The U.S. Military Has Always Been Most-Trusted Arm of Government

EDITORIAL
By JIM PURCELL
Publisher

No one believes in Government 100 percent anymore. Some people used to. Most don't believe in the Church anymore. There is a lack of confidence in the Executive, Legislative...even the Judicial branches. They lack credibility in the minds of many. Credibility is the ability to believe what someone says, and maybe the last thing...the very last thing that Americans believe in is the uniformed, military services.

   The Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard, and their Reserve and National Guard components, still have the confidence of many, many Americans. Myself among them. And, that credibility the military enjoys is built upon the granite foundation that those services, including their leaders at all levels, are devoid of political partisanship, graft, deceit or poor judgement. Thank God for this, because there is something people can believe in, after all.

   A Coast Guard lieutenant was arrested recently on charges of being a domestic terrorist, who espoused white nationalism. Thank God he didn't kill anyone. There was an incident years back when another captain, a Muslim health care professional in the Army, murdered several military members for the sake of "Jihad," the Arab version of 'Holy War.' These things shake the confidence of people, especially given the fact that both of the instances I brough up involved commissioned officers.

   I was a soldier for many years (Active and Reserve). I was a non-commissioned officer (a sergeant) and during my tenure I served in the Infantry and Intelligence branches, respectively.  My Dad and uncles were in World War II. My cousins served in Vietnam. So, i know something of what I am talking about.

U.S. Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast 

Guardsmen Aren't Supposed to Express Political Opinions

   Service in the military is a job and a public expression of belief in one's government. The military defends the rights of people to have the liberties they enjoy in the United States. However, the military does not participate in those liberties fully -- and they do this voluntarily by signing a contract with the respective services. In that contract, it is made clear that they will execute the orers of those appointed over them. In fact, every member of the military not only signs a contract about this but they also swear an oath to that effect.

   The military does not operate as a democracy. It is a constitutional oligarchy, elites (officers and senior NCOs) run it based on rank. Its administration and healthcare is an example of functional communism. There are people who do not like those words, but that doesn't change facts. The military serves at the behest of the civilian government, and anything else would make our military a part of the problem.

   Yet, inasmuch as the military serves the civilian government, it cannot be a part of the partisan dickerings that surround the civilian government. Why? Well, Republicans and Democrats may get elected to office and high office, but they are not above corruption, the failure of logic or pettiness. And, if the military becomes any of those things then we all lose this country. We lose it all.

   Since this republic, our Great Experiment in democracy, began we have had good executive leaders (presidents) and we have had bad ones. Yet, the republic goes on because the most powerful elected person in this country cannot be a dictator -- cannot become a king. Why? Because the Founders of this nation created a government with a series of formal checks and balances. The military has no place in government, other than to fulfill its narrow, necessary duties. If any of that ever changed, the United States would be no better than the Third World tyrannies that litter this world like so much refuse.

Why is All This Important?

   A lot of good people haave died since 1775 to make sure that neither conservatives or liberals or whomever else ran this country as they exclusively saw fit. The media was created in the United States to be another, more informal means of check-and-balance against governmental corruption and abuse. So, once the media is taken out of the picture -- well -- the picture isn't that clear from the outside now, is it?

   If the three branches of Government cannot be trusted, if the Church cannot be trusted by many, if the media cannot be trusted...then the military is the only clean thing left in this country. And, soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen are the only ones who can keep it that way, by doing nothing more than fulfilling their oathes, written and spoken, and being a part of the solution and not adding to the problems in this nation.

 (Jim Purcell is a former weekly newspaper publisher in New Jersey. He previously served in the U.S. Army and received his graduate degree from the New York Theological Seminary, in New York. He is retired and currently resides in Western North Carolina with his wife.)

OK...here it is...the VULCAN BB MINI GUN..only in America

U.S. Army Culinary Training: MOS 92G (Culinary Specialist)

U.S. Coast Guard Boot Camp

USAF Recruit Training, Lackland AFB, Texas

Boot Camp: Making a Sailor

Duty, Honor, Country | Douglas MacArthur | May 12, 1962 | West Point

Civil War General Killed His Superior Officer

By JIM PURCELL

Anyone who has ever served in uniform, during any era or age, can remember that one superior that they would have loved to have seen knocked off. But, they did not do it for a lot of reasons, chief among them it is wrong and that's it. However, Union Brevet Major General Jeffferson Columbus Davis didn't seem to get that memo in 1862, when he murdered General William "Bull" Nelson after an altercation at a hotel in Louisville, Kentucky. 

Major General Jefferson C. Davis

   At the outset of the Civil War, Jefferson C. Davis (March 2, 1828 - November 30, 1879) was already a seasoned soldier who had distinguished himself during the War in Mexico (1846-1848). He had signed up as a private and, through distinguished service, he received the rank of sergeant. Before the end of the Mexican Campaign, he had obtained a battlefield commission to the rank of second lieutenant.

The Civil War
   When the Civil War (1861-1865) broke out, Davis was a first lieutenant in the garrison at Fort Sumter. He was actually present for the Confederate bombing of the installation. The following month, he was promoted to the rank of captain. At Sumter, Davis' duties were largely administrative and logistical. However, with the war just beginning, Davis was given command of the 22nd Indiana Regiment, and promoted to the rank of full colonel.

