Why are awards so political in the military, why are awards being based on Rank, Race and Gender?

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 05 Nov 2013 05:34:28 -0500

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 5 at 2013 7:51 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 05 Nov 2013 07:51:24 -0500

I disagree that awards are political, and I have never seen race or gender used in deciding whether to approve an award, but I have seen the scope of responsibility, not rank, used in determining awards.

When I was a 2LT, I was surprised I had to put the race and gender of the Soldiers I recommended for awards on the paperwork. When I questioned my commander and the S1, I was told it was to track statistics.

Since then, I have never seen race or gender on any awards I have either been the recommender or somewhere in the chain of recommendation or approver.

I do believe that scope of responsibility, not rank, should be considered when an award is being recommended. A SSG, Squad Leader, may do many of the same things a CPL or SGT Team Leader, however the SSG has a larger scope of responsibility. On the other hand, if the CPL/SGT gooes outside their scope and assumes the duties of the Squad Leader (or higher) then that should be considered in the award.

I have never seen politics involved in awards, unless it has to do with the past behavior of a Soldier and how that may influence the approval chain.

If anyone thinks that race or gender is involved in awards, and the chain of command is unresponsive to your questions, we all have the obligation to go to the next hight level in the CoC or to the IG.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 5 at 2013 9:52 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 05 Nov 2013 09:52:39 -0500

I've seen alot of 'backdoor' stuff going on since I have been in the military. I've seen instances where  soldiers ( E-5's to be specific) be recommended for a BSM for doing the work equivilent to an E-7 and got shot down like bird. Theres some sort of ulterior motive for awards.....it may not be blantantly obvious but a trained eye can pick up on it.

Response by CMC Robert Young made Nov 5 at 2013 10:36 AM

CMC Robert Young — Tue, 05 Nov 2013 10:36:16 -0500

SSG, I agree with you entirely. I have seen too many examples of a member's status being used to determine the level of an award; or more tragically prevent them from receiving an award at all.  I have observed several senior enlisted members perform at an exceptional level and receive local recommendations for the MSMs only to be told by higher authority that their position didn't justify such an award. It's hard to swallow when an O4/5 and E8 worked on the same project, and O4/5 gets the MSM while the E8 receives a CGCOM particularly in light of the effort put forth and results obtained. It's even worse to have a mid career member serve in such a superior manner on back to back assignments, and be given an award for the first one but not the second, and I quote an O5 here "we can't give him another one because he just got an achievement medal last year". I'm not saying the Os don't work hard and deserve the recognition, but so do we!

Response by SFC James Baber made Dec 25 at 2013 12:35 AM

SFC James Baber — Wed, 25 Dec 2013 00:35:51 -0500

With all do respect to the LTC, it is based on rank and not scope, maybe in his COC or units, but during every deployment that I was involved in over the past decade before retirement, it was put out in staff meetings and pre-deployments briefings, E6 and below will never see anything above an ARCOM, unless they are injured during a attack or insurgency, E7 and above will get a BSM unless they get in trouble and will still get at least a ARCOM.

Proof of this, I had a CW2 warehouse OIC that arrived in Taji to take over, never left the FOB until we redeployed back to the states and received a BSM, while myself as a SSG who was handpicked to be a MTT team commander because the CPT that was picked to do it refused saying he was too busy in the S3, and there were no other E7s or LTs available, I earned a CAB that was submitted for 3 different events related to insurgents, a purple heart from an IED incident during a prisoner transport, and a handful of 3ID General coins for actions outside the wire, I only received an ARCOM for my tour award because I was an E6, although my scope of responsibility was that of an O3 for 8 months of 13, and the other 5 months I was the NCOIC of a detainee camp for Taji, which was an E8 position and I was handpicked for that job by the BDE CDR before deployment.

So where did the scope of responsibility apply for both of those duties while deployed with the award I received.

Response by SGM Matthew Quick made Dec 25 at 2013 12:02 PM

SGM Matthew Quick — Wed, 25 Dec 2013 12:02:30 -0500

They aren't.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 25 at 2013 1:49 PM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 25 Dec 2013 13:49:38 -0500

I would assume that all branches have the same award system, IE the way that they are submitted, reviewed and issued. The award system is based on merit for what the individual or the unit has accomplished. Now thats not to say that the individual putting the award in might be biased, but then thats not the fault of the awards system thats a failure in leadership

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 25 at 2013 2:25 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 25 Dec 2013 14:25:08 -0500

