Posted on Nov 6, 2013
PCS, Impact, Deployment, and other awards: Should they be determined by rank?
54.9K
397
249
18
18
0
Should a commander be able to say that they will only give a Bronze Star Medal to SSGs and above? Is this how awards are determined IAW AR 600-8-22? What if a SGT or below has met the criteria to earn a more prestigious award? Why does BDE or higher say that they are only alloted a certain number of awards for deployment or PCS or for an impact award? If your repsonse is "Tradition" or "That's the way it always has been," does that make it right?
Deployment
Awards
PCS
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 129
21
21
0
I specifically wrote about this in my letter of resignation from active duty. Officially the Navy states in the SECNAV 1650.1 that rank can never be used as a determinant for an award, but in practice it is all the time. This demoralizes junior officers and all enlisted, as even a terrible O4 departing a ship as department head receives a COM, while an E6 who essentially ran the department receives his umpteenth NAM. This practice is one of the main reasons why good and competitive personnel leave the service. Additionally, awards are also given out way too frequently. The awards manual says that it should only be given when going above and beyond one's job, but we see them given as "deployment" or "end of tour awards". This practice should stop and only spot awards should be given for service that is truly above and beyond what is expected.
(21)
(0)
Capt (Join to see)
I have seen a lot of this before, but thankfully I know of a few exceptions (I have a particular example in mind). I agree this consistently happens across all services, but it is not the rule and should not be.
(2)
(0)
CMC Robert Young
LT, I concur. The USCG takes a similar approach particularly with the end of tour award. I have a number of very strong E4-E6s who have accomplished exceptional things and when I have submitted the CG1650 to the department head, been told to hold the information for an end of tour award. My question is always "Why are we waiting two more years to recognize what was clearly superior work now?" Lunacy! And that situation is far too often degraded by the level of the award being issued. Es get LOCs (an award so low it's not recognized by any other service) or CGAMs; and the O4 & up crowd gets at least the CGCM if not the MSM. The process is broken.
(5)
(0)
SGT(P) (Join to see)
Respectfully, I'd have to disagree with you SFC Gates. The amount of asinine ridiculousness I've seen within the Army in regards to the awards process simply cannot be topped by what you described above. My current unit, until a few months ago, weren't even issuing awards to E-4 and below for this DEPLOYMENT. Yet E-7 and up had already submitted the DA 638's for Bronze Star's....their justification? They don't deserve an award for doing what they're told, and they have no responsibility.
(5)
(0)
PO1 Rudy Lopez
SFC Gates, you have to be careful on your assumptions on how the "Navy" and the "Marine Corps" are different in how they handle awards, but remember, the Marine Corps is a Department of the Navy, thus part of the Navy. In fact history shows that the original requirement to become a Marine was your must me an "able body seamen"
Now that the history lesson is over. It is unfair to blanket the Navy as a whole in terms of "passing out awards." You fail to understand that there are tens of thousands of Sailors that fall under Marine Corps purview; Hospital Corpsman, Religious Program Specialist, Personnel Specialist, Doctors, Dentist, Psychologist. All of those Navy personnel fall under a Marine Corps command and their awards are authorized through the governing command.
I spent 15 years in the Navy, 1 year combined Boot Camp, Corpsman School, and Fleet Marine Force School for Corpsman. The next 14 years I spent with either the Marine Corps or Army Special Operations Command. So you'll have to pardon my subtle discomfort when I am lumped into your assessment of "The Navy." You probably didn't intend it to come out that way, but you were probably uninformed. Don't worry, a good number of years back the Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy didn't really know how many Sailors he had at Camp Pendleton, he thought there were a few hundred, but realistically there is more like a few thousand.
Now that the history lesson is over. It is unfair to blanket the Navy as a whole in terms of "passing out awards." You fail to understand that there are tens of thousands of Sailors that fall under Marine Corps purview; Hospital Corpsman, Religious Program Specialist, Personnel Specialist, Doctors, Dentist, Psychologist. All of those Navy personnel fall under a Marine Corps command and their awards are authorized through the governing command.
