Amicus Curiae Brief — Students for Fair Admissions, Inc., Petitioner v. President and Fellows of Harvard College

Supreme Court briefMay 9, 2022

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Nos. 20-1199 & 21-707

In the Supreme Court of the United States

STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC., Petitioner,

PRESIDENT & FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE

STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC., Petitioner,

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, ET AL.

On Writs of Certiorari

to the United States Court of Appeals

for the First & Fourth Circuits

BRIEF OF VETERANS FOR FAIRNESS

AND MERIT AS AMICUS CURIAE

SUPPORTING PETITIONER

CLAUDE M. MCQUARRIE III GENE C. SCHAERR

MCQUARRIE LAW OFFICE

Counsel of Record

20887 Sweetglen Drive

ERIK S. JAFFE

Porter, TX 77365

H. CHRISTOPHER BARTOLOMUCCI

HANNAH C. SMITH

KATHRYN E. TARBERT

JORDAN E. SMITH

ANNIKA M. BOONE*

SCHAERR|JAFFE LLP

1717 K Street NW

Suite 900

Washington, DC 20006

(202) 787-1060

gschaerr@schaerr-jaffe.com

MAY 9, 2022

Counsel for Amicus Curiae

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................ ii

INTRODUCTION & INTEREST OF AMICUS.......... 1

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................................... 4

ARGUMENT ................................................................ 6

No National Security Concern Provides a

Compelling Interest Justifying Race-Based

Admissions. .......................................................... 6

A. The National Defense Has Been Carried

Out Effectively with a Meritocratic,

“Colorblind” Military Culture. ........................ 6

B. There is No Competent Evidence That

Race-Conscious

Admissions

Are

Essential for Military Effectiveness. ............ 18

II.

National Security Is Better Served When

Military Officer Accessions Are RaceNeutral and Exclusively Merit-Based. .............. 21

A. Racial Preferences Reduce Military

Effectiveness.................................................. 22

B. The Service Academies’ Experience

With Racial Preferences Illustrates This

Threat To National Security......................... 27

CONCLUSION .......................................................... 31

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Cases

Anderson v. Laird,

466 F.2d 283 (D.C. Cir. 1972) ................................ 21

Fisher v. Univ. of Texas at Austin (Fisher I),

570 U.S. 297 (2013) .................................................. 4

Fisher v. Univ. of Texas at Austin (Fisher II),

579 U.S. 365 (2016) .................................................. 4

Grutter v. Bollinger,

539 U.S. 306 (2003) .............................................. 1, 4

Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle

School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007) .......... 30

Other Authorities

2020 Demographics: Profile of the Military

Community, Dep’t of Def. .......................... 10, 11, 19

Black History and The Vietnam War, a Story,

Afr. Am. Registry ..................................................... 9

Black Opposition to Vietnam,

Amistad Digit. Res. .................................................. 8

David A. Blum & Nese F. DeBruyne,

Cong. Rsch. Serv., RL32492, American War

and Military Operations Casualties:

Lists and Statistics 16 (2020) ................................ 12

Br. of Lt. Gen. Julius W. Becton, Jr., et al.

as Amici Curiae In Support of Resp’ts,

Fisher v. Univ. of Tex. at Austin,

570 U.S. 297 (2013) (No. 11-345)............................. 4

iii

Br. of Lt. Gen. Julius W. Becton, Jr., et al.

as Amici Curiae In Support of Resp’ts,

Fisher v. Univ. of Tex. at Austin,

579 U.S. 365 (2016) (No. 14-981)................... 4, 5, 18

Class Profiles,

U.S. Mil. Acad. ....................................................... 19

D’Vera Cohn & Scott Funk,

Chapter 5: The Public and the Military, in

War & Sacrifice in the Post-9/11 Era 59

(Pew Rsch. Ctr. 2011) ............................................ 13

Confidential written communication to counsel

for Amicus (Nov. 23, 2021)

(on file with counsel) .............................................. 25

Consol. Br. of Lt. Gen. Julius W. Becton, Jr., et

al. as Amici Curiae In Support of Resp’ts,

Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003)

(No. 02-241) .......................................................... 4, 6

DCAS Vietnam Conflict Extract File Record

Counts by RACE OMB NAME

(as of Apr. 29, 2008), Nat’l Archives........................ 9

Diversity at West Point: Multi-Cultural By

Design, U.S. Mil. Acad. .......................................... 19

Sayce Falk & Sasha Rogers,

Junior Military Officer Retention:

Challenges and Opportunities (Kennedy Sch.

of Gov’t, Harvard Univ. 2011) ......................... 23, 24

Clare Fitzgerald,

Project 100,000: The Controversial

Recruiting Program of the Vietnam War,

War Hist. Online (Jan. 7, 2022) .......................... 7, 8

Sydney J. Freedberg, Jr.,

The Fallen: A profile of U.S. troops killed in

Iraq and Afghanistan,

Gov’t Exec. (May 28, 2004) .................................... 12

Gerald F. Goodwin,

Black and White in Vietnam,

N.Y. Times (July 18, 2017) ...................................... 6

Mike Guardia,

Hal Moore: A Soldier Once . . . and Always

(Casemate 2021)..................................................... 16

Lisa Hsiao,

Project 100,000: The Great Society’s Answer

to Military Manpower Needs in Vietnam,

Viet. Generation (1989) ........................................... 7

Interviews, Race in the Military,

W. Point Ctr. for Oral Hist. ................................... 20

Harry Jackson,

Opinion, Should Military Officers Be Chosen

By Race?, Wall St. J., (Aug. 19, 2021) ................... 25

Daniel Johnson,

These are America’s Black Medal of Honor

Recipients, Task & Purpose (Feb. 22, 2022) ........... 9

Phillip Keuhlen,

Does the Navy’s New Emphasis on ‘Diversity’

Put the Nation at Risk?, Am. Greatness

(Nov. 5, 2021) ........................................................ 26

Aaron Kliegman,

Pentagon’s Embrace of Wokeness

Undermining Ability to Wage War,

Critics Warn, Just the News (Feb. 24, 2022) ........ 25

Robert Lerner & Althea K. Nagai,

Preferences in the Service Academies,

Ctr. for Equal Opportunity (Oct. 16, 2006) ..... 27, 28

Lieutenant General Darryl A. Williams,

U.S. Mil. Acad. ....................................................... 20

Lieutenant General Richard M. Clark,

U.S.A.F. (Oct. 2020) ............................................... 20

List of active duty United States four-star

officers, Wikipedia .................................................. 20

James Maycock,

War Within War, The Guardian

(Sept. 14, 2001) ........................................................ 6

H.R. McMaster,

Dereliction of duty: Lyndon Johnson,

Robert McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff,

and the lies that led to Vietnam

(Harper Collins 1998) ............................................ 10

H.R. McMaster,

Preserving the Warrior Ethos,

Nat’l Rev. (Oct. 28, 2021) ....................................... 17

Harold G. Moore & Joseph L. Galloway,

We Were Soldiers Once...and Young: Ia

Drang—The Battle That Changed the War in

Vietnam (Random House 1992) ............................. 16

Lauren Mottle,

“We Resist on the Grounds We Aren’t

Citizens”: Black Draft Resistance in the

Vietnam War Era,

6 J. Civ. & Hum. Rts. 26 (2020) .............................. 8

Walt Napier,

A Short History of Integration in the U.S.

Armed Forces, U.S.A.F. (July 1, 2021) .................... 7

Greg Newbold,

A retired Marine 3-star general explains

‘critical military theory,’

Task & Purpose (Feb. 10, 2022) ............................ 15

Greg Newbold,

How Woke U.S. Military Leaders Make U.S.