I can't say I've experienced awards being based on "race or gender" - actually I've seen quite a diverse spread of people receive a diverse spread of awards.  However, I can attest to what you're talking about while deployed to Iraq. Especially with the 'level' of award being offered. I'm not trying to take away from anything anyone did, but it doesn't make sense to me that someone out getting shot at gets a Bronze Star, but someone sitting on a FOB at a computer all day also gets a Bronze Star.  It kind of takes away from the spirit of the award and the actions it takes to get said award. To paraphrase, ".. is awarded when a service-member distinguishes, or has distinguished, herself or himself by heroic or
meritorious achievement or service, not involving participation in
aerial flight" I'm not sure how showing up at a TOC every day and writing slides qualifies as "heroic."  But again, that's just me.  Maybe there were some SERIOUS powerpoint shows going on that we weren't aware of. The same oddity can be observed with the Combat Action Badge when it first came out.  There were instances of people in 40 vehicle convoys who saw an explosion hit a vehicle 20 vehicles away from them and put in for it.  There were people who were flying over engagement zones who put in for it.  There were people who were on the other side of FOBs when a small mortar or rocket hit who put in for it.  Awards are awards are awards.  I think Napoleon said it best: "I have made the most wonderful discovery, I have discovered men will risk their lives, even die, for ribbons!"  It is this drive for superficial recognition that has driven many who never actually face the enemy; who never actually put rounds down range; who never actually save anyone's lives to feel they deserve equivalent awards as those who do.  It doesn't make sense, and never will. The only thing that someone in your position can do is try to gather as many 2823s as possible supporting the award that you feel is deserved and if the arbiter of said award is indeed fair and impartial, then they will award it as deserved. I simply send my bits of metal and cloth to Texas, where my parents keep that stuff in a bowl.  Edit: I'm also beyond the point where the points gathered from awards really matter anymore, too.  So my view on them is probably a bit different than say a SPC/CPL or SGT's would be in terms of promotion points.  Keep that in mind as well. Happy Holidays!

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 26 at 2013 1:29 AM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 Dec 2013 01:29:57 -0500

Rewarding a service member's service or a specific act of heroism/achievement is always a mixed bag, particularly when we feel the award is justified. There are numerous examples where awards are given to some for what seems lesser of an importance of job and others do not get the award despite hundreds of patrols in some of the most volatile AORs we have operated in for over a decade. The facts are the facts, each and every unit has SOPs on how they process awards and who they generally think deserves what level of recognition for their service/act. EVERYONE has an opinion, like my opinion is; if you serve over 20 years you should at least retire with an MSM, I mean come on you did 20 years right? No, it's not always the case because every service member has had a different career and some have had more levels of responsibility than others. The best COA is to paint the picture using words that actually compliment the award you are writing instead of he's a really good soldier and he shows up to work everyday etc. Of all the admin areas we are hurting on as leaders awards is at the Top of the list. Spend time reading and sharing your write up with peers and subordinates before submitting the award so that 1) you have a general census on the level of award, 2) is it quantifiable, and 3) does it capture that picture you are painting. Lastly, leave emotions out of it!

Response by LTJG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 26 at 2013 3:45 AM

LTJG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 Dec 2013 03:45:03 -0500

I've prob written 100+ awards for folks over the past decade or so, and have not at any point observed Race or Gender being factors that determine what a person does or does not receive.

No joke, every possible combination of men/women of all races, religions, cultures, and skills even have received the same awards over the years, because that is how things are today. You might find a (rare) leader who thinks otherwise, but he/she is likely to be exposed by the 10-20 other leaders in the command who do not tolerate such discriminatory crap! In other words, this does not happen, and even if it did, it would make the cover of the Army Times and heads would roll!

Now awards by RANK or POSITION are a different story all together, and also are nothing new. Each service has its own expectations and standards as to what awards are typically expected for specific jobs, positions, ranks, and responsibilities. Sometimes a Sailor will receive a higher award (e.g. COM as opposed to NAM) if they perform in a job or position several pay-grades above their own, but most of the time you can predict the award by rank alone.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 26 at 2013 4:25 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 Dec 2013 04:25:53 -0500

I kind of see this issue as a two sided thing. Yes I have seen awards given just for rank and nothing else. My last deployment I was an E5 that took over for an E6 section sergeant half way through the deployment because he didn't return from leave for personal reasons. He received an award one higher than mine. I did the entire year deployment and half of it I did the exact same job he did. But rank was the decider. The policy put out said he got one thing I got the other. Kinda sucked. On the other hand I just recently PCSed 2 months ago. A week ago my 1SG did his change of responsibility so he could PCS; we both received the same award. That seems a little backwards to me. I mean I think I was pretty high speed. But he was a company 1SG he wrote my award, he was my rater and we left with the same award. Sounds wrong. The only thing I will add about awards is that I know we don't just want to give them away like candy; it would sully what they mean. But at the same time it seems to me lately submitting an award is like you are trying to take money directly out of the BC and CSMs pockets. Like they personally buy the paper and ink that it is printed on. Unless you are coming back from war or PCSing don't even put a guy in for an award no matter what he did.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 26 at 2013 1:10 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 Dec 2013 13:10:33 -0500

as a retired SSG I know that awards can and are based on rank more then merit.  During my first deployment to Iraq in 2003 I was a SGT slotted in a SSG postion and when all other SSG's were being put in for Bronze Stars my CSM told me straight to my face that even though I was in a SSG postion I could not get the same award because I was "only an E5" and bronze stars were being given only to E6's and above.  In that same deployment 2 E5's who were involved in a fire fight, one was wounded while the other on used his own body to cover his friend and commarad in arms again were told by both the BN CO and the CSM they could not get a bronze star because they were only E5's so they got ARCOMS.  To say awards in the army are given on merit is a load of crap. 

