Are USAF brass and bureaucrats denying airmen the right to wear combat awards?
Quite a headline (especially for this website) but based on a couple of emails I’ve received (and subsequent research) the headline’s question is quite fair. (And I also saw the StrategyPage article mentioned in the email below.)
Here is one of those emails, reproduced in full. Note the links, the evidence, and the discussion. The basic beef: USAF airmen who’ve served in Iraq or Afghanistan and won the Combat Action Badge aren’t allowed to wear the award once they are no longer serving with a US Army unit. But there’s more here than this basic beef.
The father’s email:
As a Vietnam Era Army Veteran and proud father of a 17 year Air Force NCO, I am appalled by the lack of consideration being shown to the (mostly) enlisted members of the Air Force serving in ground combat support roles in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.The United States Army and Marine Corps addressed a failure of the awards and decorations system when the senior services instituted the Combat Action Badge effective in 2001. Here is the authorizing language and description of the award criteria from the Army website:The Combat Action Badge (CAB) may be awarded by any commander delegated authority by the Secretary of the Army during wartime or the CG, U.S. Army Human Resources Command and will be announced in permanent orders.(1) The requirements for award of the CAB are Branch and MOS immaterial. Assignment to a Combat Arms unit or a unit organized to conduct close or offensive combat operations, or performing offensive combat operations is not required to qualify for the CAB. However, it is not intended to award all soldiers who serve in a combat zone or imminent danger area.
(2) Specific Eligibility Requirements:a. May be awarded to any soldier.
b. Soldier must be performing assigned duties in an area where hostile fire pay or imminent danger pay is authorized.
c. Soldier must be personally present and actively engaging or being engaged by the enemy, and performing satisfactorily in accordance with the prescribed rules of engagement.
d. Soldier must not be assigned/attached to a unit that would qualify the soldier for the CIB/CMB.
(3) May be awarded to members from the other U.S. Armed Forces and foreign soldiers assigned to a U.S. Army unit, provided they meet the above criteria.
(4) Award of the CAB is authorized from 18 September 2001 to a date to be determined. Award for qualifying service in any previous conflict is not authorized.
(5) Subsequent awards:
a. Only one CAB may be awarded during a qualifying period.
b. Second and third awards of the CAB for subsequent qualifying periods will be indicated by superimposing one and two stars respectively, centered at the top of the badge between the points of the oak wreath.
(6) Retroactive awards for the CAB are not authorized prior to 18 September 2001, applications (to include supporting documentation) for retroactive awards of the CAB will be forwarded through the first two star general in the chain of command to CG, U.S. Army Human Resources Command, ATTN: AHRC-PDO-PA, Alexandria, VA 22332-0471.
(7) Wear policy is contained in Army Regulation 670-1.
(8) Soldiers may be awarded the CIB, CMB and CAB for the same qualifying period, provided the criteria for each badge is met. However, subsequent awards of the same badge within the same qualifying period are not authorized.
IV. DATE APPROVED: On 2 May 2005, the Chief of Staff, Army, approved the creation of the CAB to provide special recognition to soldiers who personally engage, or are engaged by the enemy. HQDA Letter 600-05-1, dated 3 June 2005, announced the establishment of the Combat Action Badge.
The clear intent of this award is to recognize those soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who are subjected to hostile action while serving in roles that, in the past, who have been characterized as Combat Service Support and who probably would not have been subjected to or required to conduct ground combat operations against organized enemy forces in those roles. This recognition is a long time coming as the awarding of the Combat Infantryman’s Badge and the Combat Medics Badge were, until the establishment of the Combat Action Badge, the only awards made and were restricted to a very narrow range of eligible soldiers. The nature of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan requires that truck drivers, Military Policemen, mechanics and other non-combat arms soldiers find themselves engaging the enemy on a regular basis. The Combat Action Badge is designed to recognize this fact and the contributions made by these men and women forced by the circumstance of the real world into situations not originally planned for in their training.In addition, the limited size of the traditional provider of the Combat Service Support services (the Army) has led to the Air Force and Navy being tasked to provide security forces for convoy escort and base security duties. As a consequence, hundreds of Air Force and Naval enlisted men are doing these jobs every day and are subjected to attacks from terrorists on a regular basis.All of the senior services allow the display of this award in circumstances when the uniform regulation permits the wearing of awards and decorations. Thus, a sailor who was awarded the CAB for action against the enemy while serving in a support role may wear the badge when in Class A uniform and displaying his other awards and decorations. Earning the CAB also usually contributes to the scoring for promotion purposes for the awardees. Neither of these things is true in regard to the Air Force.Air Force Instruction 36-2903 is the regulation dealing with the wearing of uniforms etc. This 166 page document, like most regulations, is finely detailed in every respect and the relevant part to this discussion states:Miscellaneous Badges5 Combat Infantry, Combat Medical and CAB only while permanently assigned to and performing duties with other services.
