Talk:National Defense Service Medal

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Reservists

message: 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)
thread_title: Authority

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  National Defense Service Medal  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Stars?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  It was called the Macdonald's ribbon when i was in. Avatar 06349 (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  In 1971 we referred to it as the "KP ribbon".Wschart (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Nicknames

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Time Limit

message: 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: 
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)
thread_title:  Should it be mentioned that it was designed by the Army Heraldic Section? 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130123005510/http://www.afpc.af.mil/library/awards/index.asp to http://www.afpc.af.mil/library/awards/index.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722185231/http://doni.daps.dla.mil/Directives/01000%20Military%20Personnel%20Support/01-600%20Performance%20and%20Discipline%20Programs/1650.1H.PDF to http://doni.daps.dla.mil/Directives/01000%20Military%20Personnel%20Support/01-600%20Performance%20and%20Discipline%20Programs/1650.1H.PDF
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) 16:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "National Defense Service Medal(United States)" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]