Enemies More Likely to Start a War,

The Federalist (July 29, 2021) .............................. 26

Off. of Historian, U.S. Dep’t of State,

Biographies of the Secretaries of State:

Colin Luther Powell (1937–2021) .......................... 20

On Diversity as Strength,

usmaData (June 10, 2018)......................... 28, 29, 30

Chris Petty,

How today’s ‘diversity’ damages our military,

Am. Thinker (Mar. 19, 2022) ........................... 22, 23

Strength Analysis & Forecasting Div., Off. of

Dep’y Chief of Staff, G-1, Dep’t of Army,

Army Demographics: FY20 Army Profile

(Sept. 30, 2020) ...................................................... 12

The Black Panther Party Ten-Point Program,

BlackPast (Oct. 15, 1966) ........................................ 8

The Military Draft During the Vietnam War,

Mich. in the World ................................................... 7

Jim Tyson,

Companies Must Venture into ‘Jungle’ of

Approaches to ESG Ratings, CFODive

(Mar. 23, 2022) ....................................................... 11

vii

Sun Tzu,

The Art of War (Courier Corp. ed. 2002)

(5th c. BCE) ............................................................ 14

W. Point Ass’n of Graduates Dev. Off.,

A Family’s Impact on West Point,

Together We Lead (Spring 2022) .......................... 20

Buchanan Waller,

Inside the Pentagon’s shameful effort to draft

mentally disabled men to fight in Vietnam,

Task & Purpose (May 3, 2022) ................................ 7

Dakota Wood,

Identity Politics and Critical Race Theory

Have No Place in U.S. Military,

The Heritage Foundation (Mar. 29, 2021) ............ 14

INTRODUCTION & INTEREST OF AMICUS 1

Amicus Veterans for Fairness and Merit (VFM)

submits this brief to ensure that the Court is accurately informed about the effects of racial preferences

on our national defense. Unfortunately, this Court’s

decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003),

relied on misinformation about those effects. VFM

urges the Court not to make the same mistake again.

VFM is a veterans’ organization that advocates for

equal opportunity in the U.S. armed forces—that is,

race-neutral, exclusively merit-based military officer

accession, assignment, and promotion policies. VFM’s

membership (currently 627) consists of former members of all branches of the United States military, including a wide range of enlisted men and women as

well as members of all officer ranks, including 119 general/flag officers. App. A at 1a; App. B at 14a. VFM’s

membership is a representative cross-section of the

U.S. military, with heavy emphasis on combat deployments (934), combat leadership (476), and other highstress operational experience. App. B at 14a.

VFM’s members include 21 recipients of the Medal

of Honor and hundreds of recipients of other decorations for combat valor. See App. E at 38a. For example,

VFM members have been awarded 9 Distinguished

Service/Navy/Air Force Crosses, 142 Silver Stars, and

212 Bronze Star Medals with “V” device (for combat

All parties have consented to the filing of this brief. No

counsel for a party authored any part of it, nor did any person or

entity, other than Amicus and its counsel, make a monetary

contribution to fund its preparation or submission. Amicus is not

publicly traded and has no parent corporations, and no part of it

is owned by any publicly traded corporation.

valor). VFM’s members also received 215 Purple

Hearts for wounds received in combat. App. B at 15a.

Beyond being honored for their valor, VFM members also represent a breadth of combat experience

that spans every major and minor conflict over the last

seven decades, including wars in Korea, Vietnam, the

Gulf, Iraq, and Afghanistan. See App. B at 18a. They

fought at every enlisted and officer level, ranging from

rifleman, squad leader, platoon sergeant, platoon

leader, team leader, company/troop commander, flight

leader, ship captain, squadron commander, battalion

commander, wing commander, brigade commander

and all higher levels of command up through the highest four-star level. VFM’s members include large numbers of combat-experienced pilots and crew, with 45 of

them surviving years of torture and other inhumane

acts as POWs. App. B at 15a; App. E at 42a. Many of

VFM’s members also served aboard (and commanded)

our Navy’s submarines, aircraft carriers, and surface

warfare vessels in both combat operations and highly

stressful Cold War operations. Many served in (and

some commanded) unconventional, clandestine operations, combat and Cold War aerial reconnaissance,

and strategic nuclear missile operations.

VFM’s members also possess intimate knowledge

of the ROTC programs and service academies. They

include 100 ROTC commissioned officers and 292 service academy graduates (USMA, USNA, USAFA,

USCGA, USMMA), some of whom also served as an

academy Superintendent, Commandants, a Dean of

Faculty, Permanent Professors, War College Commandants, training center commanders, recruiting

commanders, education and training commanders, as

well as service-wide chief personnel officers. See App.

B at 18a; App. D at 27a.