Response by SSG Ralph Watkins made Dec 26 at 2013 1:28 PM

SSG Ralph Watkins — Thu, 26 Dec 2013 13:28:47 -0500

In Iraq in 2004 the standard seemed to be E-7's & above received Bronze Stars. Those below that rank got ARCOM's no matter what they did. We had Fobbit's in our command that received Bronze Stars. That just ticked off the lower enlisted royally. It destroys incentive to go above & beyond the call of duty on the other side of the wire. Bronze Stars were shot down with in our command based on the person not being an E-7 or above. I was getting close to retirement & when the Navy command we fell under wanted to give awards, as a leader, I made darned sure the lower ranking guys who went above & beyond on missions received the awards first. 9 years later they all are superb troops.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 26 at 2013 2:01 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 Dec 2013 14:01:52 -0500

I cannot agree more. I have not personally seen it based on gender or race, but on rank multiple times. It is worse during deployments. All these rules, regulations and milper messages written and put into effect for what, to be ignored? Awards are supposed to be given based on an individuals actions not based on what rank they currently have. Every deployment is always the same. A unit claims no one will get an award based on rank yet that is the way it is done. Why can't a E-6 or lower get a Bronze star when they deserve one instead of giving it to an E-7 who stayed behind a desk or in their office most the deployment? I have seen many Soldiers, including myself put in positions 2-3 ranks above their current grade and performed at that level very successfully, only to see an ARCOM at the end of tour as we all watched E-7's and higher get Bronze Stars, for doing the same duties in their normal day operations. I am just glad to have had the chance and opportunity to work at higher echelons to gain the "big Army picture" during deployments. I like having more of a bigger understanding of why and what is being asked of our soldiers and being able to brief them on it. Still crossing my fingers that I might get reconized for the things I have done eventually though, maybe my retirment award? lol

Response by CPO Jon Campbell made Dec 26 at 2013 3:00 PM

CPO Jon Campbell — Thu, 26 Dec 2013 15:00:49 -0500

I have seen the 'I-Don't-Have-one-So-You-don't-get-one' rule applied many times. I haven't seen race or gender play a part. The CG uses award committees that have enlisted members on them. I have seen achievement awards upgraded several times by the committee to Commendations. Having a great officer or trained NCO to write the citation really will determine how far a nomination will go. Citation writing is taught at NCO development academies, but many times the people witnessing meritorious actions are E6 and below and have never learned how to write up an award. Often, awards are a mop up activity and people are scattered to the four winds with no one left to write up awards after a deployment.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 26 at 2013 4:19 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 Dec 2013 16:19:59 -0500

I would have to say that is a reflection of your unit and not of the Army. One of my biggest grievances that others may have is the Bronze Star Medal. It is a service award. It was a service award for performing duties at a more demanding level. In WWII all infantrymen that got a CIB got a BSM. It has always been that will and is still that way. Now it has shifted to responsibility more so these days. I am not sure why people get upset that officers get BSMs. I saw what my PLs went through and thought they deserve it. I did see a MAJ in Baghdad that his sole responsibility was making sure soldiers signed a list when leaving BIAP. That is the failure of the leadership and not the Army.

I have never seen a soldier get a award reduced due to political, rank, or gender. I did four years in the airborne infantry and got two ARCOMs for deploying and an ETS award. I am not saying it doesn't happen because it does but this is more a unique situation within some units. I almost think some times awards are given out too frequently and it cheapens the award. But there will be awards that lower enlisted will never get. Legion of Merit or Meritorious Service Medal are not going to go to anyone else of the most senior soldiers.

Perception of this is the issue. I am sure that there are units that struggle with this. I have seen units out there with guys that worked hard but no saw the work and it went unrewarded but if you were that one guy that spotlighted your work you would get the award. I have been in unit where if you White you were the minority, I am Portuguese but European is close enough, and I received accolades. Besides the BSM I am not sure if there are any awards that are based on rank.

The question is are you in a position where you are eligible to receive the award. In WWII it was commonplace to see an Officer with a MOH but you have only seen one in our generation. It is because officers are being shunned, in one case maybe, but it is that officers are not being put in a place where they were in WWII. Enlisted combat soldiers are the ones that warrant it more than anyone else in this period of war.

Response by SFC Dennis Leber made Dec 27 at 2013 3:26 AM

SFC Dennis Leber — Fri, 27 Dec 2013 03:26:35 -0500

Interesting question, I have never seen awards based on race or gender. I have seen awards given based on rank however. i have seen soldiers getting awards for the exact same thing but the senior member got a higher award than a junior. I have heard the words "he/she is (fill in the blank rank) so they get this. If the military would just stick to the regulations and award according to the parameters then this problem simply goes away. Now my soap box, awards contribute to promotions, etc. however do you do the job for awards or do you do it because it is your duty and you are protecting your country? 

