In June of 2000 President Clinton awarded the Medal of Honor (MOH) to 22 Asian Americans for heroism in WWII. The Associated Press reported that 20 of the recipients were former members of the 442nd Infantry Regiment, which was composed exclusively of Japanese-Americans.

The mere fact of one regiment receiving 20 MOHs immediately caught my attention. The fact that the presentation was being made fifty five years later added to my bewilderment.

Having been the G-1 (Personnel Officer on the General Staff of the Commanding General of the Sixth Armored Division), and being involved in the Decorations and Awards "business", I have personal knowledge of the value and prestige of the MOH. I am aware of the utmost respect with which the MOH is considered by all soldiers.

During WW II, I was a small cog in the machinery (system) which initiated and processed recommendations for awards, making every effort to see that the award being sought was appropriate for the specific act of bravery. I know something of the qualifications, and the tedious process necessary to obtain the MOH. First, a basic recommendation (including a detailed description of the heroic deed) is initiated by the soldier's Unit Commander. This recommendation, accompanied by a proposed Citation, and eyewitness testimony is submitted from the unit to Division Headquarters. Second, at the Division level the recommendation is reviewed by a Board Of Officers where the recommendation is evaluated to determine whether the act being considered is within the scope of that required for a Bronze Star, a Silver Star, Distinguished Service Cross (DSC), or indeed, that of a MOH. Thirdly, if approved by the Division Board and the Division Commander for an award higher than a Silver Star, the recommendation is forwarded to Army Headquarters where it is similarly evaluated by a Board
of Officers and the Army Commander. And fourth, if the recommendation is approved by the Army Board and the Army Commander for the MOH, it would be forwarded for consideration by Theater Headquarters. Only then, provided the recommendation is approved at all these levels, would it be forwarded to the Department of Army. Recommendations for the MOH receive the personal attention of the Commanding General at each of the above levels of command.

NOTE: In a specific case which occurred in my division ( the Sixth Armored), a recommendation for the DSC was forwarded to Gen. Patton's Third Army Headquarters. It was returned with a penciled buckslip stating: "this is either a Medal of Honor or a dammed lie, which? Signed: "GSP Jr". The recommendation was rewritten and resubmitted and the soldier was the recipient of the Medal of Honor; one of the two which were awarded to soldiers in my division.

Further, I know of the dedication of the "battle-smart" officers, at the Division level, who comprised the Boards which evaluated those recommendations. Because of the combat situation, many times the Boards were forced to meet, under blackout conditions, at night. It wasn't easy to get the members of the Board assembled. The purpose and mission of the Boards were not taken lightly. It was serious business.

A regiment (i.e. 442nd Infantry Regiment) is composed of 2400-3000 men. A division, with attachments, has 14,000 to 16,000 men. My division had two soldiers who qualified and were awarded the MOH. Several recommendations were denied by higher headquarters. While I do not know the facts, I strongly suspect that the average number of MOHs awarded to soldiers in each of the many divisions which fought during WWII was confined to single digits.

Iwo Jima is recognized as the most fierce and bloodiest combat encountered in WWII. Involved were three Marine divisions with attachments plus considerable Navy support strength. The estimated number of U.S, Servicemen involved at Iwo Jima: 80,000 - 85,000. Medals of Honor
awarded for action at Iwo Jima: 23 (according to D/A Chief Awards Branch).

In the ceremony in June 2000 at which the presentation (posthumously, in some cases) of the MOHs were made to the Japanese American Veterans, President Clinton is quoted as saying: " --they did more than defend America, in the face of painful prejudice, they helped define
America at its best."

In view of the above facts, and of my concern that the standards for awarding the MOH were being lowered, changed or ignored, I wrote a letter (dated 26 June 2000) to my Congresswoman (Sue Myrick) and to my Senator (Jesse Helms) posing the following questions:

1. Since the MOH is an individual award, did each of the recommendations of these 22 awards of the MOH receive the thorough review and evaluation which should be given to each?

2. Have the standards for the awarding of the MOH been lowered? Is it something other than an individual award? Is it awarded for something other than for heroism in combat?

3. Since these awards involved the MOH, did the Congress review and evaluate the heroic deed of each individual? Is the action taken by the Congress pertaining to these awards included in the Congressional Record?

4. After 55 years, is eyewitness testimony available to prove the individual act of each of the 22 soldiers involved merited the award of the MOH?

5. How can the appearance that this Japanese-American Regiment is being favored, by the Congress of the United States (based on my assumption that the Congress approved and awarded each MOH), over other good, solid American units be avoided or nullified?

The reply from my Congresswoman was very disappointing, in that she answered only one of my specific questions: that "the 22 men who received this award received a thorough evaluation and were all found worthy of this honor." But then, she compounded my concern that the award was for something other than bravery when she added the next sentence: "Unfortunately, due to the prejudice towards many of the Asian-Americans who fought in WWII, they have had to wait 55 years to be recognized for their brave deeds." Sen. Helms, stating he understood my concern, forwarded my letter to the Senate Armed Services Committee.

In the meantime (September 2000), I wrote to the Chief of Staff of the Army (Gen. Eric K. Shinseki), attaching a copy of my original letter to my Congressmen, and requested his comments on the matter. My letter was sent to the Chief of the D/A's Military Awards Branch for a reply. Several very interesting facts were revealed in his reply:

1. The MOH is not approved nor awarded by Congress. It is "awarded in the name of Congress". "It is usually presented by the President or Vice President of the United States "in the name of Congress". "For this reason, it is frequently and erroneously called the Congressional Medal of Honor." Medal of Honor citations are published in the Congressional Record.

(Note: I am sure that most citizens of the U.S. would be (as I was) shocked to know that the medal is "erroneously" called the Congressional Medal of Honor.)

2. Public Law 104-106 (enacted into law on February 10, 1996) "provided an avenue for consideration of military decorations that otherwise could not be considered due to existing Federal Law and Army policy." Prior to the enactment of this law, in order for a recommendation for an award to be recognized, it had to be submitted "into official channels within two years of the act."

(Note: On 9 July 1918, a law was passed by Congress which established time limits to avoid problems like those encountered with Civil War Veterans seeking the award. Recommendations for the MOH had to be made within two years of the act of heroism for which it was to be awarded. Thus, PL 104-106 obviously revoked (negated) the existing law which was passed in 1918.)

The law passed in 1996 "allows for the submission of any recommendation for an award not previously submitted within the prescribed time". Further Section 526 states that "any request submitted under this provision must be referred to the Service Secretary by a Member of Congress."

3. Section 524 of this law "required the Secretary of the Army to review the records relating to each award of the DSC awarded to an Asian American ------ to determine if any of these DSCs should be upgraded to the Medal of Honor." (MOH) The Senior Decorations Board recommended the subject DSCs "merited upgrade to the Medal of Honor". This Board's recommendation was "reviewed by the Chief of Staff of the Army, Secretary of the Army, Chairman of the JCS and Secretary of Defense who made the final recommendation to the President of the United States."

In a subsequent letter from the Chief of the Awards Branch, he stated that Public Law 104-106 "--- stipulated that each record of soldiers of Native American, Pacific Islander or Asian American descent who were awarded the Distinguished Cross be reviewed to ensure that they received the proper recognition ---" This is an implication that these soldiers did not receive "proper recognition" in 1942-45 when the initial recommendation was considered and evaluated.

This raises several questions in my mind. Did the treatment by Boards of Officers and the Commanders (at all levels)l who approved the recommendations for the above named soldiers (Asian descent) differ from that given to the recommendations for awards to an American born soldier? If there was no difference in the treatment of the two groups (Asian American soldiers and the American born) at that specific time, how can it be said that the Asian Americans did not receive "proper recognition"? What was the basis (motivating factor (s)) for Congress "singling out the soldiers of Asian descent who were recipients of the D.SC. to have each reviewed with the objective of upgrading them to MOH? Is such action fair to the many other recipients of the DSC who do not have the opportunity to have their DSCs upgraded to MOH?

Upon receipt of these letters from the D/A Chief of the Decorations and Awards Branch, I became even more disturbed about the lowering of the standards for awarding the MOH. So, on 13 November, I directed still another letter to my Congressmen (Helms and Myrick). Quoting from the D/A letter, I posed the following questions:

1. What was the motivating factor behind the passage of this law?

2 Why did Congress single out the Asian Americans who had received the DSC to require that such awards to be reviewed with the idea of upgrading same to the MOH? Did Congress consider such to be fair treatment, when other recipients of the DSC had no opportunity to have their DSC upgraded to MOH?

3 Pointing out that I considered such action to be an insult to other "American Servicemen who were awarded DSCs", I asked, did Congress consider the effect this law (if it became common knowledge) might have on the morale of the American Servicemen?

In this letter to my Congressmen (13 November), I very frankly stated my fear that the motivating factor behind the passage of this PL 104-106 which resulted in the perceived preferential treatment of the Japanese-American veterans was an effort by Congress to appease and correct an alleged "wrong" that was done in 1941-45 when the Japanese-Americans were isolated as "prisoners" in camps on the West Coast.

In a subsequent letter (14 November 2000) to the D/A Chief of the Awards Branch, I asked questions to get some comparison of the number of MOHs awarded to other units. For example, I asked "how many MOHs were awarded to members of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division and the 2nd Armored Division? (Those two divisions - fighting in North Africa, Sicily, and in Europe - saw as much or more combat than any other divisions in the ETO.) His reply contained some very interesting information: 301 soldiers received the MOH in WWII, 81 US Marines. In the 2nd Armored division there were 3 MOHs awarded; in the 3rd Inf Division there were 36 (17
posthumously).

In the same letter, the DA Chief of Awards Branch stated: "A closer inspection shows that not a single soldier of the 442nd Infantry Regiment was awarded the MOH prior to June 21, 2000" In the following paragraph of his letter, he stated: "To rectify this situation, Congress passed and the President signed Public Law 104-106, requiring the Secretary of the Army to review the records relating to each award of the DSC awarded to an Asian American to determine if any of these DSCs should be upgraded to the MOH."

In my subsequent letter (19 February) to the D/A Awards Branch, referring to his "situation" which was "rectified", I stated: " Other than the 442nd, there must have been many other regiments, committed to combat for the same - relatively - period of time, which received no MOH. Is it considered unusual when a regiment received no MOH ? Isn't it far more unusual for a regiment to have a "mass" presentation of 20 awards of the MOH over fifty years later? I further pointed out that if the big spread in numbers of MOHs between divisions existed, that it would not be unusual for the same proportionate spread to exist between smaller units of same size - namely regiments.

Incidentally, the 2nd Armored Division, organized under the provisions of the old regimental structure, had three tank regiments and one Infantry regiment. Since the division received only three MOHs, there was at least one regiment which received none. So, at least, I know that the 442nd was not the only regiment in the Army which received no MOHs at the end of the war.

Since my letter of 13 November, Myrick has not formally answered, she did have one of her aides, Matt Harris, call me on 8 January, and almost two months later; and after an intervening letter from me, Harris once again talked to me by telephone on 29 March 2000. Each call was for about 30 minutes. The current status of differences of the most significant points which remain between us (Myrick's office and my opinion) are summarized as follows:

(1) Myrick's defense of voting for the PL 104-106: the bill contained many other aspects dealing with DOD matters other than the MOH issue. Prepared by the Armed Services Committee, Myrick assumed that all matters in the bill had been appropriately researched. It was emphasized that the bill, as passed by Congress, did not grant the upgrade of the DSCs of the Japanese to MOH; that the bill simply referred it to the Secretary of the Army from whom the recommendation emanated to upgrade the DSCs to MOHs.

(2) Myrick has the opinion that the Japanese-Americans received "unfair treatment". After more questioning, Myrick's Aide admitted that some of the "unfair treatment" stemmed from the manner in which the Japanese were handled in the forties when they were placed in concentration camps on the West Coast. He had no knowledge (evidence) that such "unfair treatment" could be traced to the Officers of the Boards nor to the Commanders who approved the DSCs for the 442nd Regiment. In my opinion that is the only type of "unfair treatment" which could have been
relevant in this case.

My position re the alleged "unfair treatment". If such treatment was rendered at some other time than when the soldier was in combat, the whole matter is irrelevant, since the award of a Military Decoration covers only that period when the soldier is on active duty. Again and again, I have
stated that the MOH is an individual award for exceptional bravery in action - and has absolutely no relationship to "unfair treatment" of a soldier or soldiers. When the MOH is used as tool to soothe guilt feelings for "bad treatment", the standards of the MOH have been severely lowered and the prestige of the medal defamed.

(3) The obvious disproportionate number of MOHs awarded the 442nd Regiment. Harris had no comment relative to numbers and could not compare the type of combat experienced by the 442nd as compared to that faced by other units.

My position: Militarily, this is highly important. Pointing out that the 3rd Inf Div with 36 MOH, and the 2nd Armored Division with 3 MOH, both fought in N. Africa, Sicily and in Europe and had far more combat than the 442nd, and there was at least one regiment (in the 2nd Armd Div) which had no MOH during all this time, I did not consider it unusual for a Regiment to have no MOH. I further pointed out that the spread of the number of MOH between divisional sized units would suggest that a wide variation could exist between other units - namely regiments.

(4) Myrick's Office has made no comment concerning the motivating factor for the passage of the PL 104-106. Harris admitted that he did not know.

(5) Without answering whether or not members of Congress were or were not aware of the fact that the Medal of Honor was "erroneously" called the Congressional Medal of Honor - Harris expressed his opinion that the press had undoubtedly created the "Congressional" and had used it so constantly and over such a long period of time that it was indelibly imprinted in the minds of the public. He did state that he was not aware of any move afoot for Congress to change the name.

(6) Mr. Harris emphasized Representative Myrick was totally aware of my opinion re the upgrading of the DSCs for the Asian-Americans, and the "mass" awarding of the MOH suggested that the Medal was something other than an individual award for Bravery in combat. He stated that if this or a similar subject came up again, she would certainly give serious consideration to my concerns.

The law passed in 1996, as I indicated above, in effect revoked the Act passed by Congress on 9 July 1918. The latter was passed after years of turmoil concerning the alleged abuse of the MOH following the Civil War, when more than 700 soldiers of the Civil War made applications for the MOH. Following a very thorough study by a Board of General Officers, this Act was passed to strengthen and ensure the prestige of the MOH. The Act "established time limits to avoid problems like those encountered with Civil War Veterans seeking the award". Recommendations for the award had to be made within two years of the act of heroism.

The law of 1996 allows for the submission of a recommendation for an award not previously submitted within the prescribed time limitations. Further, the law requires such recommendations to be referred to the Service Secretary by a Member of Congress. This will open up "Pandora's Box". Every veteran, friend of a veteran, or dependent (including grandchildren down through the generations) of a veteran will now be eligible to submit a recommendation for the MOH for himself, friend, or relative to a member of Congress. The Congressman, simply as a political favor, could then forward the recommendation to the Service Secretary. Thus, the situation will revert to exactly the same as it was following the Civil War, when the privileges, prestige, dignity and honor of the MOH were severely abused; and which brought about the Act of 9 July 1918.

Seeking some support for my position re what I considered a defamation of the MOH, I forwarded copies of my letters to my Congressman to The Retired Officers Association (TROA). of which I am a member. Initially, I received a prompt reply from the Director of Governmental Relations, in which he thanked me and expressed his interest to know how Rep. Myrick and Sen Helms would respond. While doubting that I would "receive the satisfaction you deserve" from my Congressmen, he did volunteer to seek the perspective of the Executive Director of the Medal of Honor Society, Mr. Mike Lindquist. Subsequently, TROA has relayed Mr. Lindquist's response: "Although individual members of the Society may have their personal opinions about the recent practice of upgrading past awards to MOHs, the Society does not take a position on who is awarded the MOH, leaving those decisions to the Services and the President."

At the same time, TROA made no response to my request that it play a role in organizing the "so called MILITARY COALITION (composed of representatives from many military organizations: Reserve Officers Association, National Guard Association, Navy Retired Association, Air Force Retired Association, Veterans of Foreign Wars, etc.) to make an appeal to Congress to revoke the Public Law passed in 1996; but instead said that TROA "has no plans to propose legislation concerning the MOH."

In an e-Mail letter dated May 7th, I was advised that TROA's policy was to refrain from addressing topics that are "beyond the realm" of TROA's traditional areas: the national security, readiness, and compensation and benefits issues."

There is one other much more significant and all-encompassing problem with which I have great difficulty. Why are the present (1996) GOVERNMENTAL POWERS (Congress, the Secretary of the Army, together with the D/A's "Senior Decorations Board") in a better position to determine who is entitled to a MOH than were the designated AUTHORITIES (the dedicated, combat-wise, and knowledgeable officers who constituted the various Decorations Boards at divisional, army, and theater levels, and the Division, Army and Theater Commanders) of the 1941--1945 era who made the initial recommendations and/or decisions re those same heroic acts immediately following the act? I consider it an insult to those who were the AUTHORITIES of the Forties; the same individuals, incidentally, who were given much credit for winning the war; that their decision re the decorations were questioned, to say the least; but in fact, revoked 50 years after the act.

Although I have received phone calls from the offices Senator Helms and Congresswoman Myrick, my specific and detailed questions remain unanswered. I know that my letters pertaining to this subject did not get the personal attention of Mrs. Myrick. In August of 2001 she visited the Carriage Club (the Retirement Community where I live) and in a "Question and Answer" period following her presentation, she admitted that she had no recollection of receiving any of my letters relative to the MOH. Following three phone calls which I initiated, I finally received a call from a Mr. Flippin, of her Office. Apparently unacquainted with the details of my letters, Mr. Flippin was unable to deal with the specifics of my queries. He emphasized that Congress did not upgrade the DSCs previously awarded to the Asian Americans, but that the Department of Defense recommended such action.

Finally, in September 2001, Mr Helms' office sent me a lengthy report from the "Congressional Research Service" which was in answer to "the constituent's concerns" (apparently my questions about the DSCs of the Asian Americans being upgraded to MOH). As I replied to Sen. Helms in my unanswered letter of 5 October 2001: "This document confirmed my fear that the MOHs were awarded to more than twenty Asian Americans in June 2000 because of some alleged discriminatory treatment. It is duly noted that the specific discrimination was not identified."

I have suggested to my Senator and Congresswoman that Congress should take the necessary Acton to constitute The Congress as the one agency of the U. S. Government responsible (following appropriate recommendations from the Department of Defense) for the awarding the Congressional Medal of Honor. Congress should establish its own guide lines, specifications, restrictive time limits, etc as deemed desirable and necessary. Such action, it seems to me, would result in the MOH maintaining its status as the most coveted, prestigious, and highest award which can be given to a serviceman in recognition of exceptional heroic performance of duty in combat. The award would then be known as the true CONGRESSIONAL MEDAL OF HONOR.