Furthermore, VFM’s members have served in the

highest possible roles in academic, government, corporate, and academic spheres. They include two former

service Chiefs of Staff, twelve four-star Army, Navy or

Air Force officers, and many other former senior military commanders and leaders, White House aides,

government officials, and college and university presidents. See id.

Most importantly, VFM’s members’ knowledge

about the effects of racial preferences results directly

from all forms of combat experience. This includes innumerable leadership positions on the battlefield at

virtually every level, especially at lower levels where

direct interactions between our warfighters and the

enemy occur and effective combat leadership determines mission success and life or death. It also includes leadership positions on the water and in the air,

non-combat leadership at every level (including many

four-star major commands), specialty roles of nearly

every type, and university and corporate leadership.

In sum, their collective knowledge of the culture required for the United States military to succeed on the

battlefield is unparalleled.

The names of VFM’s current members (with some

exceptions for needed anonymity) and their aggregated statistical information are listed at Appendices

A and B, respectively. Those lists (to be updated continuously until this Court’s decision), along with members’ aggregated demographic and some individual information, are available at the following site:

https://bit.ly/VFMpublicdocs.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

In this Court’s most recent cases involving racial

preferences in college admissions—Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), Fisher v. Univ. of Texas at

Austin (Fisher I), 570 U.S. 297 (2013), and Fisher v.

Univ. of Texas at Austin (Fisher II), 579 U.S. 365

(2016)—a group of former military officers (“the Becton Group”) submitted amicus briefs asserting that

race-conscious admissions policies, a vague term for

racial preferences, are crucial for our nation’s security. 2 In Grutter, the majority opinion referenced these

officers’ brief as a basis for determining that there is a

compelling interest in allowing racial preferences. Indeed, the Grutter majority quoted the officers’ claim

that “‘the military cannot achieve an officer corps that

is both highly qualified and racially diverse unless the

service academies and the ROTC used limited raceconscious recruiting and admissions policies.’” Grutter,

539 U.S. at 331 (quoting Becton I) (emphasis in original).

In 2015, the Becton Group further claimed, in support of the University of Texas, that racial preferences

are “critical to the Armed Forces’ ability to defend our

Nation’s security.” Becton III at 1. Accordingly, they

argued that “[t]he military needs the flexibility to engage in efforts that go beyond outreach and recruiting

2 See Consol. Br. of Lt. Gen. Julius W. Becton, Jr., et al. as

Amici Curiae In Support of Resp’ts, Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S.

306 (2003) (No. 02-241) (“Becton I”); Br. of Lt. Gen. Julius W.

Becton, Jr., et al. as Amici Curiae In Support of Resp’ts, Fisher v.

Univ. of Tex. at Austin, 570 U.S. 297 (2013) (No. 11-345) (“Becton

II”); Br. of Lt. Gen. Julius W. Becton, Jr., et al. as Amici Curiae

In Support of Resp’ts, Fisher v. Univ. of Tex. at Austin, 579 U.S.

365 (2016) (No. 14-981) (“Becton III”).

to achieve critical officer diversity.” Id. at 34-35 (emphasis added). In other words, they claimed the military’s ability to use racial preferences in admissions

decisions was essential to national security. These assertions were and are wrong.

I. Racial preferences are not necessary to achieve

or maintain officer racial diversity—which now exists

to a substantial degree. Regardless, officer racial diversity above some allegedly necessary level is neither

“critical” to the military’s ability to defend the Nation

nor “indispensable to” national security. Compare Becton III at 34. No national security imperative serves

as a compelling national interest to justify the use of

racial preferences. In fact, history demonstrates that

none of the factors that contributed to interracial military tensions during a discrete time in the past still

exist.

II. To the contrary, the military’s use of racial preferences today is unquestionably harmful to our national security. Such preferences are antithetical to

the “selfless servant,” colorblind culture necessary for

our military to prevail on the battlefield.

As in the military generally, to the extent racial

preferences have been employed at our military academies, they have been costly, inefficient, and, in some

instances, have reduced quality. They have also ill

served the intended minority-beneficiaries, who have

failed in disproportionate numbers and have not increased combat effectiveness.

In short, officer racial preferences reduce combat

effectiveness and weaken, rather than enhance, national security.

