Talk:Awards and decorations of the United States Armed Forces

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconOrders, decorations, and medals List‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of orders, decorations, and medals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
ListThis article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMilitary history Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.
B checklist
Additional information:
Associated task forces (nations and regions):
Taskforce icon
North American military history task force
Taskforce icon
United States military history task force

Opening Remarks[edit]

To all who may read this, I am very proud to announce that this page is now "open for business". I have linked every medal that has an associated article. Please feel free to add new articles for those awards which are not yet described. -User:Husnock 23 June 2004

Great stuff! I suggest adding free (red) links for the other medals, so they'll "light up" when somebody creates an article starting from some other context. Just today I added a couple links to newly-created articles from old articles that should have had the free links and didn't. Stan 04:00, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, thats a pretty good idea. I used to be agaist that, since I saw the red articles as "broken links". But, they do light up in every connected article once an article is written. I will probably not do that for every single decoration on the page. Just the ones that I know I will be working on the near future. Dont let that stop other people, though. Link away, I say -User:Husnock

As you can see, I went ahead and did as you suggested. Very good idea. I will now start the LONG process of writing articles on all the decorations. Hopefully others will contribute.


Attempt at Featured Article[edit]

To the loyal followers of this page, I tried to get it as a featured article, but that got shot down pretty quickly. How vain am I, but I find it a little amazing that anyone could say negative things about this article! Oh well.  :-) -User:Husnock 7 Jul 2004

(As the one who objected to the article) - the rules for Featured articles (FA) more-or-less prohibit list-articles (or list-like articles) from becoming featured. Typically, what one does is "spin-off" the lists, and write an article solely about the topic at hand. For example, Siege spun off List of sieges, Margerent Thather spun off Cabinets under Margaret Thatcher, Middle-earth spun off a *lot* of lists, etc etc) I think that would be a good idea in this case. →Raul654 05:33, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)

I was just being vain. You are absolutely right, it IS a list article. One of the associated medals articles might be worthy, but this one is not. I took it off the candidate list as fast as I had put it on. Best- User:Husnock 8 Jul 2004

Massive Update[edit]

To the followers of this article, a large number of medal articles have been written and linked to this page. The section on Vietnam War medals will most likely be finished by next week. Thanks for everyone's support! user:Husnock 12 Jul 2004

Good Conduct Section[edit]

I'm proud to annouce the opening of the Good Conduct Medal article. That one took quite a bit of research to write. The Reserve Good Conduct Medal article will be coming shortly. User:Husnock 24 Jul 04

The entire Reserve and Good Conduct section is now complete. Please enjoy! -User:Husnock 1 Sep 04

Pictures Needed[edit]

I am researching some new medals for articles and am having a very hard time finding photos of the following medals.

Looking for pictures of the full sized medals, not just the ribbon. If anyone has photos or pictures of those medals, please start an article and post them to the article! -User:Husnock 3 Sep 04

Devices Section Complete[edit]

I'm pleased to announce the completion of the "Devices" section in which all attachments and devices to U.S. military awards are now catalouged. Enjoy! -User:Husnock 5 Sep 04

User Page Updated[edit]

For the followers of this page, check out my User profile to see what this mad scientist looks like...picture posted today on occasion of my 29th birthday! Husnock 12 Sep 2004

Modern Medals Complete[edit]

Today marks a great milestone in this article. Every modern medal of the United States military is now indexed with an article. Ribbons, obsolete medals, civilian decorations, and foreign medals remain.

Grand Project Begun[edit]

To add to the greatness of this article, I have begun adding ribbon pics of all the awards. This will expand the article from a simple list to a bonified index. Enjoy! Husnock 2 Oct 2004

Excellent! I think tableization will be necessary in each section though, to get ribbons and names to line up properly. You'll also want to shrink the ribbon images a bit then, so the names don't get spread too far apart. Stan 04:59, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Second World War Foreign Medals[edit]

I just finished a major picture upload, article rewrite, and revamp of the Second World War foreign medals section. I took out some of the rarer medals which weren't bestwoed that often. Among them the Order of the White Lion of Czechoslovakia and the senior medals of the Philippine Islands. If anyone notices a common World War II medal, which was awarded to U.S. troops and was omitted, please let me know. Enjoy the update! -Husnock 20 Oct 2004

Entire Article has been Copied[edit]

I dont know if there are any administrators out there watching this page, but this may be oif interest. I discovered this entire article, indeed half of Wilkipedia, has been copied over to the following webpage.

The articles are carbon copies of the ones poste don this site, complete with links. It also is NOT a free website, in that I could see no way for the general public to edit or add things much like on Wilk. I guess that may be allowed, since this is all public info once its written. I just hope people over there are not claiming credit to articles which are written by the good people on this website.

Opinions? -Husnock 26 Oct 04

Ribbon Pictures Complete[edit]

I am pleased to announce that every decoration in this article now has a corresponding ribbon picture. Some of the articles have yet to be written, but the ribbon picturte download is compelte. Thanks as well to to anon user who redid the layout template into neater columns. It has made the article look much better. A toast to us all. -Husnock 28 Dec 04

Hey Husnock, nice job on the section. However, I notice some of the ribbons need to be cleaned up. I am going to redraw the ribbons and post them as soon as I can. I will also post them up using the PNG format. Zscout370 17:25, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

National Guard Awards[edit]

I would like to poll people on what the thought is about adding National Guard decorations to this article. Good idea? OR maybe its own article. Inputs would be welcome. Thank you! -Husnock 28 Dec 04


Set off the fireworks, this a great day. This article now has links to every single active United States miltiary award presently in existence. I hope people enjoy reading them. We will now work on the obsolete, civilian, and unofficial decorations. This article is drawing closer to the day when it will be completed finished. But then, is any article really completely finished? -Husnock 4 Jan 2005

Barnstar Nomination[edit]

Hello everyone! I'm trying to get nominated for a Barnstar based on work in this article. If anyone wants to put forth thier input, or even award the Barnstar, I would certianly appreciate it! -Husnock 12Feb05

More than I can chew[edit]