I spent 15 years in the Navy, 1 year combined Boot Camp, Corpsman School, and Fleet Marine Force School for Corpsman. The next 14 years I spent with either the Marine Corps or Army Special Operations Command. So you'll have to pardon my subtle discomfort when I am lumped into your assessment of "The Navy." You probably didn't intend it to come out that way, but you were probably uninformed. Don't worry, a good number of years back the Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy didn't really know how many Sailors he had at Camp Pendleton, he thought there were a few hundred, but realistically there is more like a few thousand.
(1)
(0)
17
17
0
<p>If you look at the criterion for a given award, it is outlined specifically what is required for that award. By the nature of the jobs they hold, senior enlisted and officers have more opportunity to have the requisite level of achievement based on their positions. Thus, no matter how fair a given command is, there will always be a perception of favoritism.<br><br>That said, if a command actually has a rank-based standard for the awards, they are absolutely wrong. On my first tour when I was a captain, I put a PFC who worked for me in for a BSM, and I specifically argued with the powers-that-were when they wanted to put me in for the same. He got his BSM. I got my ARCOM. It was just. He was going above and beyond. I was doing my job.<br><br>End of tour awards are silly to begin with. Your campaign medal is your end of tour award. This isn't the Special Olympics (no offense to them at all, I've volunteered there and I'm proud of them). This is the Army. Awards should be given based on the level of excellence accomplished, not based on the opportunity to actually do your job overseas. <br><br>All that said, it is still true that a SFC excelling will more likely have a positive impact on the entire unit than a PFC excelling will. It should not be surprising when more SFCs get BSMs than PFCs. So long as the command isn't biased against the PFCs, or propping up the SFCs, then I think it is acceptable that there is a disparity. </p>
(17)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
Totally agree. Service awards are based upon impact made on the organization. If a junior soldier or officer made a significant impact, then they deserve the higher award. Period. But as you pointed out, the nature of duties typically assigned to certain ranks often will determine their ability to impact the organization or mission. It's easier for the Commander or Senior NCO to impact than a worker bee private...
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
Well, to add fuel to the fire, I don't think anyone in any garrison, deployment, position, OR retirement should get an award for doing their job. The deployment award is called the ICM or ACM. PCS awards should not be expected by any Soldier nor given out to everyone because they're leaving. Retirement awards should not be mandatory.<div><br></div><div>Impact awards are the best. If a commander sees something they like, exceptional work, outstanding Soldier, the commander should pull that person over, say "Great job, keep it up, here's a ____ (based on outcome and affect!) medal for your work."</div><div><br></div><div>On the flip side, We (the capital/royal we, the Army) can't write awards to reflect what happened in detail so their is no question the Soldier deserves the recommended award.</div><div><br></div><div>As a final note, MG Petreus approved bronze stars for my E4 and E5 from OIF1 based on the write up and recommendations from the Team Chief and Brigade Commander… no quotas ever mentioned.</div>
SFC (Join to see)
I hear you MAJ Scantlin, I would have no problem with there being no awards for doing your job. But, what about those that volunteer to deploy with another unit to do a job above their paygrade and outside of their MOS? I'm not trying to argue the what ifs but, would that warrant an award?
I agree on the retirement awards too. In all honesty, what good are they? I understand the concept but, can a service member's career be summed up in one award?
I almost wasn't allowed to PCS from Korea because I didn't have a PCS award. Granted, I had to leave under abnormal circumstances and later received my award.
(5)
(0)
Suspended Profile
What if's are OK, they help with figuring out all of the loop holes!
The three factors you mentioned, outside of their MOS, above pay grade, and volunteered to fill the position, are huge in any consideration for an award I might recommend a Soldier for. In this case, the Soldier probably did an outstanding job for them if "all" they accomplished was what a trained and correctly-experienced Soldier did for "just their job."
Great questions...
SFC (Join to see)
Thanks Sir! I've just been trying to get as much insight on this subject as I can. I appreciate your honest answers!
(3)
(0)
13
13
0
No that shouldn't be the case.
