Limiting awards by rank is WRONG. Comments?

SSG Robert Quayle III — Thu, 05 Feb 2015 15:02:48 -0500

I was just reminded of one of the most ignorant policies I have ever seen in the Army. It's the policy of limiting awards based on rank. This is complete BS. You mean to tell me that a private is incapable of acts of heroism, valor, etc...??? Nonsense. Rank should have NOTHING to do with the decision but rather on the pure merit of his/her actions PERIOD. Is there something I'm missing?

Response by SGT Jim Z. made Feb 5 at 2015 3:04 PM

SGT Jim Z. — Thu, 05 Feb 2015 15:04:47 -0500

Can you show me in AR 600-8-22 it says awards are limited by rank?

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Feb 5 at 2015 3:26 PM

LTC Paul Labrador — Thu, 05 Feb 2015 15:26:07 -0500

In general, yes, awards based ONLY on rank is wrong.....HOWEVER, consider this: the level of award is also based on the significance and impact of your contribution. Higher rank soldiers tend to get bigger awards because their impact is usually greater due to the increase in responsibility. Not to say a junior soldier cannot impact the unit greatly. Some often do, and should be recognized for that increased impact. But that is not very common.

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Feb 5 at 2015 3:47 PM

CSM Michael J. Uhlig — Thu, 05 Feb 2015 15:47:24 -0500

Awards are not approved based on rank, its based on the scope and sphere of influence and responsibility.

While I had heard this many times, it took me a while to actually believe it - which happened after I experienced it for myself.

As a SSG selected for SFC in the secondary zone, I thought I had earned a MSM for four years of service at Fort Hood, TX - working in a SFC position (e.g. Platoon Sergeant) for the time there....I PCS'd with an Army Commendation Medal. I thought I had earned more, but knew I really earned that ARCOM. So, I was on the way to the Heavy BCT at Camp Casey, Korea. I was wearing a MSM 12 months later....frustrating me because I believed I had rec'd the award because of my rank (surely it wasn't because I was serving in a MSG position that had a huge impact on the BCT.) I PCS'd to Fort Polk (earned two more MSMs there, within three years!)....That's when I really looked at what the awards said and compared the MSMs to the previous ARCOMs....I really did have a much larger impact on the bigger unit mission success. It took a while to really see it for myself.

Food for thought, most BN and BDE level CSMs (and most Commanders as well) will PCS with a MSM, after serving as the person responsible for the welfare of their Soldiers & their Families as well as the accomplishment of the mission....the scope of responsibility is much greater.

Not sure if this message will reach home for you and make sense, if not it should serve as another perspective for you.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 5 at 2015 3:57 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 05 Feb 2015 15:57:41 -0500

CSM Michael J. Uhlig has it right.

Response by SPC Ryan D. made Feb 5 at 2015 4:01 PM

SPC Ryan D. — Thu, 05 Feb 2015 16:01:25 -0500

Case in point:

My first deployment in '06 ended with my entire PSD element getting ARCOM's while the officers from the TOC staff received Bronze Stars. (This may sound like a joke, but I'm not kidding)

My team spent the majority of our time outside the wire performing duties critical to the 'hearts and minds' of the locals, while these officers were watching us from their arm chairs.

Awards given based on actual merit are few and far between.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 5 at 2015 4:09 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 05 Feb 2015 16:09:04 -0500

It isbpn't actually a regulation but for some reason seems to be a political guideline... I have seen officers get bronze stars just because they were a commander of a unit in a combat zone, and yet I have seen E-3 and E-4's filling in for E-6 and E-7's and get maybe an AAM... When I questioned about it,I was told the same thing about it being because of rank and position.. But if you are a higher rank fulfilling a position equal to your rank, should you receive a medal? But that is what we have come to... Medals are for going above and beyond, apparently in today's military that seems to be doing your job but having rank.... I don't agree and have argued my point, but to no avail I have yet to win the argument... Politics vs. Common sense...

