Aussie winner of Medal of "Dis"honour at airshow

sabredriver · **Posted:** Thu Sep 13, 2007 5:13 am

Recently in Australia there was a airshow in QLD, where a famous Aussie ex RAAF pilot by name of Gary Cooper, flew someone esles O-1 Cessna Birdog to recreate his past history.

Gary Cooper flew as a RAAF pilot on detachment to USAF ,as a O-1 FAC pilot in Vietnam and in a famous airstrike he was unofficially recommended for the US Medal of Honour MOH but to this day it has never been presented.

This is due to the Australian government not wanting a Aussie , as i understand to receive such a medal when the Aussie govt didnt give him anything..(no aussie veteran from vietnam has a offical medal which is a sad reflection on the government stances still after 40years.)

Gary Cooper flew many FAC aircraft and after the war flew for Qantas for a long time also doing many of the props and jet aircraft.

Interestingly according to info... the US Navy museum has Gary Coopers O-1 Birdog from Vietnam still, in which he nearly won the MOH.

Guess what... its the same aircraft i understand which the VNAF pilot famously landed on the USS Midway in 1975 in April as they evacuated Saigon. Amazing huh...

Gary Cooper is well known for been a low key person but it doesnt hide that he had balls to do a FAC job well.

muddyboots · **Posted:** Thu Sep 13, 2007 6:00 am

While I am certain what he did was meritorius, legally he couldn't have received the Medal. It's only applicable to members of the US military. They're pretty strict about it--including taking away the one from that pilot who was an Unkown Airman while I was in DC.

Quote:

Eligibility is limited to members of the Army of the United States in
active Federal military service.

From the pertinant Army regulations. It's the same for all services. I believe he could have recieved several lesser awards though.

sabredriver · **Posted:** Thu Sep 13, 2007 6:13 am

http://www.hotkey.net.au/~marshalle/raaf/cooper.htm

Seems i was wrong , he was "credited" for the MOH flying a OH-23 Raven not a birdog.....

sabredriver · **Posted:** Thu Sep 13, 2007 7:23 am

http://www.warbirdz.net/phpBB2/showthread.php?t=2541

here some photos of garry in action at the airshow ...

Jack Cook · **Posted:** Thu Sep 13, 2007 10:11 am

Some relevent info concerning Cooper and the MOH
The key to this issue is the fact Cooper was never a member of any branch of the US armed forces. During WW II members of the US Merchant Marines were recommender for military awards for acts of extraordinary heroism. In all cases these awards were denied by DOD because during WW II the Merchant Marines were not part of the armed forces. Their pay, sailing orders and decorations were the responsibility of the Merchant Marine Shipping Administration, or an agency with a very similar title. By the way, this Merchant Marine Administration was commander by an active duty US navy admiral.
To date from 1863 forward, no one who was not in the US armed forces has ever received a MOH.
None of the provided documentation shows what the final disposition of General Ewell’s Army recommendation to the Air Force is.
My best guess is that at HQ CINCPAC any further Air Force endorsements were returned for cause with a suggestion that General Ewell, as an Army Division Commander has the authority himself to award the Silver Start Medal. In fact this same award is often made for our own soldiers as an interim award, going back to WW II times .pending receipt of a MOH.
Another fact is that Cooper was Attached to the USAF ,never assigned. I make this reasonable assumption because he remained on the RAAF payroll. That means his promotions were controlled by his own government. These are the legal niceties of the case, as I understand the material that has been passed to you based on a thirty seven year old act of heroism, performed by an allied military person.
Mechanically we would need some member of the US Congress to introduce a bill much as we’ve done in the Barber case. Who would do this? Maybe General Ewell? But once the congressperson had his legal staffer try to draft the language he/she is going to be made aware of the non-US military member status and that will result in a letter of regret from the member of congress.
On a more positive note I could suggest that an American with first had knowledge and/or documentation make an appointment to meet with the Australian Military Attache, assigned to his country’s Embassy here in Washington, DC and discuss the case with the recommendation that the Australian Government consider an appropriate award. There is also the possibility to ask General Ewell to consider using his own Pentagon contacts to make a retroactive award of the Silver Star Medal to Cooper. This would be strictly an internal Army matter requiring no DOD or congressional action.
I do apologize for going into this level of detail. I was aware of an action more than forty years ago to make a retroactive military ward to Mr. Marcos, who was at that point just elected as President of the Philippines, and a WWII Filipino guerrilla leader. This had White House support. After DOD got involved Marcos ended up with a Silver Star Medal, nice US media coverage and the issue/incident is now history.

PeterA · **Posted:** Thu Sep 13, 2007 11:23 am

Very shabby stuff, he should have got (or still get) the Victoria Cross.

http://home.earthlink.net/~aircommando1/GCCongMOH1.htm

For a compelling read try his autobiography 'Sock it to 'em Baby - Forward Air Controller in Vietnam'. I couldn't put it down.

...I don't actually think he flew with Qantas, although certainly up to 747 on several other carriers.

A good friend...and a Spitfire owner.

PeterA

Close!

JägerMarty · **Posted:** Thu Sep 13, 2007 2:44 pm

What's the story with the helmet.

A shame the way the govts have treated this fine fellow, amazingly brave by the sound

PeterA · **Posted:** Thu Sep 13, 2007 2:51 pm

JägerMarty wrote:

What's the story with the helmet.

A shame the way the govts have treated this fine fellow, amazingly brave by the sound

Garry was wearing this helmet at the time of the engagement being discussed. That is a bullet trajectory.

PeterA

muddyboots · **Posted:** Thu Sep 13, 2007 3:42 pm

I love taht picture of him with his "medal" around his neck!

sabredriver · **Posted:** Thu Sep 13, 2007 4:01 pm

During his tour in Vietnam Cooper came totally under US control and jurisdiction, had nothing to do with the RAAF, and was considered a member of the US Forces, except for salary.

As all documentation on Cooper was US administrated, the RAAF had little record of his service and this is one reason why the Australians could not process their highest award to him. Under the circumstances it would be a great travesty of justice for the US not to recognize Cooper’s service to the US in saving so many of its’ nations lives which could run into thousands. The saving of US lives was conducted at great risk to his own life.

There have been many instances where the Medal of Honor has been awarded to foreign nations. The only difference between them and Cooper is that they were sworn into the US Forces. This is only a small difference to Cooper’s situation and should not be used as a barrier to having this man’s gallant service to the US and its’ people appropriately recognized by the US Government.

muddyboots · **Posted:** Thu Sep 13, 2007 10:32 pm

I'm sorry, yes it should. It would demean the value of the highest American honor if it could be given out to anyone. American civilians, as an example, cannot recieve it. He was not a memeber of the United States armed forces, and he should not receive it. It is, after all, one of the primary requirements. He should however, recieve Australia's highest recognition, since he was an Australian fighting for Australia. That he was serving with US forces is meaningless in terms of the Medal, however wistfully I might wish otherwise. As I said, they're strict with who recieves it. There's a reason.
He definitely should recieve our silver star, which is way down the line. Above that you begin to run into trouble with the "serving in the US military clause again, but I believe there are numerous cases of higher wards being given to foreign nationals serving as liasons or whatever.

sgt hawk · **Posted:** Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:44 pm