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 18 at 2014 10:52 PM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 18 Feb 2014 22:52:41 -0500

In my experience and by that, I have only been in 18 years,  I have never seen race or gender being used as a discriminator.  I have seen rank used.  A lot of senior officers do not like giving MSMs to SFC and below.  Even though they might very well deserve it.  Race is typically used in tracking, so that they can see that awards are fairly distributed across the different racial backgrounds.  If your unit is using race to not give a Soldier a deserved award, then there is an issue.  I hope that isn't the case. The only time I have seen politics come into play is with the Medal of Honors being awarded.  I served with CPT Swenson at Fort Drum and there was some undue command influence placed on that award.  Other than that, it is hard to say if politics is really involved.  The politicians do not really care if SGT Snuffy is given an ARCOM v. AAM.

Response by SPC Steven M. made Mar 11 at 2014 7:15 PM

SPC Steven M. — Tue, 11 Mar 2014 19:15:15 -0400

best question ive seen yet

Response by LTC Joseph Gross made Apr 28 at 2014 11:42 AM

LTC Joseph Gross — Mon, 28 Apr 2014 11:42:57 -0400

I think this is very much your impression based on exposure to a very tiny part of the Army. That says nothing about the Army as a whole and certainly less than that about the military taken together. I've never seen gender or race used as a bias but anyone who says they have not seen rank used as criteria is living a sheltered life or has never been deployed. Or they are lying.

It is policy in many units to use rank as a discriminator when giving out awards. How many here have served in units where every officer received a Bronze Star for a deployment and any Soldier who deserved a Bronze Star had to fight for it? In my last deployment I was instructed to write up my own award. I put myself in for a Defense something or other and it was upgraded to a Bronze Star! However, a Navy LT in that same unit, who beat me there by six months and actually built that organization was not deserving. Something to do with his rank....

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 28 at 2014 6:40 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 28 Apr 2014 18:40:29 -0400

I do believe awards CAN be political. They are not always political but they can be based off the unit and the commander. I have seen MSMs giving out in theater instead of BSMs because they were not in the "click". Almost all of us have seen people get awards just for being a rank or being denied a higher award due to their rank. I have NEVER seen race or gender come into play though. I am glad that I have NEVER seen this as that would be an offense that should be reason to relieve whoever is doing this.

I have also seen others try to go out of regulations and put in their influence of no more than one award per tour or no more than one per year. The reality is they were not in the chain of command for the awards and had no business even looking at them. I fought hard and won and awards were processed. I did not care if they were approved or downgraded but that they actually went through the process.

What can be political and also very wrong and against the Army values of having Soldiers going in and using white out or taking the second page of the 638 out after the General approved an award to lower the award based on their feelings and not what the commander thought and approved.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Apr 28 at 2014 8:02 PM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Mon, 28 Apr 2014 20:02:09 -0400

When I was in never saw or noticed any such thing in any command that I served in. If that is the case in your Command I am truly sorry to hear that.

Response by MAJ Steve Sheridan made Apr 29 at 2014 3:33 PM

MAJ Steve Sheridan — Tue, 29 Apr 2014 15:33:52 -0400

I've seen it based on rank, but not race or gender.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 29 at 2014 5:30 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Apr 2014 17:30:04 -0400

I am not going to lie, I used to assume awards were rank based myself. I never could understand why some Soldiers who busted their butts always seemed to get COA/AAM while NCOs were getting ARCOMs and higher....but then I became a 1SG and started getting involved with the 'big wig' meetings and discussions....

What I learned really put everything into perspective for me...to receive an award, an individual needs to significantly impact the unit at which the approval level of that award. For example: A SPC that performs duties and missions that significantly impacts the BN should receive and AAM (approved by BN commander) while a Senior NCO who performs missions and duties that significantly impact a BDE (or higher) mission may receive an ARCOM (BDE) or higher award.

Now is where I think politics come into play, who decides if a SPC or junior NCO performs duties that impact BDE or higher?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 30 at 2014 1:25 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Apr 2014 13:25:23 -0400

First of all welcome to the civilian world. Much better in my opinion. Second .. the awards mean jack in this world. "Thank your for you service" That's it. We worry so much about awards when in the service, and they don't mean anything except to us veterans. Be happy with what you get because it don't mean anything. If it's combat related you have some stories you can share with others .... other that that nothing. Before I retired it seemed everyone wanted to hire me, once I was out I was just another veteran looking for a job.

Response by SSG Jeffrey Spencer made Apr 30 at 2014 3:09 PM

SSG Jeffrey Spencer — Wed, 30 Apr 2014 15:09:42 -0400

It was when I was in 35 years ago. Some things never change. I saw it in action and was sorely disappointed in the process. Affirmative Action was a factor even back then.

Response by MAJ Jim Woods made Apr 30 at 2014 3:47 PM

MAJ Jim Woods — Wed, 30 Apr 2014 15:47:45 -0400

Unfortunately, this issue has been around for awhile. During the Vietnam War, Race and Gender (in the Infantry) were not issues as much as Rank. I did see some awards written up for higher ranks that weren't deserved or achieved but we just sucked it up and drove on.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 29 at 2014 5:00 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 29 Sep 2014 17:00:40 -0400

I feel that alot of times when anyone feels this way it's due to the fact that the individual didn't get what they FELT they deserved as opposed to what they ACTUALLY deserved. Most often one does not understand the scope of what each individual did during a deployment etc. If you feel that a specific SFC or MSG sat behind a desk the whole deployment, were you there the whole time to witness his general overally lazeassness? Possibly he was pulling 12-16 hour duties in a BN TOC, battle tracking, making decisions, coordinating fires/air assets etc. All the while his peer was working in the Motorpool, DFAC, or wherever.
Alot of times it's easier to expect something because someone else got it, and not take into account whether or not you did as good of a job, had as much responsibility and a host of other things that go into receiving an MSM/BSM. It's always easier to blame it on the most outlandish things instead of doing an honest self assessment and saying "self, you should have done more".
However there may possibly be the rare occurance were race/gender could play a hand in the awards process, however over 4 deployments and nearly 15 years of service I have yet to see it. Thats what the PSG, 1SG, CSM, LTC and up are there for. They are there to catch those things, and I can without a doubt say that there is no way in hell in the service theres an ENTIRE chain of command that is violating the EO Program to keep someone from getting what they deserve.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 3 at 2014 8:52 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 03 Oct 2014 20:52:54 -0400

I believe at sometimes awards are political at times due to what is "politically correct" such as PSG should get higher award than squad leaders, etc. But not political based on Republican vs. Democrat, etc. I have seen rank based, position based, but not race or gender based.

Personally I think it should be off the rank only if they are in position that is higher grade than themselves (ie. E-5 in a E-7 slot). The rest should be on quality of work and level of responsibility.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 5 at 2014 11:34 PM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 05 Oct 2014 23:34:54 -0400

I cannot even begin to understand how you can make this claim without some solid substantiating evidence. Awards are sometimes based on rank, period. Soldiers need to get over this and accept it. It has always been this way and as others have already pointed out here, it's not just because of the rank you wear. It's because of the larger scope of duties that you perform as you move up the ranks. It's not a hard concept to grasp. Now this claim about race and gender is outright libel and I would challenge the author of this post to make an actual legal charge if he has evidence of this. I have never seen or heard of this and I charge that this is a case of trumped up hurt feelings that have caused the topic to be posted about. Furthermore, I would caution the SSG who makes this claim to consider carefully what statement he is making. He and any other soldiers for that matter, making inflated claims or statements need to understand that this is not a website to just shoot off anything you feel like saying. Especially a statement that makes a claim as heavy as this without some evidence. This is insightful and is a potentially damaging statement to make as it is highly distructive to the maintaining of good order and discipline especially when it is made by an NCO.
Honestly, these types of comments should not even be entertained here and I'm slightly mad at myself for participating. Nevertheless, I have commented and I agree with the others here that this comment is baseless and is rooted in immaturity, hurt feelings, and a glaring lack of understanding.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Oct 6 at 2014 11:58 AM

CPT Jack Durish — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 11:58:28 -0400

My, how times have changed. I was Chief of Awards and Decorations during a portion of my tour of duty with the 9th Infantry Division in Vietnam. I would read each recommendation to a A&D committee and they would vote on the outcome. Like a prosecutor at before a grand jury, it was my responsibility to insure the completeness and accuracy of each recommendations before presenting it and to provide the board members with the applicable regulations. I had to summarily return recommendations that failed to meet basic standards and request further information, but I had no say in the final outcome.

Our recommendation forms had no space for gender or race.

Rank was only considered in awards for service inasmuch as it was assumed that those in superior positions bore greater responsibility and, thus, outstandingly meritorious service was assumed of greater weight if the recommended person served in a higher position.

Rank had no place in recommendations for awards for valor. The only prejudice that I encountered was in a recommendation for a Silver Star for a medic who rushed forward to cover the body of a wounded point man with his own body when the patrol stumbled into an ambush. It was downgraded to a Army Commendation Medal for Valor when I read the last line of the recommendation wherein the company commander indicated that the medic was a conscientious objector. A later board voted for the Silver Star. (Yes, I resubmitted it. So, sue me.)

On a side note, I had the honor of investigating and compiling the recommendations for four awards of the Medal of Honor. Interestingly, there was a prejudice in favor of posthumous awards. It seemed that most questioned whether or not the degree of risk merited a MoH if the person didn't die. However, that prejudice was overcome in all four of the instances that I handled inasmuch as none of the four died, only two were wounded during the action for which they were recognized.

