Possible MOH pending

[decwriter]

This came out yesterday and we'll wait and see. Here's the link. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?hpid=topnews

 

But here is a quote I don't particularly care for.

 

The presentation of a Medal of Honor to a living soldier would be an important moment for President Obama, whose relationship with the military has been complicated in recent months by controversy over the administration's Afghan war deliberations in the fall and the recent firing of Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal for remarks that belittled senior Obama administration officials.

 

This medal should never involve politics! :thumbdown:

decwriter

[Jason G]

With THIS administration, it's all about 'the moment' and nothing else.

 

That's all I'll say.

[horsa]

Sadly, even the MOH has been used as a political prop. Clinton gave out 20 MOHs to Nisei because they were supposedly discriminated against and supposedly denied recognition by the Army. Despite the fact that they were one of the most highly-decorated units during the War. I guess the "racists" who awarded all those medals to Nisei during WW2 drew the line at the MOH. d And despite what Clinton said about all Nisei being denied the MOH, a MOH was in fact awarded to a Nisei soldier's Mother, who received the Medal in one of FDR's internment camps.

 

Even the wording of some MOH citations is suspect, and suggest a political component. Read the citation for the skipper of USS Liberty, who heroically defended his ship against deliberate and repeated attacks by the Israeli Navy and Airforce in June, 1967.. In the citation there is no mention of "Israel." Apparently McNamara, who said he wasn't going going to embarrass an "ally" over the lives of a few sailors, had the citation done in a way not to embarrass Israel. Admiral Moorer's comments on this attack, and the subsequent actions of the US government to cover it up, are disquieting to say the least. Sadly for the skipper, it has been suggested(incorrectly I think) that his MOH was given largely given to quiet his crew rather than recognize his heroism; but that's what happens when the Military allows it's principle to be compromised in favor of political expediency.

 

Unfortunately the Military has not taken steps to ensure the integrity of the medal process, and I believe this failure has led to a gradual debasement of the initial idea behind combat decorations. Until such time as the Military stands up for it's ideals and heritage, it will continue to see an erosion of its traditions at the hands of politicians.

 

Then again, what do I know. I read the entire RS article on McChrystal and still can't figure out what he did wrong. To remove a proven commander in the middle of a major campaign, with the lives of our people in the balance, seems a far greater crime than anything an officer could say or do.

[Dirty175]

I'd like to know why David Bellavia and Brian Chontosh were not awarded CMH's for their actions. I'd also like to know what LTG Lloyd Austin did to merit a Silver Star. In fact, their are a number of senior officers that have received valor awards just for...DOING THEIR JOBS! I think that the "Paper Tigers" are afraid that they might come across someone with something that they dont have.

[Brig]

explain to me why a third of the valor awards in this war have gone to officers when officers make up ten percent of the military

[Kadet]

OFF ENL

Medal of Honor 0 1

Navy Cross 2 14

Silver Star 23 48

Legion of Merit with "V" 24 0

Distinguished Flying Cross with "V" 21 0

Distinguished Flying Cross 3 0

Bronze Star with “V” 369 431

Bronze Star 1464 255

Purple Heart 409 6896

Air Medal with "V" 524 172

NMCCM with “V” 1148 2439

NMCAM with “V” 739 6172

 

 

 