I have just performed a MAJOR revamping, expansion, and article creation project to branch out this article into the civilian decorations of the United States. Eventually, this will hoepfully include every significant award of the federal government, most state awards, and the higher level local decorations to include police decorations. Is this more than I chew? I guess we'll find out. -Husnock 15Feb05

  • I personally do not think so, since there are many sites that list civilian awards. If an entire article cannot be used or produced, a few short lines will be good enough on the main medals/ribbons section. Zscout370 03:26, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Can "pseudo" be changed in the section relating to Sea Cadets and Civil Air Patrol? I don't think "pseudo-military" is correct terminology. 19:07, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • I personally think this text is fine, since other words like semi will be a bit insulting. Zscout370 19:16, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ribbon Bars[edit]

Ok, based on a few suggestions at several places, I was told that the file names that I choose are cyptic. I agree and now, I will be in the process of renaming and reuploading the various ribbon bar images I have placed on here and on the Wikimedia Commons. If you wish to help me out on this, just let me know. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 15:33, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tables needed[edit]

I recently upgraded my web browser to Netscape 8 and discovered that the ribbons on the page now appear as straight columns and dont line up with the actual name of the award. It looks like tables need to be created, much as in the case with the articles listed under Military badges of the United States. That should be fun. -Husnock 03:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking of having tables in rows of four. First will be the ribbon, then the name of the medal above. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
See the Order of Canada article for an example. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
We might as well go full speed ahead and put pictures of the full sized medals. Most of the linked articles have them. If the sizing is consistent and it doesnt look too non-conform. The table in the Canada Order would be a good template to use. -Husnock 03:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am using the ribbons right now, but we can always replace the ribbons with whatever we find. I am fixing up the foreign decorations template now. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I just tried as an experiment adding in full sized medals pics. It actually looks pretty good. In concert, we can update together. Go USN! Go BSA! -Husnock 03:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Grand Disambig Project[edit]

Well, with the new medals pictures (which look really cool, by the way), I at last began the grand project to turn this into a disambig page. To avoid having the "inyuse" template up there, I finished the main page and will use the edit and article history to go back adn get the templates for the new articles. -Husnock 05:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, after some midnight oil the transition is pretty much complete. I have to find some pictures of individual medals, but thats a minor issue. I personally think the new format and separate articles look a whole lot better. What does everyone think? -Husnock 01:31, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Sadly, I think I am speaking for "everyone." However, the project is great. Also, with the recent surge of Orders, Medals and Decorations being put on WP:PR and WP:FAC, should we create a Wikiportal/Project for it? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:25, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OMD Wikiportal[edit]

My proposial: it is a coordination page for all who wish to work on medal related articles, regardless of nationality. I suggest we get the two of us, Hallibutt and anothers we know to work on this project. What do you think? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pictures are streeeeeching[edit]

About 15 minutes ago, all pictures on Wikipedia started to strech to fit the thumbnail boxes, distorting over half the images on the website. IS this a thing with my browser? Or do other people see it too. Its very noticable on the Main Page. Hmmmm. -Husnock 4 July 2005 06:38 (UTC)

Maybe it is Wikipedia, but some of my images came out fine. Others were stretched. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 4 July 2005 07:08 (UTC)
The problem seems to have corrected itself. I went from about 1AM last night to 12PM today. Now all the pictures are back to noraml. Wierd! -Husnock 5 July 2005 05:20 (UTC)

Copyvios on medal articles[edit]

For those who follow this page, we seem to be experiancing a problem with some new users going into award articles and "updating them" which, in actuality, entails cutting and pasting (word for word) text about the medals from other websites to include the Institute of Heraldry and the Center for Army History. We've already had problems with Southwest Asia Service Medal and Kuwait Liberation Medal being effectively blanked and replaced with copyrighted info from other websites. Also, on Purple Heart a user pasted in a large segment of material word from word from another site.

I feel articles about medals may duplicate ther websites, in so far as the criteria, but never should a medals article simply be a mirror image of another site. We are not creating a backup Institute of Heraldry, but rather writing original articlesd to cinlude medals and awards info from a variety of sources.

I have already copyvio noticed two articles and encourage everyone to be aware of this kind of "shotgunning" where established articles are blanked and replaced with info from other sites -Husnock 00:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed this was never responded to. Unless stated otherwise, as works of the U.S. federal government, the Army's Institute of Heraldry and Center for Army History are in the public domain. ~PescoSo saywe all 17:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:CORNELIUSSEON was indef blocked from the site for repeated violations of cutting and pasting, word for word from other websites, without proper credit or citations. He also had a bad habit of claiming that he held copyright on articles which he had written or contributed to as well as using Wikipedia for storage space, uploading extremely large files of random data or enourmous lists of military unit information. He was approached to resolve the situation, but became more defiant and departed the website. A very unfortunate situation. -OberRanks (talk) 11:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


my bad, was in a rush :) Joe I 03:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To whoever did're awesome[edit]

This article feel into disrepair some time ago, in particular due to a large campaign regarding military award images listed as "stolen" from various sources. I am happy that the new chart has been added and this article really looks neat. The chart in place is an EXCELLENT reference guide. Good for whoever did that! -OberRanks (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Navy Spanish-American War Campaign Awards[edit]

I added in the West Indies Campaign Medal to the very neat chart but don't know how to make a .svg file (or whatever its called) for the picture. I also think it might be in order to merge in the Sampson Medal and the Dewey Medal. The more and more I learn about these two medals, the more I see that, especially in the 1930s and early 40's (when these medals were worn by some senior admirals), those two decorations were viewed as official awards of the Navy. A update is probably needed here. -OberRanks (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Transfer Question[edit]

If a military member transfers/reenlists into a different branch of service, do they continue to wear the same version of their awards? Or do they switch to the Current service version? i.e, If a Marine has a NUC, and goes to the army, does he wear the nuc award, or the VUA? If we can find a source for this, it would be nice to include in the article as well. Sephiroth storm (talk) 03:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The person would wear the award of the original service that cited the decoration. A marine with a NUC would continue to wear a NUC on an Army uniform. There are also some very low awards which also cannot be worn on sea service uniforms, like the longevity ribbons and the training ribbons due to the Navy having no equivalent. -OberRanks (talk) 03:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, I checked the Army regulation. Very concise. Anyway, Thank you. Sephiroth storm (talk) 02:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Army Insignia Homepage still very active on the web[edit]

