Part 3: The Runaround

Details of the unsuccessful 2017 effort to have the Army investigate the errors in the processing of Cpt. Jerry R. Fry’s 1968 nomination for the Congressional Medal of Honor.

Part 3 Audio

Tips for playing audio version:

1. Scroll along with the recording to see links, pictures, and highlighted quotes.

2. Use the spacebar to pause and resume playback.

3. Rewind and fast forward by moving white dot to the left and right.

To view a link, press spacebar to stop audio, click on link. A new tab will open. When finished viewing, close tab. This will bring you back to the original web page. Press spacebar to resume audio. If audio does not resume, scroll back up to audio player and click on play button again.

Introduction

Fifty years after Cpt. Fry was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross (DSC), a group of his fellow veterans and friends attempted to have his DSC upgraded to the Congressional Medal of Honor (CMH). Below is a memorandum detailing the group’s efforts between 2017 and 2020, followed by a 2025 addendum. It was prepared by the leader of that group, former 1st Lt. Clifford A. Gehrt.

Memorandum For Record

Congressional Medal of Honor Nomination

Part 3-1

Merits of the Case

1. In March of 2017, an Officer Candidate School (OCS) classmate of mine, Pete Cowman, saw President Trump award a CMH to a Vietnam Veteran who had been previously awarded a DSC. Afterward, Pete sent out a general email to our OCS classmates, suggesting we review the DSCs awarded to three of our classmates to see if any of their DSCs would qualify for an upgrade. Seeing Pete's email, another classmate, Lt. Col. Pete Conaty (USA, Ret.), who was a lobbyist here in California, replied that if anyone wanted to submit an upgrade request, he would be willing to help.

Quentin "Pete" R. Cowman (left)

2. As a result of Pete's suggestion, I went to our OCS class website and reviewed the DSCs awarded to our classmates. That review caused me to think that the 1969 DSC awarded to Cpt. Fry was worthy of an upgrade because the DSC Award Citation failed to accurately describe what was written in the nominating ground commander's report. From my point of view, the ground commander’s description of what occurred qualified Cpt. Fry for the CMH.

3. When I called Jerry and mentioned the possibility of an upgrade, he indicated he had zero interest in an upgrade effort and said he had previously vetoed such an effort. Having pressed Jerry for ten years to get him to accept a nomination for the OCS Hall of Fame, I knew he was serious. But with a bit of prodding, I convinced him to at least send me the nomination paperwork he still had from the nominations of his copilot, crew chief, and gunner on the flight concerned. After reviewing the eyewitness statements, it became clear that the DSC citation omitted crucial details about what Cpt. Fry and his crew accomplished during the flight that resulted in his CMH nomination.

4. Included among the documents I received was the nomination statement of the ground commander, now Major Paul H. Davin (USA, Ret.). Later, while talking to him, I discovered he had actually nominated Jerry for the CMH, and he still felt it was deserved. I later contacted Jerry's wingman during the flight, CW4 Thomas Woods (USA, Ret.), who agreed that Jerry should have received the CMH.

Paul Davin

Tom Wood

5. Next, I started researching the regulations dealing with Vietnam War-era DSC upgrade requests and learned that requests had to be forwarded through a member of Congress. After that, four others and I worked for eight months, pulling together a nomination package of almost one hundred pages. While Jerry was residing in Missouri at that time, his friend Mel L. Gilbert from Buffalo, Missouri, who had previously suggested an upgrade effort, submitted our nomination to U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill in November 2017, requesting her support and to forward it to the Army. Subsequently, we received a call from one of the Senator's representatives, stating that the Senator was supporting the upgrade and that it was being sent to the Army.