These are the actual stats for the USMC in OIF and OEF as of 2007. Some clarifying comments: The most prestigious valorous awards (MoH and NC) have been awarded almost exclusively to enlisted men. These numbers include Navy personnel assigned to Marine units, but the other Navy recipients of of the MoH and NC (primarily SEALs) follow suit. In fact, I believe there has been only one officer recipient of the MoH since 2001 (Mike Murphy). Twice as many Silver Stars have been awarded to enlisted personnel, but as you say the proportions vary dramatically. A significant deciding factor in the granting of valorous awards has to do w/ scope of responsibility. If, for example, a rifleman and Platoon Commander perform an equal act of heroism, the Platoon Commander is more likely to receive a higher valorous award because he was responsible for more than himself at the time of the action. This is just a fact, and has held true throughout the history of valorous awards. In these stats you will also notice the lower valorous awards (Navy Com w/ V and Navy Achievement w/ V) going primarily to enlisted personnel. Again, this has to do w/ scope of responsibility. The most contentious (and misunderstood) combat decoration is the Bronze Star. Here are the facts: The Bronze Star is (and always has been) awarded for two distinctly different types of service. Meritorious and valorous. Valorous awards are conferred w/ a V device and are significantly more prestigious than the version conferred for meritorious service (no V). The meritorious service version is simply the combat equivalent of the Meritorious Service Medal and hinges almost entirely on scope of responsibility. This explains why the straight Bronze Star is awarded primarily to officers and senior NCOs. Add to this the fact that there are no DoD or "joint" Bronze Stars. They are Service awards and are conferred under slightly different criteria. It is far more difficult in the sea services to win a Bronze Star of either type because the Navy criteria is more stringent than that of the Army and Air Force. Also, I am quite certain that the vast majority of valorous awards to officers went to very junior ones (Platoon and Company level). The aviation related valorous awards are easily explainable in that officers serve as pilots and are thus more likely to engage in activity that might result in a valorous award. Lastly, there is NO way to ensure complete fairness in the awards system. There are just too many human factors and subjective facets to the process. There will always be deserving people overlooked and undeserving people recognized. Keep in mind that human beings write and approve these awards. Different people have different opinions and thresholds, and it can be quite difficult to "get it right".

[Kadet]

...also, at least in my little slice of the DoD, the officers go to extraordinary lengths to ensure that their enlisted personnel receive the level of valorous award they deserve

 

...and I would also be curious to see LTG Austin's SSM citation

[Brig]

scope of responsibility??? I don't care what your rank, running into a house under a hail or gunfire to rescue wounded comrades is the same level of heroism regardless of rank and responsibility. it doesn't matter how many people you're in charge of or the mission you're on, risking your life takes the same guts on all levels

 

the levels are still slanted...half as many officer as enlisted for the silver star...many, many more for the Bronze Star. half as many for MNCCM w/V...10% of force is officer

[Kadet]

scope of responsibility??? I don't care what your rank, running into a house under a hail or gunfire to rescue wounded comrades is the same level of heroism regardless of rank and responsibility. it doesn't matter how many people you're in charge of or the mission you're on, risking your life takes the same guts on all levels

 

the levels are still slanted...half as many officer as enlisted for the silver star...many, many more for the Bronze Star. half as many for MNCCM w/V...10% of force is officer

 

 

I'm simply explaining the way the system works in an unemotional way. You are right, valor is valor and should be recognized regardless of rank, but scope of responsibility is often a deciding factor. If both the platoon commander and the rifleman do the act you describe, the platoon commander will have the edge because he is responsible for C2, the tactical situation and the lives of his men...a broader scope of responsibility. Also, my comments pertain mainly to the BV. The SSM and above hinge more exclusively on the amount of valor present in the act itself. Also, as I explained, the Bronze Star without V is NOT a valorous award...

[DwightPruitt]

This medal should never involve politics! :thumbdown:

decwriter

 

 

I agree wholeheartedly, and I'd like to include militaria/military history forums too as I've been involved in a couple that were absolutely ruined by political discussions.

 

Anyway, I agree with the sentiments that the MoH was trending towards becoming a posthumous-only award. Imagine Audie Murphy. Robert E. Bush or Alvin York not being recognized for their heroism because they survived!

 

I'll reserve judgment until I read about this trooper.

 

Sadly, even the MOH has been used as a political prop. Clinton gave out 20 MOHs to Nisei because they were supposedly discriminated against and supposedly denied recognition by the Army. Despite the fact that they were one of the most highly-decorated units during the War. I guess the "racists" who awarded all those medals to Nisei during WW2 drew the line at the MOH. d And despite what Clinton said about all Nisei being denied the MOH, a MOH was in fact awarded to a Nisei soldier's Mother, who received the Medal in one of FDR's internment camps.

 

The original MoH to the 442nd was to Sadao Munemori. His mother wasn't given his MoH while in an internment camp. Munemori was KIA on 5 March 1945, and his Medal of Honor wasn't awarded until 13 March 1946 in a ceremony at Ft. MacArthur, CA. The Munemoris were interned at Manzanar, which was closed in November 1945.

 

I used to feel as you did that it was curious that President Clinton had the Army review the DSC records of the 100th/442nd, especially in the case of Daniel Inouye. I thought that it may have been a case of political "payback"........ until I read the citations. Now I know that a well written citation is the key. I honestly could not find a single instance where I felt the soldier did not deserve the Medal of Honor. Not trying to start a flame war, but can you?

