"O" device survey

[ETC Matthew Turner]

I'm one of those who found out about this survey over on military.com (haven't received anything about it in my CG email).

Since I wasn't certain about whether this survey was official or not, I did some looking on the CGWEB and internet and found that this issue was visited over 8 years ago. In August 98 Lantarea released this message:

http://www.uscg.mil/D7/d7dm/awards/O-DEVICE.htm

In October of the same year, Pacarea sent an almost identical message (a few lines were edited or removed, Lant/D5 was changed to Pac/D11, but the guidance about the "O" device was word for word with the lant message).

Are we reinventing the wheel here? or is it that the CMC's are looking for more current feedback? As far as I can tell, at least from CGWEB and internet searches, only D5 included the criteria from the 1998 survey in their awards board handbook.

If the goal is to gain current feedback, is the plan to change all the district awards handbooks (like it apparently was last time)? Why not work to get M1650.25C changed to clarify what is "hands on experience", if that is where the confusion is coming from.

r/ Matt

[BMCS Burt Ford]

If anyone is wondering the need for this its because CO/XOs and OinC/XPOs arent getting the "O" from thier awards boards. It happened on one of the cutters here. They may have ended up with the "O", but it was a fight. I too had to fight for an "O" for a BMCM who was my OINC years ago.

[CMC Bruce Bradley]

Yet another case of the tail wagging the dog. Having to justify why deserving members deserve something they are entitled to. VIce making sure that those who don't, don't.

[MSTCS Jerald P. Motyka]

I have heard through the grapevine that this is being driven by an LT that has three CGAM's with no "O" device, and he is jealous.

This came from a Master Chief that spoke to him.

What a pain...

[CMC Isherwood]

I assure you that this survey DID NOT come from a LT. Now that was pretty damn funny!!

[BMCM Deane Smith]

I have heard through the grapevine that this is being driven by an LT that has three CGAM's with no "O" device, and he is jealous.

This came from a Master Chief that spoke to him.

What a pain...

Jerald...why would you even post that nonsense?

[PACS Steve Carleton]

Jerald,

You have got to be kidding! Even you don't believe something like that.

[BMC Ken Gouge]

Please note that the message DTG is from '98, (I reiterate on purpose) which was 2 Commandants ago, and both pre-9/11 and pre-Katrina. There were people in various positions during both of those (and other) major events which performed operational tasks from non-operational billets.

[BMCS John Brady - Ret.]

Here are the comments I posted and really you have got to be kidding me...... This reminds me of when our former Commander in Chief asked for the definition of the word "IS".......


"This is somewhat defined in the Medals and Awards Manual but since you asked.... Anything that affects/effects a persons normal sleep habits, takes them away from home on a CG platform on a clearly defined CG mission. If you have to ask if it is or is not operational then it probably ISN'T......."



JB

[BMC John Phillips III]

You guys should take it easy on Jerald, I heard from a BM2 who heard from an Ensign, that heard from a mess cook that he is just trying to get his post numbers up.... :D

[MSTC SJ Natale]

Here is an e-mail I sent to a fellow Chief on my thoughts of the subject. I am no expert in these matters and I truely have NO IDEA where the survey came from or why but...

"the feeling I got was they (whomever "they" may be) just want to do away with it. Its the only logical conclusion I can come up with because it is not a hard thing to figure out (O-device authorized) for the award writer. So assuming that, then there are persons out their that feel slighted by getting an award without an "O" and don’t want anyone else to get their feelings hurt (although I get PISSED every time I hear of anyone that is disgruntled about getting an award that was beneath what they "expected", I.E- ("I would have rather got nothing" type of attitude) I did however fill up those little blocks in the survey with as much pertinent info as they would hold."