Response by SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL made Oct 7 at 2014 9:13 PM

SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL — Tue, 07 Oct 2014 21:13:36 -0400

Well sad, to say I did 25 years and 3 days in the military and never got a Bronze Star, should have had two of them in my opinion, but based on circumstance I rather come home alive and have dignity than none at all. My leaders were selfish and close minded in my opinion. I can say I went to combat 6 times and brought back all my Soldiers. I can live with that........ ROGER OUT!

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Oct 9 at 2014 6:46 AM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Thu, 09 Oct 2014 06:46:52 -0400

You pose a loaded question with no references, statistics or evidence - a dangerous action at best considering the topic. Rank yes, that has been discussed in other posts but race and gender????

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 9 at 2014 10:43 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 09 Oct 2014 10:43:35 -0400

I have seen a lot of female Soldiers get awarded or promoted base off of how they look! The Quid Pro Quo Rule is big in the military! While the rest of the female Soldiers who don't put out, have to earn hers the hard way! Another reason awards get downgraded is base off personnel likes too! I had my BSM downgraded base of personal likes, race and rumors that were spreaded my Company Commander and his childish Lt friend! All because they didn't want me to get a BSM! While deployed to Afghan, I did the same work as two other NCO's but my award was downgraded to a ARCOM. My whole section receive BSMs. My company commander who was company commander for a few months, knew nothing about how I performed, didn't even know my MOS, someone who I never worked for went out his way to personally get my awarded downgraded. I don't need references when it happens right it front of my face, when I can witness and see it with my own eyes! Promotions, awards, positions, in the military today has a lot to do with race and gender!

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 9 at 2014 10:49 AM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 09 Oct 2014 10:49:45 -0400

Just about downvoted this question. I don't know how you'd fit an award around the huge chip that's on your shoulder, but that's another self introspection discussion. Second, bias exists. It is still in the Army, but nowhere compared to where it was or what exists in civilian society, especially in pockets of the United States or in other militaries around the globe. We have broken down so many cultural barriers and we are an ice-breaker (the ship...not a game before a meeting) for the United States, it's unbelievable. Someone stated that rank is still an issue, and I agree, but it is about resonsibility, not rank. The depth and breadth of the responsibility of a PVT versus a SFC or a LT is vast. The difference between a SSG responsible for a single vehicle versus a CPT responsible for 40, is just as vast. Excellence in each is worthy of reward, but definitely not the same level of reward. The question you asked is either A) poorly worded, or B) reflects a broad stereotype that you (through your world view) place on the entire Army. If it's A...reword it, if it's B, I suggest you tap out or take a hard look at where your bias comes from and why you'd make such a broad, damning statement about an organization that has fought diligently across all levels of Command, to stamp out the bais and ignorant stereotyping and biggotry you are eluding to here. Utility, usefulness, achievement...these are the only evaluation measures. Are there Commands out there who are poison...you betcha. One well placed IG call can solve that. Not only for you and your Soldiers, but for the future Soldiers that would have had to deal with that COmmander's crap in the future.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 9 at 2014 11:32 AM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 09 Oct 2014 11:32:55 -0400

SFC Private RallyPoint Member , In my years of service I never witnessed a bias towards a specific race or gender. Any command that would do that is setting themselves up for one hell of a 15-6.

I am realistic enough to know that racism/sexism does exist in the military. However, I think we in our Profession of Arms are way ahead of most of society.

Awards based on rank does happen. It should not, but I have seen units set "standards" for which rank receives what level of an award. I have even seen during deployments, certain level of awards presented to AC that differed from the RC. (going both ways). Awards should be weighed on the merits of the action.

Response by Sgt Packy Flickinger made Nov 13 at 2014 12:15 AM

Sgt Packy Flickinger — Thu, 13 Nov 2014 00:15:50 -0500

I've seen several cases of race and gender used as preference for awards. Many cases where it was used for preferential promotions. Discrimination is one of the factors that made me not reup.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 13 at 2014 5:14 PM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 13 Nov 2014 17:14:04 -0500

I've posted this on another thread, and whenever I've been in a leadership position, I've tried to emulate this example.

When I was a 2LT, I had a Squadron Commander explain how he tried to remove any considerations (rank, race, personalities, etc.) from Meritorious Service awards, and keep everything "merit based." He basically broke things down to a mathematical equation.

Since he was describing a Space Surveillance / Missile Warning squadron setup, I'll use that as an example and an Intelligence Analytical team as another example. I'm not saying this was his exact "method," as at the time I didn't see the "value" in the system. Each assignment, I've worked out new "metrics, but below is just examples.

If you serve at a certain rank, you're logically expected to perform to higher expectations and have greater responsibilities. This earns you "points" if you don't screw up.

Junior Enlisted: 5
Junior NCO: 10
Senior NCO: 15
Lieutenant: 5
Captain: 10
FGO: 15

Mission performance earns you "points." How many Space Surveillance/Missile Warning shifts you've done would be an example, or how many Intelligence Reports you had published for an analytical section.