In addition, the Air Force grants no promotion points for having this badge awarded.
So why is this distinguished award given such short shrift by the powers-that-be in the Air Force? One can only suspect that the fact that no fighter pilot is likely to ever earn this award is playing a role given the domination of all of the Air Force’s activities from purchasing to promotions by the flight qualified at the expense of the “ground pounders.”
There is a groundswell of opinion pushing against this discrimination. Here is a link to a short article in the Stars and Stripes describing the pressure on the Air Force brass to match the other services in establishing this award: http://stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=38457&archive=true .
And here is an article from Strategypage.com discussing the same points I am trying to make here:
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmoral/articles/20060918.aspx
I have asked Col. Bay to post this information with identifying marks filed off as my son might well be subjected to negative feedback if he could be identified.
This Air Force dad suspects the USAF “fighter mafia” (aka “the pilot mafia”) is behind the bad regs. Maybe, maybe not, but the evidence provided tells me the USAF isn’t being fair to its airmen who have earned the CAB. Differing opinions are welcome –explanations, elbaorations, or corrections from the USAF are also welcome.
Former Air Force officer here - non-flyer. The Air Force has historically been very conservative in the dsiplay of badges and awards on its uniforms when compared to the other services so this is nothing new. The stated reason has always been that they want their uniforms to be simple and professional. I would like to say that that is the truth but it has always been suspected that the pilots who run the Air Force don’t like the ground-pounders to have as much “bling” on their uniforms. It isn’t just awards, but also qualification badges for certain career fields. Not all careers have badges even though all have requested them. It’s just the way it is. ED NOTE: Thanks for the comment and perspective. It strikes me that allowing airmen to wear a combat action badge on their duty uniform isn’t asking too much. The USAF ought to make an exception for combat badges.
Comment by NSC — 10/4/2006 @ 8:04 am
I think this is a travesty. I was a Counterintelligence Collector with the USAF in Somalia and worked very closely with the USMC CI guys all over Mogadishu. I remember thinking then that it was unfair that the USMC had a ribbon for combat and I got was another lousy Expeditionary ribbon (my third!!) I’m going to start send this article to my USAF friends and see if we can get a ground swell going. Jim in Texas CMSGT, USAF ret ED NOTE: Good idea. As a retired chief master sergeant you’re well-positioned to push this.
Comment by Jim in Texas — 10/4/2006 @ 8:11 am
Just a civilian here. Here is why I think it’s strange that the Air Force wouldn’t acknowledge or promote such awards given to their airmen. The awards certainly show that these airmen are capable of carrying out missions or jobs normally reserved to the Army or Marines. Why not gladly show off their men and women to be versatile? Might even help in recruiting.
Comment by Matthew — 10/4/2006 @ 8:20 am
There seems to be a misunderstanding regarding the USMC and Navy. I’m not sure about the navy, but the USMC has no recognition of the army’s CIB/CMB/CAB and no Marine is authorized to wear those badges, so far as I know. The Marines have the Combat Action Ribbon, and unlike past decades it is now extremely arduous to earn and very stingily awarded. The air force has every right to not allow its people to wear an army badge. Whether they have their own criteria for such recognition is another question.
Comment by Mike Rentner — 10/4/2006 @ 8:41 am
Mike, read the links in the email. The AF has a combat recognition award that is not difficult to earn. In fact all AF troops deployed to Iraq get it. The difference is the distinction between ground combat and being there. Whether the AF awards its version or allows AF personnel to wear the CAB is irrelevant so long as the distinction is made. I am sure the USMC has its version of the CAB or a more distinct award but traditionally, AF personnel do not engage in ground combat and there is no distinction given to those people.
Comment by Keith in Tampa — 10/4/2006 @ 8:57 am
Absolutely true. The “pilots” even discriminate against the other aircrew (navigators, weapons systems operators, etc.) who fly in the same aircraft sharing the identical risks. ‘One can only suspect that the fact that no fighter pilot is likely to ever earn this award is playing a role given the domination of all of the Air Force’s activities from purchasing to promotions by the flight qualified at the expense of the “ground pounders.‒
Comment by F4GIB — 10/4/2006 @ 9:01 am
From a civilian perspective, it seems like the various branches of the armed services are also increasingly hard to tell apart. They still retain distinct personalities and areas of expertise, obviously, but I don’t think the distictions between what they actually do are nearly as strong as they used to be. I suppose it’ll take a while for fossilized internal regulations (and some fossilized officers) to properly adjust to cross-service stuff like this.
Comment by Bryan C — 10/4/2006 @ 9:15 am
It’s all too true…pilots run the AF. In addition to the CAB, airmen serving with Army units as Tactical Air Control Party members typically display the parent Army unit on their left sleeve, like the Army unit, and then if serving in combat with that unit, is privileged to where the unit patch on the right sleeve. When returning to an AF unit not associated with an Army unit, they can no longer display the patch showing they served in combat with an Army unit. I was an AF Air Liaison Officer with the 82nd in both OEF and OIF (since retired). In one respect I understand this policy, but it certainly takes away from the recognition these AF members rightly deserve as having served in ground combat with an Army unit. ED NOTE: I think the USAF dad whose email led to this post agrees with the second half of your last sentence.
Comment by Stephen Barron — 10/4/2006 @ 9:16 am
First of all, it’s a badge - not a decoration (ribbon or medal). No USAF enlisted person gets promotion points for badges. You can get up to two specialty pays (e.g., aircrew, linguist, etc.). Other Service decorations, if awarded, are allowed on the USAF uniform. Typically, you also don’t see the Army Combat Infantry badge (rifle) or the USMC Marksman badges on USAF uniforms. I have seen Army jump and air cav badges. As far as the patches go, USAF people usually have to wear the patches of their current organization, which is proper.
Comment by Jerry Dove — 10/4/2006 @ 9:36 am
Without doubting the fly-boys call the shots in the USAF, Mike has this issue dead-on. The Navy/Marine Corps CAR is how one recognizes receiving and returning fire. Very few Army badges are authorized for wear. I had heard the USAF was considering an equivalent recognition, and my suspicion is that the slow wheels of the system just aren’t moving as fast as the internet.
Comment by submandave — 10/4/2006 @ 9:40 am
Recently, the USMC was authorized to wear Army Commendation Medal, etc, but I am not sure if it applies to the CAB. It only makes sense, where I am currently serving, the Marines are right across the street engaging the same guys we are, and there are more than a few units that operate with a mix of personnel from other branches.
Comment by SFC SKI — 10/4/2006 @ 10:25 am
Hello, I’d like to clear up some misperceptions. I’m an F-16 pilot (10 years AD/2 years Guard), or “fly-boy” or member of the so-called “fighter mafia” or whatever derogatory term one can conjure. I can assure you no fighter pilot sat around thinking of ways to keep enlisted personnel from stealing his thunder, so to speak. This rule likely primarily affects my favorite enlisted career field: JTACs. We work closely with those guys and want to honor everything they do for us. Fighter pilots do not sit around and write uniform regulations. Further, there is HEAVY involvement in uniform decisions by senior enlisted personnel. The “promotion” angle is laughable. Fighter pilots (and pilots in general) are all officers, and there is NO wieght given in officer promotions to badges or ribbons (aka Awards and Decorations). If you want to blame someone for this reg, try looking at the senior enlisted officials in career fields that will never see combat…THEY are the ones that stand to lose career-wise from some tough USAF SOB getting credit for this award, not fighter pilots. That said, “medal-inflation” is a huge problem in today’s AF. Pilots and others are ALL getting medals and ribbons and whatever else by simply doing what they’re supposed to do. This certain case, however, doesn’t seem to meet that description. Lastly, it’s tiresome when AF personnel blame everything on some mythical “fighter mafia” or bitch about the “fly-boys.” This attitude that says “The AF would be great if it wasn’t for the damn pilots” is utterly ridiculous. We are the AIR Force…if you don’t want to deal with pilots or airplanes or acknowledge the SIGNIFICANT contributions by said aircrew and planes in combat since 1991, don’t join the USAF.
Comment by Ivan — 10/4/2006 @ 10:26 am
I just re-read the comment about O’s not wanting E’s to have more “bling.” I’m not sure what career field you served in, but I’ve never once wasted a brain byte thinking about how my Class A’s look compared to a TSGT’s. In fact, I worked pretty hard to get all the E’s in my Life Support shop as many Awards and Decs as I could. I know, I know, medal inflation. However, when it directly impacts their rank (and, ergo, PAY), you do that. Anyway, here’s two links: http://www.airforcechiefs.org/CMASF%20McKinley.html http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=6051 I’d say the CMSAF has more “bling” that COMACC, who, IF there was such a thing, would the honcho of the “Fighter Mafia.”
Comment by Ivan — 10/4/2006 @ 10:34 am
This is nothing new and likely nothing can be done about it. When I was in a FACP and working with ROMADs in the seventies and eighties, we were traing for combat operations but not allowed to wear the Combat Crew badge. That was reserved for the larger mobility units within AFCC. We were TAC so we didn’t rate it. No big deal in that case. Supposedly we were all in communications and in the AF but inter unit and command perogatives took precedent. Probably the same thing applies here. The best solution would be for the AF to have a real Combat Action type badge of its own. Blaming the whole thing on pilots is not only useless, its wrong. The ones that make these decisions are desk pilots for the most part.
Comment by Ret AF Mike — 10/4/2006 @ 11:06 am
Lastly, it’s tiresome when AF personnel blame everything on some mythical “fighter mafia†or bitch about the “fly-boys.†This attitude that says “The AF would be great if it wasn’t for the damn pilots†is utterly ridiculous. We are the AIR Force…if you don’t want to deal with pilots or airplanes or acknowledge the SIGNIFICANT contributions by said aircrew and planes in combat since 1991, don’t join the USAF. Obviously the mission of the Air Force is “to fly and fight,” although in today’s type of warfare there appears to be far more fighting on the ground than in the air. Thus the need to address how the Air Force recognizes its ground warriors. I am happly to acknowledge the significant contributions of our brave and dedicated pilots as long as they are willing to acknowledge the significant contributions of other flight-crew and non-rated types since, well, not just since 1991, but since the Air Force was formed. The Air Force is more than its aircraft which, indeed, would not be flying if it weren’t for the guys and gals on the ground. And while not blaming the line pilots for this situation, I will point out that the Generals who are making the uniform decisions are, for the most part, pilots. Does that figure into their decision-making on this subject? Who knows. But like the F-16 pilot said above “We are the AIR Force.”
Comment by NSC — 10/4/2006 @ 11:56 am
Maybe it is wrong to blame the pilots, but the fact is that Airmen are not getting the recognition they deserve. If and when the Air Force does decide to make a combat badge, there should be a fine detail on who should be awarded the badge. I know there are airmen out there who stayed inside a FOB and never went outside the wire, receiving indirect fire that will try to get awarded the badge. The badge should be awarded to those airmen outside the wire dealing with whatever the insurgents throw at them. The so called “USAF Expeditionary Ribbon with gold borders†is pretty much awarded to everyone, including Joe Schmoe sitting behind the desk in Qatar, Bahrain, or wherever. In this circumstance, in a way, it looses its meaning to wear one. It then becomes unfair to some people. I’m going to say this time and again, “IT’S NOT ABOUT BRAGGING RIGHTS, BUT PRIDEâ€. The last time airmen did convoy’s is during the Vietnam conflict. Since OIF I kicked off, vehicle operators in the USAF has been involved in ground support in the way of doing convoys. These fine airmen should get the recognition they deserve, since they are not allowed to wear the Combat Patches/Badges they have earned while serving with the Army. Is it that really that big of a deal for out Air Force leaders to deal with this issue? I understand the whole idea trying to maintain the integrity of the Air Force Uniform, but common.
