to award to people for doing their job (and I use that term broadly not just for the RPA folks), use the existing awards already in place and award them APPROPRIATELY and if MERITED for the situation.

However, I will disagree with your assertation that Air Medals, are largely awarded as "sortie counters." I see your point and agree to an extent, but I think it's unfair to paint the situation with such a large brush.

While that may be true in some flying communities, I have several close friends in my previous life in the helicopter world, that have been awarded single sortie AM's and AM's with Valor, some of them paid the ultimate price EARNING them.

I'm sure that you would agree that by and large the awards business in the Air Force has been watered down in recent years. It's a fact we can't deny and it sickens me to the core. I am not a fan of the everyone gets a trophy for playing mentality that is prevalent today. IMHO, this proposed award has just highlighted how the awards and decorations process has gotten out of hand. Reform in the awards and decorations process needs to happen and it begins and ends with us folks who submit the awards in the first place.

LivingInMEM

Air gunner,

Would you say, in today's Air Force, that more people get Air Medals for individual achievement or for sortie count? It's not even close.

Second, if 9 people get an award for sortie count and 1 gets it for individual heroics, what's the value of THE award. Not HIS award, but THE award. The answer is "X number of sorties".

We don't need to focus on the theoretical, we have real world. The majority of Air Medals are going for sortie count; either that or those boom operators with 8 Air Medals are pretty heroic. Bronze Stars are going to PAOs, admin clerks, equipment custodians, etc. You tell me what it's worth today. If 3 people in line all have Bronze Stars, 1 from Korea, 1 from Vietnam, and 1 from 2012, are you going to assume they all distinguished themselves equally in combat? Not me, I won't, and neither will you. It's because a medal's value is based on the circumstances on which it is PREDOMINANTLY awarded, not on what it's criteria should be.

It's funny how you see the very solutions to such issues as a sign of the problem. If admin clerks who don't go outside the wire had a separate medal from the guy diffusing the IED, you don't think the respective values would be more meaningful? Medals today are given out like candy compared to 20 years ago and that's not the problem because we'll stick to thinking about what they COULD be given out for, some new award for a behind the scenes contribution to the mission is? Interesting.

USMCFLYR

I've not made a comment on whether there should, or should not, be a new award.

A "combat" medal would be inappropriate in my opinion and any medal held in higher priority than a BSM in which the person had to risk physical danger to themselves in order to rate (meaning w/ combat 'V') would also be inappropriate in my opinion.

Moby Dick

I don't mind if they get medals. However, the medal shouldn't out rank the Bronze Star, Purple Heart or any other combat based medal.

GunshipGuy

You scoff at the recognition of our armed service members' actions (or the process, now), you derisively dismiss my acknowledgment of gratitude for those who died in action as "nice speech", and you use a friendly fire incident in which a U.S. service member died and a gunship crew has to live with for the rest of their lives to belittle a serious question. Are you proud of yourself for your pathetic and hateful attempts to make your point?

The main point I and others are trying to make is that deciding to create a new medal for a service member's actions that does not require they even be present in a combat zone, but is yet the 4th highest ranking combat action medal is probably a poorly conceived idea. But I'm no longer interested in trying to explain my opinion to you, for you sir have shown yourself to be of poor character from what I've read from you here.

LivingInMEM

Gunship, I was referring to an RPA fratricide incident that went down poorly under the circumstances I laid out; my reference to your background was to indicate that your are well aware that global SA that saves a frat is worthy of an award more valuable than a Bronze Star awarded to a guy at Bagram who processes award packages. Your response confirms your recognition of whether that's a recognizable achievement.

Moby, who said the Bronze Star is a combat based medal? It's not. The medal is routinely awarded for "meritorious service" which may include being a public affairs officer, running a FSS, or processing awards packages. The requirement to even be in a combat zone was imposed in 1999.

So, should the RPA driver who saves a fratricide above get a lesser medal than a deputy public affairs NCO who never leaves Balad AB? Should that deputy PAO get an award more valuable than a Purple Heart?

There is a lot of complaining about the first case potentially happening, but there sure hasn't been a lot if complaining about the second case that DOES happen almost daily.

PS: why is the fratricide issue such a worthy concern for a gunship crew but not for an RPA crew that is dropping GBU-12s and AGM-114s with half the SA building tools (or less) than a manned platform? They're just RPA guys, right?