I thought I would throw this out there that this webpage is very much still active on the Internet. For those who don't know the history behind this, the man who runs that website has actually done a very good job collecting medals and insignia info. Unfortunately, he has caused some big stirs over the years by claiming that HE holds the copyrights to pictures of United States badges, military medals, and badges of rank. This is actually a bit funny since half of the pictures that show up on his webpage are from Randolph AFB or the Institute of Heraldry, and he is posting them on his page as his own creation. Anyway, he just updated his page and has "Copyright 2010" on all of his images. He might show up on Wikipedia claiming this article, and others about medals and badges, are using "his" material without permission. If he does, the best thing is to ignore it. It was taken seriously about two to three years ago and the result was the destruction of several very good medals articles on Wikpedia. Its really a very sad case - the man who runs that site once had a lot of fans in some very high places - his webpage was used once by NPRC as a training guide. Instead of working with others, he actually tried to sue the Military Personnel Records Center for that very reason (thrown out of court, I heard). Anyway, watch out for this - it is still an issue on the web. -OberRanks (talk) 13:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Order of Precedence of the Homeland Security Distinguished Service Medal.[edit]

Question: The Silver Star appears to be wrongly placed in the chart on this page. You have placed its order of precedence above medals that are higher than it is, for instance the Army Distinguished Service Medal.

This is from the article about the HSDSM:

The award would be worn after the Medal of Honor, Navy Cross, Distinguished Service Cross and Air Force Cross and before the Defense Distinguished Service Medal and the Department-specific DSM decorations. The award is only authorized to be given to members of the Coast Guard.

Personal Note: For members of the military, it would be worn directly AFTER the DDSM, but the military is not eligible for this award... In any case, the HSDSM comes before ANY department-specific distinguished service medals...

In the article, there are also two links for the above mentioned caption.

Greetings, claudevsq (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This actually sounds like it should be under Awards and decorations of the United States government as this does not appear to be a military decoration, but rather the highest civilian award of the Department of Homeland Security. In any event, the decoration would clearly never be worn before the DDSM. -OberRanks (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Correct, but in Thad Allen's case, he got two HSDSM's and one DDSM, and he wears them in that order. claudevsq (talk) 17:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh yes, and see Thomas H. Collins, for example. He has got a Transportation DSM, a Homeland Security DSM, and a Defense DSM (in that order). claudevsq (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, just wanted to respond and clarify several points: 1) By law, the U.S. Coast Guard is a "military service and branch of the armed forces of the United States at all times." See United States Coast Guard. 2) The HSDSM is issued under the President's authority as Commander in Chief, making it a military award. It's in the reference on that page. 3) Each branch has its own order of precedence. For example, in the Navy, Navy awards of the same tier are worn before Army awards. Since the HSDSM is only awarded to Coast Guardsmen, the Coast Guard precedence is listed, and being part of the Department of Homeland Security, a Homeland Security award would come before a DoD award. 4) The Transportation DSM was changed to the Homeland Security DSM when the Coast Guard was transferred from DoT to DHS. Thanks! ~PescoSo saywe all 04:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following text is found above the table: "Note: Precedence of particular awards will vary slightly among the different branches of service." With that caveat, I say list the HSDSM below the DDSM (based on date of establishment) and before the service-specific DSMs, since it's a department-level award akin to the DDSM. The note should not say anything about being a civilian award, though. It's as much a civilian award as the DDSM is. ~PescoSo saywe all 04:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pesco, you are absolutely right! But I thought that, since a few years, the Coast Guard was only a part of the military in wartimes?!? claudevsq (talk) 07:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Claude, in wartime (or when the President directs), the Coast Guard *may* be transferred to fall under the Department of the Navy (which falls under the Department of Defense). Last time that happened was WWII. Since then, laws have been changed to make it easier for military branches to operate jointly, which reduces the need of the Coast Guard to be completely transferred like this. It's true that the Coast Guard does not usually fall under the Department of Defense, which creates misunderstandings about it's status, but despite this it is military at all times. :) ~PescoSo saywe all 13:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Old Department of Transportation Awards[edit]

I removed the addition of the old Department of Transportation awards since these are already listed at Awards_and_decorations_of_the_United_States_government#Department_of_Transportation. The modern day Coast Guard, to my knowledge, also no longer is awarded these decorations, although those who were previously awarded the decorations may continue to wear them. The DOT awards as of 2012 fall under the category of "civilian decorations authorized for wear on military uniforms", thus they should not be displayed on this article but be maintained on the civilian article. -OberRanks (talk) 14:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OberRanks, I understand why you undid my edit. However, why would you remove the Transportation Distinguished Service Medal from the Obsolete Decorations and Service Medals section? As I read the literature, this U.S. Coast Guard military award was replaced by the Homeland Security Distinguished Service Medal. Thus, shouldn't the Transportation Distinguished Service Medal be listed in this section? FYI: This service medal is not awarded to civilians. --McChizzle (talk) 16:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure about that one. If its a legit obsolete military award, then by all means add it. If its still a currently issued civilian decoration of the Department of Transportation, it should be kept over at the civilian decorations page. -OberRanks (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lifesaving Medals[edit]