[BMC Ken Gouge]

We all know the "O" is so you can tell the difference... When you see a guy with 5 achievement medals but no "O", we all know it's the "O"ffice types who have nothing better to do than write awards for each other all day :D

Honestly, I think it could be done away with. The only problem then will be the legacy "O" wearers having telling sea stories about the good old days when we had "O"s :rolleyes:

[HSC Chris Fly]

We all know the "O" is so you can tell the difference... When you see a guy with 5 achievement medals but no "O", we all know it's the "O"ffice types who have nothing better to do than write awards for each other all day :D

Honestly, I think it could be done away with. The only problem then will be the legacy "O" wearers having telling sea stories about the good old days when we had "O"s :rolleyes:

My latest Achievement medal was an end of tour award where I was the independant duty HS and it does NOT have an "O", so just becuase there is no "O" doesn't mean that person had no operational experiance. I'd say my treatment of migrants EVERY patrol says I was operational, no?
Chris

[MKC Brandon Andrews]

The Chief of the Mess up here sent out that survey to all of the Anchors here. But I dont know where it came from.
Having just done 3 years on a WMEC out of D-7 and sitting on quite a few awards boards there, I think that there is still some confusion on the "O" device even out in the fleet, obviously :D
The way we finally cleared it up was that if the award had a impact on operational issues the "O" was a given. The only time we got into the weeds about it was if the "O" was put into the award just because the person was attached to the unit.

[BMCS Burt Ford]

The way we finally cleared it up was that if the award had a impact on operational issues the "O" was a given. The only time we got into the weeds about it was if the "O" was put into the award just because the person was attached to the unit.

Brandon,
You actually had members of your crew not get an "O"? So they had no billets on the WQSB? Never stood watch, inport or underway? Never did anything to help the cutters operational capability? This is where the system is flawed. If it is an operational unit then every member is contributing to the operational readiness of that unit.

[MKC Brandon Andrews]

You actually had members of your crew not get an "O"? So they had no billets on the WQSB? Never stood watch, inport or underway? Never did anything to help the cutters operational capability? This is where the system is flawed. If it is an operational unit then every member is contributing to the operational readiness of that unit.

Burt,
Yes we did. Without getting to indepth I can give a perfect example. LT was put in for an Achievement Medal with "O"for organizing a picinic. Admittedly the picnic was for the crew and with a stretch ;) you can say that contributed to operational readiness. I still believe that the "O" should be reserved for something that truely effects that units mission and that the resposbility for that falls onto the shoulders of whoever wrote the award. I dont think it should just automatically be tagged onto an award just because you were attached to a unit. LT got the Achievment without the "O".

[MSTC SJ Natale]

From the Medals and Awards Manual:

Distinguishing Devices:

“O” Operational Distinguishing Device. For Personal and Unit Awards. Each case must be judged on its own merits, and the citation must specifically authorize the device. Personal awards earned while in a leave or liberty status for heroism are considered eligible for the “O” device.

Eligibility criteria is based on a persons/units:
-direct participation in missions of an operational “hands on” nature (e.g., SAR, fire fighting, MLE, disaster relief, pollution response, AtoN maintenance and operations); and/or
-extended periods of service (vice a specific incident) only if the major cited achievement used to justify the award is operational vice administrative, and the individual/unit participated “hands on” in the operational achievements.

Does not seem to difficult.

[PACS Steve Carleton]

Just to throw a wrench into tis discussion, what about the Admin YN at PERSRU who manages your personnel records or the SK who works at the Comptroller at an ISC pushing items through LUFS to make sure you have what you need for the mission?

They contribute to the operational readiness of the unit.

How about the cutter scheduling personnel at a district/area office?

I could go on and on here.

I hate to be the reality check here, but in the long run, what does the O actually give you? It's not worth any points toward advancement. We end up having to add a few cents more when we put together our ribbon bars and medals.

Other than boosting the "street cred" what does it really mean? In CGHRMS it doesn't indicate whether the Operational Distinguishing Device is authorized.

Let's get rid of it!

Yes, I have "O" devices in some of my awards, so I'll stand by for incoming rounds.

[MKC Brandon Andrews]

Senior,
Chief Natale put it in black and white. Having just come from the fleet to a support unit I would never expect an "O" on any award I might receive here. It is just that simple. And trust me my current job directly effects operational status of multiple units.

[MSTC SJ Natale]

Underlined portions of the "quote" are me.
Just to throw a wrench into tis discussion, what about the Admin YN at PERSRU who manages your personnel records or the SK who works at the Comptroller at an ISC pushing items through LUFS to make sure you have what you need for the mission? No, does not meet criteria


They contribute to the operational readiness of the unit.

How about the cutter scheduling personnel at a district/area office? No, does not meet criteria.
I could go on and on here.

I hate to be the reality check here, but in the long run, what does the O actually give you? It's not worth any points toward advancement. We end up having to add a few cents more when we put together our ribbon bars and medals.
It actually gives me a good feeling. I like others to know that I was out in the field "doing something".

Other than boosting the "street cred" what does it really mean?

I wouldnt label it "street cred", I would label it "mission cred" or something similar. Everyone knows we ALL need support. If we didnt have ADMINS, SPO's, SUPPLY, MAINTENANCE, etc.... none of our missions would be completed. But on the flip side I do like being able to recognize someone who was out there, getting thier hands into the thick of things, being..."hands on".

During my CCTI dinner I had a retired SCPO come up to me and ask me about an award I was wearing and to give him the "story" behind the "O" that was attached to it. I happily complied.

In CGHRMS it doesn't indicate whether the Operational Distinguishing Device is authorized.

Let's get rid of it!

Yes, I have "O" devices in some of my awards, so I'll stand by for incoming rounds.

I like it, I say we keep it, I think anyone who feels dissed for not getting one or feel slighted in the least should seriously ask themselves why they feel that way. Does it really hurt anyone? I cant believe that its sole purpose is to belittle others awards, only to enhance the awards that merit it.

[BMC Ralph Williams]

I can't believe a LT got an achievment for organizing a picnic.

And this is one example of why the awards system is messed up.

My .02

Ralph

[DCCS Brett Wickett]

brandon, if you had a LT get an Acheivement award for a picnic and the awards board let it go through, I think you guys had way more problems than trying to decide if it was an operational picnic or not. But hey, I wasn't there so I don't know the entire story. I also read the manual and thought it was pretty clear, but with the competition for awards and the giving them like candy it doesn't surprise me that this would be such a huge issue.

[BMCS Burt Ford]

Hence making it unit specific. Everyone, aboard a cutter is there to ensure it is ready for underway operations. Yes steve, even the YN and SK, on the Cutter PAL. Everyone else, ashore is support. Maybe we can just add a "S" to the manual :D It is just chest candy but it does paint a picture. But the confusion would be gone if we did away with it, but that aint in the survey.

here a question. how many people noticed there is no mention of Bronze stars for sea service ribbons now? How many still have them?

[BMCS John Brady - Ret.]

THAT HAD TO BE ONE HELL OF A PICNIC....

I say go for it LT, just think if he had organized a formal dinner.... MSM time

Seriously if an awards board really truly let that one get by then you have got bigger fish to fry. Get a grip.

Keep the "O", it means something

and I would be fine for a great big "S" on the ribbon (for support) but then again that might be tough to justify......... that was a low but funny blow, right Burt

[MSTC SJ Natale]

Burt, I missed the part where the YN/SK were onboard an operational unit. In that capacity there is probably very little chance that they would NOT be considered to have been "hands on" in some capacity, thus an award would have much more of a chance to be considered for the "o" device. I would imagine that eventhough their primary job may have been in a support role they probably still stood watches of some type, had GQ billets, special sea detail, etc, etc....

[PACS Steve Carleton]

Chief Natale copied and pasted straight from the Medals and Awards Manual.

It's the Awards Boards that will make the determination, and the manual does leave a little wiggle room for them to establish the criteria for their specific board members.

I'm having a hard time swallowing whther the LT got the "O" simply because of picnic planning. I am even having a hard time accepting that the LT got an Achievement Medal only for the picnic.

If the CGAM was an "End of Tour" Award, one of Dennis Endicott's favorite subjects, the "O" was probably for his being assigned to the unit, which according to the Medals and Awards Manual can be given, if the board determines it has merit.

If the Commandant can issue the order that we embrace our "Operational Support" by allowing us to wear ODUs in the office, then embrace our support and put an "O" on every one of the awards we give out!

[BMCS Burt Ford]

I know John, could not resist.

I personally know a YN who has posted here who did not get an "O" after he rcvd an award while PCS to a cutter.

[MSTCS Jerald P. Motyka]

I owe you all an apology.

I went back and asked the Master Chief about his information... and he looked at me like I was nuts, and then told me that this was being pushed/orgainzed by MCPO Isherwood.

Even if I was originally led astray, I apologize for handing out bad info.

[MCPO Francis Jennings]

"If the Commandant can issue the order that we embrace our "Operational Support" by allowing us to wear ODUs in the office, then embrace our support and put an "O" on every one of the awards we give out!"

Or do away with it altogether. Same thing, isn't it?

FFJ

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

In the larger scheme of things........ yes. And you can get several of the same awards, and only one of them needs to be Operational to be authorized the "O", so ...... all or nothing works for me.

[PACS Steve Carleton]

Master Chief Jennings,

Just baiting the hook, no nibbles yet! I proposed that in a previous post on this subject and that got more reaction than this latest.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Seems simple to me.....

"O" = operational....

What's the problem?

Sandpeeps jealous?

Wray... :cool:

[PACS Steve Carleton]

Seems simple to me.....

"O" = operational....

What's the problem?

Sandpeeps jealous?

Wray... :cool:


Nope -- I earned my "O" Devices in the Personal Awards I have.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Nope -- I earned my "O" Devices in the Personal Awards I have.

Steve, I know you are a PA, but have you ever read the Medals and Awards Manual...

The "O" is called the Operational Distinguishing device for a reason...

I'm curious, just where have you been during your CG career?

Wray... :cool:

[MSTC SJ Natale]

Steve, I know you are a PA, but have you ever read the Medals and Awards Manual...

The "O" is called the Operational Distinguishing device for a reason...

I'm curious, just where have you been during your CG career?

Wray... :cool:

It is quite easy to justify the "O" device..as per the MAM:

“O” Operational Distinguishing Device. For Personal and Unit Awards. Each case must be judged on its own merits, and the citation must specifically authorize the device. Personal awards earned while in a leave or liberty status for heroism are considered eligible for the “O” device.

Eligibility criteria is based on a persons/units:

-direct participation in missions of an operational “hands on” nature (e.g., SAR, fire fighting, MLE, disaster relief, pollution response, AtoN maintenance and operations); and/or

-extended periods of service (vice a specific incident) only if the major cited achievement used to justify the award is operational vice administrative, and the individual/unitparticipated “hands on” in the operational achievements.

I highlighted the blue areas to show that the unit one is assigned to does not necessarily determine eligibiity, its the actions taken or participated in by an individual OR the unit. Basically most things that are not considered "administrative" in nature can justify the "O" device.

Acting as a "Public Affairs Officer" during some type of incident could justify the "O" as would MANY other instances.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

So, what's the problem??

Wray... :cool:

[MSTC SJ Natale]

So, what's the problem??

Wray... :cool:

My thoughts exactly.... At some point in time someone wanted to somehow note actions that warranted these awards that were of an operational nature from those that werent of operatinal nature.

If the "O" means enough to someone then they need to get out there and do something about it. Look at the billet choices, watch for some TAD time somewhere, choose your rate wisely, etc etc.


I think its just easier keeping the O device just the way it is, the instructions couldnt be much clearer.

[PACS Steve Carleton]

I could easily make an argument for not having the O device, and not because I'm not in an operational billet (underway, boat station, etc)

We are the only service that has it, why?

It doesn't necessarily add any street cred to anyone when they walk into a room with their ribbon bars on. Maybe a quick glance, but I can judge someone's ability and expertise on much more than a little silver O intheir ribbon.

In some form don't we all support the operational community? If the YN is doing their job and making sure that the pay for the crew of a patrol boat , is done properly doesn't that the BM, GM, MK that is underway has one less thing to worry about and can do their job better?

If we go back to one of my original posts in this thread, I proposed to give it to everyone in an effort to embrace our operational support. Master Chief Jennings suggested do away with it all together.

Personally, I see no reason to even have it

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I have only operational experience, and I agree with Steve. The device doesn't add credibility, and it may divide us even further. Hasn't it become outdated ?

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Steve, I find it hard to belive that a Senior Chief can't understand why there is such a thing as a "Operational Distinguishing Device"...

You never did answer my question, "How many cutters have you been on?"

I'll take a guess.. not many, and if you were on one, it was as a non rate, several years ago...

I see this as a jealousy issue.... being a PACS there are no afloat billets for you, so the "O"'s are out for you... It's ok.. the pay is the same... (except for the sea pay)... ;)

I never had a thought about those awarding medals being able to tell if a person deserved the Operational Distinguishing Device or not...

As I said, the whole thing seems pretty simple to me, working quite well, and a nice way to recognize those that are operational, from those that are not... After all, like the coin, recognition is an important factor, here they get it for being operational, not administrative...

Ready for incoming... :eek:

Wray... :cool:

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Personally, I see no reason to even have it

I have only operational experience, and I agree with Steve. The device doesn't add credibility, and it may divide us even further. Hasn't it become outdated ?

I agree with both. Besides that, it just gets in the way of all of those stars.


As I said, the whole thing seems pretty simple to me, working quite well, and a nice way to recognize those that are operational, from those that are not... After all, like the coin, recognition is an important factor, here they get it for being operational, not administrative

Wray...I think some things have changed since you've retired. Units/People are getting the "O" that might not have while you were in because they are doing operational things. In this post 9/11 CG, units are performing missions that they haven't historically completed.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Wray...I think some things have changed since you've retired. Units/People are getting the "O" that might not have while you were in because they are doing operational things. In this post 9/11 CG, units are performing missions that they haven't historically completed.

Perhaps things have changed, but the defination of "operational" remains the same...if only in the manuals...

I still don't understand what is so hard for those approving the awards to do them properly, and in compliance with the current directives. You seem to be saying they are not.

Hey Stuart, do you think there should or could be an area on our profiles to list previous units? I would sure like to see that.... anyone else?

Wray... :cool:

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Wray...There is a "Get to know you" thread, people can list their background there. The link is below if you want to look/post...

http://cgchiefs.com/forum/showthread.php?t=614

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Deane, thanks... Looks great.... I'll post on there later...

Wray... :cool:

[PACS Steve Carleton]

Wray,

I really have far more valuable things to do with my day, than discuss my assignment history with you. As noted, go take a look at the "Get to know ya Thread" My post is in there.

I am not jealous of not being assigned to an afloat billet in the Rating that I chose to pursue. I don't regret any decision I made in relation to my career. I get the read from the tone of your posts, that it irritates you more that a PA has the little silver silver O -- a little advice -- Get Over It! The Awards Boardthat authorized made their decision and you were not part of it, so any issue you have after the fact is completely and totally irrelevent.

Since you seem to be insistent on my career and what I have done to qualify for the meaningless little device -- I highlighted the applicable portions of the eligibility criteria from CIM 1650.25C pasted below). Go read my career highlights and you will see that I was assigned to the National Strike Force. At the NSF, I participated "hands on" in more than my share of pollution response incidents.

Distinguishing Devices:

“O” Operational Distinguishing Device. For Personal and Unit Awards. Each case must be judged on its own merits, and the citation must specifically authorize the device.

Personal awards earned while in a leave or liberty status for heroism are considered eligible for the “O” device.

Eligibility criteria is based on a persons/units:
direct participation in missions of an operational “hands on” nature (e.g., SAR, fire fighting, MLE, disaster relief, pollution response, AtoN maintenance and operations); and/or

extended periods of service (vice a specific incident) only if the major cited achievement used to justify the award is operational vice administrative, and the individual/unit participated “hands on” in the operational achievements.


Now, if you want to discuss/debate/disagree with issues relevent to TODAY's Coast Guard Chief Petty Officer without resorting to personal attacks, I welcome the opportunity to debate you in this forum.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Wray,

I really have far more valuable things to do with my day, than discuss my assignment history with you. As noted, go take a look at the "Get to know ya Thread" My post is in there.

Obviously you don't, and I did...

I get the read from the tone of your posts, that it irritates you more that a PA has the little silver silver O -- a little advice -- Get Over It!

No not at all, in fact, I didn't know you had one "O" until now.... It really doesn't matter to me. What does matter is that you feel the need to do away with the "O" device....

Since you seem to be insistent on my career and what I have done to qualify for the meaningless little device -- I highlighted the applicable portions of the eligibility criteria from CIM 1650.25C pasted below). Go read my career highlights and you will see that I was assigned to the National Strike Force. At the NSF, I participated "hands on" in more than my share of pollution response incidents.

Yes, I was curious about your career... and just as I thought, you had one ship, way back when you were a non rate, never to get on one again...

Now, if you want to discuss/debate/disagree with issues relevent to TODAY's Coast Guard Chief Petty Officer without resorting to personal attacks, I welcome the opportunity to debate you in this forum.

I will debate what ever issues are on the table, thank you... I'm not sure where you get this "personal attack" from... maybe I did, maybe I didn't..don't remember... unless you took my general comment about sandpeeps "personal"... please point it out to me... Is your skin really that thin? I would expect that type of comment from the kids over at military.com, but certainly not here, and from a senior chief petty officer no less.

Wray...:cool:

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Well, we have discussed in the past that when people feel the need to bold type everything, you can equate that to yelling on the keyboard. And it can go as a personal attack because you kept going back to him, personally. Both Deane and I have agreed that the "O" device could be done away with, but you only want to question Steve's reasons. Froman outsider in the conversation, it would appear personal. Yelling aside, just look at your last paragraph.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Well excuse me............. I put it in bold to make it easier to read.... I have always thought typing in CAPS was equal to yelling, in computer language....

If you will notice every one of my relpies was done in bold... Some times I type in "CAPS" to grab attention, but when I did it above it was to point it out, not to yell...

I kept going back to him because I was answering his post.. are you guys really that picky and PC Correct here? How could I answer each of his points if I didn't go back to him...???????


I adress posts, not people.. I didn't see a recent comment from you or Deane, or I would have certainly answered it... Just because you two agree on it does that mean its a done deal? I believe Steve made a comment on the previous page to a CMC about bating the hook... and I took it.... is there problem with that?

Stu, why did you type in "smaller" letters?? are you whispering?

Wray.. :rolleyes:

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Yeah, under the blessed are the peace keepers theme. And Wray, not counting or anything, but that's the second time you reminded everyone reading that Steve is a Senior Chief, and without even looking at his profile, I know he earned that. It isn't really a leap to see how that could be taken as offensive.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

huh? i didn't need to look at his profile, his name is at the top of his post....anyhow, its not really a big deal. i don't think you need to defend him, he is quite capable of doing that himself...

i'm sure lots of things can be taken as offensive .... did i violate the rules? i certainly wouldnt wan't to offend anyone.

[PACS Steve Carleton]

Alright Wray,

I'm a bit tired of trading barbs with you and I'm sure others are a bit tired of this little exchange between you and I.

So, let's put this thread back on track and debate this.

I have laid out my rationale for doing away with the "O" but in case it got lost on anyone here it is:

According to Adm Allen, we need to embrace our operational culture (one of the reasons he made the change to ODUs for office wear)

I believe that using that same logic, the "O" should be attached to every award, both personal and unit, based on the fact that every job in the Coast Guard in one fom or another supports the Operational Readiness and execution of our cutter, boat and air crews.

I'm applying a 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon model to my argument. I'll call it 6 degrees of Operational Readiness. I've stated it before, if the YN is doing their job it allows the boatcrew to concentrate on their immediate task of saving lives; if the SK is doing their job to ensure that the paperwork is done in a timely manner, parts can be on hand to ensure the boat, ship or aircraft is ready to launch on a mission; if the FS is doing their job properly at a Boat Station, the ready crew is well nourished and prepared to respond; if the PA is doing their job, the public will have greater visibility of our missions and understand what and how we do what we do, thus potentially increasing funding, etc.

Apply my 6 degrees model to any other agency/industry:

A fuel procurement specialist at a police station: no fuel, no response!
An auto worker on the assembly line: if they don't ensure that the parts are in place, the car doesn't get built properly and could ultimately damage the repuation of the company.

As a realist, I don't see them putting it in every award, so I propose doing away with the device altogether since it doesn't provide any more street cred when someone wears it; and it simply drives a wedge between first responders and their shore-based counterparts.

Besides, if the award citation and recommendation is written well enough, the recipient doesn't need an "O" since the write up will clearly denote that they were in an operational environment.

So, let's hear what your argument is for keeping the "O"

[MSTCS Jerald P. Motyka]

I don't know, but I still like the distinction between the two.

I go out and do hundreds of facility inspections and go above and beyond to make sure my port is safe and secure - and another Chief goes out on a small boat, taking MANY more risks than I am, and does hundreds of marine harpats and boardings... both of us get Achievement Medals - I LIKE the idea that he get's an "O" and I don't. I don't feel that I quite rate the same quality of award that the operator does.

But you have a very good argument for getting rid of the device. Best I've heard yet!

[PACS Steve Carleton]

Sorry Jerald, I didn't include a "M" analogy -- I would make the argument that your job is essential to the operational readiness in that it is preventitive in nature.

If you do your facility inspections properly the chances for explosions, fuel leaks etc. are reduced thereby helping to keep the boatcrew from having to respond.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

According to Adm Allen, we need to embrace our operational culture (one of the reasons he made the change to ODUs for office wear)

Wearing operational clothing in an office enviroment is just tacky (that's a southern word for inappropriate). There is no reason for it in the Coast Guard. Personally, I did not like seeing Allen on TV in ODUs because the more formal regalia would have added to his creditability. Call me old fashion but I like seeing admirals looking like admirals. Not some overweight guy in a wrinkled suit.

As a realist, I don't see them putting it in every award, so I propose doing away with the device altogether since it doesn't provide any more street cred when someone wears it; and it simply drives a wedge between first responders and their shore-based counterparts.

Using this logic, the entire awards system should be canned. We've seen recently where a high number of high level personal awards went to one group over another for doing less work. This drives a wedge as well. Then again a quoin is a wedge.

Besides, if the award citation and recommendation is written well enough, the recipient doesn't need an "O" since the write up will clearly denote that they were in an operational environment.

We know that awards are more about writing than deed anyway. I have seen examples were awards were written only to a certain level and did not show the truth of the situation.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

From the Medals and Awards Manual:

Distinguishing Devices:

“O” Operational Distinguishing Device. For Personal and Unit Awards. Each case must be judged on its own merits, and the citation must specifically authorize the device. Personal awards earned while in a leave or liberty status for heroism are considered eligible for the “O” device.

Eligibility criteria is based on a persons/units:
-direct participation in missions of an operational “hands on” nature (e.g., SAR, fire fighting, MLE, disaster relief, pollution response, AtoN maintenance and operations); and/or
-extended periods of service (vice a specific incident) only if the major cited achievement used to justify the award is operational vice administrative, and the individual/unit participated “hands on” in the operational achievements.

Does not seem to difficult.

Steve, I'd say the Commandant has said it very well, as pointed out by Chief Natale..

I'd guess if you took a poll of PA's and MU's there would be little desire for the "O" device..

I'd also say if you took a poll of BM's & MK's you may get an entirely different answer.

As you say, it's not worth agruing over... we will never agree. It means more to you than me, that's for sure.

I told my son a long time ago everything in life is not fair...that seems to be the issue here. I like to think my son has accepted that as a fact of life. I have seen several adults that are not willing to accept that as fact.

Wray... :cool:

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Bill, all the COMDT has to do to look like an Admiral is start talking, and it doesn't matter what he wears. He also doesn't need the uniform to add to his credibility. He has enough conviction to carry him through. If someone watches him talk and would rather focus on his wardrobe than his words...... we have a term for that up north as well. Call me old fashion, but I like Admirals that sound like Admirals, I don't care what they look like.

I also liked his move to have the ODU used throughout the service. We all look like we're on the same team now. So there's at least one reason for it. You don't have to agree with that reason, but that doesn't invalidate it either.