Comment by Ray — 10/4/2006 @ 12:04 pm
I know there are airmen out there who stayed inside a FOB and never went outside the wire, receiving indirect fire that will try to get awarded the badge. A valid point, but considering the nature of our enemy much of what our guys are encountering over there is indirect fire. Perhaps the difficulty in defining the qualifications is one reason they haven’t come up with a combat badge.
Comment by NSC — 10/4/2006 @ 12:48 pm
Nobody is ever happy with most uniform decisions. The pilots all hated the flight suits taht came out in the early 90s. It was fine for 20 years…now we’re testing ANOTHER one. Sheesh. And the blue BDUs? Silly. I agree that there are problems with many of our uniforms, not the least of which is awards and decs. I’d like to see our guys that are doing jobs they didn’t sign up for get recognized for those duties. I’m sure General X and General Y would as well. The myriad of uniform rules and changes that get to the general officer level for approval were likely not thought of by the approval authority. Some board or panel (or “Tiger Team!” hah) gets together and recommends several options. I can’t see any general worth his salt, pilot or no, line-item vetoing a combat action ribbon from any new reg or proposal. As an aside, many in the service have never met or worked with a member of the “Brass.” I’ve flown with a few Generals and worked with a few more. Mostly when they were O-6 types, but a few as flag officers. Some are better than others. Some are great, some not so. However, NONE of them should be taken lightly. They made it the 0.5% level somehow, be it superb leadership skills or (egad) superb political skills. All are intelligent and highly educated. Both from a leadership AND political standpoint, it would be idiocy to kill a proposal to squash a ribbon such as this. Someone said earlier that it’s probably in the works…nothing gets done fast in the Air Force. Well, except Time Critical Targeting with JDAMs! Woohoo! I’m well aware that we, as pilots, get the credit. While flying a 7 hour combat sortie in a single seat fighter with multiple refuelings and multiple targets ain’t no picnic, I’m also well aware that without the tens of thousands of blue suiters all over the globe doing the heavy lifting, we couldn’t do our jobs. We all know it, and we all thank them!
Comment by Ivan — 10/4/2006 @ 12:53 pm
Granted that we receive a lot of indirect fire, but there is a difference being inside a FOB getting mortared to being outside in a convoy getting ambushed. Getting mortared in a FOB doesn’t mean you are engaged in combat, it just mean you are in a combat zone. So maybe, one of the qualifications for the badge, if ever the Air Force come up with one, should be limited to those airmen engaged in direct contact with the enemy. I’ve had the unfortunate experience on engaging the enemy. During my first deployment doing convoys, I had to return fire in three different situations. I’ve been lucky enough to escape those situations without any scratch.
Comment by Ray — 10/4/2006 @ 1:01 pm
O’s on the USAF despise wearing chest candy, I would imagine that mentality comes from fighter community. If you look at the O’s who are wearing blues(much less these days) the majority dont wear chest candy, its the E’s who do. The thing is Assymetrical warfare has changed how the USAF operates and trains, it is also changing our perceptions of who is putting forth the effort. Right now LRO’s, VehOps,VehMaint, CE, and Cops are involved w/ the war and on the frontlines more than ever before. These werent career fields that were considered frontline jobs, but now they are, and they are exceeding at those jobs. But are they getting awarded for it? No, I believe the USAF OVER ISSUES medals, why does someone who commanded in a combat environment need the Bronze Star? They dont. But a Combat Badge for all folks who served in combat, they deserve it. Ivan, There was a bomber mafia during the days of LeMay, there is a fighter mafia today. If you arent a pilot in the USAF, you are essentially a second class citizen as an officer. The absolute BEST non flyers will rise to O-6, and once in a blue moon will you see General w/out wings. Right or wrong, this is a fighter pilot world.
Comment by John B — 10/4/2006 @ 2:15 pm
I served with enough AF folks in OEF to wish that they would be a little more supportive of their people that we, the Army, have chosen to recognize or honor. I know I’d be damned proud if the AF, Navy/USMC gave me something in that vein. I’d be a little ticked if the Army said - “oh, it came from them, no wearing that then.” One Team…right?
Comment by Major John — 10/4/2006 @ 2:20 pm
Ray, I guess someone in a FOB who gets hit by that mortar round didn’t really get hurt the same as a ‘real’ soldier “outside the wire” yes? I spent most of my time outside the wire, but I sure didn’t tolerate any type of “I’m more authentic than you” stuff. At all. I hope that isn’t what you were implying.
