Talk:Good Conduct Medal (United States)

British version

There's also a British decoration (or family of decorations) called the Long Service and Good Conduct medal; we should have an article on that, and link to it from here, either in the references or as a 'see also' line at the top. I believe some other Commonwealth countries (Canada?) have such a medal too. Sadly, i don't know enough to write such an article!

-- Tom Anderson 2007-01-03 12:49 +0000

Air Force Good Conduct Medal to return

From CMSAF brief via email: Air Force Good Conduct Medal is coming back soon. This is the AF's second oldest medal. Airmen will get time retroactive back to 2005. --Pmsyyz (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, the medal should come back. It's crazy for the Air Force to be the only one without it. According to this article in Air Force Times, it is coming back. Sf46 (talk) 16:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Gee i didnt realize AF times was an official publication. weird how they say the medal was coming back months ago...and yet...no medal. weird. its a stupid medal. dont get in trouble and you get a medal? so...get a medal for doing what your supposed to do? thats whats wrong with young airman today, expect awards and decs for doing what theyre supposed to do. dont give me he "heritage" argument, it shouldnt have been around back then either. you want an award for behaving? your award is being allowed to continue to serve. hopefully the new csaf has already run this idea through his shredder. unsigned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.144.106 (talk) 01:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Bogus argument. We don't "do" anything but what's expected of us for the Air Force Overseas Short Tour Service Ribbon, Air Force Overseas Long Tour Service Ribbon, Air Force Longevity Service Award, USAF NCO PME Graduate Ribbon, and the Air Force Training Ribbon. If we don't meet the criteria to receive ANY of those awards, we cannot continue to serve. Airmen can continue to serve with Article 15's and other disciplinary actions. Sure, good conduct is expected.. but so is graduating basic training! Should we take that ribbon away too? Also, The Air Force Times is an information source and a legit reference. Kajmal (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

wrong. the longevity service ribbon replaced service stripes, which should be re-instated, the overseas ribbons were established during a time when it was rare to serve an assignment overseas rather than in a campaign, the NCO PME ribbon was established to seperate airman who had attended PME and could rightfully be supervisors instead of those who were just the worker bees. basic training ribbons need to go away. aftimes is the tabloid of the af news media, half the things they write never come about and just cause rumors and speculation. the good conduct medal is a ridiculous idea and i will gladly stop wearing mine if ordered because frankly, behaving is something that expected of me and the my "reward" for doing what im supposed to do, is the ability to remain in the AF, not some shiny piece of medal. if you want to wear a bunch of ribbons on your chest to look fancy then by all means count your ribbons and become one of those guys, but if a citation wasnt written for its award, it means nothing and is the equivalent of a gold star given in second grade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.25.46 (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why some people are so resistant to showing a small degree of recognition. It's just a piece of cloth and metal, but to a young airman, every one really matters. We aren't the Marines, who only get ribbons if they get shot or rack up 100 kills. For those of us who toil away at thankless, unglamorous jobs, getting any recognition at all, especially when you're first starting out, means a lot. Kajmal (talk) 02:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