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Feb 5 at 2015 4:51 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Thu, 05 Feb 2015 16:51:57 -0500

Yes it is true that awards limited by rank is wrong. However keep in mind that the APPROVAL AUTHORITY is limited by rank.

I'll use the Navy & Marine Corps Achievement Medal & the Army Achievement Medal as examples.

They are theoretically "equivalent" awards. However, because until 2002 it required an O-6, as opposed to an O-5 to approve, this meant that it was awarded significantly less often.

What does this mean? It means that for something to make it to the Regt/MEU Commanders Desk, it has to be "Important." Or more accurately, they had to be able to justify it to the powers that be.

This doesn't mean that a lower rank can't get awards, just that it's a harder fight. As other people have said, it would generally be outside their "scope & sphere of influence."

"What could a E3/E4 do that would justify an Achievement/Commendation Medal? How did they affect the mission/organization in such a way that this is justified?"

Awards "higher" than that (at least in the Marines), tend to be Valor level or MSM+, which are generally Command level EOT awards, as opposed to "Impact" awards.

So this isn't so much a "policy" issue, as a "philosophy" issue, on how awards are handled.

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Feb 5 at 2015 5:46 PM

COL Jean (John) F. B. — Thu, 05 Feb 2015 17:46:39 -0500

I have read all these posts and agree what is said in most of them. The key point is that meritorious service/achievement awards recognize the individuals' contributions as well as the scope of responsibility. Equally meritorious service by a SGT (E-5), with his/her scope of responsibility, is just not the same as that of an SFC/PSG (E-7), for example.

What used to really burn me up was my subordinates trying to use me as the bad guy. For example, a company commander would recommend a soldier for an MSM, clearly knowing that it was not justified and knowing that I (brigade commander) would downgrade it. Then he could tell the soldier that he had put him in for the MSM but that the "old man" had downgraded it. I "smoked" more than one officer for that. If he/she felt it was truly justified, so be it, however, most knew it was not when it was submitted. [Now, I would not be totally honest if I said that I had never done that as a young officer... and it is wrong. You need to have the moral courage to look the soldiers in the face and tell them what you feel they truly deserve and recommend them for that.]

Meritorious service/achievement awards have some rank bias with them, based on the scope of responsibility issue. Whether people agree with it or not, it is simply a fact.

Response by SPC(P) Jay Heenan made Feb 6 at 2015 2:33 AM

SPC(P) Jay Heenan — Fri, 06 Feb 2015 02:33:07 -0500

You know, it is crazy. Think about it, I have read all of these comments and agree with some completely and some not. Anyway, I see the wording "scope of responsibility" or some variation of that wording. Below is the quoted portion out of AR 600-8-22

"...service will not be based upon the grade of the intended recipient. Rather, the award should reflect both the individual’s level of responsibility and his or her manner of performance. The degree to which an individual’s achievement or service enhanced the readiness or effectiveness of his or her organization will be the predominant
factor..."

It should be as long as you put in the work, you should be giving the award you 'deserve'. So if I am understanding what everyone is saying, using "scope of responsibility" or other similar terms, unless it is for a valor in combat, junior Soldiers will never qualify for anything beyond an ARCOM? Because of our level of responsibility is believed to be fairly small in comparison to leadership. Everyone says that there are exceptions (which is true, as I know some junior Soldiers who got MSM's for non-combat related actions). I will give you my example, I deployed as an E-4, spent a year in Afghanistan doing an E-6 job. I also planned, coordinated, meet with FOB commander and staff to get a VTF (Veterinary Treatment Facility) and Kennel validated, approved and built on my FOB. It was approved and was started shortly after my re-deployment, due to cost and waiting for new FY. I had to write my own award, due to my boss not knowing how to write one. After I wrote it, recommending me for a MSM for the above and other things I did while deployed. The unit I was attached to changed it by taking off the VTF and Kennel and adding being an IMO because my award looked better than my supervisor and he was getting an MSM. Direction was clear from above (I saw the e-mail), Senior leaders (E-7 and officers) were getting BSM, E-6 were getting MSM, and all others were getting ARCOM. Actions didn't matter at all.
I would also argue that our (the junior Soldiers) responsibility is MUCH greater than those not out running missions (leadership), because we are directly responsible for making sure our buddies come back home. Even if the mission plan is complete crap, it is still our responsibility to make it happen without incident. The senior leadership may be ultimately responsible on paper, but it is us, the Soldiers on the ground that are actually responsible for everything that happens once the mission has been briefed.
Maybe I am completely wrong...