Comment by Major John — 10/4/2006 @ 2:28 pm
What is it with the decoration-oriented genital-measuring going on here? Sounds like smack-talking in an off-base bar. I’m a doc, not a bullet launcher. I went outside the wire plenty of times, but it was never in a group of less than about 40 switched-on operators, and the area I was in for OEF really wasn’t hot. I don’t consider myself more worthy of decoration than any of my colleagues who stayed on the base. All the chest-beating that goes on between the “real” war-fighters, versus the “FOBbies” and “desk-jockies” and so forth is all such crap. There’s no “I” in team, and everybody who deploys sacrifices, gives of themselves, and has a role to play. If we’re using the medal debate to slag on our fellow troops for not having big enough balls, what’s our opinion of the civilians who employ us to keep them safe? What’s a civilian reading this debate going to conclude? They might come away with the impression that we consider them shrinking, cowardly, pathetic souls. Great community relations… just great.
Comment by TheNewGuy — 10/4/2006 @ 3:20 pm
To Ivan’: 1. Re: I’m well aware that we, as pilots, get the credit. While flying a 7 hour combat sortie in a single seat fighter with multiple refuelings and multiple targets ain’t no picnic, I’m also well aware that without the tens of thousands of blue suiters all over the globe doing the heavy lifting, we couldn’t do our jobs. We all know it, and we all thank them! No, Thank You! I can’t express how much we appreciate all the time and effort that meat-servos (pilots) put into training just so they can deliver my product! IYAAYAS! aka “Without us, the AF is just another unscheduled airline”. Any other specialties want to jump in? 2. I can’t resist reiterating that fighters make noise and kill things. Bombers make policy and change governments! 3. There IS a Fighter Mafia and with the help of Goldwater-Nichols it is slowly killing MY Air Force!
Comment by SMSgtMac — 10/4/2006 @ 3:27 pm
Thenewguy: You haven’t a clue. You must not have been engaged at all. There is a difference between a FOBBIT and a guy whose duties force him to stay on base and a guy who has to force a deep gut wrenching fear aside to go outside the wire. A big difference. Call it the thousand yard stare or call it whatever. The point is there is a difference. In doesn’t make anyone a better person…just differently experienced. Other stuff: This thread started out by suggesting pilots were solely responsible for keeping the wearing of the CAB from those who earned it while serving WITH the Army. I can vouch for AF Officers, especially LROs. They are highly motivated and truly care for their troops and their troops’ careers. I do not think it is a group of fighter pilots sitting in high back chairs toasting the screwing of the enlisted. I do think that it has not totally sunk in to the pilot top brass as to what we assigned to convoy ops, security details, EOD teams, etc are facing EACH day. It is not special in and of itself (the USA and USMC are doing it every day with many more people) but it is special and unique to the AF. From going through the training to conducting tactical movements on enemy contested roads with normally an E-6 or E-7 in charge IT IS UNIQUE to the AF and should be recognized. Promotion is a different subject. The enlisted promotion system is complex. There are three different systems for the three different enlisted tiers. As it stands now, any recognition of combat ops will only help the SNCOs due to their records actually being presented to a board and that only if the board is looking for combat experience. The Airmen are basically automatically promoted except for one Below the Zone opportunity and the NCOs test for their stripes. Any badge, decoration or award will have to actually put up points or it won’t work for promotion. Again, that is a totally different thread. It all comes down to simple recognition and as Ray put it….pride. You have no idea how proud these troops are about their incredible achievements. The vast majority of these troops are not doing this out of medal lust but for pride and patriotism. They should be able to wear the CAB, combat unit patch, driver’s badge, etc. They earned them!
