Why did the Army deny this Green Beret the Medal of Honor?

2015-06-10T03:56:46-04:00

In the waning days of summer 2013, Taliban insurgents launched a spectacular attack on a coalition military base in Afghanistan. A 400-pound car bomb rocked the eastern side of the installation, and about 10 enemy attackers armed with suicide vests, rifles, hand grenades and grenade launchers poured through a shattered wall.

Among those to respond was Staff Sgt. Earl D. Plumlee, a former reconnaissance Marine and Green Beret with the Army’s 1st Special Forces Group. He and some of the other troops who fought to protect Forward Operating Base Ghazni engaged in a fierce firefight with insurgents. Enemy attackers were no more than 20 feet away during portions of the Aug. 28 fight, according to military documents describing the event.

The battle yielded numerous awards for those who fought off the attack. But it is the award that was denied to Plumlee — the Medal of Honor — that has drawn attention on Capitol Hill and from the Defense Department Inspector General’s office.

Plumlee was recommended for the Medal of Honor by the head of a Special Operations task force in Afghanistan, Army Col. Patrick B. Roberson, a decision that was backed by senior generals in the field. Marine Gen. Joseph F. Dunford, then the top U.S. general in Afghanistan and since nominated to become the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, described Plumlee’s actions as “truly extraordinary.”

But Plumlee ultimately received the Silver Star — considered two levels below the Medal of Honor — in a May 1 ceremony at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Wash. As he was being considered for the nation’s highest military award for valor, the Army’s Criminal Investigation Command (CID) launched an investigation into whether Plumlee illegally tried to sell a rifle scope online. The investigation yielded no charges, but the Army’s denial has prompted allegations that service leaders only want squeaky-clean soldiers to receive the Medal of Honor.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/06/09/the-army-denied-a-medal-of-honor-to-this-green-beret-war-hero-what-happened/?hpid=z4

The Army denied a Medal of Honor to this Green Beret war hero. What happened?

Senior officers, including Gen. Joseph Dunford, recommended that Sgt. 1st Class Earl Plumlee receive the nation's top award for valor in combat.

Response by PO3 David Fries made Jun 10 at 2015 5:59 AM

2015-06-10T05:59:49-04:00

Based on the write up, I don't see why he didn't get it. Between being the first one in the fight, and the aiding in the care and evac of two soldiers certainly see why he was selected for it.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Jun 10 at 2015 6:58 AM

2015-06-10T06:58:53-04:00

The actions of that day should have quashed anything else. Investigated but not charged for selling a scope - seriously, that halted a MOH? Why the drop to a Silver Star and not a DSC? No one is perfect but this sounds like someone was on a mission.

If they applied the same logic to politicians and their paychecks, hmm...

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 10 at 2015 7:10 AM

2015-06-10T07:10:52-04:00

There is not enough data for me to form an informed opinion. I am never going to see the paperwork or speak to the people involved his award process.

My uninformed opinion is that he should have gotten it. He was recommended for it before the CID investigation in to the scope he sold even started. Besides, how many people that have been given the MoH have a less than squeaky clean background? There are even CHILDREN in our nations military history that have gotten the MoH. Some lied about their age to get in the service.

There is something g fishy going on here...

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Jun 10 at 2015 7:28 AM

2015-06-10T07:28:16-04:00

Q. What are the criteria for the Medal of Honor?
In accordance with United States Code Title 10, Subtitle C, Part II, Chapter 567, The President may award, and present in the name of Congress, a medal of honor of appropriate design, with ribbons and appurtenances, to a person who, while a member of the naval service, distinguishes himself conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty—

(1) while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States;

(2) while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force; or

(3) while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.

Note: Each Military Department (Army, Navy, Air Force) has its own particular entry in the USC. However, the criteria for each are identical.