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 6 at 2015 2:26 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 06 Feb 2015 14:26:04 -0500

As several have already stated, awards are based merit and accomplishments. While there are instances that many can quoye where someone of senior rank received a higher award and never left the wire versus the junior rank who was in patrol constantly, those occurrences are more the exception than the rule. As an S1, I have read literally hundreds of awards. If you want a junior rank to receive a higher level award, then put some geniuine effort into writing it (stop with the copy and paste b*ll sh*t that I see so often) and clearly articulate what the Soldier has achieved. Tell the story to the approving authority of how great of an impact the Soldier had on not only your unit but other units. That will help to bolster the award. Bottom line, don't rail against the system, do something to improve it. (Stepping off soap box now)

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 6 at 2015 2:28 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 06 Feb 2015 14:28:34 -0500

Dont you just love blanket awards? Lol

Response by SFC James Rigdon made Feb 6 at 2015 5:08 PM

SFC James Rigdon — Fri, 06 Feb 2015 17:08:24 -0500

I actually saw a list in 2003 that was done by rank and if you were above the cut line you received a bronze star next section ARCOMS and then the rest of the Soldiers received COA's for Operation Iraqi freedom. These Soldiers did the assault to Baghdad and I personally seen most of them bust there tales.

Another incident was that in 2009 I was a S1 NCOIC for an Infantry Battalion and I was the only SFC that did not receive a Bronze Star (except for a SFC that was huffing air) I accepted my ARCOM but was told that because my level of responsibility was of a SFC that my Soldiers awards wouldn't be approved because obviously they couldn't be equal to me.

I can go on, and on but this is just 2 incidents. I will add that I don't care about Awards anymore I am still going to give 110 % to the mission that needs to be completed. Awards don't define the Soldier, the Army Values do.....

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 6 at 2015 8:19 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 06 Feb 2015 20:19:13 -0500

I had Skipper in the Navy that downgraded a commendation to an achievement because I was an E5. Insulting for sure.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 7 at 2015 12:19 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 07 Feb 2015 00:19:32 -0500

SSG Robert Quayle III many of the Medal of Honor recipients were lower ranking in previous wars and a few sergeants in recent wars. I do agree that there are some awards that are awarded to higher ranks more than lower ranks, but not so much for valor (from my observations) but more meritorious or service medals. As LTC Paul Labrador stated is it is also about level of responsibility. A PFC is not responsible for 6,000 Soldiers but a COL or BC is responsible for that many. They should be recognized accordingly. Both should be given awards if they do something deserving an award according to their actions. I also have seen and put in higher awards because a SGT did a job that held the level of responsibility as a SFC. So there are Soldiers who have been recognized and received these higher awards.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 7 at 2015 4:22 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 07 Feb 2015 04:22:06 -0500

It's wrong but it is by all means an accepted norm. Why do I say that? Simple; We know what the regulations say, yet from the top down this is still being practiced by higher level leadership. I once seen a SSG of 20 years retire with an ARCOM (which was downgraded from MSM). This was a good NCO. Never had UCMJ or a sub par NCOER and culminated his career as an AIT instructor passing the torch to the next generation. Still he received an ARCOM for 20 years of service??? Why? probably because he retired as a SSG. It is indeed a shame in my eyes.