Comment by Keith from Tampa — 10/4/2006 @ 4:18 pm
I agree that the USAF (Leadership) is pretty dicked up for not allowing true BTDT Air Force guys (and gals) the opportunity to wear the bona-fide combat decorations given them by other branches. This stinks to high hell and goes to the heart of the matter: The AF is run by the “Pilot-Mafia” (and for good reason) and the upper echelon’s of USAF leadership don’t want to accord the proper respect to BTDT AF people. It’s the old “If I can’t have it, neither can you” syndrome. I agree w/ Ivan that Pilots don’t sit around thinking about ways to screw E’s (and other O’s), but I think that the upper leadership of the AF does. The AF has devolved into an organization that is desperate for a heritage, because it looks pretty pathetic, petty and not very serious about the business of war (except for Fighter/Bomber guys and AF triger-pullers), when compared to its sister-branches. This is coming from someone that is retiring (afetr 23 yrs) from the AF soon and has served in the Marine Infantry and Army MP’s. To the AF Leadership: Do the right thing and learn to recognize AF Warriors (of which there are very few).
Comment by thebronze — 10/4/2006 @ 4:32 pm
The funny thing is - and it’s something a civilian might not realize - is that there is an time-honored tradition in the military of dissing the other services and other career fields without really “meaning” it if you will. We can discuss and debate and even argue who is doing what better and who is braver and who deserves this award and that badge all day long, but when the comes down to it, there is not a guy or gal serving that doesn’t respect the work of their brother and sister military members. Cept maybe them Marines - I hear they smell funny.
Comment by NSC — 10/4/2006 @ 4:45 pm
Keith in Tampa: Thanks for clueing me in, guy… appreciate it. As I said, the area I was in was not hot, and with all due respect, I absolutely understand the difference between support roles and the steely-eyed killers they support. However, I have little use for troops who get off on casting aspersions of cowardice on their fellows, or enjoy stepping on their buddies in the process of detailing their own accomplishments. Quiet pride in your accomplishments is one thing… strutting, bragging, or denigrating the guys who enable you to accomplish your missions is stupid, crass, and unprofessional. Note: I have no problem with any soldier from any branch wearing a medal or decoration he’s earned. For my own part, I’m a support asset, and I fully understand and appreciate my tiny cog in the mighty military machine. I respect the guys who go out there to launch the bullets and shells, but I respect a humble warrior even more. But maybe I’m spoiled. I deployed in support of “quiet” professionals, where that kind of dynamic was decidedly absent. They might have considered me a “FOBBIT”/REMF/whatever, but if they did, they never let that slip. They were uniformly motivated, disciplined, supportive, and squared-away. They were, to a man, appreciative (either that, or they chose not to sneer at the guy controlling their morphine dose).
Comment by TheNewGuy — 10/4/2006 @ 4:52 pm
It’s plainly disingenuous to say that the USAF likes clean simple uniforms. From my time in Joint assignments over the last few years I can definitively say that nobody has more trash on his uniform than an airman, officer or enlisted. So, it looks as if the figher mafia has identified an award that won’t be worn by rated officers, and doesn’t want anyone to have it. That’s sad. If we (Army guys) work to get the award for the recipients, the Air Force should allow them to wear it. The guys and gals who get this badge have paid for it the hard way. I appreciate their work now, and appreciated it when I was in Iraq with them.
Comment by js — 10/4/2006 @ 5:55 pm
” I’d be a little ticked if the Army said - “oh, it came from them, no wearing that then.†One Team…right? ” Both Army and Marines authorize wear of the USAF Weather badge: a 6-month school and no ‘gentleman’s course.’ So how about some reciprocity? I’ll get my Air Assault badge some time, and the only way I’ll get to wear it is if my Commander directs me to wear ACUs. Which might happen. 25 yr USAF MSgt permanently assigned to Army Fuz
Comment by Fûz — 10/4/2006 @ 7:21 pm
Ivan says: “…if you don’t want to deal with pilots or airplanes or acknowledge the SIGNIFICANT contributions by said aircrew and planes in combat since 1991, don’t join the USAF.” I agree. Join the Navy or Marines if you can meet the qualifications.
Comment by M. Simon — 10/4/2006 @ 8:46 pm
When I first enlisted in the Navy in 1974, there were large numbers of Vietnam veterans who’d lost jobs in that era’s very nasty recession. A lot of these guys came into the Navy - it wasn’t at all unusual to see E3 Seamen walking around the base with three or four decks of ribbons, jump wings and CIBs. At that time, USN uniform regs didn’t specifically address Army CIBs or CMBs, but eventually it was decided to forbid the wearing of these badges - what wound up happening was that CIB and CMB holders had the Navy Combat Action Ribbon retroactively entered in their records.