The recent removal of the Lifesaving Medals needs to be discussed. They are still authorized for wear on military uniforms and, historically, have been held by some major military figures such as George Patton. I am not that active on the site anymore, but the blanking of those awards raised enough alarm bells for a comment. -OberRanks (talk) 23:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here is my argument about the lifesaving medals (I have not edited anything else on this article, at the moment). It specifically states here see Chap 4, that they are not military decorations. This article is clearly about military decorations. A non-military decoration should, by definition, not be included. There is most likely another article where it can be placed; it's not as if the Lifesaving Medal is being assigned to oblivion, it is listed in the Awards and decorations of the United States government article, as well as having an article of its own. The roots of the award are non-military as well; the law that established it, 18 Stat. 125 (June 20, 1874), originally had the Dept. of the Treasury issue the award. In any event, the Coast Guard (which currently issues the award) Medals and Awards manual says it is a non-military decoration. Finally, there are certainly other non-military awards that are authorized for wear on a U.S. military uniform, for example the Presidential Medal of Freedom. If we start listing all of them, the article goes beyond its title.--Nyctc7 (talk) 00:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also let me mention, not unkindly, that the reference should be only considered as a convenient guide, not as an official document.--Nyctc7 (talk) 00:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am removing the Gold and Silver lifesaving medals. They are listed on the Awards and decorations of the United States government page, and that is where they belong. See above for a link to the Coast Guard Medals and Awards Manual which clearly states that they are not military decorations (they may be authorized for wear on military uniforms; however nowadays with the military non-combat heroism medals, it would be unusual for them to be awarded to military personnel).--Nyctc7 (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Medals for non-combat heroism[edit]

It seems to me that this heading needs to modified, eliminated, or something. To the call the Purple Heart an award for non-combat is inaccurate...In the article on it, under "criteria" it states that it is not awarded for non-combative injuries. It is also not awarded specifically for heroism.

Secondly, the Bronze Star Medal. No mention is made that with the "V" for valor device, it is the fourth-highest award for combat heroism. One solution may be to make a "notes" section (similar to a references section) where such things should be...noted. The way it would look is thus.

Bronze Star Medal[N 1]

  1. ^ When the "V" for valor device is attached, it is the fourth highest award for combat heroism

The 1., 2., 3. etc can be made to appear at the bottom of the article, like and in addition to "References", but it would be titled "Notes".

That's just one idea, but something should be done??--Nyctc7 (talk) 01:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clearly a lot of thought here and some good research of references. I would say get some more editors involved in a revamp/rewrite to clarify these various points. The transfer of the USCG to the Dept of Homeland Security has also greatly changed the status of a lot of these awards so clearly a change is warranted. -OberRanks (talk) 01:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's quite clear to me that the medal which are described as non-combat heroism only include the Soldier's Medal through Coast Guard Medal, due to the lack of lines in that portion of the table. I mean, surely you don't think the table indicates that the Navy & Marine Corps Combat Action Ribbon is an Achievement Medal, do you?--Vidkun (talk) 13:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, I am now looking at the table in a different light. At first it appeared to me that everything under the heading was included until you reached another heading. Now looking at it again, I see what you mean. Thanks.--Nyctc7 (talk) 14:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In a very real sense the Purple Heart is not a combat medal. It is awarded for injury, not combat (or bravery). The criteria is "Any member of the Armed Forces of the United States who, while serving under competent authority in any capacity with one of the U.S. Armed Services after April 5, 1917, has been wounded or killed" (talk) 07:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

non combat issue[edit]

I think this is mislabled

By order of precedence >

Medals for non-combat heroism >

Purple Heart The Purple Heart is not awarded for non-combat injuries.[6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vgerdj (talkcontribs) 05:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How Awards / Decorations/ Ribbons are Worn/displayed - Width or each Row[edit]

I probably could repeat this multiple time on different pages, But I choose to come here. In many cases Biography pages will show what awards the service member earned/qualified for. When this is done in the Wikipedia page, it usually presented in 4 awards across on one row. TO My recommendation for the US Navy and Marine Corp ribbons and awards are worn being 3 across in a row. IN addition within the Navy, ships usually have their awards displayed somewhere- on occasion on exterior of the Bridge wing. For the USS Iowa, a seperate user took and posted a picture of teh ships awards, then posted it (on talk page) and called the awards ribbons on the article wrong. With time, and a close examination, the MAJOR difference was 4 in a row versus 3 in a row. Question #1- anyone reply if the happen to know the Air Force of Army wear awards/ribbons in a row of 4? Has this ever changed over history as to what is the directions? Any place to create a template to properly do 3 ribbons in a row? And think out a simplified edit procedures to update existing pages. Wfoj2 (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wfoj2, For the U.S. Army, I recommend reviewing section 29-7, on page 270, of AR670-1. For the U.S. Air Force, I recommend reviewing chapter 11, pages 147-156, of AFI36-2903; but you can focus your study on figure 11.1 on page 156. Let me know if you need more information. --McChizzle (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chaplain's Medal[edit]