6. Over the next year, I checked with the Senator's Office several times and was told the Army was still processing the nomination. Eventually, however, I started to wonder if it had actually been submitted to the Army, so I sent a letter to the Army Congressional Liaison Office asking if they had processed the nomination but received no response. [Link to letter] Shortly before the 2018 elections, assuming Senator McCaskill would not be reelected, I requested my nomination package be returned but was again told that the nomination was with the Army, but they had checked and discovered an ongoing reorganization effort within the Army Awards Branch was causing the delay. Two months later, after the Senator was not reelected, the nomination package was returned in the same condition as when it was submitted. Therefore, it was clear that the nomination package had been ignored for over a year, even though I was repeatedly told it had been forwarded to the Army.

7. By the time the nomination was returned, Jerry had moved to Florida, where he lived near two of our OCS classmates who served with us as lieutenants in the 2nd Battalion 39th Infantry, 9th Infantry Division: Lt. Col. Daniel Peck (USA, Ret.) and former 1st Lieutenant Albert (Leon) Strickland. On February 10, 2019, they delivered the nomination file to Florida's 11th District Representative Daniel Webster's Office in Leesburg, Florida, and requested he support it and submit it to the Army.

Daniel Peck

Albert (Leon) Strickland

Clifford A. Gehrt

Jerry R. Fry

8. Two weeks later, the Army Human Resources Command (HRC), Fort Knox, Kentucky, wrote that the nomination could not be considered because certain administrative requirements had not been complied with. The proper forms had not been used,* the statements had not been notarized, and a copy of the original nomination was required to be submitted with the request. Nine weeks later, after the nomination was retyped on the correct forms, everyone had their statements notarized, and we found a copy of the original nomination in the National Archives, our request was submitted again to Representative Webster's office.

*Our statements were typed on regular copy paper; the HRC required them to be written on the official Army statement forms.

9. In response to our second submission, on May 15, 2019, the Chief, Awards and Decorations Branch (ADB), HRC, wrote the following to Representative Webster.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

U.S. ARMY HUMAN RESOURCES COMMAND

Fort Knox, Kentucky 40122

May 15, 2019

Awards and Decorations Branch

Dear Representative Webster:

This is in response to your inquiry of May 3, 2019, on behalf of Colonel Jerry R. Fry, USA Retired, concerning his desire to be awarded the Medal of Honor in lieu of his previously awarded Distinguished Service Cross.

We would like to render favorable action; however, we remain unable to forward this request for reconsideration to the Army Decorations Board. Per the provided DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award) and other supporting documents, Colonel Fry’s wartime chain of command is now deceased. Without both a living recommender and one living intermediate authority [chain of command member] the retroactive recommendation cannot be processed in accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) and Section 1130, Title 10, United States Code (10 USC 1130). "To be considered: submitted into military channels” requires signature by both an initiating official and endorsement by the first higher official in the chain of command (who is not the recommender).

While this isn’t a positive response, please know we are grateful for Colonel Fry’s faithful and dedicated service to our Nation. We appreciate you supporting him in this matter, as well as our Veterans and men and women serving in the Army today.

Sincerely,

Kandace M. Daffin

Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army

Chief, Awards and Decorations Branch

10. It is interesting to note that the first rejection letter stated: “This is in response to your letter of Feb. 11, 2019, concerning the desire of Mr. Albert L. Strickland and LTC Daniel J. Peck, USA Retired, for Col. Fry, to be awarded the Medal of Honor in lieu of his previously awarded DSC.” After that first letter, the Chief, ADB, abandoned common courtesy and ceased indicating others were championing Col. Fry’s upgrade by writing: “on behalf of Col. Fry, …concerning his desire to be awarded the Medal of Honor in lieu of his previously awarded DSC.”

11. After receiving the above rejection letter from the Army Human Resources Command (HRC), which stated that the original nominator and all members of the chain of command had passed away, we informed Representative Webster’s customer service representative that the HRC had erroneously claimed the original nominator had passed and pointed out that he was actively participating in our upgrade effort. At that time, we believed that emphasizing this fact could justify the Army Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, in granting a waiver for any requirement that a member of the chain of command must also be living, as the G-1 is authorized by AR 600-8-22 to waive any requirements listed in that regulation. The HRC's response to the customer service representative's question is quoted below.