I fought while in Iraq as the Brigade Awards Section (yes section it was me alone) when I saw SrA being submitted for an AAM because of their rank when their awards stated they had rockets shot at them while driving the lead vehicle. That's not the right answer and I have no issues standing up for what is right. By regulation the Airman was not eligible for an AAM and I had no issues sharing the regulation with my seniors and many of the SrA awards where upgraded to ARCOM and the SSG that didn't do anything were downgraded from MSMs to ARCOMs.
I was submitted for a DMSM and I was a SPC at the time and my whole chain of command supported the award. When it arrived at the Corps level the CSMs comments stated "Concur, recommend downgrade" then when the MG reviewed it he only read the Concur part and his comments stated "CSM Concurs" so when it made it up to the LTG all he saw was the Concur parts and signed off on my award. A Marine E9 was pissed because I stood between him and a LTC during the award ceremony because I received the same level of award as him. He was pissed and remarked that "there is no way he did the same level of work as a F_____ SPC". When I got back from Iraq an NCO asked me what I received as my deployment award he got mad and stormed off because that award is reserved for SFC and above. (Says no regulation)
It is an NCOs job to fight for an award recommendation when someone higher up recommends downgrade because of rank. If we all did that we could end this type of nonsense.
(13)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Thank you for that story SSG Dominguez! It's great to know that I'm not the only one who feels that way and is willing to stand up for it. It's funny how we're expected to uphold certain standards and just go by unofficial tradition on others. In my eyes, a standard is a standard and they need to be followed!
(6)
(0)
12
12
0
<p>I seen a lot of good comments and negative ones. I think there will always be negativity when it comes to awards because only those surrounding the issue will understand why or why not one person was given an award. I also agree that deployment awards are the most frustrating. Does the PVT with 15 months of Service get the ARCOM as well as his PSG? I have only seen PSGs proud to pin the award on their Soldiers uniform but they did not do the same thing or scope of responsibility.</p><p><br></p><p>**However, the regulation does state: "the award should reflect both the individual’s level of responsibility and his or her manner of performance. " So a PVT may have done something pretty well above his grade but minus heroism his level of responsibility will not be that of a Commander etc... </p><p><br></p><p>When I review awards I look at periods of service, impacts and at what level their achievement affected/impacted. Squad, Platoon, Company, Battalion etc.. The broader and higher the impact the more it may merit the award - REGARDLESS of rank again with individual’s level of responsibility and his or her manner of performance period. I read the award and see if the write up merits the award. I don't look at who it is for so rank won't impact judgment.</p><font face="Times New Roman" size="2"><p><br></p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p><br></p></font><p><br></p><font face="Times New Roman" size="2"><p><br></p><font face="Times New Roman" size="2"><p><br></p><p><br></p></font></font>
(12)
(0)
SGT(P) (Join to see)
Thank you all for your comments. MAJ Bartlett, it was originally submitted as an ARCOM. Next thing I know it came back an AAM and i wasn't made aware of it until the last 2 or 3 days i had left at the unit.
(1)
(0)
SGT(P) (Join to see)
And CSM O'Black, I only earned 1 ARCOM and that was for our last deployment. But i understand completely what you mean. I have 3 AAMs now.
(1)
(0)
SGT Ben Keen
CSM -
I was reading through the thread of comments here and was wondering if you could provide some insight. In regards to SGT Kernick's situation, you state that he earned 2 ARCOMs and an AAM while assigned to his unit. When I first got promoted to SGT while at Ft. Campbell, my 1SG held a class on writing up awards and stated that if the Soldier received an award for something while assigned to the unit, you couldn't use those actions as a bullet item on the award write up. Would that be one reason for the downgraded award? Or can you use those actions again in your write up for a PCS/ETS award?
(1)
(0)
CSM Stuart C. O'Black
SGT Ben Keen,
In regards to your question "Would that be one reason for the downgraded award? Or can you use those actions again in your write up for a PCS/ETS award?"
It could very well be the reason they thought an AAM and not an ARCOM was appropriate. I was not there but would take those previous awards into consideration. If you take out the deployment and the achievements received for the ARCOM and AAMs he received then they may have felt the reaming service achievements warranted an AAM. Again I was not there although he was a great Soldier.