I added in the Four Chaplains' Medal as this is actually still an active decoration and could be awarded again per Congress. I also addressed the concerns about the ribbon image. Its through the IOH by way of a medals database project to NPRC in 2004. Its a trivial non-copyrighted image, but we could go through the whole deal of a permissions e-mail if need be. Hope that clears it up. -OberRanks (talk) 22:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The FCM was a one time deal, set up by Congress for the Four Chaplains. It is not "active" om the sense that anyone else will get it. Please note on the obverse that the 4 names are listed. With that in mind, no one else is ever going to get the medal. (At most Congress might authorize a different version of the medal, but it would certainly have another name.) The ribbon "image" is not an official image, much less an official ribbon. TIOH did create a neck ribbon from which the medal would hang. It it not a ribbon that anyone (much less the four dead chaplains) would pin on their uniform. Calling this image "trivial" does not properly describe the image or what it purportedly represents. Please remove it -- we are building an encyclopedia and invented ribbons have no place here. – S. Rich (talk) 23:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If its disputed, we can revert it, but it is in fact an actual medal with a ribbon. It was not invented by me or anyone else and I've seen several pictures of this medal (with a ribbon) in both professional military publications as well as the awards database material at MPRC through which they answer their medals requests and respond to Freedom of Information Act inquires. In fact, here is a recent news report showing the full award set [1] which includes a ribbon. But, hey, I'll do a bit more research and get better citations, no problem there. I'd be curious about the status of the ribbon image, specifically if MPRC now owns it since IOH gave it to them back in 2004. -OberRanks (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is also from an Institute of Heraldry publication I have from 2002:
"Four Chaplains' Medal: Issued as a medal with ribbon. The central stripe of blue is the same shade as the ribbon of the Medal of Honor and symbolizes courage above and beyond the call of duty. The black edge stripes of the ribbon symbolize the "last full measure of devotion" rendered by the Four Chaplains. The Four Chaplains' Medal was posthumously awarded to only four recipients, the last award occurred on January 18, 1961. The Four Chaplains Medal is not presently listed in the Army order of precedence, however may be presented at the pleasure of Congress to be rated senior to the Distinguished Service Cross and junior to the Medal of Honor."
Seems to read like it could be active again and also that has a ribbon. -OberRanks (talk) 00:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The authority for the creation and awarding of the medal came from Congress in rather limited language: "The decoration was approved by an Act of Congress on 14 July 1960 (Public Law 86-656, 74 Stat. 521) and read: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President is authorized to award posthumously appropriate medals and certificates to Chaplain George L. Fox of Gilman, Vermont; Chaplain Alexander D. Goode of Washington, District of Columbia; Chaplain Clark V. Poling of Schenectady, New York; and Chaplain John P. Washington of Arlington, New Jersey, in recognition of the extraordinary heroism displayed by them when they sacrificed their lives in the sinking of the troop transport Dorchester in the North Atlantic in 1943 by giving up their life preservers to other men aboard such transport. The medals and certificates authorized by this Act shall be in such form and of such design as shall be prescribed by the President, and shall be awarded to such representatives of the aforementioned chaplains as the President may designate." Source: [2] Could Congress enact a new statute? Well Congress can enact almost anything. But would they? It would be mere speculation to say so, and WP is WP:NOTCRYSTAL. – S. Rich (talk) 03:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The language of the authorization reminds me very much of five star rank, i.e. we *could* again have the award, but the real chances of that happening are next to none. So, yes, no need to have it in the active order of precedence. If can agree that there is in fact a ribbon (which I think the above mentioned sources and links establish that there is) then I have an idea about a new section concerning one time only commemorative and special medals. Thanks! -OberRanks (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no such thing as a Chaplains' Medal ribbon. What is posted as the "ribbon" is an invented image lacking RS. The ribbon for the medal was a silk neck ribbon designed to hold the medal itself. This "ribbon" is ersatz and should be removed.S. Rich (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I verified the ribbon image in the awards database at MPRC and found a reference in an IOH publication from 2002 which states that the award was presented as a neck order, chest medal, and ribbon. The instruction further states "The central stripe of blue is the same shade as the ribbon of the Medal of Honor and symbolizes courage above and beyond the call of duty. The black edge stripes of the ribbon symbolize the "last full measure of devotion" rendered by the Four Chaplains. I further found a news article which shows a Chaplains display case with a ribbon and there also apepars to have been a commemorative set struck in the 1960s (with a ribbon) which today can still be privately purchased. [3]. I don't know what else to say. If its still disputed we can put teh topic up on a noticeboard and see what other editors have to say. -OberRanks (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
$.02 worth. For an award that by its name seems limited to 4 recipients, IMHO it's not notable enough for an article by itself. On the other hand, the existence of the award should be included in any list that is appropriate (without a link) and its associated images (ribbon, medal, whatever) should be included in the Commons for use when appropriate. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And other "ribbons"[edit]

Besides the "ribbon" for the Chaplains' Medal, we now have images for other ersatz ribbons. It is my position that such ribbon images have no encyclopedic usage because they were never authorized, issued, or even created. – S. Rich (talk) 16:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's a much broader issue which would probably need other editor input. I didn't add any other ribbon images to the article, so would need to review those on a case-by-case basis. -OberRanks (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. And I've posted a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orders, Decorations, and Medals. – S. Rich (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Part of the issue here is that the U.S. military has and does create retroactive ribbons for old awards and medals which originally didn't have a ribbon. These are generally used for display cases in museums or commemorative collector sets. As for the current ribbons at hand, all the Naval expedition ribbons (Polar, Antarctic, NC-4) had established ribbons which were worn on uniforms (I've seen photos of the recipients wearing them both in private photos and military history books). The Cardenas Honor Medal I've never personally seen a photo of someone wearing the ribbon, but have read that is was a real ribbon of the Revenue Cutter Service, later displayed on uniforms of the the U.S. Coast Guard after 1915. The last person holding the medal to leave the USCG was around 1923 and, by that point, almost certainly would have displayed it on their ribbon rack. -OberRanks (talk) 17:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See [4] for two recipients of the NC-4 Medal wearing the ribbon bar. Title 32 of the 1967 Code of Federal Regulations lists some of the awards in the official order of wear: [5] and finally page 66 of DoD Manual 1348.33, Volume 3 lists many of the awards being called into question. EricSerge (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mil Spec sheets for ribbons of Dewey Medal, Sampson Medal, NC-4 Medal, Peary Polar Medal, Byrd Antarctic Medal, Second Byrd Antarctic. EricSerge (talk) 23:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
US Navy chart showing ribbon bars for the Byrd medals: [6]. EricSerge (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1930 USCG Uniform Regs showing some of the offending ribbon bars: [7]. Is this enough that we can move the awards back up into the 19th/20th century commemorative section?EricSerge (talk) 23:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I actually like the new set-up which clarifies which awards were one time only single purpose and commemorative. Its not by any means stating they were not real, just that they were issued for a single event rather than broad campaigns or other types of service type awards. -OberRanks (talk) 02:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've got no problem with ribbons with WP:V as per the RS provided. With this in mind, they are not "offending medals". (Thank you.) In the US military (and with other services such as the police) a ribbon is a device pinned onto the uniform. With more formal uniforms, such as Dress Whites, the full fledged medals (or small versions of the medals) are worn. Ribbons (as we see depicted on the article page) are worn with less formal uniforms such as Class As (Army) or Dress Blues (Army). If the ribbons don't actually exist, they can't wear them (duh!). But for us to post images of ribbons that do not exist -- because they lack V -- is not good editing. I don't doubt the existence of the Cardenas Medal, but we cannot assume that the Navy (or any other official agency) created a Cardenas Ribbon. – S. Rich (talk) 23:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks like the USCG ref you provided has the ribbon. Thus, V is satisfied. Thanks again. – S. Rich (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Further note -- some of my remarks about a ribbon image being invented were intemperate and inappropriate. I believe I have striken all of the improper language. And I have extended an apology to the editor involved. – S. Rich (talk) 00:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Air Force Expeditionary Ribbon with Gold Frame[edit]