because eventually, people expect to get a medal. it takes away from the signifigance of the medal itself. like the paper pusher who depoys and gets a bronze star for it. Achievement, commendations, MSMs for completing an assignment...something you were supposed to do...you are supposed to behave...you arent supposed to get into toruble. I know a man who recieved a bronze star for a 6 month deployment to afghanistan...while working as an admin troop for the comm squadron...a bronze star...for that. and yet a cop does this...http://www.mildenhall.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123043872...and get the same medal? really? thats the kind of mentality your instilling in your young troops...sure they may cherish every ribbon on the chest, but why not make them earn them? why hand them out for behaving when they are supposed to behave. why do we give everyone a goodbye PCS medal, just because they didnt royally screw up for 4 years? why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.24.126.26 (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The above conversation is getting quite old and starting to become disrespectful towards United States service members. The award of military decorations is specified quite clearly in regulations as is the procedure for the recommendation, review, and approval of all decorations from the Medal of Honor down to the lowest service medals and ribbon. Further, decorations which have outlived themselves or have become obsolete can be declared as such by the military service departments through approved orders. To conclude, no award of the United States is simply "given away" and any award earned on a deployment should be particularly respected no matter why the medal was awarded. This is due to separation from a service member's family, the personal sacrifice of service overseas, and the overall sense of duty that any service member has who has been deployed to an overseas combat region. And, yes, I have deployed as well. Nine months in the Middle east and was awarded a Navy Achivement Medal. I think enough has been said about this and encourage we look at WP:DFT if this continues. -OberRanks (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh, sorry. Sometimes I don't notice when I'm dropping troll food. Looked at that IPs contribs. Looks like someone at Dover gets bored at work. :) I agree that no one 'wins' an award. They are earned. The ribbons on a service members chest tell their story and taking one away that's still relevant takes part of that story away. Kajmal (talk) 10:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend removing further comments from that ip unless they are about improving the article and not making cracks on US service members or the awards procedures. I agree with you that this was someone with too much time on their hands. Its also very easy to talk like that from behind a computer screen but I don't think whoever that was would have the courage to stand in front of someone home from Iraq and Afghanistan, point at their chest, and say their ribbons means nothing. I am also very much for the GCM as it has a long history and is one of the oldest decorations in the military. Very much like the National Defense Service Medal, which is very low ranking, but has a history dating back to the 1950s. Anyway, enough about all of this. Lets move on to other things. -OberRanks (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Obsolete

Obsolete decorations? In 2006 the medal was discontinued on being awarded, but it was not was discontinued for wear. To truly considered this medal obsolete, you would have to see only a hand full of active duty Airmen with it on. But until around the years 2023 - 2024. Until those last couple of Airmen are left, we can not truly consider this medal obsolete. --EHDI5YS (talk) 00:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

And since the Air Force is now bringing the medal back, it surfely isn't obsolete. Sf46 (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

are they?? weird, its been months since they were "bringing it back" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.144.106 (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, its not obsolete, just inactive. According to the Department of Defense, the actual definition of an obsolete military decoration is "fifty years from issuance to last of personnel." I think that's why the World War II Victory Medal kept showing up on award order charts all the way up until the mid to late 90s. Anyway, I think the USAF did a silly thing to begin with and am looking forward to day when that medal comes back. -OberRanks (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I still haven't seen official word yet that it HAS come back yet. The one I would have gotten has not shown up in vMPF yet. Maybe I can ask the uniform board via the AF Portal. But the AF Times is a good ref to say that the AF has officially announced in May 2008 that it would come back, but that there has not been any action or word since then. --Pmsyyz (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

vMPF updated peoples records with the award for like two days, making people believe that it had returned. My vMPF showed it all week until today. Since I couldn't find an official release stating that it had returned, I assumed it was an error, which it was. Kajmal (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Army section now a "cut and paste"

The Army section now appears to be simply a cut and paste from Army regulations. This should probably be rewritten since Wikipedia is not a mirror of other sites and we dont simply copy text from other website into articles and call them our own. We had the same problem on the Kuwait Liberation Medal at one point. -OberRanks (talk) 12:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

We can incorporate public domain text without any issue. Just because text is from a public domain or GFDL source is not a reason to rewrite. A better reason is to make the text flow better. --Pmsyyz (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Five month old dead issue (thank goodness). There are about 2 or 3 users known on Wikipedia for blanking existing award articles and pasting in direct copies from military regulations. That clearly isnt the spirt of this website and those individuals know it. One person I know in particular just does this because he wants to fire people up and has openly stated on his talk page he doesnt give a damn about the regulations of this website and will do as he wants. I am amazed he hasnt gotten blocked or banned yet since in one or two cases he actually threatened people. I am hesistant to name names since that would be a personal attack, but just look around at edit histories on a few of these articles and I'm sure it will easily be seen who I am talking about! -OberRanks (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The user in question is now under an indef block for cut-and-paste copyright violations. No secret now that I was speaking of User:CORNELIUSSEON who was well known for replacing articles with cut and pasted text out of military regulations. That kind of thing should be avoided if the issue ever comes up again. CL's block is proof enough of this. -OberRanks (talk) 14:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Air Force Section revision

Hello, 173.49.25.46. I see you reverted my edit with the statement "Previous revision was more superior, grammatically, and informationally." This is ironic in that your statement that it was "more superior" is actually bad grammar. Please read this link here and here if you're confused on how to properly use those adjectives.