   By August, Davis replaced then-Brigadier General Ulysses S. Grant as commander of Union forces in northwest Missouri. He took over the 3rd Division in the Army of the Southwest and attacked Confederate forces in southern Missouri and drove them back into Arkansas after his victory at Pea Ridge, and was rewarded with being promoted to brevet brigadier general for his efforts.

   Following his success with the 3rd Division, he was given command of the 4th Division and oversaw the month-long siege of Corinth, Mississippi, in May 1862.

Gen. Nelson's murder made headlines

Taking Leave 
   By the end of August, 1862, Davis was exhausted and had become ill from lack of sleep, stress and a poor diet. Accordingly, the battle-hardened general was given two weeks leave from the Army of the Mississippi.

   Davis intended to return to his native Indiana for some rest and relaxation. However, he could never have expected the Confederate Army would make a new push, with Major General Edmund Smith and General Braxton Bragg, each commanding an army, sweeping Union forces out of Kentucky by attacking into both Kentucky and Tennessee.

Where the Trouble Began
   In order to respond to the new threats offered by Smith and Bragg, Union Brigadier General Don Carolos Buell was forced to split his force. Buell took half of his Army of the Ohio into Tennessee, where he would attack Chattanooga. Meanwhile, thee hundred miles of rail lines lay between Chattanooga and Louisville, Kentucky. And, Confederate forces were busy tearing up those tracks at a fast pace. Accordingly, Buell sent a large slice of his command, under the command of General William "Bull" Nelson (September 27, 1824 - September 29, 1862) to stop the rebel advances and preserve the rail line.

   After a string of Confederate victories, not the least of which being the rebel win at Richmond, Virginia on August 29-30, Davis was aware of the precarious situation the Union Army was in. So, he traveled from his home to Cincinnati, Ohio, where he reported to Major General Horatio Wright. In turn, Wright dispatched Davis to Louisville, where his mission was to arm the town's citizenry and prepare its defense. In addition, he was ordered to report to Nelson.

Gen. Wm. Nelson

   Two days after he had reported to Nelson, Davis was summoned to the Galt House by Nelson. The burly Nelson was dissatisfied with the contribution Davis made to preparing Lousiville's defenses. Meanwhile, Davis was incensed that Nelson was not treating him as his rank demanded. So, Nelson relieved Davis of his command and sent the veteran commander back to Cincinnati, where he reported to Wright again.

The Day of the Killing
   Two days after the altercation between Nelson and Davis, Davis returned to Louisville, where he demanded an apology from Nelson. To this demand Nelson said, "Go away you damned puppy, I don't want anything to do with you." Then, Davis reached for a piece of paper, crumpled it up and threw it at Nelson. In return, the much-larger Nelson stepped forward and struck Davis with the back of his hand.

   Angry and indignant about the disrespect Nelson had shown him, Davis left the hotel and borrowed a pistol from a friend. He then returned and shot Nelson in the chest, striking his heart. Nelson struggled for some moments, but ultimately fell dead. Davis shot Nelson at 8 a.m. and by 8:30 a.m. he was dead.

A Word About Nelson
   Nelson was not, by training, a soldier. In fact, up until the Civil War, Nelson had served as a career naval officer. Nelson was enrolled at Norwich University, in Vermont, at the age of 13. Two years after that, he was made a midshipman and was assigned aboard the USS Delaware. For the next five years, Nelson served as a junior officer at sea.

MG Horatio Wright saved Gen. Davis

   In 1845, Nelson went on to attend the first-ever class at the United States Naval Academy, in Annapolis, Maryland. He graduated from Annapolis in 1846, and earned the rank of passed midshipman. At the time the Civil War broke out, Nelson was an ordnance officer, holding the rank of lieutenant commander at the Washington Navy Yard.

   Two days after the onset of the war, though, Nelson presented himself to President Abraham Lincoln, with a proposal to arm Kentucky Unionists. And, that is how a U.S. Navy officer became a general in the Union Army.

Davis Faces the Music
   After Davis shot Nelson to death, he did not run or hide, protest or shift responsibility. He was taken into custoday and placed under arrest at an upstairs room of the Galt House. He was not bound or a guard used to keep him in custody.

   Upon questioning, Davis admitted that he wanted to publicly confront Nelson for the indignity of their prior conversation. However, he did not expect the slap that he received from his superior. Consequently, Davis did not attempt to use any legal afeguards, as was his right as a general officer.

   Buell wanted Davis to be executed on the spot. But, it was Wright who came to the assistance of Davis. Indeed, Davis was notified he was no longer under arrest on Oct. 13, 1862. As it turned out, the Union was in dire need of competent combat commanders, of which Davis was one.

   During those days in the Army, a soldier had 45 days to be charged following an alleged criminal incident. In short, 45 days came and went and there was no warrant for the arrest of Davis

Conclusions
   Davis went on to a very successful military career during and after the Civil War. As one of Lieutenant General William T. Sherman's favorite division commanders, he played a pivotal role in later campaigns, especially the Battle of Atlanta. After the war, Davis rose to become commander of the Department of Alaska and later the Department of Vancouver, respectively.

MG Don Carlos Buell wanted Davis executed

   However, Nelson never had justice done for his murder. The Union was on the brink of destruction during 1862 and every experienced fighting general, particularly the ones who were successul against the Confederate onslaught, were too valuable of a commodity to execute or imprison. While this is not an excuse for the actions of Davis, it is a reason to keep him in the war.