Response by SGT Rik Thibodeau made Feb 7 at 2015 8:09 AM

SGT Rik Thibodeau — Sat, 07 Feb 2015 08:09:30 -0500

My last four years in the Army (2000-2004) I was an E5 doing the job of a staff officer in the G3 Operations section. I was popular with many of the senior officers who couldn't believe that an E5 could do such a job and do it as well as I did. When I ETS'd, they put me in for an MSM but the CG at the time (a two star) had a policy of "I don't care if he walks on water, anyone below E7 will not receive an MSM" and denied it. As luck would have it, he was PCSing soon and my chain of command actually felt so strongly that I deserved it that they waited until the new CG came in, resubmitted it, and it got approved. I was ETSing so I really didn't care much whether I got an MSM, an ARCOM or whatever but I have to admit, it was nice to see that my chain command fought for me to get the award they felt I deserved, not the award that was "commensurate" with my rank.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 7 at 2015 10:37 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 07 Feb 2015 10:37:53 -0500

It most certainly is wrong SSG Robert Quayle III, yet it continues to be the standard across the board.

I consider it poor Leadership!

Response by TSgt Scott Hurley made Feb 7 at 2015 10:47 AM

TSgt Scott Hurley — Sat, 07 Feb 2015 10:47:34 -0500

It was the same in the AF too. I have even seen a MSgt get an acheivement medal when it should have been at least a Meritorious Service Medal since he was the provisional 1sgt when the Kobar bombing occurred. I even told him he was jipped. And he agreed.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 26 at 2015 7:42 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 19:42:05 -0500

There is a logic and rank is not supposed to the centeral theme but scope of responsibility in terms duration and magnitude.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 26 at 2015 10:06 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 22:06:21 -0500

I believe this was addressed in another thread last year.

Anyways, while limiting awards based on rank is egregiously wrong, the practice nevertheless occurs on a regular basis. I can't answer why some commanders are unwilling to approve recommendations based on the accomplishment but I can personally attest to the discrimination.

During my last deployment to Iraq, I was assigned as the S4 NCOIC for a Cavalry Squadron. Our Squadron was, by far and long, the best battalion sized element in the brigade. Bar none. All the Staff sections were top notch: S1, S2, S3, S4, S6, S9, Medics, as well as our attached FSC. To put it in an earlier perspective, during our NTC rotation, the Squadron was the ONLY element in the Brigade to not only repel but "capture" or "kill" all enemy forces, an accomplishment that hadn't been done in well over a year. In addition, during the Medic Section's STX, the section broke the time record for completing the STX. The record was 40 minutes yet they completed it in 20 minutes. Anyways, towards the end of the deployment when it came time to submit recommendations for awards, my S4 told me the BDE CDR stated to the BN CDRs that no one will receive a BSM unless they were regularly going outside the wire and no SSG and below would receive one. Needless to say I was flabbergasted and upset at such a standard to hold for personnel. Nearly all BSM recommendations were downgraded by the SCO to include the S1 NCOIC, whose BSM accomplishments went to the S1 OIC, and mine, even though my S4 and I led a top notch S4 shop resulting in accounting for nearly $500K in FOO funds and having no FLIPLs on the return home. Oh, and I'm humble enough to say my S1 counterpart did significantly more on his side than I did in mine. The really disgusting part was a newly promoted SSG, with barely 5 years in and was in charge of the PSD, received a BSM despite receiving a Field Grade Art 15. Tell me there's no bias. Yeah, right!!!

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 27 at 2015 2:29 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 27 Feb 2015 14:29:41 -0500

As I think about this, I understand the perception that medals are limited by rank appears to be true. However, has any of us ever met a PFC, SFC, CPT or LTC that has done what it takes to earn the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, Army Distinguished Service Medal or Defense Superior Service Medal. I know I have not.

Is this because of rank or because none of those above have had the responsibility at such a level to justify decorations at that level. I have purposefully excluded medals for valor since that is a whole other discussion.

However, lets use the rank of CSM/SGM. I have seen Battalion CSMs receive MSMs and LOMs. The same is true at the Brigade and Division level. At the Corps, Army and higher, I have seen CSMs receive the Defense Superior Service Medal and the Army Distinguished Service Medal. The rank is all the same, what is the difference between the level of decoration awarded? It is level of responsibility.

So, I propose it is a fallacy to call it "awarded by rank" when it is in fact "awarded by responsibility"

I am not naive enough to say that award by rank does not happen. This is why each award should be evaluated upon its own merit, not just say, "The NCOs get this and the officers get that".