As a 20 year old sgt with the 5/60th inf I personally witnessed some of the exploits of Flt Officer Gary Cooper. I carried a radio and monitored conversations between the Forward Observer and FAC. Initally it was strange to hear that Aussie brogue on the radio, everone was saying "who the hell is that!" Tamawlee three five never fought that war from 3500', he was right down on the deck. I recall a firefight we were in when our six (company commander) was asking Tamale 35 if he should toss a smoke grenade to mark position, when all of a sudden that O-1 Cessna came skimming over the rice paddies at 10 or 12' and Cooper says "No need yank I can see the Bloody Buggers" What a set of Cahones that Guy had. Does he deserve the MOH, you damned right he does. Will he get it? Probably not. He saved our bacon so many times it was amazing. He is a member of our association (www.5thbattalion.org)and I got to meet him again in June of 06 in St Louis. He used to fly into our Battalion Base Camp at Bien Phouc. We had a graded dirt pad that you could get 5 Huey's (butt to tail) on. He would side slip that Cessna and stop it in less than 200'. What a pilot he is. I still laugh when the first time he did that he radioed us and asked if we had any Piss, man were we confused. But we were fairly certain that we had a lot, Found out later thats what Aussies call beer. Gary Cooper an outstanding man, gentleman and aviator, He is a National treasure for Australia. We of the 5/60th love him yet.

JDK · **Posted:** Tue Sep 18, 2007 8:24 pm

Sgt. Hawk, thanks for that.

The heading of this thread, implying that Garry Cooper acted dishonourably is inappropriate, misleading and insulting. I know what was meant, it's an amateur effort again. He is normally known as 'Garry' not Gary, and again, when quoting from other sources it is good practice to show that it is someone else's writing, work and opinion cited, rather than (accidentally or deliberately) representing it as your own work. Again, that's theft, and is liable for prosecution.

The primary point to take away is the disconnection between medals and valour; while medals are almost always given for acts of valour, each and every award can be matched by others of equal or greater valour, but not recognised by a medal.

However, I don't believe Muddyboots is correct. From Wikipedia (which, while it is a source that should be used with caution, I understand the cited examples are correct):

Quote:

While current regulations, (10 U.S.C. § 6241), beginning in 1918, explicitly state that recipients must be serving in the U.S. Armed Forces at the time of performing a valorous act that warrants the award of the Medal of Honor, exceptions have been made. For example, Mary Walker worked as a military contractor, and Charles Lindbergh, while a reserve member of the U.S. Army Air Corps, received his Medal of Honor as a civilian pilot. In addition, the Medal of Honor was presented to the British Unknown Warrior by General Pershing on October 17, 1921; later the U.S. Unknown Soldier was reciprocally awarded the Victoria Cross, Britain's highest award for gallantry, on November 11, 1921. Apart from these few exceptions, Medals of Honor can only be awarded to members of the U.S. armed forces - although being a U.S. citizen is not a prerequisite. Sixty-one Canadians who were serving in the United States armed forces have been awarded the Medal of Honor, with a majority awarded for actions in the American Civil War. Since 1900, only four have been awarded to Canadians.[47] In the Vietnam War, Peter C. Lemon was the only Canadian recipient of the Medal of Honor.[48]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medal_of_honor

As to semantics, it's clear that Flt Lt Garry Cooper, RAAF was acting as a member of the US Armed Forces, within an American system, flying American aircraft, with American markings and defending and protecting American soldiers. There are legitimate points as to why he was not a US soldier; but if they are more important than the foregoing, then there's something very wrong with the evaluation. In every other way he was treated as if he were a US airman, and enough exceptions have been made.

As to Muddyboots polite but firm comment that it would 'demean' the MoH, that is a perfectly legitimate view. Another perfectly legitimate view is that it is unfair to take a person's work and risk their life (as well as accept their saving of American lives) without being prepared to make an exception. There's different ways of looking at it, that's all.