   Despite his long service in the U.S. Navy, Nelson was a relative outsider in the Army. Between West Point graduates and veterans of the Mexican-American War, the Army's officer corps was a tight-knit group. Though Davis was not a West Pointer, he had certainly 'earned his spurs' in combat and had managed an incredible career in uniform, impressing a host of superior officers along the way. It would, no doubt, have been a different matter entirely if Davis had shot Grant, Sherman or one of the other luminaries in uniform. He had not, though. He killed a naval leader-turned Army officer.

   There are several ways to see the Army's decision not to prosecute  Davis. First, it was an absolute travesty of justice for Nelson and his family. On the other hand, Davis played a major role in defeating Confederate forces. I am not going to second-guess a decision made more than 150 years ago. It does go to show that what is 'justice' can sometimes depend on the circumstances.

   Davis had a talent for winning against an enemy that was powerful, determined and crafty, which is something many Union generals struggled with during the first years of the war. With those abiities being needed in that moment in history, a judgement call was made...for the right or wrong of it.

(Jim Purcell is a retired print journalist. He resides in Western North Carolina with his wife, Lita.)

 

A Civil War General and His Strategic Tantrum

The Battle of Atlanta was a strategic victory for the Union during the Civil War

By JIM PURCELL

"There is nothing so close to God in Heaven as a general on the battlefield." 

-- Major General Joshua L. Chamberlain, United States Army (1863)

How much ego is too much ego, even by a general on a battlefield? I suppose that any soldier, of any rank, would draw the line at the point where ego costs lives. Those same solders might offer, afterward, that the purpose of soldiers and armies is to save lives by ending armed conflicts and restoring peace where it is vitally needed. 

Major General John Palmer

   Then there is the case of the commander of the XIV U.S. Corps during the Civil War, at the critical juncture of the close of the Battle of Atlanta. How petty can senior officers be, even with an enemy directly in front of them?

The Case of MG J. Palmer and His Date of Rank

   On August 6, 1864, Union Major General John M. Palmer (1817-1900) resigned as commander of the XIV Corps during the Battle of Atlanta, then being led overall by MG William T. Sherman. Why did he do it? Because Sherman had placed Palmer's corps under the operational control of Major General John M. Schofield for one maneuver in the closing battles within the campaign.

   According to Sherman, during August, 1864, when the capture of Atlanta seemed likely for Union forces, Schofield's corps was on the extreme right of the forward edge of the battle area. Schofield's forces were operating neat East Point, Georgia. Major General George H. Thomas and elements of his Army of the Cumberland held the center of the FEBA, with Major General Oliver O. Howard's XI Corps on the right.

J. Palmer after the war

   Sherman went on to say that, after reports from his cavalry, he came to believe that only a substantial element, like Schofield's corps, reinforced by more units, could successfully take and hold the railroad just below Atlanta. Schofield had his own corps, the XXIII, comprised of 11,075 infantry soldiers and 885 artillery soldiers. Schofield was also reinforced with 1,700 cavalry soldiers, and Sherman placed Palmer's XIV Corps under Schofield's operational control. Palmer's corps, at that time, numbered about 17,300 soldiers.

   On the eve of this massive maneuver by Sherman, though, a definite wrinkle happened when Palmer, a politician by trade before and after the war, insisted that he outranked Schofield, a career soldier and West Point graduate, by date of rank. In Army lingo that means, because Palmer was given his two stars before Schofield, he technically outranked him. While this is certainly a conversation to have in a garrison environment, having this debate in the middle of a major battle isn't appreciated by anyone, except the enemy (in this case, Atlanta defender Major General John B. Hood).

LTG William T. Sherman

   Consequently, Palmer denied that Schofield had any right to command him, and his troops, during this maneuver. As soon as Palmer's dissent was reported to Sherman, the overall commander of the battle decided that Schofield, in fact, out-ranked Palmer. On August 4th, in a letter to Palmer, Sherman wrote:

   "From the statements made by yourself and Gen. Schofield today, my decision is that he outranks you as a major general, being of the same date as present commission, by reason of his previous superior rank as brigadier general. The movements of tomorrow are so important that the orders of the superior on that flank must be regarded as military orders, and not in the nature of cooperation. I did hope there would be no necessity for my making that decision; but it is better for all parties interested that no question of rank should occur in actual battle. The Sandtown Road, and the railroad if possible, must be gained tomorrow, if it costs half your command. I regard the loss of time this afternoon as equal to the loss of 2,000 men."

   After this tantrum by Palmer was about fizzled out, Palmer showed up at Sherman's location and offered his resignation. Sherman said that he advised Palmer to give up his 'argument' with Schofield and to return to command his troops. Sherman noted that, if it came out later, Palmer's motives might be misconstrued and impact his civil career after the war. Palmer was determined, though. Finally, Sherman told Palmer that if he wished to resign he would need to do so through Schofield. So, Palmer got atop his horse again and rode to Schofield's headquarters, where he offered his resignation.

MG John Schofield

   On Aug. 6th, Schofield forwarded Palmer's resignation to Sherman, and suggested it be accepted. It was and Palmer was immediately replaced by Brig. Gen. Richard Johnson, a senior division commander within the XIV Corps. Meanwhile, in the wake of his resignation, Palmer was sent back to his home state of Illinois to await orders from the Army.

After His Resignation

   John M. Palmer was nothing if not a politician. After taking a break in Ilinois for some months, Palmer was next assigned as the military governor of the state of Kentucky. Once there, he reasserted Federal control of the region and helped to eliminate Confederate geurillas that still operated beyond the peace of April 9, 1865.