As for my character, Gunship, I leave my preconceptions at the door. In this matter I have been rock solid consistent; as I've said many times on many threads on this board on this subject: The toughest part of being in combat for anyone firing or dropping ordnance IS NOT being in combat, the toughest part is KNOWING that you're not killing the wrong people. Do a search, you'll find that statement by me. I think the gunship crew you reference would agree. I give proper credit to shooters who employ air ordnance no matter where they sit, because that gunship crew would be having just as hard a time with the aftermath even had they employed via RSO. If there's anything I am past, even as someone who's been there done that, is all of this "I'm great because I exposed myself to danger" trash. The RPA, cyber, and intel communities are making SIGNIFICANT inputs into these combat operations and I don't begrudge their efforts because of where they sit.

AirGunner

I am not a fan of Air Medals awarded for "mission sustainment." IMHO, they should only be awarded for Valor or a significant single sortie achievment in aerial flight. However until the regulation allowing it is changed it is what it is. To assume that all that have been awarded Air Medals have gotten them as "sortie counters" is not completely accurate. That is why we have the "V" device for valor, this generally separates those awarded the AM for Valor vs. those those awarded for "mission sustainment."

The value remains the same, just the criteria for which it was rewarded changes. As I stated above, that is what the "V" device is for. Those of us in or who have worn the uniform usually know the difference between an award for valor vs. mission sustainment.

No focus on the theoretical, the reality is that until regulations and criteria for award are changed these awards for achievement can and will still happen as permitted by the regulations. Only those who can differentiate a AM or BSM either with or without the "V" device will know the difference. BTW as for worth, to your average "sweatty" it's about 3 points and 7 points per award for WAPS purposes not that it matters for the AD folks as everyone else is maxed out for points..even the "shoe clerks" now days.



No, it would depend solely on whether or not they were awarded the BSM with Valor or not. This opinion does not say that they didn't deserve the award, someone put them in for it and it was approved. There is a difference between awards given for acts of valor vs. achievement. This is situation we have when existing regulations allow awards "traditionally" given for valor also be awarded for achievement and why I say the regulations regarding the award of medals like these need to change.


So with the majority of BSM's in the Air Force given for achievement, what say you about those who have theirs awarded for valor. Does that put them in the same league as those awarded for achievement? No, the difference is the "V" device ...a lot of people see the BSM as a "deployed MSM" except for those awarded with the "V" device.

The problem is not with the medals, nor the individuals awarded them, it's the manner in which they have been awarded over the past few years. Just because someone qualifies for an award does not mean they deserve or have earned it. I've seen this happen first hand, where someone will put a person in for the highest award they "qualified" for regardless if whether they deserved it or not and irregardless if a "lesser" award would have been more appropriate.

They do it in the name of "taking care of people." This is where the dilution process begins. Another good example of this is anyone that has participated in a Joint Operation for a period of time qualifies for a Joint Achievement medal. Does that mean they all deserve one, NO. We created this monster by being overly zealous with the awards. Supervisors and leaders need to be held more accountable and ensure the intent of the awards process is being used to properly recognize deserving people and to not give people an award for playing.


I could not agree with the first part of your statement more. However, this medal for cyber/drone operations in the manner which is proposed is completely unessecary, given there are existing avenues of adequate recognition available to them.

GunshipGuy

If you were not referencing the gunship friendly fire incident for the purpose of "scoring points" here then I recant my criticism on that point.

But gunship crews don't get awards or recognition for withholding fire when they determine it's not safe for friendlies (danger close being the exception) even if the fighting goes off and on for three hours straight. It's just what they do. Based on that perspective I don't see why that would stand out as an action deserving of an award.

Perhaps as was stated by another before me it's best we just agree to disagree.

LivingInMEM

I didn't say withhold fires because of not safe for the friendlies, I clearly implied save the day even when cleared hot on a friendly target that was misidentified as hostile even by the GFC - and yes they would receive an award in that case. If not, your leadership is at fault. Regardless, (1) it's just an example, and (2) it demonstrates the lengths you'll go to in order to devalue the efforts of those "not in danger".

AirGunner

All medal bashing aside ........I will even go out on limb and say (body armor ready ), that maybe the criteria and regulations behind some awards (not all) may need to be re-evaluated considering the changing environment of warfare in this era we live in. If this re-evaluation should occur, the intent behind the award should not change. I will say the RPA/cyber folks, just like all other "traditional" combat roles, deserve recognition WHEN EARNED. However, I still do not see the need to create a special award for just that community when the existing ones can adequately recognize their work.