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 4 at 2015 6:05 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 04 Mar 2015 18:05:28 -0500

This is a very sore subject for alot of people I'm sure. I was in a unit that had a set limit for Bronze star medals. The not so funny joke is the arm chair warriors got the bronze stars and the Leaders that went outside the wire got Arcoms.

Response by SSG Benjamin Moser made Mar 6 at 2015 12:38 AM

SSG Benjamin Moser — Fri, 06 Mar 2015 00:38:47 -0500

I agree as well. The quality of the soldier should not be based entirely on rank but on their abilities to handle whatever situation he/she is in. I don't think there are to many times a Pvt. will be in complete control of a operation where they will call command and control over the situation but I guess you never know.

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 6 at 2015 9:58 AM

SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 06 Mar 2015 09:58:17 -0500

So what if an NCO holds a position higher than his rank? For instance I have never seen a SGT work as the BDE Schools, Training and Retention NCO. I have always seen SFC or higher. SFC would receive more than an ARCOM based on his Rank, while a SGT would be getting an ARCOM or less. I know this has nothing to do with heroism or valor. My question to you is: Does this fall in the same category as what you are getting at?

Response by SFC Walt Littleton made Mar 6 at 2015 10:09 AM

SFC Walt Littleton — Fri, 06 Mar 2015 10:09:25 -0500

Happened to me 2 times in my career. Both times I was working 1 and 2 grades above my rank. Both times I deserved them and went above and beyond. Both times I was told that due to my rank it wouldn't be approved. My statement to my superiors were "if it was up to you to give me the award would you" both times my superiors told they would. I told them then you should do the right thing and write the award up as you see fit! They were for MSM's. I received them both at different commands event though was told it wouldn't get approved.

Good LEADERS do what's right and stand up for what is right!

Here is a good one. You always see higher ranking officers with a chest full of ribbons and you wonder how did this guy get all of these? Case and point. I met a General at Fr Campbell one time and he had just arrived. No he was the commanding general however, the army had just appoved the Air Assault Wings for completing the course. There if was on his chest plain as day! Hummmm he is about 50-60 years old, the badge is like a month old and he has his already. I'm sure his first task upon being assigned there was to complete Air Assault school at his age.

Makes Ya think doesn't it!

Response by COL Charles Williams made Mar 23 at 2015 12:05 AM

COL Charles Williams — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 00:05:28 -0400

Yes its certainly is, but it is also common. Rank is one issue. The other issue that is more contentious is level of responsibility. There is no policy, that specifies rank, and this is generally never about heroism, it is about service awards; or whose service matters the most...

MSMs and BSMs are often at the center of the debate.

This will be debated as long as we have awards, and Commanders make decisions as to who gets what. I have seen this work well, and not so well, and no matter who you do it, someone invariably is not happy, because we all a prone to think we deserve more than others, and we always think what we do matters more and is more important.

As COL Jean (John) F. B. stated "Meritorious service/achievement awards have some rank bias with them, based on the scope of responsibility issue. Whether people agree with it or not, it is simply a fact."

Examples... In most places, you will not get a LOM, unless your are COL or CSM at the COL Level, when you are changing command. Retirement is a little different, but COL is often the cut line.

There are awards you can't touch if you are COL or CSM on the Line, but you can receive if you serve on the Army Staff or Joint Staff.

Service (even achievement) awards is about rank, some is about level of responsibility, and both go together.

That said, I have never seen any issue based on rank or position for valor or heroism.

Response by Cpl Tou Lee Yang made Mar 23 at 2015 1:15 AM

Cpl Tou Lee Yang — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 01:15:32 -0400

Every change of comment I've witnessed, the CO has always been presented with a Legion of Merits. You can't really say a junior enlisted is worthy of such commendation? However, I do see your point whereas I also witness how a senior enlisted received a commendation medal while his subordinate received achievement medals and the lower non-nco got letter of appreciation.

