April 03, 2006
Letters
The meaning of valor

The awards system has been cheapened enough.

Bottom line, the “V” device on an award stands for valor [“The value of valor,” Feb. 6].

Valor is strength of mind or spirit that enables a man or woman to encounter danger with personal bravery.

If someone receives a Bronze Star with a “V” device, it tells me that individual acted courageously under dangerous circumstances to earn that award.

Planning an operation in a command post in a combat zone does not warrant a “V” device, but a Marine giving direction to his leathernecks under fire does.


Why is this even being discussed?

Lt. Col. Jeffrey J. Johnson

Seoul, South Korea

What does the “V” stand for if not valor?

Heroic action on the battlefield is what should justify the addition of a “V” device to an award. Nothing else.

If you look at the template for an award citation that includes a “V,” the beginning sentence starts off with: “For heroic service as ...”

For citations on awards without the “V,” my suggestion is: “For meritorious service as ... .”

This should be enough to make award drafters realize the inherent difference between a regular award and one with the combat-distinguishing device attached.

I saw many Marines in Fallujah, Iraq, perform heroic acts during Operation Al Fajr. Some were officially recognized, some were not.

Those who were not included Lance Cpl. Jody Baca, whose expert driving aided my platoon in getting out of an ambush on the outskirts of Fallujah, and Sgt. Jeremy Gutierrez, whose response to his platoon sergeant’s vehicle being hit by a rocket-propelled grenade was to instantly take charge and lead the section back to the fight.

To give the “V” to those who did not face direct enemy contact and perform heroically is unfortunate.

Put the valor back in the “V.” Anything else is disingenuous.

2nd Lt. S. Russell Shinn

Lubbock, Texas

As an adjutant who deployed twice to Iraq with 1st Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, I have been involved in the submission of more than 790 personal awards, including 118 Purple Hearts.

The awards system is completely subjective and will always be that way until the fallible human factor is removed from the equation.

From the individual who performs the heroic or meritorious action, through the various awards boards and commanders between the platoon and Marine expeditionary force level, to the final approving authority, another fallible human, the entire process is completely subjective. No amount of written criteria can remove the human factor from the problem.

Not until the Marine Corps adopts a ridiculous system of “yes” or “no” answers to objective questions — for example: Was there armed enemy within 100 meters? — and accepts whatever results show after hitting the “submit” button, will a completely objective and fair system be established.

Rank has always been a factor in awards. Our commandant receives a Defense Distinguished Service Medal for “just doing his job” while a lieutenant will get a Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal for “just doing his” and a young lance corporal will be lucky to get a Certificate of Commendation.

The difference, which should be indicated by the rank, is the level of responsibility and authority. Our commandant is responsible for an exponentially wider area than either the lieutenant or the lance corporal.

On a less obvious note, the lieutenant may be more likely to get his award because it is being written by a captain or major who has years of experience in navigating the awards system. The lance corporal is depending on a young lieutenant, advised by a staff noncommissioned officer, who may be writing an award for the first time.

Is the Marine Corps awards system fair and equitable? No. And it never has been.

Anyone who expects otherwise is showing too much faith in the human animal. At best, the awards system is 75 percent good intentions and 25 percent voodoo.

Is the current system the best we can expect when awards are initiated, tracked, processed and approved by imperfect people?

I think it is.

1st Lt. Russell G. Obar

Camp Pendleton, Calif.

No VA coverage

Having served in combat in the Middle East, I know which medal our troops should strive for — the “Insurance Medal.”

Most Marines know it by its more common name, the Purple Heart.

One might ask, “Why would anyone want a Purple Heart?” In a nutshell, a Purple Heart means you are covered by the Department of Veterans Affairs for medical. My Bronze Star with “V” and Combat Action Ribbon get me no medical coverage.

I have applied for VA benefits as a result of my medical retirement from both the fire department and the police department. Because my medical disability was not job-related, I have lost all medical coverage. When I sought help from the VA, officials stated that I was not eligible because I made too much money last year.

