Posted on 05/12/2005 7:50:07 AM PDT by SuzyQ2
Hackworth was a very brave man and a great tactical soldier.
But he wasn't a good military analyst & politically he was idiot.
Just because you are a good quarterback doesn't mean you know how to coach or would make a good TV commenatator.
Well put.
Boorda was a piss poor CNO who had stopped wearing the Combat V, which he was not and is still not entitled to, on the Navy Achievement Medal and Navy Commendation Medal over a year prior to shooting himself. He was also being treated by a private physician for depression.
Trying to blame anyone else for Boordas' actions is indicative of just how ignorant you are of the topics at hand.
So I should ignore all the other sources available by Googling Hackworth & Boorda & just take the word of a smart guy like you. Sure, OK.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Navy has quietly accepted that Adm. Jeremy "Mike" Boorda was entitled to wear combat decorations on his uniform -- the challenged Vietnam War awards that led to his suicide two years ago.
Navy Secretary John Dalton put into Boorda's file a letter from Elmo Zumwalt Jr., the chief of naval operations during the war, which says it was "appropriate, justified and proper" for Boorda to attach the small bronze combat V's to the ribbons on his uniform. The Navy also modified Boorda's record to list the V's among his other decorations -- recognition that they were earned.
But that stops short of what Zumwalt sought -- unambiguous public recognition that Boorda violated no regulations.
Nonetheless, Zumwalt, in an interview Wednesday, called Dalton's action "posthumous validation of Admiral Boorda's right to have worn the V's based on instructions given by me when I was chief of naval operations."
"My interpretation is that retroactively he has been authorized to wear the V's," Zumwalt added.
Wearing an unauthorized decoration is a severe breach of military protocol.
Decision becomes part of naval records
On May 16, 1996, when his right to wear the decorations was about to be questioned, Boorda, 56, the first enlisted man to become the chief of naval operations in the service's 198-year history, went home, wrote a note "to my sailors," stepped into his garden and fatally shot himself in the chest.
He acted after learning that two Newsweek reporters were on their way to question him about the matter.
The decision by Dalton, who will retire at the end of the year, to place Zumwalt's memo in Boorda's file made it part of naval records.
The "V" stands for valor and signifies service in combat. Boorda served on a destroyer, the USS Craig, in 1965 and as executive officer on another destroyer, the USS Brooke, in 1973, both in combat situations.
In his suicide note, Boorda said, "I am about to be accused of wearing combat devices on two ribbons I earned during sea tours in Vietnam. It turns out I didn't really rate them. When I found out I was wrong I immediately took them off, but it was really too late."
He added: "I couldn't bear to bring dishonor to you."
The matter is complex. The regulations were ambiguous and evolving and Zumwalt said in his memo that his directions authorizing the wearing of the decorations were delivered verbally "in over 100 visits to ships and shore stations" rather than in writing.
Zumwalt's memo and Dalton's were not made public. The Washingtonian magazine reports on them in its forthcoming July issue. The magazine made copies of the memos available to The Associated Press.
Advised by the Navy's Office of Awards and Special Projects in 1995 that he was not entitled to the decorations, Boorda removed the V's from his uniform.
Navy rules revision makes Boorda eligible
In 1965, Boorda did not qualify for the Combat V, the Washingtonian said.But in 1967 the Navy retroactively upgraded all Navy Commendation for Achievement ribbons awarded between 1961 and 1967, making Boorda eligible for the award.
"Admiral Mike Boorda's citations for awards of the Navy Achievement Medal and Navy Commendation Medal plainly state they were awarded for service including `combat operations' and `while operating in combat missions,"' Dalton's memo said.
Zumwalt's said that during the war, his "statements as the official military spokesman for the Navy made it appropriate, justified and proper for Mike to wear the V."
Despite the intense attention paid to Boorda's suicide, the Navy made no acknowledgment of Dalton's action until questioned Wednesday. Dalton's "memorandum for the record" was dated April 3, 1998, almost two years after Boorda's suicide.
Boorda's widow, Bettie, could not be reached for comment. She has an unlisted telephone number. Her son, Edward, captain of the USS Russell, reported on duty in the Arabian Gulf, could not be reached. Dalton did not respond to requests, made over three days, for an interview.
In a 20,000 word investigation of the Boorda suicide in 1996, Nick Kotz wrote in the Washingtonian that the decorations dispute may have been only one factor pushing Boorda toward suicide. He cited hostility from the Navy's "old guard," who considered him a "political admiral" and felt he had appeased politicians in his handling of the Navy's Tailhook sexual harassment scandal.
Boorda's mental condition isn't the point. The point is Hackworth was unrepentant concerning his role in pushing an arguably unstable but by all accounts honorable man to suicide.
That apparently doesn't bother you, but I suspect it disturbs most reasonable people.
Yes, you should ignore the sources which don't tell the entire story and should listen to someone who does. Neither the Associated Press, Clinton, Dalton, Danzig, Zumwalt, the Boorda family or you is the ultimate authority on the Boorda case. The Board for Correction of Naval Records is and their decision that Boorda was not entitled to display the Combat V on the Navy Achievement Medal or Navy Commendation Medal is final.