**AR 600-8-22 "Recommendation for award of a decoration for meritorious service will not refer to acts of heroism or meritorious achievements which have been previously recognized by award of decoration". Some do think PCS awards should be for the whole period but even though it is for the whole period minus any previous award achievements or service.
Hope that answers your question.
(3)
(0)
12
12
0
Negative; awards should be given based on merit and performance. Command politics will always be there; we can only hope to have Commanders that have enough backbone to fight for their subordinates when the higher HQ tries to deny or downgrade an award.
(12)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Thanks Sir! So, what can I do to help the issue? Is there not much? Do you know of a sensible, respectful approach I could take to influence your/my thoughts into this process?
(4)
(0)
11
11
0
No, absolutely not (unless the achievement or service was not commensurate the award). It is clear in the regulation (AR 600-8-22). I have seen this a lot though. On a deployment to Iraq, the DIV CG said he would not approve a BSM for anyone in the rank of 2LT, 1LT or SFC and below because he didn't think that those Soldiers were in positions that warranted that award. I'm not saying I'm unhappy for getting an ARCOM, I just don't know how a "Leader" could make a statement like that. On my last deployment all BSMs that went up had to be "boarded" by a panel of 1SGs and BDE staff officers before going to the BDE CDR for signature, if they didn't think that the Soldier or write up were worthy it was an automatic downgrade, but you could resubmit. Now keep in mind all of this was going on six months prior to redeployment. I got it, with so many submissions, it was the "timely" thing to do. I'm rambling now, but my answer is IAW AR 600-8-22, NO!
(11)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
My sentiments exactly SFC Watson! 2 months into the deployment and our CO stated that, " E5 and below receive ARCOMs, E6 and above receive BSMs." I couldn't believe that!! That's one element in the equation that will not make a soldier want to work harder, (the other elements being duty, responsibility, etc..) That being said, of course we do our duty regardless of what award we get but, that's kinda of a low blow and right at the beginning of the deployment. If those were his thoughts, he should have kept them to himself!
(4)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
SFC Watson,
We did a "board" system if you will in my BN our last OEF deployment, and I think it was pretty fair. We took every BSM submission in the BN to a panel consisting of either the CO/1SG of each company, the BN CSM, OPS SGM, and BN XO. Everyone was given all the write ups of all the awards that were not in their own company, then one by one voted yay or nay based on the merits of the write up. There were several SGTs who received BSMs and several SFC and LTs who did not. I felt the process was fair and effective. Then the awards went up to BDE/DIV, and some LTs put in for ARCOMs ended up getting BSMs, but the point was that at the lowest level, the awards were based on strength of write up. It is unfortunate that there is such disparity in the awards system, as it did appear some other units in the RC at the same time did blanket "all SSG and above get BSM" type policies, and then you feel like you hosed your own guys for trying to accurately award 1. duty performance and 2. level of responsibility.
We did a "board" system if you will in my BN our last OEF deployment, and I think it was pretty fair. We took every BSM submission in the BN to a panel consisting of either the CO/1SG of each company, the BN CSM, OPS SGM, and BN XO. Everyone was given all the write ups of all the awards that were not in their own company, then one by one voted yay or nay based on the merits of the write up. There were several SGTs who received BSMs and several SFC and LTs who did not. I felt the process was fair and effective. Then the awards went up to BDE/DIV, and some LTs put in for ARCOMs ended up getting BSMs, but the point was that at the lowest level, the awards were based on strength of write up. It is unfortunate that there is such disparity in the awards system, as it did appear some other units in the RC at the same time did blanket "all SSG and above get BSM" type policies, and then you feel like you hosed your own guys for trying to accurately award 1. duty performance and 2. level of responsibility.
(1)
(0)
9
9
0
It seems these days people only want to follow regulations when it is convenient for them and works in their favor. Oh, my side burns "look" like I'm skirting the lines, 670-1; you better go cut those immediately or you're the worst Soldier that ever lived! I'm a Counterintelligence Agent on investigative status and you want me to be the stairwell/building coordinator, 381-20 states Agents on investigative status are exempt from these duties, just like CID Agents; we don't care, you will do this duty even if it interferes with your job! The same goes with awards in my opinion. I do my job because I love it and at the end of the day I don't expect anything in return. When deployed as a four man CI Team who goes above and beyond what we were sent there to do. The entire team was submitted for BSM's, all with identical write up's because our circumstances were exactly the same. Three of the four were awarded BSM's; Major, Sergeant First Class, and Staff Sergeant. Take a guess who the General downgraded. Received all four at the same time for the same circumstances but for some reason said, "Nope that Sergeant gets an ARCOM." What was so resoundingly different about those identical awards other than the rank written at the top of the citation?
