Talk:National Defense Service Medal

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of orders, decorations, and medals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Orders, decorations, and medalsWikipedia:WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medalsTemplate:WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medalsOrders, decorations, and medals articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Military history: North America / United States C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Reservists

AR 600--8-22 clearly states that select reservists in good standing are eligible for the award. I'm reverting back to the previous version. MWShort (talk) 11:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My edits actually changed it to reflect exactly what you just said. A revert is not neccesary. -OberRanks (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; I realised that after I reread them; too crossed-eyed, not enough coffee yet. MWShort (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reserve soldiers simply performing their weekend assemblies and their two week commitment are not eligible for the NDSM. They need to be called to active duty under Title 10 orders. AR 600-8-22 (ch 2-10, para C) is a bit confusing on this, but that's the way it is.Cahilj (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Cahilj, but you are dead wrong. Executive Order 13293 clearly states a period of active duty OR "service in good standing in the Selected Reserve of the Armed Forces" for the period specified is the only requirement. For SELRES to be in good standing you simply have to do your one weekend a month, and two weeks a year. No active service required! I would ask that this article be changed to reflect that.Navgovie (talk) 05:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well since no one was taking the lead on this I went ahead and made the change. Feel free to edit if it doesn't conform to wiki standards.Navgovie (talk) 03:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Authority

There was also a change to the NDSM authorizing its wear for anyone who, in a period NOT covered by one of the national emergency dates, earned any campaign medal. This included, for example, the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, which was awarded to some soldiers who were in none of the qualifying periods, but deployed to Bosnia. I will provide cite when I find it.--Vidkun 22:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard of that and my agency (NPRC) is in charge of verifying entitlement to the medal. That also does not appear in any of the instructions and award criteria regarding this medal. You cannot, for instance, get it for serving in the 1980s even if you were awarded the AFEM. Interesting if theres something out that that claims the above is true, becuase none of the service departments will issue the medal outside of the estabished time periods as far as I know. -Husnock 22:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- As a followup to that, there is a reg only for the Army, which reads: "Any member of the Guard or Reserve who, after 31 December 1960, becomes eligible for the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, Vietnam Service Medal or the Southwest Asia Service Medal is also eligible for the National Defense Service Medal." This is since the only situation where a reservist would recieve one of those three medals would be for activiation during the designated times of emergency. The reg provides they would automatically recieve the NDSM upon presentation of the other medal. Issuance of the NDSM, outside of the designated time periods for issuance, is not authorized by any branch of the military. -Husnock 22:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

National Defense Service Medal

Regardless of whether or not a person served 1 day or a life time ANY medal is EARNED!

In this case the least that any person has done is to have made the initial effort.

For many folks this medal was the only one they ever got for any number of reasons. Including those reasons beyond their control and at their dismay. At least they made the initial effort. And this is what is recognized.

Yes, it is considered one of the lesser achievements but is nonetheless worthy of note and respect. Semper paratus (talk) 09:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone was calling it stupid in the article. They were saying where it fits on the list of achievable awards, which is near the bottom (true) and the amount of time one has to be in service to be awarded it (1 day)(also true). You're allowed to put true statements in, even if they don't afford the award the due respect you think it deserves. --ScreaminEagle (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the NDSM is not at all stupid. In fact, it is AMAZING how badly some people try to get it who didn't serve in one of the time periods. The Reagan era 80s veterans, i.e. those who served from 1980 to 1989 are a large group who served without qualifying for this medal since the 80s were not one of the designated time periods. Many of these same veterans are now writing the Army Review Board, NPRC, and members of Congreess begging to have this medal added to their records since it is today associated with such heroic times as the Vietnam War and the War on Terrorism. Some of these vets will even go two or three times through the system asking over and over to get it. Quite extraordinary for a medal like this that you get for joining and recieve after one day. The way the 80s crowd behave, you would think it was the Medal of Honor! -OberRanks (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's why the gov had to implement the stolen valor act. People just claim that they THINK they should be able to wear something, and look cool in it.

