"-=jd=-" wrote:

(snip) The USN did not re-investigate
the fact and circumstances of the actual
events because, if they did, they would
have at least contacted the actual OIC
of the mission. (snip)

What the USN validated was that the
paperwork was in order and there was
no reason (based on the paperwork that
was filed) to deny the award. (snip)


Do you truly believe the senior officers who awarded Kerry's medals some
30 years ago failed to properly review the facts and circumstances of the
events surrounding those medals?

"In particular, the senior officers who
awarded the medals were properly
delegated authority to do so. In addition,
we found that they correctly followed
the procedures in place at the time for
approving these awards." - Navy I.G.
Vice Admiral Ronald A. Route


(snip) However, the actual OIC of that
mission (as I have shown) flatly denied
Kerry's original request and it appears
Kerry did some kind of later end-run
behind the guy's back and convinced
someone else that he should get the
P.H. (snip)


Perhaps you don't understand military procedures. The mission commander
(OIC as you call it) had no authority whatsoever to approve or deny a medal.
That authority rests with much more senior officers. At the very most, the
mission commander can initiate the paperwork for a medal, or, in the
situation you describe, refuse to initiate that paperwork. Regardless, he is
never the final word. If he refused, as you say, Kerry had a right under
military regulations to take the matter up with a higher authority. And, if
what you say is actually true about the mission commander refusing to
initiate the paperwork, clearly that higher authority disagreed with that
mission commander and decided instead to initiate the paperwork himself. At
least two even more senior Navy officers, co-signers of that paperwork as it
traveled through the chain-of-command, agreed with that higher authority, as
did the office of the Admiral of the Navy when those medals were finally
granted.


(snip) However, I reserve the right to judge
Kerry as having an apparent character-defect
in that he would do some kind of end-run
behind the back of the commander that
denied him the award


Well, you're certainly free to judge people anyway you choose. However,
I'll repeat again that the mission commander had no authority to deny Kerry
an award. A mission commander can only initiate or not initiate paperwork.
The authority to approve or deny awards rests with officers much more senior
than that mission commander. Further, I'll repeat again that the mission
commander is not the final word even when it comes to that paperwork.
Everyone within the military has a right to appeal decisions through the
chain-of-command. In Kerry's case, if that is indeed what Kerry did, that
higher ranking officer in that chain-of-command clearly agreed with Kerry,
not the mission commander.


(snip) It gives the appearance that Kerry
filed the request for that award by less
than honorable means - either by writing-
up his own award application -or- he got
someone else with *zero* first-hand
knowledge of the events to do it for
him. (snip)


Military procedures would again dispute that. First, I'm not aware of any
situation where a junior officer would be allowed to file paperwork for his
own awards. Normal military procedure expects paperwork to be filed by a
superior. Second, when signing paperwork for any medal, each signing
officer, through the chain-of-command, attests to a review of the facts and
circumstances described, and compliance of those facts and circumstances
with the award requirements under applicable military regulations. Vice
Admiral Route, when reviewing the paperwork for Kerry's medals, said correct
procedures were followed in the approval of those awards. That would include
the initial paperwork on file all the way up to the final signitures of the
granting authority.

Stewart