I'm not sure it was the best idea to remove that from the chart. The gold frame ups the ribbon to the status of a combat decoration; people I know and have worked with in the Air Force almost talk about the framed ribbon as if it were a separate decoration from the regular award. Thoughts? -OberRanks (talk) 18:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have mixed feelings as well. The frame is like adding a "V" Device to a Bronze Star Medal, changes it up considerably but, its still the same decoration. EricSerge (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've heard rumors an Air Force person can actually wear two Expeditionary Ribbons, one with the frame and one without, to signify two separate tours of service. Is that true? -OberRanks (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to Air Force Instructions, and an Air Force Major I work with that has earned this award with gold border, you can only wear one for it's no different than having a "V" device on a Commendation Medal; you don't wear two Commendation Medals because you earned one with "V" and one without. --McChizzle (talk) 03:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting...I too knew an Air Force Major (Air Battle Manager) who wore the ribbon twice, one with ribbon and one without. I bet he was breaking the rules. -OberRanks (talk) 03:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bronze oak leaf cluster
He should have worn the Air Force Expeditionary Service Ribbon with gold border and one oak leaf cluster, just as Lt Gen Eric E. Fiel does on his uniform. That's how my coworker, an Air Force Major, wears his and he has earned two of them, one in a combat zone and another elsewhere. For more specifics on the gold border, I would reference the Air Force Personnel Center's Fact Sheet on this subject. Thus, I would like to remove the gold border version for the list, since it's the same award but with a special distinguishing device. --McChizzle (talk) 11:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it looks like one award. We should nix the gold border as before. -OberRanks (talk) 18:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had mixed feelings as well, but after talking to some Air Force Officers, Navy Officers, and one Coast Guard Chief, they all thought that staying pure on this page was better or we would have to add every ribbon that is authorized a distinguishing device as a separate award, which it is not. For example, the "V" Device, like the gold border, helps to signify how the award was earned (combat action for the "V" Device and combat theater for the gold border). If we want to go down the road of adding ribbons with their distinguishing devices we can; I would just suggest we organize the table a little differently so we don't confuse those seeking information on the subject of military decorations. --McChizzle (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can see it both ways. Separate issue, the Navy Expert Marksmanship Medals, worn on the rack as the marksmanship ribbon with silver "E" are separate awards from the regular ribbon and the ribbon with Sharpshooter "S". One is a ribbon, the other a medal. We should restore those at the very least. -OberRanks (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Based on what I've read, that makes since. Being an old Army SOF guy requires that I read USN and USCG uniform regulations about these things and the regulations talk about marksmanship qualification awards as one award per weapon type presented in one of three degrees (OPNAVINST 3591.1F & COMDTINST M1650.25D). If the shooter earns Expert, then a special award is typed up and a medal presented, which falls in line with our current Wikipedia pages on this subject. So, if a Navy shooter earned Sharpshooter with the rifle one year and Expert with the rifle the next, can the shooter wear two Navy Rifle Marksmanship Ribbons on their uniform? My brother, who retired from the Navy, was only allowed to wear one rifle and one pistol weapon qualification award, regardless of score. If true, then it should be considered one award per weapon type with different devices representing qualification level, not as separate awards. --McChizzle (talk) 11:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you upgrade the qualification from Sharpshooter to Expert, you cease to wear the ribbon and are awarded the medal. The medal is then worn as a ribbon with a large silver "E". So, no you would not wear both at the same time, but it is a strange animal since they are technically two separate awards. To get the Expert Medal is also a fitrep/eval notable thing, which sharpshooter and marksman ribbons are not. A big headache yes. Over in your neck of the woods, I've heard a lot of stories about Army people having to take off badges if they fail to re-qualify. But then, if they write MPRC 30 years later, they will get the highest qualification which is shown in the record. So, if you got the Expert Badge with rifle bar in 1968, then had to downgrade in 1972 to marksman on the same weapon, if you requested medals today the Army would send you the Expert badge because that's the highest one shown in the record'!. What to do?? Its crazy. -OberRanks (talk) 02:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the info. OberRanks. Today’s Army does not make note of Marksmanship Qualification Badges in a Soldier’s DD-214 for they are defined as temporary decorations. Today, the only marksmanship information in a Soldier’s DD-214 is official Marksmanship Competition Awards, which are defined as permanent decorations (refer to AR670-1 & AR600-8-22).
I've been expanding the Marksmanship Badge (United States) page and it would help me to know what you mean when you say "...they are technically two separate awards." The Navy regulations on this subject do not make such a distinction. Can you show me where you are pulling your information from so I can update the Wikipedia pages I am working to expand? As you know, rumor and hearsay are not something we can use in Wikipedia; so being able to quote official text is always helpful. --McChizzle (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Army Combat Infantryman Badge[edit]

I noticed that under Active United States / By order of precedence / Personal decorations / Achievement medals, that the following are listed: Navy and Marine Corps Combat Action Ribbon, Coast Guard Combat Action Ribbon, and Air Force Combat Action Medal, but not the Army's Combat Infantryman Badge. Why is that? I'm not questioning the article's accuracy--it's a very helpful article, I've used it in my work several times. I simply want to understand--and perhaps it might be helpful to add an explanatory footnote for others who read the article and have the same question. (Just a suggestion - I defer to those of you who know a lot more about this topic than do I!). Many thanks - Mark D Worthen PsyD 04:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The badge is listed on a separate article: Badges of the United States Army since this article deals with ribbons and medals; the badges are covered elsewhere. -OberRanks (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had been told that the CIB is equivalent to the Combat Action Ribbons of the other services in terms of honor or recognition, but since the CIB is not listed in the Order of Precedence, I assume it is not as significant as the ribbons. Is that correct? Mark D Worthen PsyD 15:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some of the "order of precedence" is informal – in a sense it asks "who has bragging rights?" At the same time, the CIB is more visible because Army guys can wear it on their utility/cammo uniform, but other services don't wear their combat action ribbons on their utes/cammies. Amongst those who've been in combat, the greatest respect is given and shared amongst infantrymen and Marines. I say "shared" because an Army infantryman won't say his CIB has precedence over a USMC CAR (and vice versa). Also, the USA/USMC infantryman will give and share respect to the Army/Navy medic/corpsman who wears a Combat Medic Badge/Combat Ribbon because those are the guys that share the hardship, danger, and who care for their brothers in arms. Now, how this stuff translates into useful Wikipedia material is another question. Before we try to put my rumination into article text, we'd need reliable sources. – S. Rich (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! That is very helpful. Massive respect and appreciation for you guys and gals who have served. Mark D Worthen PsyD 21:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Medals for equipment[edit]

