Talk:Good Conduct Medal (United States)

message: From CMSAF brief via email: Air Force Good Conduct Medal is coming back soon.  This is the AF's second oldest medal.  Airmen will get time retroactive back to 2005. --Pmsyyz (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless, the medal should come back.  It's crazy for the Air Force to be the only one without it. According to this article in Air Force Times, it is coming back. Sf46 (talk) 16:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Bogus argument.  We don't "do" anything but what's expected of us for the Air Force Overseas Short Tour Service Ribbon, Air Force Overseas Long Tour Service Ribbon, Air Force Longevity Service Award, USAF NCO PME Graduate Ribbon, and the Air Force Training Ribbon.  If we don't meet the criteria to receive ANY of those awards, we cannot continue to serve.  Airmen can continue to serve with Article 15's and other disciplinary actions.  Sure, good conduct is expected.. but so is graduating basic training!  Should we take that ribbon away too?  Also, The Air Force Times is an information source and a legit reference.  Kajmal (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: wrong.  the longevity service ribbon replaced service stripes, which should be re-instated, the overseas ribbons were established during a time when it was rare to serve an assignment overseas rather than in a campaign, the NCO PME ribbon was established to seperate airman who had attended PME and could rightfully be supervisors instead of those who were just the worker bees.  basic training ribbons need to go away.  aftimes is the tabloid of the af news media, half the things they write never come about and just cause rumors and speculation.  the good conduct medal is a ridiculous idea and i will gladly stop wearing mine if ordered because frankly, behaving is something that expected of me and the my "reward" for doing what im supposed to do, is the ability to remain in the AF, not some shiny piece of medal.  if you want to wear a bunch of ribbons on your chest to look fancy then by all means count your ribbons and become one of those guys, but if a citation wasnt written for its award, it means nothing and is the equivalent of a gold star given in second grade.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.25.46 (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why some people are so resistant to showing a small degree of recognition.  It's just a piece of cloth and metal, but to a young airman, every one really matters.  We aren't the Marines, who only get ribbons if they get shot or rack up 100 kills.  For those of us who toil away at thankless, unglamorous jobs, getting any recognition at all, especially when you're first starting out, means a lot.  Kajmal (talk) 02:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: because eventually, people expect to get a medal.  it takes away from the signifigance of the medal itself.  like the  paper pusher who depoys and gets a bronze star for it.  Achievement, commendations, MSMs for completing an assignment...something you were supposed to do...you are supposed to behave...you arent supposed to get into toruble.  I know a man who recieved a bronze star for a 6 month deployment to afghanistan...while working as an admin troop for the comm squadron...a bronze star...for that.  and yet a cop does this...http://www.mildenhall.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123043872...and get the same medal?  really?  thats the kind of mentality your instilling in your young troops...sure they may cherish every ribbon on the chest, but why not make them earn them?  why hand them out for behaving when they are supposed to behave.  why do we give everyone a goodbye PCS medal, just because they didnt royally screw up for 4 years?  why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.24.126.26 (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Heh, sorry.  Sometimes I don't notice when I'm dropping troll food.  Looked at that IPs contribs.  Looks like someone at Dover gets bored at work. :)  I agree that no one 'wins' an award.  They are earned.  The ribbons on a service members chest tell their story and taking one away that's still relevant takes part of that story away. Kajmal (talk) 10:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

text: And since the Air Force is now bringing the medal back, it surfely isn't obsolete. Sf46 (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, its not obsolete, just inactive.  According to the Department of Defense, the actual definition of an obsolete military decoration is "fifty years from issuance to last of personnel."  I think that's why the World War II Victory Medal kept showing up on award order charts all the way up until the mid to late 90s.  Anyway, I think the USAF did a silly thing to begin with and am looking forward to day when that medal comes back. -OberRanks (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

text: vMPF updated peoples records with the award for like two days, making people believe that it had returned.  My vMPF showed it all week until today.  Since I couldn't find an official release stating that it had returned, I assumed it was an error, which it was.  Kajmal (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air Force Good Conduct Medal to return 

message: Obsolete decorations? In 2006 the medal was discontinued on being awarded, but it was not was discontinued for wear. To truly considered this medal obsolete, you would have to see only a hand full of active duty Airmen with it on. But until around the years 2023 - 2024. Until those last couple of Airmen are left, we can not truly consider this medal obsolete. --EHDI5YS (talk) 00:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And since the Air Force is now bringing the medal back, it surfely isn't obsolete. Sf46 (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, its not obsolete, just inactive.  According to the Department of Defense, the actual definition of an obsolete military decoration is "fifty years from issuance to last of personnel."  I think that's why the World War II Victory Medal kept showing up on award order charts all the way up until the mid to late 90s.  Anyway, I think the USAF did a silly thing to begin with and am looking forward to day when that medal comes back. -OberRanks (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

text: vMPF updated peoples records with the award for like two days, making people believe that it had returned.  My vMPF showed it all week until today.  Since I couldn't find an official release stating that it had returned, I assumed it was an error, which it was.  Kajmal (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Obsolete

message: The Army section now appears to be simply a cut and paste from Army regulations.  This should probably be rewritten since Wikipedia is not a mirror of other sites and we dont simply copy text from other website into articles and call them our own.  We had the same problem on the Kuwait Liberation Medal at one point. -OberRanks (talk) 12:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We can incorporate public domain text without any issue.  Just because text is from a public domain or GFDL source is not a reason to rewrite.  A better reason is to make the text flow better. --Pmsyyz (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Army section now a "cut and paste"

message: Hello, 173.49.25.46.  I see you reverted my edit with the statement "Previous revision was more superior, grammatically, and informationally."  This is ironic in that your statement that it was "more superior" is actually bad grammar.  Please read this link here and here if you're confused on how to properly use those adjectives.
Concerning the section at hand, I made my initials edits after noticing that several lines are dedicated to the Air Force discontinuing the medal, yet there is almost no explanation why the medal was reissued.  This section of the article needs some balance.  Either the first part needs to be trimmed down a little to counterbalance the later part, or the later part needs to be expanded to explain the rationale for reversal.  As it stood, the article didn't even explain who Chief Murray was, it just quoted him without reference and left the reader wondering.  You may know that he was the former Chief Master Sergeant of the USAF, but many others will not and a reference should have been supplied or at least an explanation of who he was.
If you think bad grammar was used in my edit, then correct the grammar rather than just clicking "undo."  If you think the article should include Murray's quotes, then fine, add the prior quotes back in, but provide a citation explaining who "Chief Murray" is and add more to the following section as to why the medal was reinstated so that the two portions balance each other.  Without these refinements, the section reads poorly.  Thank you.  --AzureCitizen (talk) 04:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Having now read your prior postings and reading the above, I can see you're not interested in cooperating with other editors.  Very well, we needn't continue this conversation any further. --AzureCitizen (talk) 11:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Air Force Section revision

message: Another component I'm still unclear on how this is to be understood.  Take a hypothetical soldier who served exceptionally for 10 years. if that service was entirely during peacetime that would be 3 loops (at years 3, 6, & 9), simple enough. However, what if the first 3.5 years was during WWII?  How many loops would they then retire with?  4 (at years 1, 4, 7, & 10) or 3 (at years 1, 6, & 9)? Gecko G (talk) 00:50, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  are subsequent awarding's after 1st year in wartime for three years from the 1st? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Good Conduct Medal (United States). 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121014044924/http://www.afpc.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=7790 to http://www.afpc.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=7790
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified