It is not a strawman, you literally said the awards are automatic, which is untrue on it's face. The vast majority of HN users are not veterans, and likely would not know that what you said is untrue.

What I said in full is:

"automatically awarded to O3s / O4s for a deployment",

which is pretty clear and backed by both the linked articles and my first-hand experience.

My point was that he served in Iraq and has more "real" experience than being a prison guard. This doesn't mean he has enough experience to run the DoD of course, but I wanted to add that because it's misrepresenting a vet who served a deployment.

That misrepresents the process, which is why I continue to clarify.

Typing a comment isn't the same as providing a source; I've provided two that support my claim. You're welcome to try again, but it's too early for bad faith arguments so you won't get anymore replies.

>Bad faith

You literally misrepresented the truth then provided 2 articles, neither of which backed up you original claim. All because you evidently don't like someone. The only claim I made is that the awards are not automatic, which we both know is true.

Regardless, my source that Bronze Stars are not automatically awarded is AR 600–8–22.

You mean this part of the regulation, right?

> Prior to 7 January 2016, awards may be made to recognize single acts of merit or meritorious service.

Which corroborates my other claim - including the timing - about the tightening of criteria? Dang. That's wild. Good thing you have a source that you didn't link or apparently read.

https://ri.ng.mil/Portals/31/Documents/MILITARY%20AWARDS%20A...

What are you talking about? your original statement was that they were awarded automatically, now you are talking about the standards for awarding it, which implies it is not actually automatic. I said In my original response that we could discuss the standards, but your statement that they are automatic for O3-O4 is just plain false. Your sources do nothing to back up your original claim, in fact, they do quite the opposite. No level of snark will make your assertion correct. There is a reason why your original response was flagged, which I had no part in.

At every reply, you've deliberately excluded my qualifying statement about combat deployments and have an apparent inability to accept that how something is done in practice can be different than a strict reading of a regulation. Digging your heels in and saying "nuh-uh!" is not a sound rebuttal.

But that's okay. Reading comprehension hard for infantry. I get. Will use less word. No worry about flag, no complain here. Good luck gonzo!