The other day I saw an old AN/SPS-65 radar with medal ribbons on it. Is this standard practise? I'm not familiar enough with the ribbons to pick what they were for. If this is standard practise, and there are specific conditions where this occurs, it may well be worth adding a section to this article on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Order of Precedence[edit]

The order of precedence states that the Purple Heart precedes the Air Medal in precedence - yet the official portrait of James Stockdale[1] shows him wearing the Air Medal before the Purple Heart. I doubt he would have gotten the precedence wrong for an official portrait.Marcerickson (talk) 03:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Back in the day, the PH was lower in the order. I don't know exactly when they changed it. I think sometime during or right after Vietnam. -O.R.Comms 19:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks!Marcerickson (talk) 12:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Obsolescence of the AF MTI and Recruiter ribbons[edit]

Per this Air Force document [8], the Air Force MTI and Recruiter ribbons are no longer awarded. Eligible personnel are now awarded the Air Force Special Duty Ribbon. I added the Special Duty Ribbon, but did not know whether to move the recently discontinued ribbons off the main section or not. Many personnel on duty, including active, guard, and reserve, are likely still wearing the discontinued ribbons. Thoughts? EricSerge (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If they are being worn by people currently serving, I would leave them where they are now. The understood rule of an obsolete decoration is typically thirty years from last issuance. Interestingly, there was a recent memo from the DoD officially saying that the Korean Service Medal is now obsolete and should be removed from award charts. -O.R.Comms 22:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with OberRanks. Though I've always wondered why they chose 30 years. Wouldn't there still be carreer-service types still in service then, albeit only at the highest ranks (E-8/9's and General/Flag ranks)? Gecko G (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the actual practice is thirty years from the discharge, retirement, or death on active duty of the most recent recipient of the award. Because yes, there are still some people wearing the Vietnam Service Medal today even though that war is now thirty to forty years in the past. -O.R.Comms 01:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Equal Precedence awards from different branch's order of wear question[edit]

In cases of equivalent awards (ie such as the various achievement awards to pick one example), I know that the joint or cabinet department level awards come first, but then is it one's own branch award followed by the other branch's equivalent awards in order of creation of said award OR is it simply all of them in order of creation of said award (again, execpt for the effectively half-step higher "joint" versions)? I had thought it was the former, but I can't actually find any documentation and in the past I had found some early Air Force personell (people who had carried over Army awards) pic's (which of course I now can't refind at the moment) where it seemed to be the later. Or perhaps does this vary by branch? Gecko G (talk) 13:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the U.S. Army (refer to DA PAM 670-1, section 22-5) and the U.S. Coast Guard (refer to COMDTINST M1650.25D, pages 22-1 through 22-5), you will see that Army awards rank higher on Army uniforms and Coast Guard awards rank higher on Coast Guard uniforms than their equivalent awards from other services. However, I have not found the same type of information for the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, or U.S. Marine Corps. --McChizzle (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much for the Coast Guard information. Rather than a general rule it's a specific listing.
As for the Army info, thanks, I had seen that before, unfortunately that is only a partial listing. There is a listing like with the coast guard for some of them (sections a & b), and it gives a general rule covering the specific case of the good conduct medals (sub-section d-22 in that section 22-5), and a note in subsection "d" that seems to imply that all campaign/service/training awards from other services follow all such Army one's in the larger category (or are those listed specificly the only one's authorised for wear on the Army uniform?) ie as an example- what about the AF NCO Pro. Development ribbons vis-a-vee the Army one? Also, is the 2 listing in para's supposed to be the precedence for The MoH's (a-1) & DSM's (a-7)?
I was hoping for a source stating a general rule rather than specific listings. I know I've got similar listings for the other branch's (except for the CG one, that was new to me, so thanks again). I could, when I get some time, go through all five listing and confirm if each and every single one match's the pattern in each example of equal awards- but that is a lot of work (which I don't have time for) and then wouldn't it get challenged as OR?
Gecko G (talk) 02:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Each services' pyramid of honor varies their order of wear, with their own awards listed higher than those of their fellow services. For the sake of organization you could use the date of establishment of the award. That can be cited and is not OR. EricSerge (talk) 14:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, but i'm not looking to re-organize the listing order in the article, just trying to get this information to help the article meet B2 (coverage completeness) and thus make C-class on the MilHist assessment scale. However, I have occassionally thought of adding the date info in another collumn (ie like with the soviet awards table) but I always decide against it because I figure it would make the table too crowded (and it would start to erode the organizational distinction between the current & obsolete)
Back to the topic on hand- I did find that the Marine Corp does have such a 'general rule': Marine uniform regulations (MCO P1020.34G) section 5102, sub-section 2, on page 5-4:
"When Marines are entitled to similar awards from two or more services; ... After the Marine Corps award, similar award of other service will be worn in the following precedence: Navy, Army, Air Force, and Coast Guard"
So that doesn't match either pattern. Gecko G (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Permanent vs temporary wear question[edit]

I know that in the Army unit awards become's effectively accoutrements to the unit's uniform, thus the whole Permanent vs. Temporary wear regulations. My question is- That is an Army-only issue correct? Am I correct that none of the other branch's do that? If I can work in the answer to this and the above question into the article, I think the article will then meet MilHist's B2 criteria and thus be promotable to C-Class. Gecko G (talk) 14:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

During my time in the U.S. Army, Soldiers could wear both permanent and temporary unit awards. The difference is that if you were in the unit during the time the unit was being recognized with a unit award, it became a permanent decoration for that Soldier. Soldiers that joined the unit after the period for which they were honored can only wear the unit award while assigned. For the U.S. Navy Sailors I've served with, they tell me that you have to be assigned to the unit during the time period for which the unit is being recognized in order to wear a unit award and it's a permanent decoration for that Sailor (no temporary wear). Other than the U.S. Army regulation (AR600-8-22), I've not done the official research on this for the other armed services; so I suggest doing that research before posting. --McChizzle (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I fear this may be trying to prove a negative. I've read a lot of the various award manuals (except for the CG, which I'm not that familiar with), and in that time I don't ever remember coming across anything outside of the Army. We might have to rely on Ancedotal evidence, like your above mentioned conversations with sailors. Do we have any Marine, Airforce, & Coast Guard wikipedia members who can confirm if their 3 branch's work the same way in this respect?
and hey, I just noticed that's an updated version of the AR600-8-22! thank you for that link.
Gecko G (talk) 02:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I linked the wrong regulation in my response. DA PAM 670-1, section 22-5, paragraph b covers the wear of unit awards for the U.S. Army. --McChizzle (talk) 12:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The only other temporary wear awards that I can think of is the French Fourragere for the 5th and 6th Marines [9]. EricSerge (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh yeah, that's a good example. The Marine Corp uniform regulation (MCO P1020.34G) section 5302 say's it "becomes part of the cited unit's uniform", that's where I had gotten the idea of calling it an "accoutrement to the unit's uniform" which I used above (I had read it long ago and forgotten it was in the MC regs and not the Army Regs).
Regarding the Fourragere, I noticed something in the army reg's (AR600-8-22, linked above): Section 9-4, subsection e-2 allows wearing of French Fourragere on a temporary basis (ie for those who join the unit after the events and then only for the duration of their service with said unit) but yet the last sentence of section 9-18 say's: "Persons who were present in only one action are not authorized to wear the Fourragere." (Two unit awardings of the CdG being a requirement for the Fourragere). So then what about the case of someone who joined the unit inbetween the two events and is part of the unit during the second event? (A pretty extreme corner case, I know {though I can think of an even more extreme one}, and not really relevant to the rest of this discussion, but it just struck me as odd)
Anyway, moving forward, McChizzle you mentioned and linked to PAM 670-1 section 22-5 paragraph B. That only mentions "some", the actual one's are in table 22-1 of that document (page 237 of the original, p. 253 of the pdf), and it's apparently specifically only the Army one's (again unfortunately based on a listing, rather than statment of a general rule, but I think such a small synthesis could survive OR concerns)
the same section [9-4-e-2] of AR600-8-22 mentioned above allow temporary wear of the RoK PUC if part of an eligible unit stationed in Korea. Thus the Korean PUC (& the French Fourragere mentioned above, depending on how you define "award") seems to be the only two non-Army awards allowed for temporary wear in the Army.
Gecko G (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought you were asking about unit awards and their permanent vs temporary wear. Given that DA PAM 670-1, section 22-5, paragraph b states, "A unit award ... is worn by members of that unit who participated in the cited action. Personnel who did not participate in the cited action, but who are assigned in the cited unit, are authorized temporary wear...," I thought that would answer your question, at least from an Army standpoint. Good luck with finding information for the other military services. --McChizzle (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right, I am (well, mostly I was concerned with branch's other than the Army, but it's good to get a citable source for the army as well). That section reads ...are authorized temporary wear of some unit awards (emphasis added). Table 22-1 specifies which are the some though I also had to find another source for the authorization of Temporary wear of the Korean PUC (namely AR600-8-22, section 9-4-e-2).
for the JMUA I've found there is specifically no temporary wear: DODM 1348.33 vol 1 Enclosure 3: 14-c-(3) on page 54 Only those members of the U.S. Armed Forces who were present at the time and directly participated in the service or achievement ... shall be authorized to wear the JMUA ribbon. also confirmed by table 22-1 in Army PAM 670-1
I also found the Marine's limit unit awards to those involved in the action cited: Marine corp 5101-3 under Unit Award ... and worn only by members of that unit who participated in the cited action. So that would seem to specifically preclude any Temporary wear of anything by Marines (with the above discussed exception of the Fourragere which is considered part of the uniform, not an award)
The Navy reg's are a bit wierd. SECNAVINST 1650.1h 312-1-a ...who were actually present and participated in the action(s) for which the unit was cited, are authorized to wear the ribbon permanently." (again, emphasis added) It specifically talks about permanently wearing it but there doesn't appear to be anything in contradistinction (ie temporary wear) so why mention permanently?. I haven't found any mention of temporary wear, but all the foreign unit award requirements specify "during the event" or similar such terminology, but other than the E ribbon, none of the Navy unit awards has such.
I'm just about out of time this weekend, but when I get more time I'll have to search back through the AF regs, and read through the CG regs McChizzle provided (also need to go back and check regs on cross branch awardings to make sure) - unless someone beats me to it
Gecko G (talk) 01:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Awards and decorations of the United States Armed Forces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marksmanship devices[edit]

I would like to remove the various award device examples of the same marksmanship ribbons for it's no different than having to add a separate image for every award with a "V" device, which does not seem appropriate. Some of the marksmanship devices do indicate a very different award, such as the Coast Guard Silver Rifle Excellence-in-Competition Award, but others, like the Navy Pistol Marksmanship Ribbon with Sharpshooter Device, is just the same award but with a device indicating that the sailor achieved a high core. The argument you see on this talk page from the former OberRanks is just nonsensical and circular to me. What say you? --McChizzle (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Navy reg’s I’ve seen all seem confused as to whether there are 3 or 4 different marksmanship awards (counting the competition badges, which are outside the scope of this article) but are consistent that the medal is different from the ribbon-only base marksman award/qualification. Gecko GMobile (talk) 09:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
P.S. If you want to do some searching (I don’t have the time to do so myself) I can point you towards the following OPNAVINST series’s: 1650.1, 3591.1F, 3590.7, and perhaps this “Marine Corps Order P3590.13A” which I saw referenced. Cheers, Gecko GMobile (talk) 09:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]