Thoughts on the military and military activities of a diverse nature. Free-ranging and eclectic.

Sunday, June 22, 2008


This is coolbert:

Back to Fleet Admiral King. "Fleet Admiral Ernest Joseph King . . . during World War II . . . He was the U.S. Navy's second most senior officer . . . and the second admiral to be promoted to five star rank"

Please read carefully the entry under the picture accompanying the wiki entry for King.

"Note non-regulation handkerchief in breast pocket"

The handkerchief in the left breast pocket is not regulation? Was not authorized and could not be worn as shown? THE MOST SENIOR MAN IN THE NAVY HAS HIS PICTURE TAKEN WHEN HE IS OUT OF UNIFORM!!


Trivial matters of this sort are blown all out of proportions by those that sometimes should know much BETTER!!??

The case of Jeremy Boorda comes to mind instantly!!

Appointed the Chief, Naval Operations [CNO] during the Clinton administration. Ended his life as a suicide. "Hounded" to his death over a trivial matter that was ambiguous?

Jeremy Michael Boorda (November 26, 1939 – May 16, 1996) was an admiral of the United States Navy and the 25th Chief of Naval Operations (CNO). Boorda is celebrated for being the only CNO to have risen to the position from the enlisted ranks.

"He was reported to have been despondent over a news media investigation, led by David H. Hackworth, into Valor device enhancements he wore on his Navy Achievement Medal and a Navy Commendation Medal (small brass Vs, signifying valor in combat), which the media report claimed he was not entitled to wear . . . The Board for Correction of Naval Records, the ultimate arbiter of whether Boorda was entitled to wear the Combat V on both Medals, determined that he was not."

"Although some indications were that Boorda was authorized to wear them, the Board For Correction Of Naval Records ultimately determined that he was not."

[this board concluded that Boorda was not eligible to wear the brass V's for valor much after the death of Boorda.]

The point of contention here was that Boorda was wearing two ribbons that had brass V's affixed to them. V's that signify valor in combat. Combat off the coast of Vietnam which consisted of the ship Boorda was on firing on North Vietnamese/Viet Cong shore targets in support of allied ground operations. Combat for which NO RETURN FIRE WAS RECEIVED!! [it may have been not even possible for the NVA/VC to return fire on the U.S. naval ship!!]

There is not a question that Boorda WAS eligible to wear the Commendation and Achievement ribbons!! Wearing the brass V's was questionable!!

In my opinion, Boorda may very well have thought the wearing of the brass V's was totally legitimate. He may actually have had orders awarding those decorations that was given in good faith, using the understanding of the regulations by those in administrative positions. CONTRARY TO POPULAR BELIEF, THE REGULATIONS ARE IMPERFECTLY UNDERSTOOD BY THOSE AWARDING DECORATIONS OF WHATEVER THE NATURE.

[combat V's can only be given in the U.S. Navy if you fire upon the enemy and the enemy fires back??!! Unless the enemy fires back, you are not in danger and cannot ever act in a valorous manner!!??]

Boorda was a man embellishing his record in an unseemly way? Kick the man out?

NO!! An honest mistake! A situation that became calamitous due to unfortuanate actions from persons best described as gadflies [Hackworth??] that did no one any good at all!!

"gad·fly –noun, plural -flies. 2. a person who persistently annoys or provokes others with criticism, schemes, ideas, demands, requests, etc. [in an unwanted manner too]"


Labels: ,


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home