Violation of UCMJ Article 134

If it is a regiment award, don't all people in the regiment get the right to wear it?

In Band of Brothers the new recruits got to wear the outstanding regiment award, even though they had just joined the regiment.

DD

 

Doesn't matter

 

Don't know the answer here...but DaDa's observation seems to make sense.

 

from:
http://stopthebleating.typepad.com/stop_the_bleating/2004/08/update_on_bush_.html

If only those assigned to a unit during the period covered by a unit award were permitted to wear the award, Mr. Starr would have a very interesting point. In my experience this is how things are done in the Navy and Marine Corps (the branches with which I have personal experience), so I was initially impressed with this evidence. However, some of my readers set me straight in the comments to the original post as well as this one. Based on what they had to say, I dug further. It turns out that it's not at all unheard-of in other branches of the service for members of a unit that has received a unit award to be permitted to wear that award while they're in the unit, even though they were not assigned to the unit in question during the period for which the award was given. Past and present examples that I have been able to find online with minimal research:

The Vietnam Cross of Gallantry.

The Vietnam Cross of Gallantry can be an individual or unit award for bravery in combat . . . As with U.S. unit awards all personnel in the unit during the period of action for which the award is given may wear the award at all times. Individuals not in the unit during the designated period can wear the award only while assigned to the unit."
The Presidential Unit Citation, by virtue of the Executive Order that created it.

3. After any unit is cited [for the Presidential Unit Citation] pursuant to paragraph 1 hereof for outstanding performance in action, a ribbon identifying such citation shall be issued and shall become a permanent part of the uniform of those persons assigned or attached thereto who were actually present and participated in the action for which the unit was cited, or in one of the actions if more than one action is mentioned in the citation, whether they thereafter serve with such unit or with a different unit. Such persons are authorized to wear an appropriate additional device for any subsequent citation for which they are eligible, made either to the same unit or to a unit to which they are subsequently assigned. If authorized by the Secretary concerned, persons assigned to a unit subsequent to an action for which it was cited, may wear the citation ribbon while so assigned."
The Army Superior Unit Award.

Of course Mr. Starr makes the point that the Air Force doesn't permit temporary wear of unit awards, so why are Army regulations important? Why is the Executive Order creating the PUC important? Because they point to a precedent in at least one service. And Mr. Starr can only cite the current AF rule. Here's an e-mail he received from the Air Force Personnel Center in response to an inquiry on this issue:

IAW AF Instruction 36-2803, THE AIR FORCE AWARDS AND DECORATIONS PROGRAM
All assigned or attached people who served with a unit during a period for which a unit award was awarded are authorized the appropriate ribbon if they directly contributed to the mission and accomplishments of the unit.
Additionally, there isn't a "temporary" wear of AF Outstanding Unit Awards for AF personnel.
AF Inst. 36-2803 can be found here (caution: large .PDF file). You may note that it's dated "15 JUNE 2001" right there on the cover. That's roughly thirty-two years after the relevant time period. You may also note that the e-mail to Mr. Starr from the AF Personnel Center is written in the present tense. It refers to the present rule; it does not tell us what the rule was during the relevant timeframe. That's to be expected: The Air Force Personnel Center can certainly refer to the present instruction and cite the current rule, but they're not likely to know the old rule without considerable research -- and they're not likely to do that research for an e-mail inquiry from a random civilian. (I recommended to Mr. Starr that he consider a FOIA request.)

So Mr. Starr has no idea what the rule was in 1968-69. (Nor, as best I can tell, does he know whether there was any difference between the Air Force and ANG. A reader might be able to answer this; the relationship between active components and their NG counterparts is somewhat mysterious to me.) Based on the preceding examples, we have no reason to believe that the Air Force has not previously permitted temporary wear. And rules about these sorts of things change within the various branches of the military over time, so the current rule proves nothing about the rule thirty-five years ago. For example, see AR 670-1, Summary of Changes (pg. 2 of the .pdf document), in which the Army explicitly changes temporary wear of the Meritorious Unit Citation from permissible to impermissible.

Finally, while Mr. Starr has apparently research the 147th FIG and the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron for AFOUAs won, he tells us nothing about the 3550th Student Squadron, where Bush underwent his pilot training. Odd though it may seem, apparently
it's not unheard-of for training commands to win the AFOUA. In fact, since 1991 the Air Force has awardedat least eight AFOUAs to training units. Thus, he hasn't even eliminated the possibility that one of Bush's units did in fact win the AFOUA while Bush was a member. The fact that the award doesn't appear in the personnel record unfortunately proves nothing, as anyone who's ever actually had a military personnel record well knows. I personally spent months trying to get my Humanitarian Service Award added to my OQR, and finally gave up.

Now, Mr. Starr is the one who is asserting wrongdoing; therefore, as I see it, the burden of proof is his. And as things stand right now, I don't believe he's met it.

More to follow. Or not. We'll see.

 

On a different note; what a b****IN' unibrow..

 

Makes him look like the cretin he is.....

 

Let me guess that the "National Guard Vets for Truth" are behind this and made sure this came out during the Republican National Convention. Now only if it becomes THE news issue for the next 24x7.

 

Assuming he intentionally, deceitfully, maliciously wore a medal he didn't earn: do we care? I sure don't.

 

It equates to faking it to get Purple Hearts.

Neither of these topics deserves to be a part of the public discourse for this election.

 

You may not, but supposedly the Swift boat ads have been effective so obviously some people do care about that kind of thing.

While the swift boat ads have had their credibility on most of their issues shot full of holes I'd be anxious to see what happens here.

 

I've been watching the RNC and it's painful bc people are eating this crap up. And Zell Miller? Please. The war is the only thing keeping Bush in this race. I hope collectively we're not passive enough to vote him back in.

 

How can that be? Are you saying that the majority of people are for the war? What about all those protestors?

 

i think there are a lot of people who are now against the war but accept the reality of our troops being there for awhile and they don't want to change horses midstream.

 

Nope, me neither. I would rather talk about the War on Terror (specifically how JFK has a realistic plan for addressing it where GWB does not), the environment, the economy, healthcare, and education.

 

Well, Bush's nickname was "temporary" in Skull and Bones.. guess this is how he got it.

http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_10336.shtml

 

Ding, ding, ding! And there enlies the undecided vote.