The Army clarified that, despite the poor wording contained in its 15 May 2019 letter, the living recommender requirement has been satisfied. The issue that the Human Resources Command (HRC) intended to relay is that the original CMH nomination was changed to the DSC by a recommender within the chain of command. It was explained that the next two officers within the chain of command also agreed with that assessment and recommended the DSC as well, rather than disputing the change. Without those recommenders being alive today to change or amend their opinion, their original recommendations stand.

12. The above effort to clarify the HRC's position clarified nothing; it only demonstrated that the HRC had not even reviewed our submission before refusing to enter it into military channels and still has not done so. From the 1968 mistaken use of the USAVN Form 157-R, rather than the correct DA Form 638, all the way through to the publication of orders awarding the DSC, the [Congressional] Medal of Honor (CMH) was never mentioned. It is incomprehensible that the HRC would report to a member of Congress that “the original CMH nomination was changed to the DSC by a recommender within the chain of command” or that “the next two officers within the chain of command also agreed with that assessment and recommended the DSC as well."

13. When Congress, as part of the Fiscal Year 1996 National Defense Authorization Act, waived the time limitations on any award or decoration for acts of valor during the Vietnam War, it certainly intended that waiver to apply to all time-sensitive restrictions, such as the lifetime of a category of participants. (Section 1130, Title 10, United States Code (10 USC 1130).

14. The Department of Defense clearly recognized that some staff officers might try to manipulate affairs to bypass the intent of Congress when it issued implementation instructions to the services regarding the new law, as shown in letter A below. They also established a system to ensure compliance, as shown in letter B.

A. “The goals stated above [for timely submission] will not be used to avoid processing any CMH recommendation that is initiated within statutory or regulatory time limits. Whether an individual award recommendation meets DoD timeliness goals will not be a factor in determining the level of the award approved. The level of the decoration approved will be based solely on the merits of the act.”

--DoD Manual 1348.33, Vol. 1, Military Decorations and Awards: Medal of Honor, Section 6: e.

B. The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness is responsible for “ensuring that regulations, guidance, and issuances of the DoD components conform to pertinent laws, Executive orders, federal regulations, and DoD policy.”

--DoD Manual 1348.33, Volume 1, Military Decorations and Awards:

Medal of Honor, Section 2.1. b.

15. Certainly, both the “merits of our case” and the “material errors and impropriety” in the processing of Cpt. Fry’s 1968 nomination would trump having a member of his chain of command living to comment on the material errors and impropriety he was unaware of when the nomination was processed through his headquarters.

16. The Army Human Resources Command's treatment of those working on Col. Fry’s DSC upgrade regarding the surviving members of his chain of command was not unique. The Michigan Disabled American Veterans (DAV) worked for decades to have the DSC of Sp/4 Ken David upgraded, but their inability to identify the members of his wartime chain of command was, for years, their “bridge too far.” Then, almost by chance, during a visit to the National Archives, someone discovered an award nomination containing the names of David’s chain of command. After the signature of a 97-year-old general in the final days of his life in a Texas nursing home, Ken David received the recognition he deserved. On January 3, 2025, President Biden presented Ken with the Congressional Medal of Honor. While Ken David's receipt of the CMH is a victory, it highlights the absurdity of requiring the signature of a 97-year-old who probably doesn’t remember the action and may not even know what he is signing to validate decades of volunteer work by friends of Ken David and the Disabled Veterans of America.**

**Rob Lewis, "A Hero's Legacy," DAV Magazine, March-April 2025, pp. 16-19.

17. At this point, considering the Human Resources Command's refusal to even consider our recommendation, Jerry suggested that we abandon our effort. However, we took our lead from our OCS classmate Pete Conaty when he wrote, “We have not begun to fight.”

Lt. Col. Peter M. Conaty (left)

Lt. Col. Jerry R. Fry (right)

Part 3-2
Errors and Impropriety

18. Fortunately, according to the DoD Manual, upgrade requests can be placed before a review board for either one of two reasons. First, the merits of the case; second, "errors or impropriety in the processing of the original recommendation." While we knew all along there were serious material errors and impropriety in the original nomination, including missing eyewitness statements, we initially saw no reason to focus on the errors; our focus was only on the merits of the action.

19. Once we shifted our focus, we learned that one of the advantages of focusing on the errors was that the Secretary of the Army himself is required to rule on whether there was "evidence of material error or impropriety in the processing or adjudication of the original award recommendation" and "that authority must not be delegated." If the Army Secretary determines there may have been problems with the processing or adjudication of the original nomination, he orders the new nomination to be placed before a review board to evaluate the nomination on the merits of the case alone.

20. After learning the above, we spent nearly a year converting our "merits of the case" request into a "processing errors case." Once it was ready, a member of our group, Alan Hays from Umatilla, Florida, submitted our request to Florida Senator Rick Scott, asking him to support our "processing error" case and forward it to the Secretary of the Army for his consideration. The Senator agreed to do so after assessing the merits of our presentation.

21. At that time, it was suggested we obtain as many letters of support as possible, but as only a few knew about the upgrade effort, Jerry did not want us to be asking people to support such a complicated effort they had previously known nothing about. He wrote, "If the nomination cannot stand on its own merits, so be it. At least it will have had a hearing." It is worth noting that Jerry has said from the beginning that he was satisfied with the DSC and had never been concerned that it was not the CMH he was initially told he was nominated for.

22. A week after Senator Scott submitted our "processing error" file, he received the following, in part, from the Lieutenant Colonel, Chief, Army Awards and Decorations Branch, U.S. Army Human Resources Command, not the Secretary of the Army, as required by DoD regulations.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
U.S. ARMY HUMAN RESOURCES COMMAND
Fort Knox, Kentucky 40122
July 15, 2020

Awards and Decorations Branch

The Honorable Rick Scott

United States Senate

ATTN: Mr. John F. Heekin

716 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510-0001

Dear Senator Scott:

This is in response to your inquiry of July 8, 2020, on behalf of Colonel Jerry R. Fry, USA Retired, concerning his desire to be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor in lieu of his previously awarded Distinguished Service Cross.

We would like to render favorable action; however, we are unable to facilitate your request. We previously informed another Member of Congress that due to the fact that Colonel Fry's entire wartime chain of command is now deceased, there is no recourse for this action. In accordance with Army Regulations 600-8-22 (Military Awards), without both the living recommender and a living intermediate authority, a retroactive request for reconsideration of a previously approved award cannot be entered into military channels.

Colonel Fry’s final course of action is to appeal this decision to the highest appellate authority on personnel matters. He may contact the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. ...We recommend he provide this and all prior correspondence from this office to demonstrate he has exhausted all available administrative remedies.

While this is not a positive response, please know we are grateful for Colonel Fry’s faithful and dedicated service to our nation. We appreciate you supporting him in this matter, as well as our Veterans and the men and women in the Army serving today.

Sincerely,

Scott R. Jackson

Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army

Chief, Awards and Decorations Branch (ADB)

23. After receiving the above reply, my thinking was that we should go to the Army Inspector General, as the above statement clearly violates DoD Regulations, which requires the Secretary of the Army himself to rule on whether there was "evidence of material error or impropriety in the processing or adjudication of the original award recommendation," and "…that authority must not be delegated." However, Jerry insisted we cease our upgrade efforts, and we reluctantly complied.

