Marine praised by Bush won't get Medal of Honor

The nomination, which relies on witness statements, forensics, bomb fragment analysis and an autopsy, concluded that although Peralta was shot in the head, he made "a conscious, heroic decision to cover the grenade and minimize the effects he knew it would have on the rest of his Marine team."The nomination details Peralta's actions in the final minutes of his life, with several witnesses recounting how the Marine lay face down and used his arm to pull the grenade to him. It also says a forensic analysis of Peralta's clothing and flak jacket show the grenade was underneath him when it exploded.

Friendly fire or not, he sacrificed himself for his brothers.

I'm with you. How he recieved his wounds is irrelevant, he made a conscious choice.
I'll bite. Why isn't he entitled to it?

Medals are awarded right? You aren't 'entitled' to them, you don't a right to a medal for a certain act.

e.g. "You owe me a Navy Cross because I destroyed a bunker under enemy fire, as stated in the medal entitlement regulations."

That's what i mean.
This link contains a synopsis of all three branches regs on the MOH. Didn't see any great details as to the decision making process.

Probably one of the reasons there is a confusion over the inclusion of the word "Congressional" in the title of the medal is the medal is given by the President in the name of the Congress to the recipients.

What about CPL Dunham, he was awarded the MOH( PostH.. ) while wrestling with an insurgent and out comes a grenade and he takes his helmet to cover the blast to protect his men in the immediate area. Great book by the way if you want to read, "The Gift of Valor." I mean the scenarios are a little different but at the end of they day they both took grenades for their brothers. I would hate to be the one deciding who gets what medal/award. It would drive me insane... So many brave men/women out there.
I don't understand what the big deal is. The Marine should be awarded the MOH in this circumstance, regardless of the trivial detail. He used his life to protect those around him and it was obviously the grenade that finished him off.

Furthermore, the negatives of withholding the award outweigh the positives of granting it. Declining the MOH in this situation sends the wrong message to those of us who still serve in uniform, also those that are thinking about joining the military; and most importantly, to the families of the Armed Forces.

Too much red tape...
Too much propaganda...
Too little recognition of sacrifice...
Too little encouragement for selfless-service...

Those are the thoughts that many will have.
That was my first thought as well. That is shameful to the memory of Sgt. Peralta.

Exactly my thought too. Gives the impression that a SEAL doing the same heroic thing with a Marine will get a MOH and the Marine will not beause another Marine already got one for the same type of heroic action.

Complete nonsense.

If someone does what these heroes did, deserves the MOH. Period
They're lawyering this way too much. There is no way to disprove that the Marine didn't know he was mortally wounded. Should've awarded him the MOH. SECDEF jacked this one up.

464 MOHs were awarded for WWII, 133 for Korea, and 246 for Vietnam.

Five MOHs have been awarded for OEF + OIF.


And all 5 have been posthumous.

No one gots to war gunning for the MOH. But, I believe it sets a dangerous precedent.

I am assuming that at least some of us have read stories, heard accounts, or even met recipients of the MOH. I met COL (ret.) Jack Jacobs, MOH, Vietnam, 4 years ago. There is something to be said for this "living history" and IMO it should be maintained. Just my :2c: