4
4
0
Not sure if others have experienced this, but the Army is cutting way back on award inflation. When I deployed, the team before us got BSMs, we got achievement medals and were told to not even ask for anything higher. Everyone before me at my prior duty station got DMSMs, we got COMs. The days of over inflated medals appears to be over.
Posted in these groups: 
Awards
Awards
Edited 10 y ago
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 20
13
13
0
I agree award inflation had gotten out of hand but hopefully it doesn't swing around and do a complete 180 - "we got achievement medals and were told to not even ask for anything higher" An award is an individual award for valor, performance etc. With that statement it seems like the "group mentality" is still in full force. A soldier deserves what a soldier deserves regardless of rank and as long as they meet the criteria for the award.
(13)
(0)
CW2 (Join to see)
Well spoken Sir, and I agree it has created animosity--a lot of it. When it comes to the deployment I'll accept my ARCOM for the missions I went on and had my fair share of contact. Otherwise yes I'd prefer the unit had received a MUC at least (though I heard it was rumored to be in the works) we did great work out there and aside from the wrongly awarded "End of Tour" awards the unit itself has nothing to show for it other than the campaign streamer.
The ARCOM received for my near decade with my previous unit I was torn somewhat and fought some to get it changed but without the evidence (mandates in writing to who gets what and the downgrade recommendation) to corroborate what I was told I couldn't get the upgrade so I took the hand-written comments by the company and battalion commanders who knew me to heart more than the award itself--more so since an award for PCS doesn't necessarily have to be given per regulation. The best I would be able to do is to take the applicable pages of the regulations and the award recommendations forward and demand they be upgraded or downgraded to be in accordance with the reg and with no regard to rank. Though how far would it get is the question.
The "everyone gets something" stems I think from culture now, that "everybody wins" mentality in sporting events. Sure there's Gold, Silver and Bronze but the other participants get that certificate for just showing up. I believe that everyone should have received at least something, not necessarily an award but decorations, during these deployments but it should never have been based on rank.
The ARCOM received for my near decade with my previous unit I was torn somewhat and fought some to get it changed but without the evidence (mandates in writing to who gets what and the downgrade recommendation) to corroborate what I was told I couldn't get the upgrade so I took the hand-written comments by the company and battalion commanders who knew me to heart more than the award itself--more so since an award for PCS doesn't necessarily have to be given per regulation. The best I would be able to do is to take the applicable pages of the regulations and the award recommendations forward and demand they be upgraded or downgraded to be in accordance with the reg and with no regard to rank. Though how far would it get is the question.
The "everyone gets something" stems I think from culture now, that "everybody wins" mentality in sporting events. Sure there's Gold, Silver and Bronze but the other participants get that certificate for just showing up. I believe that everyone should have received at least something, not necessarily an award but decorations, during these deployments but it should never have been based on rank.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca
Yeah I'll give you the bummer on the EOT award CW2 (Join to see) Unfortunately awards are subjective to too many points of view the most important being the approving authority. If they have a policy written or unwritten that supersedes the regs and no one is calling them on it, unfortunately that's where the buck stops. I agree with your comment on the "everyone gets something" Its almost at the point of entitlement - you go, you get. I was always happy with distinctive certificates and the occasional command coin - truly unique commemoratives.
(1)
(0)
CW2 (Join to see)
I don't have to many coins myself, however I can tell the story for each as I'm sure you can for your own collection. It seems there's much we agree upon on the subject matter MAJ Robert Petrarca, so instead of repeating ourselves I'll end my portion of the thread here. Enjoy the rest of your night Sir as I'm sure I will.
(1)
(0)
LCDR Robert S.
MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca - I'm coming to this discussion a bit late, but I want to point out that for the two who got MSMs for a CoC, they may look at those MSMs the way that I look a couple of my citations, "Yes, this award is really not one I merited, but for me, it serves in place of the awards that I actually deserved but didn't get." It's not like anybody outside the awards ceremony ever reads/hears the citation, they just see the ribbon.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
I will say that there is one award that has definitely NOT been inflated and that is the Medal of Honor. We have been at war for 13 years, and there have been only 16 MoH awarded. Only 4 were awarded in Iraq, all posthumously. A few years ago, there was a general outcry in the press about the dearth of MoH in the Iraq/Afghanistan conflicts, and since then it seems that every other week we are seeing a new one awarded. The concern was well founded. Below is a breakdown of MoH awarded in each major conflict and the ratio of medals to number of personnel who served in that conflict:
WW I 119 1:40,000 troops
WW II 467 1:35,000 troops
Vietnam 249 1:35,000 troops
Korea 137 1:42,000 troops
Iraq/Afghanistan 16 1:177,000 troops (est.)
So what is different about this conflict? Do troops have less chance to display heroism above and beyond the call of duty? Do shorter deployments play a role? Are the standards more stringent than they used to be? Better question: before the administration was put under pressure to award more MoH, did you have to die to be seen as worthy for the medal? It is interesting that, before the attention was brought to the low number of MoH, the recipients were mostly deceased but since have been mostly living recipients. Is that for PR? I don't mean to hijack the thread, but I wonder if anyone else agrees.
WW I 119 1:40,000 troops
WW II 467 1:35,000 troops
Vietnam 249 1:35,000 troops
Korea 137 1:42,000 troops
Iraq/Afghanistan 16 1:177,000 troops (est.)
So what is different about this conflict? Do troops have less chance to display heroism above and beyond the call of duty? Do shorter deployments play a role? Are the standards more stringent than they used to be? Better question: before the administration was put under pressure to award more MoH, did you have to die to be seen as worthy for the medal? It is interesting that, before the attention was brought to the low number of MoH, the recipients were mostly deceased but since have been mostly living recipients. Is that for PR? I don't mean to hijack the thread, but I wonder if anyone else agrees.
(5)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
The good thing is we ARE seeing the MoH being awarded now, and not just posthumously.
(2)
(0)
SFC Stephen Carden
Yes, Sir, LTC Paul Labrador. I'm not saying give it out like candy, but we definitely need to make sure that those who honestly earned it get it regardless of political considerations and other ridiculousness.
(0)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
I remember someone a while back doing a survey where they had you read a citation and then they asked which award you thought they deserved. They found that a lot of WW2 MoH citations were graded as SS by people today....
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
Sir, just as with the promotion points debacle that continues, those who have benefitted the most from inflated awards are the ones who now want to change the system. The haves telling the have nots why they are not worthy.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google