24. In closing, I want to point out that Jerry’s decision was based, in part, on the fact that even though DoD Regulations require the Secretary of the Army to rule on the issue of improper processing of the 1968 nomination, the Awards and Decorations Branch will be responsible for providing him a background paper on the action, a recommended decision, and a letter to Senator Scott containing the Secretary's decision which he will only need to sign. Even if a decision is made to put the nomination before an awards review board, the Awards and Decorations Branch will also be responsible for organizing and briefing the review board on the review process. Considering the attitude of the Awards and Decorations Branch, it appears they will do anything they can to block a positive recommendation for a Vietnam veteran, so it is unlikely the nomination will get a fair hearing, no matter what.

Clifford A. Gehrt

First Lieutenant, Infantry

Former Battalion Adjutant/S-1

2nd Bn., 39th Inf. Regt., 9th Inf. Div.

Fort Riley, Kansas/Vietnam (1966–1967)

Part 3-3
2025 Addendum

25. In 2024, Roger Lockshier, a crew chief in Cpt. Fry’s helicopter gunship platoon during the Vietnam War wrote a book titled Saving Infantry and SOG Souls: A Crew Chief’s View. In his book, Roger recounts his experiences during the Vietnam War and includes a chapter detailing the flight that earned Cpt. Fry a Distinguished Service Cross (DSC). As a result of the publicity surrounding Roger’s book, I decided to make another effort to have Cpt. Fry’s DSC upgraded to the Congressional Medal of Honor (CMH).

26. Background: From 2017 to 2020, I worked with a group of Vietnam veterans and friends in an effort to have Cpt. Fry’s DSC upgraded to the CMH. At that time, we made no effort to garner public support. Now that Roger Lockshier’s book has made the public aware of the miscarriage of justice associated with our earlier efforts, I have organized this website not only to tell the story of our multi-year upgrade effort, but also to highlight what I believe is discrimination against all Vietnam veterans. Regarding the latter, I have initiated an internet petition to request that the Secretary of the Army direct an investigation into the Army Human Resources Command's (HRC) handling of award upgrade requests.

27. I will begin this 2025 effort by commenting on and debunking three claims made in the HRC letter above, dated July 15, 2020. It was the letter that caused us to abandon our four-year effort in 2020.

Comments on the Letter

28. Three assertions in the July 15, 2020, letter above are inaccurate.

A. The first inaccurate assertion: “without both the living recommender and a living intermediate authority, a retroactive request for reconsideration of a previously approved award cannot be entered into military channels.”

(1.) The fact that “Col. Fry's entire wartime chain of command is now deceased” has nothing to do with entering our “processing errors” request into military channels. In fact, there is no requirement in any law or regulation that a recommender and an intermediate authority (chain of command member) must be living for the processing of an upgrade request. Even if they were alive today, what else could they say other than, “I was unaware of the missing relevant documents when this nomination was processed through my headquarters; therefore, I naturally believe an awards board should review the facts of this case to determine the appropriate recognition based solely on the merits of Cpt. Fry’s actions.”

(2.) As our upgrade request is based upon material errors and impropriety in the processing of the original nomination, DoD regulations require that the Secretary of the Army “himself” rule on the validity of such an assertion. While AR 600-8-22 gives the Army Human Resources Command the responsibility to “Administer staffing actions for consideration of the Secretary of the Army,” it does not give it the authority to override DoD policy and make decisions specifically reserved for the Secretary of the Army, as is being done in this case. See the DoD regulation quoted below.

The Secretary of the Military Department concerned determines whether material errors or impropriety existed in any case previously adjudicated within his/her Department. This authority must not be delegated.

--DoD Manual 1348.33, Volume 1, Manual of Military Decorations and Awards: Medal of Honor, Section 3.1. f. (2) (b) 2.

B. Second inaccurate assertion: “Colonel Fry’s final course of action is to appeal this decision to the highest appellate authority on personnel matters...the Army Board for Correction of Military Records."

(1.) The Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) is not an option for further appeal in this case. The ABCMR cannot rule on an award nomination until after the nomination [DA Form 638 - Award Recommendation] has been presented to the Army Decorations Board “for a decision.” The Applicant Guide to applying to the ABCMR, Para 18, h. contains the following two sub-elements.