Garry Cooper remains caught between systems. He was nominated by the US General responsible, and had the Australian high command acted appropriately, almost certainly would have received the MoH. At that time, Australia's equivalent was the British Victoria Cross, a medal vary rarely awarded in situations such as Vietnam where Britain was not involved but Australia was. Because of this issue, Australia (as well as Canada and New Zealand) finally instituted their own equivalent awards; the Australian VC, around the turn of the century. Unlike the historical re-evaluations and modern awards carried out for the MoH, it is highly unlikely any Australian government would look to making a retrospective award with a modern medal, and it is just as impossible that an award that Australians are no-longer directly entitled to, the (British) VC would be given now. However the issue does not lie with the US system, as yet, but with the black hole created by the Australian system. Maybe an extreme case of the 'tall poppy' syndrome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_poppy_syndrome

There's much talk of rules and protocols with medals. Clear-eyed viewing of what actually happens, including with the MoH, show that plenty of exceptions are made to any given 'rule'.

The respect that Garry Cooper has from the US ground forces is much more important and genuine than any bit of tin some rear-echelon brasshat refuses to pass on.

I would second PeterA's recommendation to read Garry's book, and although I've not met Garry, as Peter has, the little rsearch I've carried out indicated both the travesty of the situation, and Garry's unarguable commitment and bravery.

Regards,

muddyboots · **Posted:** Wed Sep 19, 2007 1:57 am

James, thanks for your kind comments on my post. This is a very important issue to me and I am doing my best to be civil as we discuss a man who repeatedly risked his life for american soldiers. I think it would be a dishonor to Garry Cooper to turn this into an argument. He obviously deserves it, however, as you can see, the regulation doesn't permit the US to give it to him. It's an award (since 1913) which has been reserved for those serving in the US armed forces. As far as I know, since 1913 it hasn't been given out to anyone but members of the armed forces of the United States. Before that it was somewhat irregular, including an attempt to give it to Lincolns pallbearers, which it was never intended for. In an effort to clarify who can receive it and therefore give its bearers the respect the deserve, the rules were made quite clear.

Quote:

TITLE 32--NATIONAL DEFENSE
CHAPTER V--DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
PART 578--DECORATIONS, MEDALS, RIBBONS, AND SIMILAR DEVICES

32CFR578.4 Medal of Honor Regulations:

Sec. 578.4 Medal of Honor.

(a) Criteria. The Medal of Honor, established by Joint Resolution of Congress, 12 July 1862 (amended by Act of 9 July 1918 and Act of 25 July 1963) is awarded in the name of Congress to a person who, while a member of the Army, distinguished himself conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States; while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force; or while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party (figure 1). The deed performed must have been one of personal bravery or self-sacrifice so conspicuous as to clearly distinguish the individual above his comrades and must have involved risk of life.

Incontestable proof of the performance of the service will be exacted and each recommendation for the award of this decoration will be considered on the standard of extraordinary merit.

Eligibility is limited to members of the Army of the United States in active Federal military service.

(b) Description. A gold-finished bronze star, one point down, 1-9/16 inches in diameter with rays terminating in trefoils, surrounded by a laurel wreath in green enamel, suspended by two links from a bar bearing the inscription "Valor'' and surmounted by an eagle grasping laurel leaves in one claw and arrows in the other. In the center of the star is the head of Minerva surrounded by the inscription "United States of America.'' Each ray of the star bears an oak leaf in green enamel.

On the reverse of the bar are stamped the words "The Congress To.'' The medal is suspended by a hook to a ring fastened behind the eagle. The hook is attached to a light-blue moired silk neckband, 1-3/16 inches in width and 21-3/4 inches in length, behind a square pad in the center made of the ribbon with the corners turned in. On the ribbon bar are 13 white stars arranged in the form of a triple chevron, consisting of two chevrons of 5 stars and one chevron of 3 stars. A hexagonal rosette of light-blue ribbon 1/2 inch circumscribing diameter, with a fan-shaped ribbon insert showing white stars, is included for wear on civilian clothing.

(c) Medal of Honor Roll. The Medal of Honor Roll was established by Act of Congress, April 27, 1916, as amended, 38 U.S.C. 560.