Response by 1LT William Clardy made Jun 10 at 2015 7:52 AM

2015-06-10T07:52:22-04:00

To those who think that awards for valor should be tempered by considerations of how well the recipient will present himself to the public, could somebody please point out any citations for bravery which included an annotation that the nominee has no pending criminal investigations and has always been a model of civic-minded probity?

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 10 at 2015 8:02 AM

2015-06-10T08:02:58-04:00

Come now, soldiers--it's not a contest with prizes. On the one hand, when we are looking for heroes for propaganda value, we will find them. When we are not looking, our standards will be tighter. Certainly, from what we read he may well deserve a MOH. Yet we haven't read details of the very extensive investigation that goes on, including eyewitnesses and chain of command. And yes, perhaps standards of conduct and the idea of character kick in; or are misapplied.
Recall that Audie Murphy and many others did a lot of consistently heroic things that led up to a MOH, in fact, that is a pattern in many cases in WWII...not just a specific act; that pattern simply made the final act more credible in that context of war.
Yes, from our history we see different standards applied at different times--some of which are later reversed--awards granted retroactively, awards revoked. Often because of a new "attitude" about "other factors" (race/religion)= hence discretion.
I've sat on awards boards where some officials were so intent on denying awards you could not help but note that their negative vote tended to be mainly for awards they did not have. Yet I have never seen a board that was otherwise sloppy. And I have seen intense media pressure to grant awards that to other soldiers seemed completely inappropriate.
So awards boards and approving officials do have some discretion whether we like it or not--whether they like YOU or not.
I've been involved in investigations about why one soldier deployed to Desert Storm and actually exposed to SCUD was not awarded a bronze star when almost every other soldier in his unit was decorated; it boiled down the the CGs discretion despite recommendations. I have been recommended for awards that were similarly downgraded; it was nice to be recommended.

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Jun 10 at 2015 8:32 AM

2015-06-10T08:32:48-04:00

Is there possibly more to this story? There had to be a reason for this downgrade other than the optic. Plumlee's actions meet the criteria for a DSC, if not the MOH. Something warranted a CID investigation. Maybe I am naive but I don't think CID investigations are somehow used as retribution..

Duncan Hunter is politicizing this as he does many other issues..he needs to stay out of the decorations process.

Heroism is heroism despite any other issue. As Kipling says "Soldiers in barracks don't turn into plaster saints" .

I

Response by SGT Timothy Rocheleau made Jun 10 at 2015 10:14 AM

2015-06-10T10:14:02-04:00

So CID investigated him and this potentially led to his MOH being down graded? Really? The investigation found absolutely zero wrong doing on SFC Plumlee's part. Therefore the award should have gone through as recommended. Politics at their best!

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Jun 10 at 2015 10:14 AM

2015-06-10T10:14:18-04:00

Based on the elements in the article, it would appear that the MOH should have been awarded. The article stated:

"Plumlee was investigated by the Army for the possible misappropriation of military equipment after he tried to sell a rifle scope that he had been given as a gift by a contractor overseas.

No criminal charges were filed and it was determined that the optic was not a controlled item, Kasper said. A letter of caution was placed in Plumlee’s administrative file, but later expunged, Kasper added."

If it was not a controlled item (not military equipment) there was no basis to withhold an award that was reviewed and approved up the chain of command.

This is assuming that the newspaper article was accurate and presented the whole story.

Response by SPC Charles Brown made Jun 10 at 2015 12:14 PM

2015-06-10T12:14:19-04:00

Politics and bullshit is what kept this hero from getting the award he deserves

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 10 at 2015 1:10 PM

2015-06-10T13:10:16-04:00

Another SF Medal of Honor nominee had his award down graded to the Silver Star as well. It was a well known fact that he had a less than stellar background and had gotten into some trouble after the act he received the nomination for.

On top of that, SOF personnel receive valor awards one to two levels lower than their conventional counterparts. The reason for it is that SOF personnel are expected to perform to a higher level and are surrounded by equally elite personnel. In order to distinguish yourself, you have to perform well beyond the standard, not just above it.