   In 1866, Palmer resigned from the Army entirely and, two years later, won the governship of Illinois. Later, Palmer would serve in the U.S. Senate and made a failed run for president of the United States in 1896.

   John M. Palmer finally died of a heart attack on September 25, 1900 in Springfield, Illinois.

The Historical Take-Away
   There was no chance that the regular officers, non-commissioned officers and enlisted men of the XIV Cops knew that their commanding officer was delaying a military action against the forces of the Confederate Army located outside Atlanta, or that he was having a strategic hissy fit over his time in grade over that of a career soldier. They knew what was right in front of them, because if they had known what was going on it would have impacted the ability of the corps to fight. Morale is a key element to any unit, in any army, anywhere.

The standard for the XIV Corps

   Leaders need to demonstrate solidarity. Actually, solidarity needs to happen, ideally, from the lowest private to the commander of an army, any army of any era or time or conflict. It is taken for granted that, as terrible as it is, people will die during war, combatants and, even more sadly, non-combatants. It is such a serious business that the trivial cannot, nor should not, ever take center stage within an army in the field.

   If MG Palmer had been an NCO on a U.S. Navy ship at war, and had pulled what he did, he would no doubt be charged with mutiny and nothing good would happen from there. But, because he was a general, and basically a politician even while he was in uniform, he got a pass and went on to great things, even touting his Civil War combat record.

   There is an old saying which states: 'Stuff rolls downs hill.' Apparently, though, given a privileged situation in life, that is not always the case -- even when soldiers' lives hang in the balance.


Sources Used:

"Memoirs of Gen. William T. Sherman, Volume 2," by Wm. T. Sherman and W. Fletcher Johnson, published by D. Appleton & Co., New York, NY (1891), ppgs 96-101

(Jim Purcell is a historian and retired print journalist. During his time in the U.S. military, among other posts, he was assigned as the NCOIC of the S-2, 4th Battalion, 41st Infantry Regiment, 2nd Armored Division (Forward). He currently resides in Western North Carolina with his wife, Lita.)

Everything Changes by Staind

This is a friend of mine, Richie Toth. He is a U.S. Army veteran, who is 100 percent VA disabled as well as an Iraq War veteran. He is a good guy, who has gone through a lot and I hope people tune into his channel on YouTube. He's very talented as well.

Army Boot Camp:'This is How It Is' 1963 US Army

Patriotism in Times of Political Unrest in America

EDITORIAL

By JIM PURCELL

There is no need to tell anyone that politics is dividing the United States right now. Republicans, Conservatives, Independents, Democrats, Progressives and dozens of other, different factions are practically yelling at the top of their lungs for attention,  for action of some kind.

It's a time to build bridges and not blow them up

   The Great Experiment of the United States began in 1776, the creation of some of the brightest minds in history. There was bitter feuding between what amounts to the Jefferson faction and the Hamilton faction. Thomas Jefferson envisioned the broadest application of democracy (for white men only), while it can be said that Hamilton favored a more stratified social and economic system, which shut out the interests of more white men. Roughly speaking, Adams lined up with the Hamilton faction, while men like James Madison followed Jefferson. We are all fortunate that George Washington, weary of long service, stayed on to usher in the fledgling republic for two terms as its president. 

   I do not believe that it was Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams, Madison or any of the other 'Founding Brothers' who were the most important during this time: it was Washington. Amid the passionate outbursts of all camps, he remained the calm eye in the storm. Washington chose the best ideas of both sides to incorporate into the United States. So, America did not become the agrarian collective that Jefferson might find ideal, nor did it become a de facto monarchy, which Hamilton might have felt comfortable with. 

   In 1783, Washington had to put an end to the Newburgh Conspiracy where, in Newburgh, New York, Hamilton and several hundred of his best friends were forwarding the proposition that the United States should be a monarchy, reigned over by Washington. The old general laid down the law to his veterans and that was the end of it. There would be no king.

Not what freedom looks like

   George Washington was not a Whig, a Democratic Republican, or any other 'party loyalist.' He was a loyalist to the United States and its bedrock principles, many of which he helped codify ith the new Congress. Washington was the check and safeguard against fanatacism and he served long enough to ensure that limitations were placed on any one individual, or any one group, to re-write the history of the United States themselves.

   There is a revolution in the United States with every electoral season. On social media, I am starting to hear about groups of people "...going out in to the streets armed..." to prove something or other. The loose talk is about a descent into madness. I do not trust any politician, group or collective of people to alter the future that has been given us by the Founders. And, anyone who does has the wrong idea about what America is. 

   The voting place has been called into question, and it should be: Voting has been suppressed in some places, fabricated in others, edited in still more. Yet, it is the vote that secures a peaceful future for the nation. If a vote is not sacred, then all of us are in very deep trouble. 

   If I were a politician or party who attained power through fraudulent or biased means, power is not a gift. Unwelcome leadership in the national government, or the governments organized under those governments will lead to chaos. One's every decision would be called into play and, not content to be lead in such a way, investigation after investigation would pile one upon the other. 

Definitely not what freedom looks like

   Love the country. Love what it stands for. America isn't about cutting people out, it is about welcoming groups of people into the mosaic that is America. Yes, we need the Rule of Law. We need strong national security. we also need to ensure that every citizen is enfranchised as an American, regardless of their sex, religion, national origin, creed or color. This is the American Way, and the only way for this nation.

   At this point, I think the smartest people in this nation are the ones that are not yelling and screaming, but trying to re-establish some consensus among a great number of people who currently believe they are at etreme odds with their fellow countrymen. The nature of American Government requires the consensus of the greatest number of people, and it is in that way our civilization goes on. 

The Evolution of Women in the U.S. Army

EDITORIAL
By JIM PURCELL

I was a soldier in the 1980s, considered by many soldiers these days as the 'Paleolithic Era' of the Army. But, it was an incredibly interesting time for women and their varied roles in the Army and that era was the forerunner of the force today.

Women have overcome many obstacles in the Army

   To begin with, women are already in combat every day around the world today, right now. It is no longer a question of if women should go into combat, they are and they are as capable as men in protecting this country and thumping bad guys and gals who are enemies of our republic. Women have graduated from Ranger School, they are now accepted in the Infantry Branch. They are flying combat missions and they are leading throughout the combat arms and combat support. It's their time. It arrived. They arrived.

   When I attended the U.S. Army Airborne School, in 1985, there was a female "Black Hat," or airborne instructor. My understanding was that she was the first female airborne instructor. At the school, I found out that the first female paratrooper graduated from Ft. Benning, Georgia in 1971. But, there were haters.

Women have proved themselves in combat

   I reported to Company A, 319th Military Intelligence Battalion, 525th MI Brigade (ABN) in September, 1986. Women were in leadership positions throughout the battalion, and the brigade for that matter. On the surface, it looked exactly like it was supposed to. Everything was integrated and the unit operated at a high level. At my activity, Counter-Intelligence Analysis, XVIII Airborne Corps (staffed by soldiers from my company), the non-commissioned officer in-charge was a woman as well and roughly half of the office was comprised of women.

   There was a level deeper than salutes and formations, field problems and daily work, though. It was the level where men are congregated together, in whatever ranks, when no women were present. And, it was there that the topics turned to female soldiers' sexuality, their looks, their competence and bodies. Even though the Department of the Army had gone further than it ever had to that point in female integration, under then-Secretary John O. Marsh Jr., many men, in and out of uniform, saw the Army as a man's job and not a woman's. Women had to work twice as hard to get half the credit of a male counterpart.

   Male and female soldiers dated in the unit, throughout the brigade, all over the post actually. As natural as that was, it sometimes relegated female soldiers, in the minds of colleagues, as 'the girlfriend' and not as 'the analyst' or whatever technical specialty she may have had.

   Some female soldiers railed against this perception by presenting themselves in the diametrically opposite way. I remember one female PFC who made it clear to every male soldier that "I'm not a lady, I'm a soldier and you better remember it!" She had a chip a mile wide on her shoulder, and it is understandable about why it was there.

As the force evolves, so does the role of women

   In my experience back then, male homosexual soldiers were heavily closeted. Discovery for them was unthinkable in those days. A soldier had been killed a few years later, at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, after soldiers from his infantry platoon found out about his sexual orientation. And, fears for them ran just that deep. For whatever reason, lesbian soldiers were more 'out' with their orientation at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. I say 'the fort' as opposed to just 'my unit' because one female soldier I knew made it clear she was with another female soldier in the 82nd, and even brought her to parties.

   There was some drama later on when that soldier's girlfriend left her and became the girlfriend of yet another 82nd Airborne Division soldier from within the unit. The three were at a social occasion once and a fight broke out between the girl's spurned lover and the new girlfriend. Overall, the impression was that the sexual orientation of these women were their own business, unlike the recriminations male soldiers would surely have experienced if they were outed. To my knowledge, no one ever called these ladies onto the carpet. And, with all the stuf they had to put up with, then that was at least one good thing.

   Inevitably, heterosexual girlfriends who were soldiers left boyfriends who were soldiers, usually for other soldiers, and there were fireworks: fights, big scenes, even some stalking here and there. It was part of the cycle of life in an integrated unit. All the time, the women were fighting quietly to be regarded the same as men. Not all female soldiers became involved with other soldiers romantically. Actually, it was a minority of female soldiers I saw.

   Dating is natural between healthy young people, in any walk of life. Some women were 'downgraded' for having a social life, while men were not. Fair? Not hardly. Perhaps that was a barrier that many professional soldiers did not cross because, back then, it would have led to wrong impressions about their competence.

   The 'go to' regulation that was regularly used by the female soldier haters was the disparity of minimum requirements used per the Army Physical Readiness Test. The event consisted of push-ups, sit-ups and a run. Due to their relative upper body strength, females had to perform slightly lower standards. And, that was what haters hung their hats on. It seems ridiculous looking back on it. In fact, it seemed ridiculous then.

   Back then, I did not know any civilian male husbands of female soldiers, though I am confident the lower ranks would have had harsh characterizations for such dependants. For that matter, I feel safe in saying higher ranks would have been negative about this also, though would surely have been publicly silent about such things. The scales were absolutely tipped to male soldiers.

   I never witnessed a female soldier being directly sexually harassed, but I'd heard such things second-hand. Asking female soldiers about abuse directly, as I had on occasion, would usually elicit automatic silence and a quick rebuff. Nevertheless, it happened. And, judging by the talk, it happened quite a lot.

The Army of the '80s had a way to go with total female integration

   In retrospect, what these ladies put up with was unimaginable for me, as a male soldier. Yet, they perservered. They did not stop. Though regulations and oversight got better, and the culture became more truly diverse, females were more accepted as professionals over time. It was not a pretty story about what women had to put up with, but it is one that hallmarks the courage of the female soldier in her ability to overcome adversities from outside the force -- and from within.

   Female military professionals today are doing an amazing job protecting this country, and thank God they have finally been recognized as the assets that they are. However, soldiers of both sexes owe a large debt of gratitude to the service women who came before.                                                                   
(Jim Purcell served in the United States Army in a number of units during the 1980s. After being discharged from the Army as a Sergeant, he went on to become a print newspaper professional. He is currently retired in Western North Carolina with his wife, Lita.)                                                                                                                                       

All U.S. Military Enlisted Ranks Explained

Thanks For Putting The Site Over 150,000 Views

Dear Readers,

 The site going over 150,000 views means a lot to me personally. I want to thank the readers who have come here and found an interest in the materials being presented. Whether it is articles or editorials  I research and write or third-party videos I post, I try very hard to ensure to present quality information on whatever the subject might be. The amount of visitation tells me that I've been successful in this endeavor and I am so thankful to the site's readers, many of whom return regularly. 

   As a reminder, this site earns no money whatsoever, does not collect information in any fashion and does not present any advertising. 'The Purcell Chronicles' is my hobby and I do it because I love the work. For many years I was a print journalist, so this site allows me to pursue subjects that I find interesting and present them to the public. 

   It is my hope that the site continues to garner interest from the public. I assure the readers that I will continue to work as hard as I can to provide interesting, well-researched content. Again, thanks for stopping by and have a wonderful day.

Jim Purcell
Publisher

The Army Was Well-Served By Specialist Ranks

EDITORIAL
By JIM PURCELL

All that is left of specialist grades:
Specialist, formerly Spec. 4

The Army's lack of true specialty ranks goes back to the mid-1980s. It was then that the last of the soldiers who held the rank of specialist fifth class were converted to the rank of sergeant. At the time, I was a going through the Intelligence Analyst Course (Class 96B10-16) at the U.S. Army Intelligence Center and Schools, in Fort Huachuca, Arizona. Two of the students in the class were converted from SP5 to SGT (E-5).

   In my opinion, it was a mistake to wipe out an entire class of ranks, which gave good service to the Army. Does every enlisted military occupational specialty need leadership associated with its duty description? Well, certainly the combat arms and close combat support jobs do. However, where it involves logistical, intelligence, driving, aviation, personnel, food service, finance, administrative and medical military occupations, as an example, I think specialist ranks would serve the Army well again.

SPECIALISTS KEEP 

THE TRAINS ON TIME

   The Army is not the Marines, where "every Marine is an infantryman, regardless of their job." The Army has a larger mission strategically. Its specialties are necessary would be better served by additional technical schools throughout soldier careers, as opposed to traditional leadership academies.

   Should a finance sergeant first class (E-7) have tactical oversight of an infantry corporal (E-4)? I don't believe so. Though, I have spoken to fellow veterans who served in this era, in the recent war in Afghanistan, and I've been told that  soldiers are sent on direct combat missions immaterial of their branch or training...if true a bad practice. Specialists could, as they had been from 1902-1986 (or so) the soldiers who keep the trains running, the force paid, and the immense administration of the Army running while combat units and combat soldiers perform the vital function of fighting America's enemies.

A Spec. 5 during the 1960s

   Whatever the Army does should be done well. Specializing soldiers again (specialist grades E4-E9) would focus many vital functions without superfluous training or assignments. A drill sergeant should come from the combat arms, ideally. Any NCO position involving tactical prowess should have candidates come from the combat arms. Meanwhile, a valued intelligence professional should be able to gain advancement even if they are not fluent in infantry leadership methodology. While every soldier should know how to shoot, move and communicate...not every soldier needs to learn how to run a fire team or an infantry platoon.

THE ORIGIN OF SPECIALISTS

   Specialist ranks have their origin in the U.S. Army dating back to 1902, with the creation of the rank of technical sergeant.

A Spec. 7 during the Vietnam Era

   There was an overhaul of the rank structure in 1920 and the rank of "private/specialist" was created. Soldiers who qualified for this rank attended six classes and were paid the same as privates first class. However, this rank represented competence in certain tasks and did not convey any leadership abilities with it.

   On July 1, 1955, four grades of specialist were introduced in the Army, specialist third class (E-4), specialist second class (E-5), specialist first class (E-6) and master specialist (E-7). In 1958, the Army added two additional specialist ranks, recognizing six specialist ratings to provide career paths for those serving in these positions.

   Also during 1958, the specialist fourth class rating was assigned to those in pay grade E-4, which became the beginning step in a rank structure that concluded with the pay grade specialist 9, which was the pay equivalent of (E-9), or command sergeant major.

   Only the lowest specialist grade survives today after the more senior specialist grades were gradually phased out, concluding during the mid-1980s. During the late 1980s, specialists fourth class were converted to just "specialists," and remains so today. The force-wide prevalence of this pay grade led to the humorous characterization of the "E-4 specialist mafia."

CONCLUSION

   Was abolishing an entire class of specialist ratings a good idea? Feelings are mixed. Personally, I believe that specialized career fields would be well-served by a specialist rank structure. Good, competent specialists of certain jobs in the Army should be able to excel within the confines of their military occupational specialty from E-4 through E-9, without the expectation of leadership responsibilities.