It provides that each Medal of Honor awardee may have his name entered on the Medal of Honor Roll. Each person whose name is placed on the Roll is certified to the Veterans' Administration as being entitled to receive a special pension of $100 per month for life, payable monthly by that agency. The payment of this special pension is in addition to, and does not deprive the pensioner of any other pension, benefit, right, or privilege to which he is or may thereafter be entitled. A written application must be made by the awardee to have his name placed on the Medal of Honor Roll and to receive the special pension. For Army personnel, proper blanks and instructions shall be furnished without charge upon request to The Adjutant General, Department of the Army, Washington, DC 20314, Attention: AGPB-AC. The application must bear the full personal signature of the applicant.

(d) Additional benefits.

(1) Air transportation: See AR 96-20 (Army Regulations pertaining to Air Transportation).

(2) Sons of winners of the Medal of Honor, otherwise qualified for admission to the United States Military Academy, will not be subject to quota requirements (see annual catalog, United States Military Academy).

(Sec. 3741, 70A Stat. 215; 10 U.S.C. 3741)
[21 FR 7672, Oct. 6, 1956, as amended at 29 FR 527, Jan. 22, 1964; 35 FR 9279, June 13, 1970]

United States Code of Law for the Medal of Honor
Medal of Honor Authority Statutes:

10 USC 3741 for Army Personnel:
-CITE-

10 USC Sec. 3741
EXPCITE-

TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle B - Army

PART II - PERSONNEL / CHAPTER 357 - DECORATIONS AND AWARDS
-HEAD-

Sec. 3741. Medal of honor: award

-STATUTE-

The President may award, and present in the name of Congress, a medal of honor of appropriate design, with ribbons and appurtenances, to a person who while a member of the Army, distinguished himself conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty -

(1) while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States;

(2) while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force; or

(3) while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.Sec 3744. Medal of Honor Limitations
-CITE-

10 USC Sec. 3744
EXPCITE-

TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle B - Army

PART II - PERSONNEL CHAPTER 357 - DECORATIONS AND AWARDS HEAD

Sec. 3744. Medal of honor; distinguished-service cross; distinguished-service medal: limitations on award

-STATUTE-

(a) No more than one medal of honor, distinguished-service cross, or distinguished-service medal may be awarded to a person. However, for each succeeding act that would otherwise justify the award of such a medal or cross, the President may award a suitable bar or other device to be worn as he directs.

(b) Except as provided in subsection (d), no medal of honor, distinguished-service cross, distinguished-service medal, or device in place thereof, may be awarded to a person unless -

(1) the award is made within three years after the date of the act justifying the award;

(2) a statement setting forth the distinguished service and recommending official recognition of it was made within two years after the distinguished service; and

(3) it appears from records of the Department of the Army that the person is entitled to the award.

(c) No medal of honor, distinguished-service cross, distinguished-service medal, or device in place thereof, may be awarded or presented to a person whose service after he distinguished himself has not been honorable.

(d) If the Secretary of the Army determines that -

(1) a statement setting forth the distinguished service and recommending official recognition of it was made and supported by sufficient evidence within two years after the distinguished service; and:

(2) no award was made, because the statement was lost or through inadvertence the recommendation was not acted on; a medal of honor, distinguished-service cross, distinguished-service medal, or device in place thereof, as the case may be, may be awarded to the person concerned within two years after the date of that determination.

Sec 6241: MOH for Navy and Marines:
-CITE-

10 USC Sec. 6241
-EXPCITE-

TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle C - Navy and Marine Corps

PART II - PERSONNEL CHAPTER 567 - DECORATIONS AND AWARDS
-HEAD-

Sec. 6241. Medal of honor
-STATUTE-

The President may award, and present in the name of Congress, a medal of honor of appropriate design, with ribbons and appurtenances, to a person who, while a member of the naval service, distinguishes himself conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty -

(1) while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States;

(2) while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force; or

(3) while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.

