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.
Tips for Playing Audio Narration:
1. Click on white triangle to start audio narration.
2. Scroll along with the recording to see pictures and highlighted quotes.
3. Use the spacebar to pause and resume playback.
4. Rewind and fast forward by moving white dot to the left and right.
On some platforms, the space bar may not work to stop/resume audio. If so, scroll back up to the audio player and click the play button again, and the audio will continue from where you left off.
First Lieutenant Clifford A. Gehrt
(To learn more about Lt. Gehrt's qualifications, see link #1 at the bottom of this page.)
Introduction
In 1968, Cpt. Jerry R. Fry was nominated for the Congressional Medal of Honor (CMH); however, it was inadvertently downgraded to the Distinguished Service Cross (DSC). Fifty years later, an Officer Candidate School (OCS) classmate of Cpt. Fry discovered that processing errors and missing documents had led to the downgrade. As a result of that discovery, a request was submitted to the Secretary of the Army to order a review of the original nomination in light of the information contained in the formerly missing documents, as the Secretary is the only Army official authorized to order such a review. However, the Army Human Resources Command (HRC) manipulated affairs to prevent the Secretary of the Army from having any opportunity to rule on the upgrade request. Parts 1 and 2 of this website outline the facts related to the events leading to the CMH nomination. Parts 3 and 4 detail the facts concerning the downgrade, processing errors, missing documents, and the HRC's refusal to process the upgrade request.
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 Wood (USA, Ret.), who agreed that Jerry should have received the CMH.
Warrant Officer (WO) Tom Wood
Cpt. Paul Davin
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. (See link #2 at the bottom of this page.)
​
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, 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. (See link #3 at the bottom of this page.) Shortly before the 2018 elections, assuming Senator McCaskill would not be re-elected, 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 re-elected, 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) Stricklen. 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) Stricklen
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 statement form 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.​
​
*Being required to obtain a copy of the original nomination from the National Archives was a blessing in disguise because it contained proof that there were material errors in the processing of the 1968 nomination.
​
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 our Veterans and the 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. Stricklen 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 relevant part of 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. From the 1968 mistaken use of the USAVN Form 157-R, instead of the correct DA Form 638, through the publication of orders awarding the DSC, the Medal of Honor was never mentioned. Therefore, when the HRC writes, “that the original Medal of Honor [CMH] nomination was changed [downgraded] to the DSC by a recommender within the chain of command,” that is not an accurate statement.
​
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 clearly intended for that waiver to cover all time-sensitive restrictions. Requiring that the original award nominator and a member of the nominee’s wartime chain of command from fifty to sixty years ago be alive and provide comments on an upgrade request before it is accepted into military channels undermines the intent of Congress and deprives Vietnam veterans of due process.
​
* (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. Another 101st Airborne Division member, Sp/4 Ken David, demonstrates the absurdity of this HRC living-chain-of-command requirement. The Michigan Disabled American Veterans organization (DAV) worked for decades to have Ken’s DSC upgraded to the Medal of Honor but were unable to identify the members of his wartime chain of command. Then, almost by accident, during a 2016 visit to the National Archives, someone discovered another award nomination containing the names of Ken’s wartime chain of command. After finally obtaining the signature of the 97-year-old general in the last days of his life in a Texas nursing home, Ken received the recognition he deserved. On January 3, 2025, President Biden presented him with the Congressional Medal of Honor. While Ken David's receipt of the CMH was a victory, it highlights the absurdity of the HRC 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 work by Ken’s friends and the DAV. Locating both a living award nominator and a member of the chain of command who can comment on an event that happened fifty to sixty years ago is not only unreasonable, it is now undoubtedly impossible.
(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 Regulations, valor award upgrade requests can be placed before a review board for one of two reasons. First, the merits of the case. Second:
(2) Evidence of material error or impropriety in the processing or adjudication of the original award recommendation. Examples might include loss of accompanying or substantiating documents or witness statements during the original routing of the recommendation; clearly incorrect application of official policy; or substantiated gender, religious, or racial discrimination.
--DoD Manual 1348.33, Volume 1, Manual of Military Decorations and Awards:
Medal of Honor (MOH), Section 1. 2. e. (2)
19. Once we shifted our focus, we learned that one of the advantages of focusing on the errors was that:
2. The Secretary of the Military Department concerned determines whether material error 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 (MOH), Section 1. 2. e. (2) (b) 2.
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.
​
NOTE: In Part 3-3 (2025 Addendum) below, the false assertions in the following letter are debunked.
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 men and women serving in the Army 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 [written in 2020], 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.
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); Part 2 of this website contains an extract of that chapter. 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's) 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: “...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 commands 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.
While modern Army regulations mandate that an effort be made to locate and receive comments from a wartime chain of command and provide guidance if some cannot be located, the regulation is silent on what should be done if all members of the chain of command have passed away. Therefore, a request for a waiver deserves acknowledgment, consideration, and a written reply.
(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.
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 letting this 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: “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.
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. (Refer to Paragraph #14 above, which quotes the DoD’s regulations intended to ensure that upgrade requests are processed in accordance with the intent of Congress by each of the services.)
30. Finally, the only issue concerning our nomination at this time is not whether Col. Fry should be awarded the Medal of Honor, it is whether my request should be “entered into military channels,” so that it can be processed in accordance with the appropriate laws and regulations. If it is accepted into military channels, the following steps are required:
A. The Secretary of the Army’s Review
The Human Resources Command (HRC) first carries out the staffing actions necessary for review by the Secretary of the Army regarding the alleged material errors and impropriety in my nomination.
B. New Awards Board Ordered
If the Secretary finds there may have been material errors or impropriety during the processing of the original 1968 nomination, he orders my nomination, containing the documents missing from the original nomination, to be placed before a new awards and decorations board, which will make a recommendation based solely on the merits of the case.
C. New Awards Board Meets and Makes a Decision
Next, the HRC organizes an awards board and ensures it is properly conducted and executed in accordance with applicable regulations. If the awards board recommends an upgrade to the CMH, the HRC prepares the board's recommendation for review and recommendation by the Chief of Staff of the Army.
D. The Secretary of the Army Considers Recommendation
Next, the HRC executes the staffing action necessary for the Secretary of the Army to consider the award board's recommendation. If he approves their recommendation, the HRC processes the nomination for submission to the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness for his review and recommendation.
E. The President’s Approval
The recommendation is then forwarded to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for review and recommendation. After that, it is forwarded to the Secretary of Defense, who can approve or disapprove it. If he approves it, then it is sent to the President, who has the final authority to approve or reject the nomination.
​
The Human Resources Command, by refusing to enter my nomination into military channels, avoids the possibility of being required to organize and manage the Army portion of the above process.
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)