For a Missile Warning Crew, that would have a 3 on / 3 off schedule, they're looking at ~160 "shifts" per year. Say, divide that by 10 to get their total points. Someone who didn't take leave, and pulled a lot of shifts for someone who was sick would get more "points."

Someone who was a "regular Joe," would get say 16 points though.

For an Intel Analytical section, I put points on a kind of sliding points scale. Say:

(Number of Summary Intel Reports) / 10 + Number of Desk Notes = Your Points

Someone who wrote an average of a SIR every three weeks, and a Desk Note every other month would get 16 points or so.

Special events get you additional "points:"

Space Surveillance & Missile Warning:

Missile events: 5
New space launch support: 5
Satellite breakups: 3

Intelligence Teams:
Flag Officer Briefing: 5
Targeting Package that's Actioned: 5

Additional duties get you points, and so on and so forth.

From there, you determine your "cut offs" for awards.

Achievement Medal: 35 points
Commendation Medal: 45 points
Meritorious Service Medal: 55 points

Where a junior enlisted troop on the Missile Warning crew might rack up a lot of "points" for "special events," an Instructor NCO would rack up instructor points and points for each crew he got certified. A junior NCO analyst would rack up more points for say SIRs and a couple of desk notes, while a Captain may get more points for desk notes and briefing Generals.

A Captain who slacks off and does the "minimum" number of SIRs and Desk Notes will earn an Achievement Medal perhaps. A Captain who briefs the General and knocks out a Desk Note every two weeks may earn a Meritorious Service Medal. The method helps quantify for the citation, justify for higher headquarters review, etc.

When I first heard it, I thought it was crazy. Now, I see a certain logic and "genius" in the method. It shouldn't be explained to your unit (don't want someone "gaming" the system,) but should there be perceptions of favoritism, then it's proof that there isn't favoritism factoring into awards.

Response by SSgt Stevan Auldridge made Nov 14 at 2014 5:11 PM

SSgt Stevan Auldridge — Fri, 14 Nov 2014 17:11:59 -0500

My guess is that sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. I personally never worried about awards and dec's and simply did the job to the best of my ability. A medal/ribbon does not bestow honor and integrity only you can do that. I was a medic, my reward was the heartfelt "thank you". Now it has been 8 years after separation from the service. My ribbons and awards sit in a Ziploc bag somewhere, where the gratitude will live with me forever.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 20 at 2015 12:20 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 20 Apr 2015 00:20:44 -0400

Could you please expand off of awards being based off Race or Gender?

I think there is enough of the conversation on here over the last year that feels one way or the other based off Rank, but I did not see anything based off Race or Gender and would like to know what the experiences are that brought about the question.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Apr 20 at 2015 12:25 AM

COL Charles Williams — Mon, 20 Apr 2015 00:25:20 -0400

SFC Private RallyPoint Member. I am late to the game, but this topic always intrigues me, as both a former Soldier and former Commander who received and approved/declined awards. Can you tell me the details? I do know of awards being based on rank and position, but I have never heard of race or gender being an issue? ATW.

Response by SGT John Wesley made Apr 20 at 2015 12:41 AM

SGT John Wesley — Mon, 20 Apr 2015 00:41:03 -0400

Never saw it as a race or gender issue. Political? I'm gathering you mean that it falls under "It's who you know"... Probably true in some circumstances.

In my time, it was rank and responsibility. I can tell you that at the time I didn't really understand it, but as I have looked back, I understand it better. Yes, some people got awards/Medals for BS reasons, but that wasn't the norm.

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Aug 12 at 2015 11:48 AM

MSG Brad Sand — Wed, 12 Aug 2015 11:48:56 -0400

Why, because you have people doing the paper work and we are all flawed sinners. I do not see an institutional pattern of race or gender bias. There is a case of higher awards given to higher rank but there is all great responsibility inherent with those higher positions. My main feeling is, that if you were there for the awards, then you were probably in the wrong place to begin with.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Sep 30 at 2015 5:07 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Wed, 30 Sep 2015 17:07:27 -0400

There are some selfish bastards in the force.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 30 at 2015 5:34 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Sep 2015 17:34:24 -0400

I realize this is nearly 2 years old, but just saw it pop up and wanted to make a comment on it.

I have personally witnessed an E6 who SLEPT through a deployment. I am not joking, they slept, the entire deployment. The lower ranking people in their shops did everything, while they slept in the office. In one case both the commander and the chief (in separate instances) walked in and caught him sleeping. The E6 got an MSM. The lower ranking people that carried them through the deployment didn't even get a "Thank You."