Concerning the section at hand, I made my initials edits after noticing that several lines are dedicated to the Air Force discontinuing the medal, yet there is almost no explanation why the medal was reissued. This section of the article needs some balance. Either the first part needs to be trimmed down a little to counterbalance the later part, or the later part needs to be expanded to explain the rationale for reversal. As it stood, the article didn't even explain who Chief Murray was, it just quoted him without reference and left the reader wondering. You may know that he was the former Chief Master Sergeant of the USAF, but many others will not and a reference should have been supplied or at least an explanation of who he was.

If you think bad grammar was used in my edit, then correct the grammar rather than just clicking "undo." If you think the article should include Murray's quotes, then fine, add the prior quotes back in, but provide a citation explaining who "Chief Murray" is and add more to the following section as to why the medal was reinstated so that the two portions balance each other. Without these refinements, the section reads poorly. Thank you. --AzureCitizen (talk) 04:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I see you fixed your errors.

it used to read

In October 2005, the 97th Air Force Uniform Board met in October 2005 and considered discontinuing the medal with the rationale that good conduct of Airmen is the expected standard, not an exceptional occurrence worthy of recognition. The decision was finalized on 8 February 2006 and the medal was no longer issued. Airmen who had previously earned the Good Conduct Medal were still authorized to wear it. By May 2008, however, Air Force officials began reconsidering the policy.[1] On 11 February 2009, the medal was reinstated and made retroactive back to 8 February 2006, with all eligible recipients being awarded the medal automatically.[2]

obviously you caught your own errors, so it wasnt me just thinking you have an issue with using redundant dates. its much easier to undo your post than fix your post. you jacked up, you fix up. Oh wait...you missed one! rest easy knowing i wont revert a third time as thats in violation of 3rr.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.25.46 (talk) 04:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC) 

Having now read your prior postings and reading the above, I can see you're not interested in cooperating with other editors. Very well, we needn't continue this conversation any further. --AzureCitizen (talk) 11:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

1 year during "time of war"

The Criteria section, which comes before the discussion of the specific branch's versions, reads that it can be awarded for one year's service during wartime, but I believe that only applies to the Army & Air Force versions, not for the Navy, Marine Corps, nor Coast Guard versions. That should either be a) so clarified or b) removed entirely - but as I'm unsure which route would be best (and since I'm not 100% sure that the "1 year in wartime" proviso hasn't subsequently been expanded to the other branch's) I'll bring it up here to garner consensus.

Further, am I correct in that proviso so far has only been used for WWII - more recent conflicts not being technically "formally declared states of war"? ie it wasn't applied, for example, during Korea or Vietnam, right?

Gecko G (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I looked into it a bit more. The Executive Order(s) (9323 & 10444) allows the Secretary of the Army and Secretary of the Air Force (or previously the Secretary of War in EO9323) to set regulations allowing for awarding after 1 year in wartime. The Air Force awards manual allows awardings for 1 year of service, in AOE, for congressionally declared wars and as announced by the Air Staff or AF Personnel Center. (see AFI36-2803 Dec 2013 edition section 5.3.3.4.5 on page 145). The Army awards manual allows, for the first awarding only, to be for one year during WWII (see AR600-8-22 July 2015 edition section 4-5 on page 57, notably sub-section b)

I have not found anything mentioning such for the other branch's in their awards manuals, and those two executive orders specifically say Army (EO9323), or Army and Air Force (EO10444) enlisted only (EO9323 predating the establishment of the Air Force). Is there any other EO's covering the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard?

Gecko G (talk) 05:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

are subsequent awarding's after 1st year in wartime for three years from the 1st?

Another component I'm still unclear on how this is to be understood. Take a hypothetical soldier who served exceptionally for 10 years. if that service was entirely during peacetime that would be 3 loops (at years 3, 6, & 9), simple enough. However, what if the first 3.5 years was during WWII? How many loops would they then retire with? 4 (at years 1, 4, 7, & 10) or 3 (at years 1, 6, & 9)? Gecko G (talk) 00:50, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Good Conduct Medal (United States). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121014044924/http://www.afpc.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=7790 to http://www.afpc.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=7790

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 01:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

No "Notable recipients" section needed

As 99% of military get this. --01:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC) Pmsyyz (talk) 01:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)