(a.) (2) A request for an award that exceeds the timelines must be submitted on a DA Form 638, Award Recommendation, with supporting documents and witness statements, through your Congressman for consideration by the Army Decorations Board.

(b.) (4) You may apply to the ABCMR for an award or upgrade of a decoration ONLY AFTER* the Army Decorations Board has made a decision on the DA Form 638 [Recommendation for Award].

*Note: The capitalization of “ONLY AFTER” is a direct quote from the ABCMR Guide itself.

(2.) By refusing to enter our request into military channels and not allowing our material error upgrade case to be processed in accordance with current laws and regulations, the Army Decorations Board will never have the opportunity to make a decision on this nomination; consequently, an appeal to the ABCMA is not an option.

C. Third inaccurate assertion: “...he has exhausted all available administrative remedies.”

(1.) AR 600-8-22, used to justify not entering my request into military channels, also authorizes the Army Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, to make exceptions to any requirement in AR 600-8-22. Until the G-1 has had an opportunity to rule on whether or not to issue a waiver, all available administrative remedies will not have been exhausted.

(2.) Under TAB-1-F of our upgrade request, commenting on the DA Form 638 - Page 2, which indicated all of the wartime nominating chain of command had passed, was the following request that was ignored by the Human Resources Command.

All members of the nominating wartime chain of command through the rank of Lieutenant General have passed. Information on each is provided below. Due to the time that has elapsed since the Vietnam War, it is requested that this requirement be waived and the current Army Awards Board evaluate the nomination on the merits of the action, as a recommender would do if he were alive.

(3.) By not entering our request into military channels, the Human Resources Command is effectively blocking the G-1 from having an opportunity to make a decision on the waiver issue. While AR 600-8-22 permits the G-1 to delegate waiver authority to others, in this instance, there is no requirement for a waiver because there is no law or regulation that mandates nominators or members of the chain of command to be living. Requiring a chain-of-command member to be living before entering such a request into military channels and ignoring a request for a waiver is a back-door way of discriminating against Vietnam veterans.

29. As with the inaccurate assertions above, refusing to even allow our request to “be entered into military channels” is tantamount to hiding the fact that the Awards and Decorations Branch is not processing a Vietnam War-era nomination in accordance with the law, DoD, and even Army policy. It also prevents the triggering of regulations intended to ensure the branches of the service are complying with laws and regulations. Below are two examples of regulations intended to prevent staff officers of the separate services from attempting to “avoid processing any CMH recommendation.”

A. “The goals stated above will not be used to avoid processing any CMH recommendation that is initiated within statutory or regulatory time limits.** Whether an individual award recommendation meets DoD timeliness goals will not be a factor in determining the level of the award approved. The level of the decoration approved will be based solely on the merits of the act.”

--DoD Manual 1348.33, Volume 1, Manual of Military Decorations and Awards: Medal of Honor (CMH), Section 6, e. b.

B. “The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness is responsible for ensuring that regulations, guidance, and issuances of the DoD components conform to pertinent laws, Executive orders, federal regulations, and DoD policy.”

--DoD Manual 1348.33, Volume 1, Manual of Military Decorations and Awards: Medal of Honor (CMH), Section 2.1. b.

**Based on 10 USC 1130, this nomination meets both statutory and regulatory time limits.

30. Finally, the only issue concerning our nomination at this time is whether our request should be entered into military channels. It is not whether Col. Fry’s DSC should be upgraded to the CMH. Even if the request is entered into military channels, the Secretary of the Army himself must first agree that there may have been errors in the processing of the 1968 nomination. If he agrees there may have been errors, the nomination must still be placed before a new awards and decorations board, which will make its decision based solely on the merits of the case as presented in our upgrade request.

Clifford A. Gehrt
January 20, 2025

Go to Part 4