[horsa]

I agree wholeheartedly, and I'd like to include militaria/military history forums too as I've been involved in a couple that were absolutely ruined by political discussions.

 

Anyway, I agree with the sentiments that the MoH was trending towards becoming a posthumous-only award. Imagine Audie Murphy. Robert E. Bush or Alvin York not being recognized for their heroism because they survived!

 

I'll reserve judgment until I read about this trooper.

The original MoH to the 442nd was to Sadao Munemori. His mother wasn't given his MoH while in an internment camp. Munemori was KIA on 5 March 1945, and his Medal of Honor wasn't awarded until 13 March 1946 in a ceremony at Ft. MacArthur, CA. The Munemoris were interned at Manzanar, which was closed in November 1945.

 

I used to feel as you did that it was curious that President Clinton had the Army review the DSC records of the 100th/442nd, especially in the case of Daniel Inouye. I thought that it may have been a case of political "payback"........ until I read the citations. Now I know that a well written citation is the key. I honestly could not find a single instance where I felt the soldier did not deserve the Medal of Honor. Not trying to start a flame war, but can you?

 

 

At the time Clinton awarded the 21 or so MOH to Nisei it was said to be a remedy for the "racism" that had denied them the medal during the War. To repeat, this was despite the fact that the 442nd -during the War- was one of the most highly decorated units in the US Army. And some 55 years after WW2 ended. If racism had been the determining factor in their not receiving the award during the War, then how were they awarded all those other decorations for valor? I don't think medal "upgrades," long after the facts are murky and time has dimmed memories, should be allowed. At whose behest were the upgrades done anyway? Did politicians put pressure on the Army to upgrade these medals?

 

As for Mrs.Munemori I am incorrect in that she received the Medal while in one of FDRs camps. She had been released from Manzanar, as you said.

 

I am with Brig in his statements regarding the disparity between the number of medals to officers versus enlisteds. I think it's a great injustice that the services have never really dealt with. The problem began during WW2 and became even worse during Vietnam. My sense is that it still exists, and that's a shame. An easy solution would be to have a standing board in each of the services, made up only of combat veterans and with equal numbers of enlisteds and officers, to review each citation for valor. That seems unlikely but would go far in establishing greater integrity in the medal process.

[Kadet]

An easy solution would be to have a standing board in each of the services, made up only of combat veterans and with equal numbers of enlisteds and officers, to review each citation for valor. That seems unlikely but would go far in establishing greater integrity in the medal process.

 

 

FYI....The system you describe is almost exactly the way it currently works in the Navy and Marine Corps. Unless it is specifically delegated, the authority to award combat decorations (which includes valorous awards) rests w/ the Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV). The volume of combat decorations awarded since 9/11 has necessitated delegation down to other very senior flag headquarters, but this is limited. Authority to award (or recommend) the Silver Star, Navy Cross and MoH rests solely w/ SECNAV and is never delegated. SECNAV has a standing awards board comprised of senior officers AND enlisted personnel who scrutinize each and every award before making a recommendation to SECNAV. Also keep in mind that the citation is only part of the package. A valorous award submission must also included a multi page and highly detailed summary of action AND multiple witness statements. In the case of the Navy Cross and MoH, maps and diagrams are typically submitted as well. The Navy and subordinate HQs have very detailed instructions which cover the criteria for the various combat awards and are expected to follow them. Any valorous award that reaches SECNAV has also gone through multiple awards boards at the various subordinate HQs. As an example, my command's valorous awards board only contains two officers; the chairman (who is a non voting member), and a unit XO. The other five to six board members are senior enlisted personnel (usually E9s). All board members are combat veterans, and all submissions, whether officer or enlisted, go through this panel and are picked apart in great detail. All commands are required to follow a similar process. Very few people actually understand how the awards process works, yet many complain about it. Misconceptions and urban legends abound, and awards are always an emotional topic.

[Brig]

you know what it comes down to? To me, awards are pretty much just trinkets. Not a single one of my ribbons or medals makes me better at my job.

 

don't get me wrong, the older ones are still fun to collect hobby-wise. i just don't collect the modern ones

[Captainofthe7th]

you know what it comes down to? To me, awards are pretty much just trinkets. Not a single one of my ribbons or medals makes me better at my job.

 

don't get me wrong, the older ones are still fun to collect hobby-wise. i just don't collect the modern ones

 

Funny you should say that Brig - I heard a story once, I think it was from shrapneldude, about a MoH recipient in WWII who received the medal (with the whole presentation and all) and on his way back into formation asked his platoon sergeant something along the lines of, "What is this thing??"

 

 

For someone who has never been in the service, I can't really comment too much on the subject. However, I think using any medal, especially the MoH, in such close relation to politics is not a good idea. I think that is insulting to the nature of the MoH and to the deserving recipient. That should have nothing to do with the decision process, IMO. Does Obama know what the MoH is?? I'm surprised he didn't get one with his Nobel Peace Prize...

 

Rob

[horsa]

An easy solution would be to have a standing board in each of the services, made up only of combat veterans and with equal numbers of enlisteds and officers, to review each citation for valor. That seems unlikely but would go far in establishing greater integrity in the medal process.

FYI....The system you describe is almost exactly the way it currently works in the Navy and Marine Corps. Unless it is specifically delegated, the authority to award combat decorations (which includes valorous awards) rests w/ the Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV). The volume of combat decorations awarded since 9/11 has necessitated delegation down to other very senior flag headquarters, but this is limited. Authority to award (or recommend) the Silver Star, Navy Cross and MoH rests solely w/ SECNAV and is never delegated. SECNAV has a standing awards board comprised of senior officers AND enlisted personnel who scrutinize each and every award before making a recommendation to SECNAV. Also keep in mind that the citation is only part of the package. A valorous award submission must also included a multi page and highly detailed summary of action AND multiple witness statements. In the case of the Navy Cross and MoH, maps and diagrams are typically submitted as well. The Navy and subordinate HQs have very detailed instructions which cover the criteria for the various combat awards and are expected to follow them. Any valorous award that reaches SECNAV has also gone through multiple awards boards at the various subordinate HQs. As an example, my command's valorous awards board only contains two officers; the chairman (who is a non voting member), and a unit XO. The other five to six board members are senior enlisted personnel (usually E9s). All board members are combat veterans, and all submissions, whether officer or enlisted, go through this panel and are picked apart in great detail. All commands are required to follow a similar process. Very few people actually understand how the awards process works, yet many complain about it. Misconceptions and urban legends abound, and awards are always an emotional topic.

 

 

"Recommendations" to SECNAV are far different from actually having the authority to give the award. I was speaking of an organization that was more democratic than bureaucratic. In other words, a freestanding board that would be free of any interference from higher-ups or political intrigue. If what I was speaking about was in place, a civilian (and a political appointee) would not be accepting recommendations for awards, but be out of the process completely.

 

The system you described though sounds like an improvement of the WW2 system in the Navy, where turf and personality often determined who got what. Blair's book on the Submarine Force goes into some detail on this and its controversies. In fact, some Navy Crosses were given out on the dock as soon as a submarine made it back from patrol, even before the patrol report was scrutinized.

 

I also don't think the disparity in awards is an urban legend, but a real and persistent problem that the military has been slow to address for a number of reasons. Brigs statistics are sound and pretty troubling.

[Kadet]

"Recommendations" to SECNAV are far different from actually having the authority to give the award. I was speaking of an organization that was more democratic than bureaucratic. In other words, a freestanding board that would be free of any interference from higher-ups or political intrigue. If what I was speaking about was in place, a civilian (and a political appointee) would not be accepting recommendations for awards, but be out of the process completely.

 

The system you described though sounds like an improvement of the WW2 system in the Navy, where turf and personality often determined who got what. Blair's book on the Submarine Force goes into some detail on this and its controversies. In fact, some Navy Crosses were given out on the dock as soon as a submarine made it back from patrol, even before the patrol report was scrutinized.

 

I also don't think the disparity in awards is an urban legend, but a real and persistent problem that the military has been slow to address for a number of reasons. Brigs statistics are sound and pretty troubling.

