Sgt. 1st Class Earl D. Plumlee was recommended for the Medal of Honor by the head of a Special Operations task force in Afghanistan — a decision that was backed by senior generals in the field. Marine Gen. Joseph F. Dunford, then the top U.S. general in Afghanistan and since nominated to become the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, described Plumlee’s actions as “truly extraordinary.”
But Plumlee ultimately received the Silver Star — considered two levels below the Medal of Honor — in a May 1 ceremony at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Wash.
As he was being considered for the nation’s highest military award for valor, the Army’s Criminal Investigation Command (CID) launched an investigation into whether Plumlee illegally tried to sell a rifle scope online. The investigation yielded no charges, but the Army’s denial has prompted allegations that service leaders only want squeaky-clean soldiers to receive the Medal of Honor.
By its nature, the awarding of medals is always going to have subjective elements. It would be helpful if the military established some guidelines as structure for those subjective elements and applied them across the board. Awards should not be based upon which general/admiral makes recommendations and certainly not a self-promoting congressmen. The nation’s highest award should be exceptional and unusual and the requirements should be as consistent as possible. It is a close call, but I believe that an award is an award for heroic acts, not for the quality of the person who performed them. Therefore, issues outside the battlefield should not be considered.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PykbxIP1UrY
How do you feel about this decision? Should he have received the award? Share your thoughts below in our comment section and share this story on Twitter and Facebook.
H/T: Washington Post