Sec 8741: MOH for Air Force:

-CITE-

10 USC Sec. 8741
-EXPCITE-

TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle D - Air Force

PART II - PERSONNEL CHAPTER 857 - DECORATIONS AND AWARDS
-HEAD-

Sec. 8741. Medal of honor: award

-STATUTE-

The President may award, and present in the name of Congress, a medal of honor of appropriate design, with ribbons and appurtenances, to a person who, while a member of the Air Force, distinguishes himself conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty -

(1) while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States;

(2) while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force; or

(3) while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.

It's quite clear, as you can see. Regulations like this are not set aside, unless by act of Congress (which is at the far end of unlikely.) The general in question certainly knew the award would be downgraded for the simple reason that it was illegal to award it to a member of a miltary other than America's. The fact that he was put in was honor enough, and a message to his command to give the man the best they could, IMHO.

If more needs to be done Australia needs to do it. I believe you do have a government right? You're not all lazing on the beech wearing hats with corks on and popping the caps off of beer bottles with your teeth :wink:

He certainly saved many American lives, and he certainly repetedly risked his own to do that. In the US military he would be a shoo in. In the Aussie military he is a blackball.

Again, obviously Mr Cooper was a hero and deserves the Medal. However deserves and recieves have often been two very different things. Just ask David Hackworth.

I intend to add to this huge post so bear with me while I do some research.

Lindberg, as a member of the reserves, was indeed entitled to the Medal. Mary Walker I'm looking for--she was the only woman I believe, but why was it awarded? Got it--Battle of Bull Run (1862 I think,) before the regulations were laid down about the Medal. This is the same time frame that Lincoln's pall bearers recieved it. Obviously they weren't worthy and it was pulled. Mary Walker on the other hand, was a civilan employee of the Army who was forced to fight in the middle of a battlefield. It was decided, again, before the regulations were laid down, that she deserved it. I suspect the men she saved agreed. However today she would NOT recieve it. We've become amazingly hide bound since those days :roll:

JDK · **Posted:** Wed Sep 19, 2007 2:34 am

Thanks for your response; as I tried to indicate, with some sucess, evidently, there are differing views on the matter; and they are aside from 'right' or 'wrong'.

muddyboots wrote:

If more needs to be done Australia needs to do it. I believe you do have a government right? You're not all lazing on the beech wearing hats with corks on and popping the caps off of beer bottles with your teeth :wink:

He certainly saved many American lives, and he certainly repetedly risked his own to do that. In the US military he would be a shoo in. In the Aussie military he is a blackball.

We do have a government. I won't bother telling you what I think of them, but I'd only offer them a drink if they were drowning. (This is the print version.) Our head of state is a hereditary foreign national with a remarkably inbred and demonstrably dysfunctional family. Nothing personal, but not my people, and hardly putting the interests of ordinary Australians first. (Others rather like EIIR, and they are entitled to their view. I differ.)

Australia has yet to award an Australian VC. New Zealand has just made the first award of theirs, and Canada had dropped a proposed award to their Unknown Soldier, and has yet to award it to anyone else. I can't see a precedent being set with such a politically problematic recipient, can you?

As I outlined above, Garry is caught between three award 'systems' all geared to protecting status (IMHO) rather than primarily recognising real courage or endeavour. In addition, Australian views of the Vietnam war has all the problems Americans are familiar with, as well as the overlay of being seen as another country's disaster.

muddyboots wrote:

Again, obviously Mr Cooper was a hero and deserves the Medal. However deserves and recieves have often been two very different things. Just ask David Hackworth.

As I also outlined you can easily find equally meretricious performances which never were recognised by a medal for each and every one awarded. For that reason, if no other, I (personally) regard medals as an inadequate measure of valour.

muddyboots wrote:

I intend to add to this huge post so bear with me while I do some research.

Feel free, there's more to be said. I've made the points I think important. That Garry gets some recognition here is a good step in the right direction.

Regards,

Warbird Information Exchange

Aussie winner of Medal of "Dis"honour at airshow

Who is online