Response by SGT John Beardsley made Apr 7 at 2015 3:24 AM

SGT John Beardsley — Tue, 07 Apr 2015 03:24:36 -0400

"Higher rank soldiers tend to get bigger awards because their impact is usually greater due to the increase in responsibility."

I've heard that justification many times, and it always sticks in my craw. I've been in units where I witnessed groups of soldiers come into the unit together and within a couple of years saw certain of the group have a modestly impressive display on their breast, while others of that same group had nothing. From personal knowledge I knew which of those soldiers were the better workers and which were the "favored sons".

Officers tend to rack up awards so totally out of proportion to the NCOs who serve with them it becomes laughable. I served in one unit where we had a change of command involving both the Battalion Commander and Battalion CSM. The LTC was assigned to our unit because "he needed a field command to progress further up the ranks" according to scuttle-butt. The CSM was an old salt, he knew what he was doing and did his damndest to take care of the unit and his commander.

To put it bluntly, the LTC was a disaster. He was a micro-manager of the worst type, and so badly undermined the NCO corp of the entire battalion that our morale became miserable, which affected both the other officers in the battalion and the junior enlisted. The CSM tried. He told the LTC in a heated argument in front of other officers and enlisted that the LTC should let the NCOs do their job rather than trying to do it himself.

We had a command inspection. After all the rigamarole was done, but before the official report had been completed and passed down, the LTC ordered the entire NCO corp to come to a meeting which he used to tell us what a disloyal bunch of slime we were and he was embarrassed to be associated with us. He told us that he had never been involved in an inspection as terrible as the one we'd just been through, and he held we NCOs directly responsible. Then the report came down.

Seems the inspectors were inspecting another unit or something because their opinions were drastically out of kilter with our "Commander's".

Things got so bad we had another dual change of command, much earlier than was normally the case. The LTC was given the typical ceremony, along with the typical chest candy. The CSM was transferred to another unit with no ceremony and no candy, and not into a command position. I don't know where the LTC went, didn't really care too much either.

The LTC's impact was indeed greater than the CSM's, but the honors both received did not accurately reflect just what kind of impact each had.

I agree with SSG Quayle's premiss, awards should not be given based on rank. Nor should they be "adjusted" based upon intangibles such as "command responsibilities".

Awards should be given for performance of your duty "above and beyond" the norm, when given for non-combat situations. Awards for valor in combat should be the same for commissioned, non-commissioned, enlisted, command and non-command, period. That would be the ideal situation . . . the chances of it happening are not good.

Not good at all.

Response by SFC Francisco Rosario made Feb 19 at 2018 4:34 PM

SFC Francisco Rosario — Mon, 19 Feb 2018 16:34:13 -0500

Well stated, it is very unfortunate that most leaders wont see this. These are the same leaders that want soldiers to reup so they can make mission in the unit, but yet they fail to recognize the efforts of their subordinates.

Response by SSG Jonathan Miles made May 28 at 2018 4:10 PM

SSG Jonathan Miles — Mon, 28 May 2018 16:10:07 -0400

I disagree with scope of responsibility. You mean to tell me a S-2 Officer deserves a bronze star when they never left the FOB and a PFC who risks their life everytime because they leave the wire on a wing and a prayer. Come on. Scope of responsibility is a poor way to justify this broken system. Courage isn't outweighed by scopeof responsibility. They should be privileged tothe same award.

Response by CPT Jeff Reichardt made May 28 at 2018 4:38 PM

CPT Jeff Reichardt — Mon, 28 May 2018 16:38:46 -0400

I was in from 78-07. I’ve seen it all. Worst case I saw was first gulf war. Everyone E-6 and above got BSM. Everyone below got ARCOMS. This was a medical unit.

On the other hand. If you are in the military to get medals, you are in for the wrong reason.

Response by SFC Francisco Rosario made May 28 at 2018 4:39 PM

SFC Francisco Rosario — Mon, 28 May 2018 16:39:40 -0400

I was on a MiTT (out of Ft. Riley KS), deployed to Iraq. The make-up of these teams was 5 officers (O-3 – O-5) and 5 NCOs (E-6 – E-8). The main job was to be advisers to the Iraqi army; based on the job responsibilities some were awarded MSMs and others BSMs. Of all the teams, only one was awarded BSMs to all 10 members. However I do know for a fact that some members of other teams were awarded ARCOMs due to job performance.