Response by SGT Drue Rockwell made Jun 11 at 2015 12:02 AM

2015-06-11T00:02:06-04:00

These medals SHOULD NOT ever be at all tied to a person's character or background. The awards should be ONLY merit/performance based. If a total jerk saves your life, you don't refuse to thank him because he has a habit of being a jerk. You give credit where it is due and move on. Furthermore, his rifle scope issue was moot anyway as.

Response by SFC Joseph Bosley made Jun 11 at 2015 1:40 PM

2015-06-11T13:40:24-04:00

OK It's been a while since I retired but I'm remembering something about an award only being able to be downgraded a single level. Has this policy/reg changed? or better question is why if the MOH was downgraded then why all the way to a SS and not a DSC?

Response by SSG Scott Burk made Jun 11 at 2015 7:16 PM

2015-06-11T19:16:41-04:00

I smell BS...I'm glad I'm out of this political CF.

Response by SPC Thomas Baldwin made Jun 11 at 2015 9:28 PM

2015-06-11T21:28:55-04:00

No Service Member should be denied on the bases of an accusation. He was not charged meaning the information of the report he did a criminal act could have been just someone who didn't like him as happens all the time in the service. People hint about thing that don't truly hurt the carrier of the person but prevent them from receiving there due. One of the unfortunate things of our services, but it dose not change how i feel about all who have served.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 11 at 2015 10:42 PM

2015-06-11T22:42:55-04:00

Did anyone ask SFC Plumlee's opinion.. is he upset about it or was he just trying to save his fellow soldiers lives..? Does HE really care about a Medal.?. or is he just happy that he was ably to help protect his brothers and sisters.. Let us not forget that a life was lost.. I truly believe that if SFC Plumee could go back and change things.. he would rather it would have been his life and NOT the life of his bother in arms.. We ,make sacrifices for each other, an oath to protect each other.. We don't do these things for Medals.. the Medals are nice but not the REASON we do this.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 6 at 2015 4:00 AM

2015-07-06T04:00:49-04:00

I don't see how actions on the battlefield somehow don't overrule his actions in garrison. The award is for valor in combat, not garrison conduct. If awards were taken away for garrison conduct I would actually be negative 7 awards hahaha

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 6 at 2015 10:46 AM

2015-07-06T10:46:29-04:00

Politics.

And failure to separate the notion of a Medal for Heroism vs a Medal for Meritorious Service or Specific Act.

A lot of folks do not understand that there are three reasons for awarding a medal. Meritorious Service over a specific period of time (example time on station medal), a Specific Act or Event (putting together a presidential visit), and Act of Heroism (self explanatory).

For any medal there should be no periods of unacceptable behavior during the award period.

For example if I want to give a medal for Meritorious over a Specific Period of time let's say 2011-2015 you cannot have a Art-15 on your record in 2014.

Or if the Presidents Visit was from 12-13 Dec 2014 you cant have a DUI on the night of 12 Dec.

However in this case the time is the battle so as long as his behavior was acceptable during this finite time he would pass this test.

Anyway this is much bigger than a post on RP .....as I started of with Politics.....but also contributory is that many folks do not truly understanding why/when you award a medal.....I always hated hearing things like "its time for SSgt Snuggy's PCS medal to be written".....when the AFI specifically states you don't give medals solely for PCS.....anyway I digress again.....Hope this cleared things up more than it muddled them.

Response by SPC Mario Flores made Aug 12 at 2015 5:05 PM

2015-08-12T17:05:42-04:00

It seems that MoH consistently is awarded posthumously. Can't allow an honest to goodness America lover to be catapulted to high office and threaten the cesspool of friends to our enemies, career politicians, that are destroying America.

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Aug 12 at 2015 11:10 PM

2015-08-12T23:10:40-04:00

Sounds like politics to me