   Everyone in the Army should know how to protect themselves and possess basic soldier skills. But, not everyone was born to lead in squads, platoons, companies or battalions.

(Jim Purcell is a former U.S. Army sergeant, who left the service and became a journalist for many years. He graduated with a Master's Degree from N.Y. Theological Seminary and retired to Western North Carolina with his wife, Lita.) 

Top 10 Countries that are Impossible to Conquer

10 Worst Air Forces in the World

SGM of the Army Dan Dailey Speaks on the Pink & Green Uniform

A Brief History of 'Pinks and Greens' in the U.S. Army

The term 'pinks and greens' formerly involved the U.S. Army's officer winter uniforms during the period of the 1920s through 1950s. 

After the pinks and greens were retired, entirely by 1959, the U.S. Army adopted the first of its many variations of the green dress uniform.

   On November 11, 2018, the U.S. Army announced it would be returning to a style of the pinks and greens for both officer and enlisted uniforms, effective in 2020. The entire Army, and its reserve components would be fully transitioned to the new dress uniform by 2028.

   It is intended that the new pinks and green uniform will fill the gap between the Army's formal blue dress uniform and the Army Combat Uniforms currently in place today.

-- Jim Purcell

President Ronald Reagan: Peace Through Strength

As the "Great Communicator," President Ronald Wilson Reagan had the unique ability to bring together tens of millions of Americans, people of every background and experience. His presidential tenure marked a distinctive era in American history, a time of decision and prosperity.

Longest Enlisted Soldier Finally Retires

CSM Jeffrey Mellinger was the longest serving soldier who ever served, who was originally drafted. He was drafted in 1971, but made the U.S. Army his career until he finally retired in 2011. His long service was exemplary and is something that should be remembered.

The First-Ever SGM of the Army in 1966

US Army 2nd Armored Division | Hell on Wheels | 1942-1945 | Documentary

History of the 7th Infantry Division

Though I never served with the 7th Infantry Division (Light) in combat, it was certainly a place I felt at home, in the 1st Battalion, 32nd Infantry Regiment (Bearcats!).

First female Army Rangers discuss what Ranger School was like

SGM of the Army Daniel A. Dailey visits Fort Benning

Duty, Honor, Country: Douglas MacArthur at West Point

WWII IN HD Eisenhower Speech

Gen. of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower: The buck stopped there.

VA Announces Electronic Health Record Changes

This change in DoD and VA record management is so significant for veterans who need access to their information.

Overcoming an opioid addiction with VA support

Personally, I have used the VA system for addiction treatment, in East Orange, New Jersey, and found it to be a very positive, effective program. I think this is something that veterans in need should think about.

For information about special health issues, call 1-800-749-8387 and for information about VA benefits, call 1-800-827-1000.

Overview of VA's Homeless Program

Veterans, Addiction, Mental Health Consumers and Vocational Rehabilitation, Part I

Helping veterans with challenges 
find work again is necessary

By JIM PURCELL

It's a big equation for a veteran, being a mental health consumer, addicted and needing vocational rehabilitation. 

   As a peer support specialist, I worked with this population for abot two years. It was an honor, a privilege and the hardest job I ever had. As I speak about this, I am doing so using my experiences in the field as a guide.

Sobriety and Compliance

   To begin with, if anyone who suffers from addiction is actively using mind and/or mood altering subtances then they are not a good candidate for voc rehab. Anyone who is a mental health consumer and is not fully compliant with their medication is also not a good candidate for voc rehab. A veteran must be in recovery, about a year, and medically compliant (a year would be a good amount of time), before they can really get down to the work of vocational rehabilitation. In my experience, prematurely working on vocational rehabilitation leads to a bad outcome for the client.

   Veterans have access to many programs that might assist them with vocational rehabilitation. However, without a willing, medically stable client and with addiction being in remission, the work of vocational rehab is so futile, so often that it makes little sense to try.

   Finding a job is stressful. Preparing for job interviews is stressful. Beginning a new job is stressful. Without a sound program of recovery then these stressors may well lead to a client becoming , compromised in one of these areas. Of course, anyone can fall prey to mental health disorders and addiction at any time. Adding stress to very early recovery, though, is a recipe for disaster.

Dealing with Court, Drivers Licenses, 
Finances and Credit, Etc.

   The work of helping a veteran return to the workforce actually begin with meeting them where they are. Someone cannot get and/or keep a job when they do not have adequate housing; are not able to have access to food or medical attention; have a drivers license or extremely reliable transportation; have the adequate training or experience in a given field; and/or have open warrants by the police.

   Helping a veteran find his way to work restoration is not something that any one individual can do. That effort begins with the client. A man or woman must be sober, medically comliant and interested in moving forward with work, or with school. But, it can be a long road until the task at hand becomes diagnostic testing, interview preparation and creating a resume.

   Many of my clients had pending charges or were on probation or parole. Well, if someone has not violated parole or probation then that is great. If someone has pending charges, outstanding warrants, has violated parole or probation and is pending court on any of these then they need a lawyer. There are organizations that help veterans with legal help. However, pro bono lawyers volunteer for such on an isolated basis and may not be available in every area.

   Having a driver's license or reliable transportation is a must for any job seeking client. If a client lives in the suburbs or in a rural area, a driver's license is absolutely necessary. If a client lives in an urban area then buses or subways are an effect transportation tool.