Were you interested in the truth rather than in perpetuating a lie about Hackworth then your "research" would have uncovered the following but it didn't. That means that one or more or all of the following is true:
(1)you're lazy and didn't conduct thorough research
(2)you selected the first article you could find thinking it was the proverbial "smoking gun" proving your incorrect claim
(3)you have an ulterior motive
(4)you found the decision of the BCNR and chose not to post it, which makes you a liar
(5)you aren't very bright
(6)you're ignorant of the topic at hand, a fact which has already been established
Boorda's mental condition isn't the point.
Sure it is. A person being treated for depression has no business serving as CNO.
The point is Hackworth was unrepentant concerning his role in pushing an arguably unstable but by all accounts honorable man to suicide.
Hackworth had never met Boorda prior to Boordas' suicide. You're trying to shift the blame for an irrational act committed by an irrational man to someone who wasn't responsible for said act. You sound like an Arkansas or New York Democrat. Hackworth has enough boneheaded things to answer for without some putz like you trying to pile on.
Make sure that you put more effort into your apology than you did in conducting your "research", sweetheart.
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
Conclusion:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes that Petitoner's request does not warrant favorable action.
The Board concludes that Subject was not entitled to wear the CDD on his NAM. First of all, it is clear that he was not authorized to wear the CDD in 1965 when he received the predecessor award, the SECNAV Commendation for Achievement ribbon, since the CDD was not authorized for that decoration. The directive which redesignated this award as the NAM, SECNAV Note 1650 of 17 July 1967, did not specifically state that the Combat "V" was authorized when an NAM was substituted for the predecessor ribbon. It is equally clear that shortly thereafter, NBDM considered the very same issue now before the Board, and concluded that the Combat "V" was not authorized when a NAM was issued retroactively. This decision was reinforced by the issuance of SECNAVINST 1650.1D in December 1968, which specifically stated that the CDD was authorized to be worn with the NAM only if the award was for service performed after 17 July 1967. The Board can find no basis in law or equity to create an exception to these requirements and grant Petitioner's request.
The Board likewise concludes that Subject was not entitled to wear the Combat "V" on his NCM. SECNAVINST 1650.1D, the directive in effect at the time, stated that the CDD could be worn only if it was specifically authorized in the citation accompanying the award, and the citation accompanying Subject's award did not authorize it. Further, in the recommendation for the NCM submitted by the Brooke's CO, Subject was specifically not recommended for the CDD. When COMSEVENTHFLT approved the award, the Combat "V" was specifically not authorized.
It also seems clear that the failure to recommend or approve the CDD for Subject's NCM was not, as Petitioner contends, a mere oversight. The governing directive authorized the CDD if the individual was involved in direct participation in combat operations, and was exposed to personal hazard due to hostile action. Even if some of Brooke's actions in the PIRAZ could be deemed "combat operations," Subject was not exposed to personal hazard due to any hostile action. The Board also notes that Change 6 to SECNAVINST 1650.1D would not have reached COMSEVENTHFLT by the time Subject's NCM was approved, and therefore the CDD could also have been authorized based upon the "imminence" of hostile action. However, the Board does not believe that this helps Subject's case, given the restrictive but reasonable interpretation given to that term by COMSEVENTHFLT and Commander, Naval Forces Vietnam. Accordingly, Subject was not entitled to wear the Combat "V" on his NCM.
In view of the foregoing, the Board finds no error or injustice warranting corrective action.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Petitioner's request be denied.
4. It is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.
Robert D. Zsalman
Recorder
Alan E. Goldsmith
Acting Recorder
5. In accordance with prior direction from your office, the foregoing action of the Board is submitted for your review and action.
W. Dean Pfeiffer
Reviewed and approved:
A further reading of the document at the above link renders the following:
Nevertheless, because of the BCNR's painstaking analysis, we know that the Combat Vs were not authorized for the Navy Commendation and Navy Achievement Medals that were awarded to ADM Boorda in 1968 and 1973. The BCNR's findings make it clear that (redacted) naval record is correct. That being the case, I can find no error or injustice warranting relief.
Accordingly, the petition is denied.
(signed)
CAROLYN H. BECRAFT
Assistant Secretary of the Navy
(Manpower and Reserve Affairs)
Dated 21 June 1999
I consider him one of the finest officers I ever met.
I don't know what happened after he left the Saratoga, the next time I heard about him, he was named CNO. I was genuinely saddened by the circumstances of his death.
I never met Col. Hackworth, but I have seen him on TV a lot over the last 15 years or so. I won't miss him.
Huck Fackworth.
You left out one more option - that you're so intent on being a obnoxious A-hole that it wouldn't matter to me if you held the secret of life in the palm of your sweaty hand.
As far as I'm concerned you're just another graceless jagoff with nothing whatsoever to offer. Have a nice life:)
I hope your parents didn't pay for your education because they got ripped off, putz.
Hackworth's past reputation was completed overshadowed by his tendency to masquerade as a circus clown instead of a "military analyst."
Nicely said.
PS: many folks including myself preferred to be polite on his death thread.....just good manners.
Plus, he's sacrificed more than I ever have.
BTTt
I didn't always agree with Hack but I'm sure as blue blazes gonna miss him. RIP Hack.
Wonder what Hack would have said about BRAC?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.