 

SECNAV will almost never contradict the recommendation of his military awards board. At any rate, it always bothers me when people complain about a system they don't understand. The military chain of command at all levels makes an enormous effort to ensure that awards are given fairly. I've personally burned hours of "midnight oil" writing or word smithing award packages (valorous or otherwise) for my enlisted men and women. The implication that officers are hanging medals on themselves to the detriment of the enlisted force is simply wrong, and just reinforces old, inaccurate stereotypes. Also, any professional US military member understands that we all ultimately work for civilian leadership. This is one of the founding principles of our nations's system and separates us from a Latin American dictatorship. Some very odd and uninformed notions at work in this thread that seem impervious to logic and fact....I'm out of this one.

[Darktrooper]

scope of responsibility??? I don't care what your rank, running into a house under a hail or gunfire to rescue wounded comrades is the same level of heroism regardless of rank and responsibility. it doesn't matter how many people you're in charge of or the mission you're on, risking your life takes the same guts on all levels

 

the levels are still slanted...half as many officer as enlisted for the silver star...many, many more for the Bronze Star. half as many for MNCCM w/V...10% of force is officer

 

Nowadays the Silver Star and Bronze Star are a joke, and they are handed out like candy. I watched SFC who NEVER left the airbase we were at, was in the back pocket of the higher ups in the BN, and was all around a terrible leader, get the Bronze Star.

 

My NG unit when they came back, almost every NCO above the rank of SSG, and all the Officers got a Bronze Star.

 

Its All about how well you are liked in your unit, how much 4th point of contact you kiss, and how well someone writes your award paperwork.

 

Since OEF and OIF started unless your Bronze Star or Silver Star has a "V" on it, I'm not impressed and wowed by it.

[Jason G]

Minor point....Silver Star never has a 'V' on it, since it's always for valor and not 'Merit'

[The Canadian]

I don't care for the way the article is written at all.

 

As for giving out medals for absolutely nothing like U.S.S.R did, the best example and most famous is Douglas MacArthur who was awarded the Medal of Honor for the things that the soldiers under his command did during the Philippines Campaign.

 

It's the exact same stupid reasoning which saw Obama awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for something he may do.

[Brig]

I haven't seen any frivilous Silver Stars in the USMC that I know of, but I haven't read the citations

 

Andy, I don't think anyone is saying officers are pinning awards onto themselves, and I'm not saying that good officers don't spend a lot of time trying to get their guys what they deserve. But I think there's also many who don't, and the higher officers don't know John from Joe and the junior guys get forgotten...to include junior officers

[dogfacedsoldier]

Hello,

 

Speaking of the MOH, I see they are trying to get one awarded to Alonzo Cushing for Gettysburg. I know this is not this specific topic, but what he did at Gettysburg during Pickett's Charge more than lived up to the requirements. He should have been awarded one then, but no awards to deceased soldiers were allowed. It is more than reasonable that he be awarded the MOH, for he played a major and critical role in the stopping the charge. I for one hope he gets his medal, because it shows beyond a doubt that courage is never forgotten despite the passage of time.

 

Jon

[gdk]

Hi,

 

I usually avoid political discussions on this forum but I think there are some non-political and generally interesting points to be made here:

 

Although the WaPo seems to have taken it upon itself to consider the political angles of this award, there is nothing in the article (or from any other source) that indicates that the White House itself (or even the Pentagon) views the award that way. I for one cannot imagine a situation where the Pentagon approves and puts forward a nominee for the MOH and the White House (any White House) does not approve it.

 

Unfortunately, the WaPo piece is typical of reporting in the last decade in that it is primarily concerned with the political ramifications of a decision, rather than the merits of the decision itself. But of course this should not have been leaked in advance of a decision anyway (the soldier's name, BTW, is now easy to find on the web, and recent postings seems to take for granted that the award has been approved).

 

Anyway, politics aside, I think this is a cause for celebration, and a great relief from the unreasonable stinginess that has recently been shown (IMO, by both the US and the UK) in awarding top honors. A typical quote in the last few years (often from senior officers) has been that "to be awarded an MOH, the soldier must have had a 90% chance of dying". Which is, of course, horse manure. There are several 2nd level award citations that would have certainly been 1st level in WWI and most likely in WWII. (I have been following British CGC awards of late because their citations are well written and they receive fairly thorough press coverage)

 

There also seems to be some indication that more soldiers may be similarly honored:

http://www.stripes.com/news/more-living-me...follow-1.109550

 

... though I can't imagine "ten" living recipients.