Using resources available to vets from the VA can really help

   It is straightforward, if a client has a suspended license then it needs to be reinstated. This means that fines have to be paid up, surcharges have to get paid and, perhaps, a client will have to take the driving test and/or a road test. This is precisely why a client must be sober and dedicated. Putting an addict behind the wheel again isn't a good idea for anyone.

   There is also the issue of credit. Many companies today check credit reports before they give an applicant a job. Consequently, if someone is well behind in their bills then they need to deal with that. If the situation requires assistance then referring a client to a financial counselor may be a good idea. If it is worse than that then maybe referring a client to a bankruptcy attorney is the right thing to do. No one wants to go bankrupt, but sometimes it is necessary. Getting a client in front of an attorney that specializes in bankruptcy can be important. Finding an attorney who will do it pro bono is easier to find if a client is a veteran, but that is no guarantee there is one in someone's local area.

   When a client suffers from addiction, when they are non-compliant with their meds and they are mental health consumers, then bad things can happen. The wreckage of past deeds can haunt a client, and spoil their plans for the future -- unless they are dealt with in a forthright manner by a client. This is also why a year's 'cooling off' period is important. A year of sobriety, of being medically compliant makes a statement about a client wanting to help themselves.

Next week: Part II - Housing and Supportive Employment

Upgrading a Discharge Takes Work and Commitment

Veterans who want to upgrade their discharges face an uphill fight

By JIM PURCELL

I am not an expert in veterans benefits. However, I have used a lot of Veterans Administration benefits and had good and bad experiences along the way. So, I want to share a few thoughts with my fellow vets throughout the course of several editorials. 

   The fable about how easy it is to change the character of a discharge: One barrier to veterans not receiving VA benefits is them receiving an Other Than Honorable Discharge or a Dishonorable Discharge. When I was a peer specialist working at Lyons VA, in New Jersey, as a contractor, I had some exposure with this.

   If anyone ever tells you or someone you love that it is easy to change the character of a discharge, they have no idea what they are talking about. Most civilian lawyers have no idea how to go about this procedure or how to begin. Rather than give anyone enough information to be dangerous to themselves, I would say this: You need expert help in changing the character of a discharge. The first thing that anyone helping someone is going to need will be records of all of the provost marshal and court proceedings that were a part of Uniform Code of Military Justice proceedings with the veteran concerned. This is a first step for anyone who is wishing to undertake this process.

   In my experience, getting records from the Naional Guard or Reserves can be more challenging than obtaining records for former Active Duty members. The only person whom I have ever met to complete a request for change of character discharge for a veteran was not a lawyer. He was a very dedicated vocational rehabilitation specialist for the VA.

   As a peer, I referred several "pro bono" lawyers to my clients. All of these attorneys or firms stated they knew how to go about changing the character of a discharge. And, after my clients were referred to them they never received a call back, not one, even after more than a year.

   What does this tell me? Well, if anyone is going to attempt changing the character of their discharge, I suggest they find a lawyer who has done it before for someone else. I would not want to be the first client someone ever tried to changea discharge for.

   Trying to find an attorney in your neighborhood to do this is very, very doubtful so be prepared to travel for the right lawyer. Second, with my experience in "pro bono" in mind, I suggest the experienced lawyer in this someone finds will not be pro bono and that is OK.

   Follow through, follow through, follow through. I have helped several former soldiers and one ex-Marine reservist try to obtain hearings for their change of discharges All of them, at some point along the way, simply stopped calling me and did nothing by way of providing documentation regarding their case. While I am no expert, the process for appealing a discharge is laid out pretty well. If someone is detail-oriented with good follow-through they might even consider doing their own paperwork unassisted. For more information, click HERE and HERE. However, I have not met the candidate for discharge upgrade yet that has been on his or her game about getting this done. Yes, I have heard every kind of story about why someone deserves an upgrade of discharge. But, when I agreed to do what I could to help them, then the disappearing act.

VA benefits are valuable for U.S. veterans

   Bottom Line: At some point, a veteran will need to demonstrate, in detail, how a military authority 'got it wrong' with their decision about their discharge, or introduce some new evidence that was not there for the original hearing.

   Review boards are gong to need a lot more than a 'story.' They are going to need facts.

   From what I have seen, in my experience, not many veterans or veteran service organizations are too concerned about these veterans. Veterans who have received honorable discharges have worked for years, often under very trying circumstances, to receive veterans benefits from the VA. When someone is thrown out of the service, when they have been tried for crimes in the military, for right or wrong many people believe they made their own problems.

   'Why should I be concerned if someone could not live up to their duty and did the wrong thing?' It's a valid question. Proving that the military did the wrong thing is an uphill fight...know that. Yes, mistakes are sometimes made, but cases where the military 'got it wrong' are rare. So, they are treated as rarities.

   The chances are overwhelmingly good that a veteran will keep the discharge they left the service with unless they have an incredibly compelling case.

(Jim Purcell is a U.S. Army veteran and former peer support specialist who worked with vocationally challenged, chronically addicted veterans as a contractor within the VA. He is now retired and lives in Western North Carolina with his wife, Lita.)
 

New VA Appeals Process Changes

National Veterans Service - Understanding VA Claims

Vets Keeping a Roof Over Their Head: HUD-VASH

For additional information, please click on this link: HUD VASH for Vets.

What is a Non-Service Connected Pension?