Response by CPT Jeff Reichardt made May 28 at 2018 4:56 PM

CPT Jeff Reichardt — Mon, 28 May 2018 16:56:43 -0400

My grandfather served in WWII. 4.5 years. BAR gunner. All over North Africa and Europe. Was there for the run for the Rhyne. Infantry all the way. His single award for valor was a bronze star. He took out two pill boxes to save his platoon. Something he did on multiple occasions. As did most of his platoon.

Award inflation has sullied the whole process.

Response by COL Brian Shea made May 28 at 2018 11:19 PM

COL Brian Shea — Mon, 28 May 2018 23:19:37 -0400

For those saying the higher awards for senior personnel are merited based on increased levels of responsibility, shouldn't the expectations be higher as well? If that were the case simply doing your J-O-B does not merit an award. Yeah, your job, by its nature, may be more complex. That's why you get to wear the rank, generally speaking have better living and working conditions, and get paid more. IMHO I'd love to see a general principle that no senior NCO/Officer is eligible to receive a higher award than their subordinates. Again, awards for valor being the exception. But I'm not holding my breath.

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made May 29 at 2018 7:47 AM

SGM Bill Frazer — Tue, 29 May 2018 07:47:14 -0400

While I agree, the PAC Rats seem to think differently- I have seen anything about Valor awards being ranks based- I know service e awards are a different horse. Many PAC Rats will tell you that they will downgrade a Legion of Merit for anyone under E7 to a MSM, in a heart beat. Since they rule the roost, it's damn tough to get around.

Response by PO1 David Johnson made Jun 8 at 2018 6:50 PM

PO1 David Johnson — Fri, 08 Jun 2018 18:50:55 -0400

His point here is the disparity of the Admin types being awarded Arcom's over field types. It was the same in my Navy Squadron. The PN, YN Admin of all ranks wore more Navy Achievements & Commendations than any other rates in the command. It was not uncommon for them to writeup their own awards, simply following previous drafts. Not uncommon to see a E5 or E6 sporting 6 or 7 NAM and 2 or 3 MIN.

Response by SGT David Casey made Jun 8 at 2018 7:50 PM

SGT David Casey — Fri, 08 Jun 2018 19:50:29 -0400

I was put in for an MSM because I was ETSing after 3 consecutive tours/extensions in Korea. I had numerous other awards from previous assignments, but had received nothing while in Korea.

For 2-1/2 years of this assignment I was "holding" an E-6(P)/E-7 slot...because the position required specialized training/certification.

When the award was initially submitted, the Bn. awards clerk (E-3) would not even submit it. My CO had to get involvedold the awards clerk to subgot it submitted, where it was approved by the O-5 and O-6 in my chain

Response by LTC Stephan Porter made Sep 13 at 2018 11:57 PM

LTC Stephan Porter — Thu, 13 Sep 2018 23:57:35 -0400

Valor yes!

Achievement and Service have other factors that usually coincide with tank; scope of responsibility and what you did.

Response by PO1 Don Gulizia made Sep 14 at 2018 11:51 AM

PO1 Don Gulizia — Fri, 14 Sep 2018 11:51:59 -0400

Happened all the time when I was in the Navy.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 15 at 2018 9:55 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 15 Sep 2018 09:55:20 -0400

Let’s be honest, there is a very small percent of Soldiers who are in harm’s way and have the opportunity for great heroism. I think we get that right, most of the time. There are many examples of that when you look at who has been awarded the MOH for OIF/OEF. They are mostly enlisted Soldiers who were junior enlisted when they earned the award. Now, when we are talking about garrison and PCS awards I think most leaders tend to look at a Soldiers performance from only thier perspective. Whereas when a BN-BDE-DIV Commander reviews the award, they are liking across the formation at what is being done within thier units. When I was a Company Commander, I looked across my Company and compared how that individual stacked up against thier peers. To thier immediate boss, they were a superstar, but at the company level they were average. See my point? It’s like NCOERs, most NCOs only measure themselves against thier peers in thier immediate unit, whereas the Senior Rater is measuring them against all NCOs in that grade that they have worked with before giving them a block check. At least that’s how I approach it. You can’t take your award recommendation being downgraded as personal.