I have also on 1 occasion witnessed a decoration given to a guy who constantly showed up to work late, not even in uniform, and then sat in the office on facebook while the rest of our shop did all the work. Come PCS time, his supervisor did a non-rec for an award based on the fact that he did not deserve one. The troop claimed "It's because I am black", and went to the super with it. The super, who was also black, informed the supervisor to write the dec or accompany him to MEO. He didn't even ask questions, just assumed what the troop said was true; despite the fact that there was a trail of paperwork documenting this troops performance. In fear of his own career, the supervisor wrote the dec.

I have yet to see one awarded because of sex, but wouldn't be surprised if it did.

I could go on with other examples, but figure I should stop here. We have all seen it. Anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves.

Response by GySgt Bill Smith made Aug 4 at 2016 11:50 AM

GySgt Bill Smith — Thu, 04 Aug 2016 11:50:15 -0400

Another Army NCO crying over not getting a BSM for a deployment. Be happy you got an award and came back alive.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 23 at 2016 6:59 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 23 Dec 2016 18:59:08 -0500

we have a systemic system that has reflected on policy stemming all the way back to the revolutionary war and General George Washington. Awards and rank are determined by how well a Soldier can and has contributed to the greater good of the Army. I hope that we are not biased in choosing or awarding deserving Soldiers. I know it happens because I have observed it from time to time. But now you and I can start a precedent that eliminates that.

Response by SFC Bagley Daniel made Jan 4 at 2017 6:27 PM

SFC Bagley Daniel — Wed, 04 Jan 2017 18:27:22 -0500

Im part of the old brown boot Army, I retired an E-8 under 2 years after serving 22 years and sorry to say rank is the main grade in determining what awards I averaged moving every 2 years in the first 16 years. My highest award was an retirement MSM and that was after surving as a first Sgt in two prior units when I was an E-7. I saw 1lt get MSM's 5 diferant times and all were out of the army within 2 years for poor performance. So YA rank is it.

Response by SCPO William Akin made Jan 4 at 2017 8:28 PM

SCPO William Akin — Wed, 04 Jan 2017 20:28:00 -0500

Makes one wonder how we won WW2...

Response by CW4 Brian Haas made Jan 4 at 2017 9:42 PM

CW4 Brian Haas — Wed, 04 Jan 2017 21:42:10 -0500

If you're doing this job for the awards, you are doing it for the wrong reason. Hearing a ground guy tell me how much we helped them was always better than an award. Know in your heart what you did. Be able to look yourself in the mirror and walk away knowing you did the right thing. After that, screw em.

Response by SSG Jeff Bowen made Jan 5 at 2017 6:02 PM

SSG Jeff Bowen — Thu, 05 Jan 2017 18:02:06 -0500

I can promise you it is based on rank and position.... I saw it first hand in Desert Storm....

Response by CSM Darieus ZaGara made Jun 14 at 2018 9:21 AM

CSM Darieus ZaGara — Thu, 14 Jun 2018 09:21:16 -0400

While every major unit has experienced the issuance of Awards that may not have been appropriate I cannot agree with this statement collectively. In my personal experience Service members have been issued appropriate Award. I have personally pushed Awards through and was not alone in that. I have also experienced where Awards did not go through for just reason. If you or those you know were overlooked it is serious enough to have fight for what was right. Anyone can nominate someone else for an Award. Anyway I believe that oversights are usually due to the fact that units are unaware of the details of specific actions, poor reporting. That in itself is hard to account for. Either way, fight for what is right. Thank you for your service.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 24 at 2020 2:03 PM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 24 May 2020 14:03:09 -0400

Unfortunately, the military itself is and has been a political tool. You should, but cannot, expect a force built upon the published ideals of integrity and selfless service to be free from the influence of self interest, elected official job security and the unfortunate disease that we “supposedly” set ourselves apart from...societal degradation. The military has often been used to sway public opinion. With that in mind, whatever the hot topic of the day is, you can expect that object or demographic to be the shiny penny put out on display. For instance, if I am facing a perceived shortage of a particular demographic, I need to place that demographic out for all to see in order to “inspire” others to believe “I can do that”. Others, who have achieved and perhaps are even more qualified, may be intentionally disregarded and overlooked because at times I may need a percentage of representation much more than I need the best or most qualified. If I lead a squadron of law enforcement personnel, how do I ensure that I get the best future candidates if I am promoting my support personnel. I don’t. The majority of awards, promotions and opportunities have to be given to my LE personnel so that those recognitions can be publicly displayed, impacting future applicants, recruits or retrainees. Perception is reality. The “art” of leadership is a true and real game of psychology. Take it for what it is. If reality and the objective world is where you live, you must change that perspective or seek out a new profession. We have made recommendation. All met with a deaf ear and a false reassurance that program and review board integrity exists. Data mask awards packages and performance reports to remove any personal information or gender. Make the evaluation from a completely objective perspective. Done. It won’t happen because, even with as much preaching and foot stomping that goes on, equality is not the end goal. Recognize that. Sleep better at night. Move on and do good things not for some superficial accolade, but because It was the good and right thing to do. Peace of mind is worth more than any fading and superficial praise. Do it for you, your family and those important to you. Do t do it for the passers by.