Comment by Jeff — 10/4/2006 @ 9:22 pm
I have to comment on the idea that the Air Force is stingy with awards and ribbons. Hardly. One need only watch the Pentagon channel and see an Air Force announcer, an E4 or E5, with five or six rows of ribbons (15 to 18 awards) to know that is not true. Look at the other announcers, and see if any of the other services’ announcers are wearing the same amount of awards on average.
Comment by Diggs — 10/5/2006 @ 9:44 am
The Air Force Times addressed the issue in its 28 August, 2006 edition.
Comment by allen — 10/5/2006 @ 10:56 am
Fûz, that is exactly what I was talking about. Thanks for the example!
Comment by Major John — 10/5/2006 @ 2:03 pm
The first comment must be kidding. Have you ever seen AFN (Armed Forces Network)? The news readers are men and women from the various services. Usually in the grade of E-4 to E-6. The Senior Airman, no matter who it is, always has 50 rows of ribbons and looks like he won the war all by himself. Conservative in display, indeed.
Comment by Swede — 10/5/2006 @ 2:34 pm
We are losing track of the point of my original post to Austin. Yes there are too many fruit salad awards. Yes some services overdo them. What I am talking about is a COMBAT award being denied display, a totally different thing from a “You Been There” ribbon. If you can wear the YBT awards, why would one service deny a proud warrior to option of displaying his prowess as recognized by other warriors? This is WRONG and motivated by really base motives, IMNSHO.
Comment by AF Dad — 10/5/2006 @ 5:47 pm
The Air Force gives out ribbons like crazy. Decorations are another story. I am a MSgt and have 19 ribbons, only three (and their clusters) actually count towards promotion. Also, the instruction directing dress and appearance states you must wear all or none when it comes to awards and decorations (your rack). The exception to this is with the service dress and the semi-formal uniform…then it is all. THAT MEANS ALL 19. It can be a pain but I am really not complaining. The Air Force is trying to win those that want the bling. When it comes to the CAB, it is a badge and would not count towards promotion if we were able to wear it. Again, it is not about bling but pride and distinction from those serving and those that have been engaged in actual combat. That’s it. I would also like to point out that CABs are NOT put into our records. There is nothing, NADA, zip that indicates or distinguishes one Airman from another when it comes to ground combat. As far as I know, no “other service” badge or patch is annotated in any sort of administrative file. Decorations are another story. ARCOMs are awarded relatively regularly and are authorized for wear and count towards promotion. That should clear up a little confusion when it comes to the massive amounts of bling you are seeing on the AFN reporters. Also, this only applies to enlisted. I am not well educated on how decorations effect officer promotions in the AF.
Comment by Keith from Tampa — 10/5/2006 @ 6:02 pm
Not only is there a pilot mafia, it is specifically a “fighter mafia” in the USAF. When I was in the Pentagon virtually every day back in the 1980’s, there was an explicit pecking order even among pilots. The silk scarf group that dominated was the “air superiority”, Snoopy v. the Red Baron fighter jockeys, and they ruled. Period. There was a palpable distaste among that elite group for even other pilots, those who provided CAS for the ground combat forces- if you wanted to rise to the top of the USAF officer corps, the absolute woirst thing that could happen to you was to be slotted as an A-10 Warthog CAS jockey rather than an F-16 top gun. Period. The best USAF people I dealt with, by far, were those who were NOT elite (hot rod fighter) pilots- they actually recognized that the real work was done on the ground. Similar distinctions, incidentally, applied in the Army (I had very little to do with the Navy, so I won’t talk there). Armor officers, followed by Field Artillery were at the top, followed by Aviators, then Infantry a long way back. At the bottom were the Quartermasters, MPs, etc. Tell me how many non-Armor, non-FA CSA’s there have been over the last 30 years. In fact, if you look at the number of pre-Schoonmaker Chiefs who were from the artillery branch, you understand why the Army went to war with Rumsfeld over Crusader in the most ludicrous, unsupportable, self-defeating, and disproportionate manner a rational person has ever seen. In that type of Service environment, how can the decisions about authorizing wearing “grunt” ribbons NOT be affected by USAF fighter-jockey politics?
Comment by Kurmudge — 10/10/2006 @ 10:23 am