Response by LTC Jason Mackay made Sep 15 at 2018 1:42 PM

LTC Jason Mackay — Sat, 15 Sep 2018 13:42:24 -0400

SSG Robert Quayle III please show me this policy in writing.

This what AR600-8-22 says, note 3-1c:
3–1. Intent
a. U.S. Army military decorations are awarded in recognition of heroism, meritorious achievement, or meritorious service.
b. In peacetime, U.S. Army military decorations recognize achievements, which have significantly contributed to the readiness or effectiveness of a unit or organization, or have made notable contributions to the morale or esprit de corps of units or organizations. Exceptional command or leadership of a crew, team, section, squad, or similar unit may be considered meritorious achievement or service. Recommendations for awards must be based on specific achievement.
c. The decision to award an individual a decoration and the decision as to which award is appropriate are both subjective decisions made by the commander having award approval authority. Awards for meritorious achievement or service will not be based upon the grade of the intended recipient. Rather, the award should reflect both the individual’s level of responsibility and his or her manner of performance. The degree to which an individual’s achievement or service enhanced the readiness or effectiveness of his or her organization will be the leading factor.
d. No individual is automatically entitled to an award upon departure from an assignment. Awards presented in conjunction with a PCS will be limited to exceptional cases. Certificates of achievement and letters of commendation or appreciation are appropriate means to recognize departing personnel.
e. No preconditions for an award may be established, such as, for example, when Soldiers are informed in advance that attainment of specific goals will result in the automatic award of a given decoration. Military decorations will not be used as prizes in contests.
f. Limiting awards to a specific number per unit is not authorized.

Response by LTC Jason Mackay made Sep 16 at 2018 12:32 PM

LTC Jason Mackay — Sun, 16 Sep 2018 12:32:24 -0400

SSG Robert Quayle III I think another place this gets confused is talking peacetime awards. The bar is set pretty high for retirement and everything gets backed off that. So as my 23 year career drew to a close I was recommended for a LOM. Despite a successful career including command of an Army Installation; a well drafted narrative endorsed by Brigade and Division Commanders; and a number of unique and articulated accomplishments it was downgraded to MSM. I stood in a retirement parade where two other Post command LTCs were recognized with LOMs. The reminder of the formation was recognized with MSMs Staff Sergeants through Lieutenant Colonels. So that Is where the bar gets set. It was also a cross section. About 25 people from multiple commands and multiple installations, so it wasn't just 4th Sustainment Brigade. it wasn't just 4ID. It wasn't just FORSCOM.

Before they changed the awards rules for combat deployments, the award choice was ARCOM or Bronze Star. You couldn't award an AAM or MSM. That changed about 2007 or 2008, which fixed some things and created some new problems.

I do not think Valor awards are rank based. I believe what defines Valor another whole discussion.

Response by PO1 Ted Woitazek made Jan 28 at 2020 7:13 AM

PO1 Ted Woitazek — Tue, 28 Jan 2020 07:13:23 -0500

My first tour in the 80's was a maintainer in an F-14 squadron. That command had a policy that said first term sailors didn't recieve a NAM.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 21 at 2020 9:10 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 21 Feb 2020 21:10:47 -0500

I think it should even more rewarded if the individual is a lower rank and shows absolute acts or act of heroism. That means the individual(s) possibly have less training and less experience being a soldier. But no act of selfless service or sacrifice should go unnoticed or unrewarded. I agree fully SSG Robert Quayle III.

Response by SGT Jon Creager made Sep 21 at 2020 7:40 PM

SGT Jon Creager — Mon, 21 Sep 2020 19:40:08 -0400

You are correct.