 

On David Bellavia: I wondered exactly the same thing when I first read of his action. My feeling is that his nomination may have run aground because most of his action (which I think was incredible) was not witnessed, as he was the only American soldier in the house. This is an unfortunate but common reason for the denial of an award (c.f. failed Victoria Cross nominations).

 

- Gdk.

[MPage]

Sadly, even the MOH has been used as a political prop. Clinton gave out 20 MOHs to Nisei because they were supposedly discriminated against and supposedly denied recognition by the Army. Despite the fact that they were one of the most highly-decorated units during the War. I guess the "racists" who awarded all those medals to Nisei during WW2 drew the line at the MOH. d And despite what Clinton said about all Nisei being denied the MOH, a MOH was in fact awarded to a Nisei soldier's Mother, who received the Medal in one of FDR's internment camps.

 

Even the wording of some MOH citations is suspect, and suggest a political component. Read the citation for the skipper of USS Liberty, who heroically defended his ship against deliberate and repeated attacks by the Israeli Navy and Airforce in June, 1967.. In the citation there is no mention of "Israel." Apparently McNamara, who said he wasn't going going to embarrass an "ally" over the lives of a few sailors, had the citation done in a way not to embarrass Israel. Admiral Moorer's comments on this attack, and the subsequent actions of the US government to cover it up, are disquieting to say the least. Sadly for the skipper, it has been suggested(incorrectly I think) that his MOH was given largely given to quiet his crew rather than recognize his heroism; but that's what happens when the Military allows it's principle to be compromised in favor of political expediency.

 

Unfortunately the Military has not taken steps to ensure the integrity of the medal process, and I believe this failure has led to a gradual debasement of the initial idea behind combat decorations. Until such time as the Military stands up for it's ideals and heritage, it will continue to see an erosion of its traditions at the hands of politicians.

 

Quoted for truth.

 

The likelihood that an RCT would garner 20+ MoH's is impossible. That that unit had so many DSC's is obviously very commendable, and surely a couple should have been MoH's, but who is to say, at this point? It is a very slippery slope when attempting to go back and review old DSC citations for the purpose of upgrading them. This was done with some black soldiers as well, and there was a movement to explore doing the same with regards Jewish veterans. It never ends.

 

I also think that most of these upgrades of the DSC diminish the prestige of the DSC and its holders, which is in fact an extremely prestigious award.

[Huntzman]

The topic of recognition for military valor is a very slippery one. I will preface this with saying that I have never served in the military but am a twenty year veteran of law enforcement. Sadly, in my career I saw many instances of "inflated" valor. This always bothered me because I felt it detracted from those who actually earned their medals according to the strictest wording of the requirements.

 

Unfortunately there will always exist a sense of "medal envy" by which some will try to stretch the limits of an award to fit their actions.

 

I would hate to believe that politics would ever enter into the realm of awarding a medal for military valor, but I am also not naive. When this occurs, it is not the honor of the soldier that is questioned, but the honor of the politicians who would use such a topic for political gain. Yeah, I know, unthinkable......

 

For those who possess questionable medals there is nothing to be said. Any man who must argue the merits of his medal knows in his heart the truth and must be comfortable when he looks in the mirror.

 

I remember the sad story of CNO Jeremy Boorda. It was the questioning of those small little "V" devices on his Navy Commendation and Navy Achievment medals that cost him his life.

 

Whatever will happen with the MOH, I hope that the merits of the award are not sullied by any hint of unsavory DC politics. The bottom line is we need to recognize our hero's.

 

Andrew

[Spathologist]

I watched SFC who NEVER left the airbase we were at, was in the back pocket of the higher ups in the BN, and was all around a terrible leader, get the Bronze Star.

 

My NG unit when they came back, almost every NCO above the rank of SSG, and all the Officers got a Bronze Star.

 

Y'all have to remember that the Bronze Star is not principally a valor award. It is quite literally a Meritorious Service Medal for duties performed in a combat zone.

 

That's why you see so many more officers awarded them, just as you see many more officers than enlisted men awarded MSMs.

 

The BS can be awarded for a valorous act, just like Commendation Medals, but like them will have a "V" device.

 

If you take the Bronze Stars out of the stats, there are far more valor awards going to enlisted men than to officers.