Accordingly, any use of racial

preferences in the military cannot support the kinds of

racial preferences in which respondents engage.

ARGUMENT

No National Security Concern Provides a

Compelling Interest Justifying Race-Based

Admissions.

The argument that the United States has a national security interest in using racial preferences in

the military is simply wrong. The national defense has

long been carried out effectively without such preferences. And there is no serious evidence that they enhance the national defense one iota.

A. The National Defense Has Been Carried

Out Effectively with a Meritocratic,

“Colorblind” Military Culture.

Proponents of racial preferences in service academy admissions frequently point to racial tensions in

the military during the Vietnam War to argue that racial preferences are essential to military effectiveness

today. 3 Focus on the Vietnam War is misplaced, however, and ignores the historical context of that war as

well as dramatically changed circumstances today.

1. Before 1967, “racial animosity had been negligible within the U.S. armed forces,” despite the lack of a

formal “equal opportunity” program. 4 When troops

3 See Becton I; see also Gerald F. Goodwin, Black and White in

Vietnam,

N.Y.

Times

(July

18,

2017),

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/18/opinion/racism-vietnamwar.html.

4 James Maycock, War Within War, The Guardian (Sept. 14,

2001), https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2001/sep/15/

weekend7.weekend3.

were first racially integrated during the Korean War,

“practical measures outweighed racial beliefs,” and

the integration “failed to produce the violence or poor

morale the military brass had expected.” 5

But, in the mid-1960s, a changing social environment, a controversial war, and new conscription strategies created a perfect storm for racial conflict. Volunteer recruiting and the “peacetime” draft in the early

1960s initially met manpower needs, but by mid-1966,

as the war escalated, more troops were needed. 6

To meet this growing need, Project 100,000 (POHT)

was instituted, whereby entry standards were significantly lowered. Under this program, over 300,000 men

were enlisted who had previously been (or would have

been) rejected for low scores, insufficient education,

and physical shortcomings. 7 Black and Hispanic individuals comprised about 40% of these enlistments. 8

Almost half of all POHT recruits went to combat

units because they could not qualify for skills in other

units. 9 The results were disastrous, with markedly

5 Walt Napier, A Short History of Integration in the U.S. Armed

Forces, U.S.A.F. (July 1, 2021), https://tinyurl.com/3787ujrk.

The Military Draft During the Vietnam War, Mich. in the

World (last accessed May 2, 2022), https://tinyurl.com/5t4ycvvk;

see also Lisa Hsiao, Project 100,000: The Great Society’s Answer

to Military Manpower Needs in Vietnam, Viet. Generation (1989),

https://tinyurl.com/5486fa79.

Buchanan Waller, Inside the Pentagon’s shameful effort to

draft mentally disabled men to fight in Vietnam, Task & Purpose

(May 3, 2022), https://tinyurl.com/528f9ukd.

8 Id.

Clare Fitzgerald, Project 100,000: The Controversial

Recruiting Program of the Vietnam War, War Hist. Online (Jan.

higher disciplinary problems and casualty rates. 10 In

addition, disproportionate numbers of Black individuals were drafted in general because more white men

obtained deferments by enrolling in college. 11

Partly because of programs like POHT and the civil

rights movement’s spotlight on racial inequities, minorities became particularly vocal in opposing the Vietnam War. For example, the Black Panthers’ TenPoint Platform stated that “Black people should not be

forced to fight in the military service to defend a racist

government that does not protect us.” 12 Racial tensions were also exacerbated by the fact that America

was emerging from a culture that had recently condoned segregation and anti-miscegenation laws.

Moreover, the Vietnam War soon became unpopular with Americans of all races. As the war dragged on

with no perceptible progress and with significant casualties, the war, and the military as its symbol, became the subject of widespread protest, even violence,

across the country. Disillusionment with the war and

escalating racial tensions resulting in part from the

2022),

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/vietnamwar/project-100000.html.

10 Id. (noting that “around half of enlistees – 180,000 – were

discharged ‘under conditions other than honorable’”).

Black Opposition to Vietnam, Amistad Digit. Res. (last

accessed

Apr.

25,

2022),

https://www.amistadresource.org/civil_rights_era/black_oppositi

on_to_vietnam.html.