(9)
(0)
8
8
0
I'm currently deployed and we are actually in the process of writing our end of tour awards now. One thing to realize is that the BSM and the MSM are the save level of award. The only difference is that the BSM is awarded during a time of conflict. But if I put in a soldier for a BSM it doesn't get downgraded to an MSM, it gets downgraded to an ARCOM.
As far as it being "rank based", I disagree with making awards rank based. I am putting some of my NCOs in for BSMs and will be upset if they don't get them. It should be based on their performance/achievements.
I am also opposed to this "awards board" that the Army has gone to. Originally we wrote up a 638 and sent it to the approvers and they either approved it or recommended downgrade or downgraded. An awards board is an extra step where a group of people sit and deliberate on whether MY soldier deserves the award that I'm putting them in for?? That's the approvers job and shouldn't be allowed to be delegated to a committee. I could see the utility IF the board's purpose was just to catch and correct clerical errors, but even then, in the old days, a high speed 71L specialist could do that in 5 minutes. We are adding beauracracy under the pretense of efficiency IMHO.
(8)
(0)
CW4 (Join to see)
I agree. A medal is the least expensive way, and the most enduring method of reminding a soldier that he/she served his/her nation during a tough time(s). The 638 was originally designed to be hand written by any Joe that had witnessed an action or duty performance of any other Joe/Jane. It is true that there are some that have undermined the system and others abuse it. I don't agree with punishing everyone for the misgivings of a few.
(0)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
Agree. When I deployed to Iraq our Command Chief told us, on arrival, there would be no Bronze Stars for any of us because that is what he would be receiving and none of us would get the same award as him. Boiled my blood at the time.
I can't stand these "Award Boards", the Air Force has been doing it for years. They sit and decide who gets what, and don't even think of putting an E-2 for the same award as an E8, they will deny it. I'm sorry the Air Force Instructions says that a supervisor recommends it and the Commander approves it. End of story!
The only thing an awards board should be doing is checking for accuracy and ensuring that the citiation/supporting documentation supports the award. They should only downgrade when the member did not meet the award criteria according to DoD regulation. If an E-2 meets the criteria for a BS with V, then he gets it, if the E-8 sitting "in the rear with the gear" doesn't meet it then he gets the appropriate level of award based on his circumstances.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Sir, I just want to say that was one of the best answers I have gotten on my question here and if I could work for some more leaders like you, and Im sure some of these other soldier would agree, I would. Thank you for your answer Sir. Thank you for "schooling" a young Sr. Spc Sir.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Sir,
Could you convince one of your SPC or below who does not work in a headquarters unit that was awarded a BSM.
I fully agree with you regarding the uselessness of award boards.
Could you convince one of your SPC or below who does not work in a headquarters unit that was awarded a BSM.
I fully agree with you regarding the uselessness of award boards.
(0)
(0)
8
8
0
This is a continues problem everywhere. The Regulations does
not limit awards to rank but some commands makes a policy about it that never appears
when questioned. Most of the times awards are not about accomplishments but
what rank you have or who do you work for. Almost everyone can mention an
example of this.
This topic has had numerous good service member leave the
services disgruntle.
(8)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
I don't let it get to me to the point where it would be a determining factor in whether or not I stay in service but, I definitely use it to judge the climate of my unit. If I know what to expect, then I can't be disappointed, right?
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
I agree, my 1SG went to bat for me when we did end of tour awards. I held a PSG position as a SGT/E5 for the entire deployment and my Squadron CO wanted to downgrade my recommended BSM to an ARCOM and give the BSM to a 2LT who had been in country for 3 months. Seeing my 1SG go nose to nose with the CO let me know that there are still good senior NCO's in the ranks.
(5)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google