I filled out all the necessary forms and gave VA officials both of my DD 214s; I served on active duty twice.

They reviewed my combat record and said that if I had been wounded and received a Purple Heart, it would not have mattered how much income I made last year.

I was shocked. I am not allowed to make more than $35,000 a year. But they told me had I applied prior to 2003, I would have been covered and income would not have been a factor.

I find this odd. I do not remember the Marine Corps reviewing my income prior to my shipping out with my rifle. The Corps called, and I answered; now, I call and hear nothing.

While sitting in the enrollment office of the VA, I saw a small poster hanging on the wall stating: “You have two years after returning from the Middle East to apply in order to receive benefits.”

I asked the enrollment officer how young Marines are supposed to know that this poster hangs in that office? Who lets them know?

It seems strange that the rules changed just prior to our deployment to Iraq.

Tricare fee plan upsets readers

Editor’s note: To address the rising cost of providing health care, defense officials want to raise Tricare enrollment fees and co-payments for military retirees younger than 65 and their families. For some, those costs will double or triple. The proposal could take effect as soon as Oct. 1 if approved by Congress.

This letter is in response to the Bush plan to raise the health care cost for veterans [“Pentagon, retiree advocates set to battle over health care,” March 6]. This is a stab in the back for all who served.

We have given our blood, sweat and tears for this nation, and the thanks we get is, “Yeah, we told you that you get free (or cheap) health care, but I’d rather give that money to the defense contractors in my home district.”

I hold the president, Congress and, most of all, the senior leadership in the military accountable for not standing up to the politicians who think of ways to take more and more from the ones who gave the most but got little in return.

When politicians talk about the military, it’s about the fancy tanks or that pretty airplane or a social experiment.

Throughout the history of warfare, no weapon has ever won a war.

It was the grunt in the mud in a foreign land, the sailor standing watch on a cold sea, and the airman working on a ramp in the desert heat.

And if Washington doesn’t change its thoughts about veterans soon, there won’t be any more veterans because no one will join.

AM2 Michael White

Jacksonville, Fla.

In an attempt to adjust the administration’s budget, the military and military retirees are being forced to suffer.

Our government is asking troops to go to Iraq and fight a war, lose a limb or even die, but when you come back home either to retire or stay in, it is saying to each service member and veteran, “We used you, and now we do not need you.”

How is it that this country can give billions and billions of dollars to other countries and not find enough money in the administration’s budget to support the health care of those who would die for this country?

Ever since the government began making troops, their families and veterans share more of the burden of health care costs, it has been my contention that the underlying goal is to drive as many veterans and families out of the health care system as possible by raising the cost to prohibitive rates.

If the government expects to maintain a force of able-bodied service members, active-duty or reserve, does it really expect to get young people into uniform if it turns around and takes away health care?

All people, service members and civilians, should look at health care before joining any organization.

If this is what the government is going to do, do not expect veterans to encourage the younger generation to make the military a career.

The young people of today are not idiots; they can see what the government does to its service members.

Army Chief Warrant Officer 2 Henry Geib (ret.)

New Freedom, Pa.

It is time for every retiree to get on the phone and call Washington about this absolute tragedy.

Gutting the retiree Tricare has almost become treason.

When I signed on, we were told we’d get “free health care for life” when we got to retirement.

Then, when I retired, we had to pay about $500 a year for “enhanced” health care.

Now, they’re trying to triple the current costs and thinking about transferring the medical mission to the Department of Veterans Affairs.

The vets who visit VA centers are not going to like having another 6 million folks dumped into their lap while the centers are expected to operate as usual.

The norm in this case will be longer waits and poorer care.

Active-duty troops should pay close attention to this. If you have another career opportunity, run.

This is what happens when you believe what you are promised, and then they try to balance a budget — after you are gone — on your back.

Army Capt. Michael E. Champion (ret.)

San Antonio

Ellie