"Michael Wise" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(BUFDRVR) wrote:

Thurlow went on to say:

"It's like a Hollywood presentation here, which wasn't the case,"
Thurlow said last night after being read the full text of his Bronze
Star citation. "My personal feeling was always that I got the award for
coming to the rescue of the boat that was mined. This casts doubt on
anybody's awards. It is sickening and disgusting."


So just this week, he's saying he believed he got his Bronze Star for
coming to the rescue of a mined boat.


So which is it: did he accept his Bronze Star knowing that it was for
actions under fire and simply "shrugged and moved on" as you are now
making an unsubstantiated claim of or did he get his award not knowing
it stated prominently that he had been under fire (despite the fact that
the award text would have been read to him when presented as well as in
his service record) and only now, 35 years later, become aware of the
citation text????


Your version of events does not jibe with what the Mr. Hurlow himself is
saying.




Should he have stepped up, then and there, and pointed out the error?
Probably, but this guy did what 99.9% of would have done; shrugged and
moved
on.

Only he did not do that. He's claiming that all along he believed his
award was for rescuing the crew of a mined boat.

You and I have both served and am sure both have medals. Mine are
nothing to write home to mom about, but I do know that when I was
awarded them, I was verbally informed of why I was getting them and
there were written entries in my service record stating why as well.

Unrelated conversation of two weeks ago, a person I know confessed
to having received a Bronze Star and it was "the stupidest thing" for the
military to have awarded it.
Her belief was it was to provide support for her CO's effort to get
his own Silver Star.