Posted on Jun 10, 2015
Why did the Army deny this Green Beret the Medal of Honor?
39.2K
107
42
10
10
0
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
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
Heroes
Medal of Honor
Special Forces
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 20
10
10
0
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...
If they applied the same logic to politicians and their paychecks, hmm...
(10)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
I have worked in support of some of our "shadow warriors' some of these guys would not be able to pass a background check to purchase a shotgun .. but I would not want any one else by my side in a fire fight.. these guys are heroes.. they save lives.. they save, in some cases, Countries
(2)
(0)
7
7
0
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.
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.
(7)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
SGM (Join to see), I recall a recent ceremony retroactively awarding Medals of Honor to nominees who had apparently had their nomination downgraded based upon "other factors". Are you endorsing the notion that some other factors *should* be considered besides the act itself?
Should we revoke Audie Murphy's MoH based upon his post-war drug addiction and allegations that he threatened his wife with a gun?
Should we revoke Audie Murphy's MoH based upon his post-war drug addiction and allegations that he threatened his wife with a gun?
(4)
(0)
5
5
0
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?
(5)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
1LT Clardy, just FYI, we do records checks to ensure soldiers are eligible for awards based on current investigations, convictions, and even casualty checks. Unproven derogatory information should never be used, however most humans are influenced by it, even in this forum where some people, without any facts, assume that is the case here.
(2)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
I am not surprised, SGM (Join to see), but I still think that even proven derogatory information should not influence the decision regarding what medal a given act of valor will be rewarded with.
Also, I will grant that there could be other factors at play in this instance which might be relevant -- e.g., if SFC Plumlee's weapon failure was due to poor rifle maintenance, or if his conduct interfered with a counter-attack, those would be legitimate (in my opinion) reasons for the downgrade.
But overall, I'm sticking to my argument that the award decision should be based solely upon the valorous act itself, not on tangential issues.
Also, I will grant that there could be other factors at play in this instance which might be relevant -- e.g., if SFC Plumlee's weapon failure was due to poor rifle maintenance, or if his conduct interfered with a counter-attack, those would be legitimate (in my opinion) reasons for the downgrade.
But overall, I'm sticking to my argument that the award decision should be based solely upon the valorous act itself, not on tangential issues.
(2)
(0)
4
4
0
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.
(4)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
SGT Rockwell, do read above--one must have Honorable Service, not be under investigation, etc. I disagree, but that is the law, not just the regulation.
(1)
(0)
SGT Drue Rockwell
If you read my wording, SGM Coberly, I specified "should not" and "should." I'm not arguing what the regs State. That being said, he was never found guilty of anything. If we allow an investigation, however baseless, to stop a hero from receiving decorations, what message are we sending our troops?
(3)
(0)
4
4
0
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.
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.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
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
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
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
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
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
"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.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
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!
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
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.
(3)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
Actually, SGM (Join to see) and SSG Gerhard S., the way I read that section, it means that a less-than-honorable period of service between the act of valor and the actual award of a medal would disqualify the individual from receiving the medal.
I don't see anything there that would authorize the revocation of a medal already awarded.
I don't see anything there that would authorize the revocation of a medal already awarded.
(2)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
... to support and defend the Constitution. It is truly sad that the rewards recommended our military members are subject to the political whims of politicians, it in this case to political appointees. I'm not arguing the point, I'm instead lamenting it. Respectful regards. Thank you for all the thoughtful input!
(1)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
1LT Clardy; I'd tend to agree; however what the Army givith, the Army can take away/revoke. Consider the concept of a "defacto" promotion that is erroneous and through not fault of the bearer and might be retained. Yet there is no "defacto" award. If it can be shown that one was not otherwise eligible, an award can be revoked.
(1)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
SGM (Join to see), I think sequence would be the key factor.
If Private Schmuckatelli takes out an enemy bunker by diving in and bayonetting the occupants, gets nominated for an MOH and gets it draped around his neck by POTUS, then gets a 4-year final change of station at Fort Leavenworth for wearing a hot pink t-shirt under his ACUs a week later, then the MOH would still count as an award he was de jure still qualified for at the time of it being awarded, and I would expect that any burden of proof to roll back such a fait accompli would be Herculean in scale.
On the other hand, if now-Sergeant Schmuckatelli gets busted for wearing his soiled Valentine's Day boxers to PT while his MoH is still under consideration, and the White House invitation would have to be addressed to a cell number at Fort Leavenworth, well, again-Private Schmuckatelli isn't really eligible due to his dishonorable conduct at that morning PT session.
Your opinion would be welcome.
P.S. I apologize for the supremely delayed response. If not for GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad wandering in and paying compliments, I still wouldn't have discovered your response.
If Private Schmuckatelli takes out an enemy bunker by diving in and bayonetting the occupants, gets nominated for an MOH and gets it draped around his neck by POTUS, then gets a 4-year final change of station at Fort Leavenworth for wearing a hot pink t-shirt under his ACUs a week later, then the MOH would still count as an award he was de jure still qualified for at the time of it being awarded, and I would expect that any burden of proof to roll back such a fait accompli would be Herculean in scale.
On the other hand, if now-Sergeant Schmuckatelli gets busted for wearing his soiled Valentine's Day boxers to PT while his MoH is still under consideration, and the White House invitation would have to be addressed to a cell number at Fort Leavenworth, well, again-Private Schmuckatelli isn't really eligible due to his dishonorable conduct at that morning PT session.
Your opinion would be welcome.
P.S. I apologize for the supremely delayed response. If not for GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad wandering in and paying compliments, I still wouldn't have discovered your response.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google