I can report that active duty Army personnel think the medal is something of a joke. It is sometimes called the “fire guard” medal (a duty where everyone in a barracks takes turns staying awake as a safety precaution against fire or other emergency). 86.161.143.121 (talk) 05:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stars?

The article states eligibility for stars is service in multiple conflict timeframes. Does that mean a service member who enlisted after 2001, served their time, got out, and re entered into anouther service would not rate a star? Sephiroth storm (talk) 02:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot get a service star for renlisting in the same period of eligibility. You would have to be a veteran of two periods of National Emergency, i.e. a Vietnam veteran with follow-on service in the Gulf War or a Gulf War vet who was still in the military after 2001. I should add the maximum number of service stars anyone ha ever had has been two: i.e. enlisted in Korea circa 1952 and served forty years past 1991 into the Gulf War. A final noite, as a military officer, I have seen plenty of jokers who pin on service stars each time they reenlist or people who give themselves a service star if they cross over into a different branch, i.e. a Navy seaman who transfers to the Air Force during the War on Terrorism. Completely against regs and such persons are told, under penalty of NJP, to remove said service stars. -OberRanks (talk) 03:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the award allows for three stars - did anyone ever get that? 86.161.143.121 (talk) 05:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicknames

I did remove the "nicknames" section since that is editor speculation, but the rest of the material should stay in. -OberRanks 15:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually most nicknames were true. When we got the NDSM after boot camp it was called the cheeseburger/pizza stain. Theres been other nicknames as well, but those are the only ones I can confirm.(Deeter063 (talk) 10:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

The Navy nickname in 96' was the CNN ribbon, because most enlisted had only seen the Gulf War on CNN, rather than been over there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.118.153.25 (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was called the Macdonald's ribbon when i was in. Avatar 06349 (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In 1971 we referred to it as the "KP ribbon".Wschart (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, we can't have a "nickname" section since there are no sources to back up the claims. It would be the same thing as WP:OR. -OberRanks (talk) 16:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that the nicknames are true, but the thing is that there are nicknames for almost every medal which are commonly used. I mean, it is a medal authorized by the united states congress for wear on a military uniform. It has it's purposes and tells a tale on a uniform. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfGrunt (talk • contribs) 02:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, we need to find a published source for the nicknames. They are part of the history of the medal. Like anything else in Wikipedia, true and relevant information, properly sourced, belongs in the article. Maybe memoirs of military personnel, social studies by academics? I know in the Navy, it used to be called the gedunk medal, after the ship gedunk bar. All branches of the service have referred to it for decades as the ‘everybody’s got one’ medal, a reference to a certain remark used by generations of drill sergeants to explain why they are not interested in the opinions of those they train. 109.159.118.71 (talk) 14:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I can add, for those who want to research sources, that the post-Vietnam Army called it the ‘fire guard’ medal, after the barracks watch duty everyone had to pull during Basic/AIT. 2A00:23C5:E097:5D00:CC68:8848:825F:D923 (talk) 00:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Time Limit

Someone keeps removing the material about the time limit for this medal and the statements that it is a low ranked service medal as "vandalism". Both of the statements are true: the NDSM is automatically awarded as soon as someone joins the military during one of its designated time periods...you can be in for just a day and still get it (although it is true most military clerks won't put it on a DD Form 214 unless you've been in 30 days). And as for its ranking, the precedence order has it as one of the lower medals on all US charts. -OberRanks 15:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that statement just now as it is totally inaccurate. In order for a an individual to achieve, or be awarded, the medal they must complete basic training AND a formal technical school. I was Separations and Retirements for three years, 113th Mission Support Flight, DC Air Guard. Entry Level discharges equate to the member never having formally served in the Armed Forces. Further, members with entry level discharges are not awarded VA benefits other than the occasional one time benefit payment and then only in the event they incurred disease or injury while attending basic or tech school. Furthermore, members with Entry Level discharges do not receive formal Discharges, such as Honorable and General. Again, administratively it as if they were never formally in the military. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary E Nelson (talk • contribs) 02:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information has been restored since, sorry to rain on your parade, but it is established that the NDSM is automatic as soon as someone joins the military. I have been a military historian for over twenty years, a personnel officer for nearly fifteen, and have worked with the National Personnel Records Center for nearly a decade. The guidance they have, from all branches of the military, is to add the medal to a DD Form 215 if a veteran served for any length of time during one of the time periods. I have never seen nor have I heard of any stipulation that it must be verified that they finish basic training or tech school. While I am sure some commands tell people that, and omit the medal from a DD-214 for that reason, the core guidance of the medal doesnt say this. I added a reference to the article to back this up. For further awards info, you can write the Military Personnel Records Center. -OberRanks (talk) 11:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care if they served 15 minutes and have it on the dd214, then they are authorized to claim it. But if they don't have it on their DD214, they are no better than the ones posing with all the other medals beefing up their claims with BS stories. Either way, ALL medals are now legally protected from false claims and BS stories, as they should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfGrunt (talk • contribs) 02:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have DD Form 215s for exactly that reason. There actually isnt much of a problem with this now-a-days, as the modern day armed forces are usually very good about giving these medals on entry level separation documents. I just dealt with a veteran who was issued both the NDSM and GWOTSM after being discharged after three months of duty for a medical problem.

As for the rest of your additions to the article, please review WP:NPOV. Writing essays about how entry level discharges dont deserve respect and that kind of thing helps no one and is not appropriate for this article or website. Its also kind of disrespectful, since over 60% of the entry level discharges are for matters outside of the service member's control - mostly medical but also pre-existing situations that the recruiters did not properly investigate. The point here is that there is no time limit for the NDSM - you join the military, you get it. If its missing from the 214, it gets added with a 215. -OberRanks (talk) 04:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help it if some wimp couldn't hack it in basic training and wants to pretend that they served when they obviously didn't to any capacity. That's their problem not mine! Plust it's a DD214... not a DD215 which shows how much you know about the subjects you are editing! LMAO. OMG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfGrunt (talk • contribs) 00:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DD Form 215 is used to correct errors on a DD-214. Thus, if the NDSM was left off the 214 by accident (or on purpose) and it was later discovered to be in error, a DD 215 would be issued. The service department rarely issues entire new DD 214s for corrections (usually only for very major errors or where more than two DD Form 215s have already been issued). -OberRanks (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone that issued a DD214 for an Entry Level Discharge was wrong in doing so. They get a memo/letter and nothing more. In all the years I spent with Personnel, 113the Wing DCANG entry level discharges never received a DD214. Hence, if one does not have a DD214 there is no documentation to establish the award of the NDSM. And the "one day in the military" rule does not hold water. One must be called to active duty and until then basic and tech school do not count. In the shorter context one can wear the NDSM once they graduate from Basic, yes, but afterwards an entry level discharge is established then it was if they never served. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary E Nelson (talk • contribs) 18:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should it be mentioned that it was designed by the Army Heraldic Section?

I'm not sure where the best place to work the following in would be so I'll put it here on the talk page and let consensus decide where, if indeed anywhere at all, to place it, but should it be mentioned that it was designed by the Army Heraldic Section. Source: ^[1]

note: The Army Heraldic Section was a predecessor of the TIOH.

Should this be included, and if so in which section? Gecko G (talk) 01:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Kerrigan, Evans E. (1964). "The Korean War 1950-1953". American War Medals and Decorations. New York: The Viking Press. p. 104. OCLC 702555627.

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on National Defense Service Medal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"National Defense Service Medal(United States)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect National Defense Service Medal(United States) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 6#National Defense Service Medal(United States) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[Kerrigan-1] Kerrigan, Evans E. (1964). "The Korean War 1950-1953". American War Medals and Decorations. New York: The Viking Press. p. 104. OCLC 702555627.

[1]