12 See The Black Panther Party Ten-Point Program, BlackPast

(Oct. 15, 1966), accessible at https://tinyurl.com/ycys8f57; see also

Lauren Mottle, “We Resist on the Grounds We Aren’t Citizens”:

Black Draft Resistance in the Vietnam War Era, 6 J. Civ. & Hum.

Rts. 26 (2020).

war’s burden on Black servicemen made conflict inevitable, regardless of whether that conflict was related

to racial issues.

Despite these challenging circumstances, thousands of minorities fought bravely and effectively in

the Vietnam War. Of the total 58,220 Americans who

died in Vietnam, 7,243 (12.4%) were Black. 13 And

twenty-two Black servicemembers who served there

received the Medal of Honor (the military’s highest

award for combat valor), one of whom (Melvin Morris)

is a VFM member. 14

Still, several race-related incidents received significant media attention. These included protests (in

mostly rear areas), and a few unit-level combat refusals that were apparently race related, before the military began instituting reforms to better accommodate

Black servicemen. 15

There is no credible evidence, however, that on a

strategic level, our military effectiveness in Vietnam

was materially compromised by racial tensions. Nor is

there credible evidence that the discipline problems

13 DCAS Vietnam Conflict Extract File Record Counts by RACE

OMB NAME (as of Apr. 29, 2008), Nat’l Archives (last accessed

May 2, 2022), https://tinyurl.com/yeya2xn8.

14 Daniel Johnson, These are America’s Black Medal of Honor

Recipients,

Task

Purpose

(Feb.

22,

2022),

https://taskandpurpose.com/history/black-medal-of-honorrecipients/; App. E at 39a.

Black History and The Vietnam War, a Story, Afr. Am.

Registry

(last

accessed

May

2022),

https://aaregistry.org/story/black-history-in-the-vietnam-war-abrief-story/.

that did occur were generally the result of a disproportionately low number of Black officers.

This conclusion is confirmed by noted Army general and military historian H.R. McMaster, who wrote

a widely praised and meticulously documented critique of the Vietnam War. He concluded that “The war

in Vietnam was not lost in the field, nor was it lost on

the front pages of the New York Times or on the college

campuses. It was lost in Washington, D.C.” 16 Our

strategic failure in Vietnam, therefore, was not the result of insufficient numbers of minority officers on the

ground, in the air, or at sea.

2. In any event, two-and-a-half generations later,

conditions in the military are markedly different.

There is no draft, and the military is now an all-volunteer force, with significantly higher pay and benefits.

Many more Blacks and Hispanics now attend college. 17 And, further decreasing the need for recruits

that fueled the POHT, women have been joining the

military in growing numbers: As of 2020 (while we

were still engaged in the Afghanistan War), women

comprised about 17% of the Department of Defense

16 H.R. McMaster, Dereliction of duty: Lyndon Johnson, Robert

McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the lies that led to

Vietnam 333 (Harper Collins 1998). Regarded by many as the

most authoritative analysis of what led to the Vietnam war and

its failure, McMaster attributes the debacle to repeated,

incompetent decision-making and politically motivated deception

at the highest levels of the executive branch and Defense

Department.

17 2020 Demographics: Profile of the Military Community, Dep’t

Def.

(last

accessed

Apr.

30,

2022),

https://download.militaryonesource.mil/12038/MOS/Reports/202

0-demographics-report.pdf [hereinafter “2020 Demographics”].

Active Duty force, with virtually all roles being open

to women. 18

Despite the end of conscription, today’s military

boasts large numbers of minorities. Thanks, in part, to

aggressive minority recruiting and outreach, as of

2020, 24.2% of officers in the Active Duty total force

were members of a racial minority (not including Hispanic ethnicity data) and 27% of Army officers (specifically) were members of a racial minority. Of that

group, Black Army officers accounted for 12.3%—only

about 1% less than the national Black population. 19

This is remarkable considering the military’s competition with the private sector, which is under constant

pressure to demonstrate diversity because of the current focus on environmental, social, and governance

(“ESG”) ratings for investments and corporate leadership. 20

In contrast to the Vietnam War, moreover, Black

service members now suffer disproportionately fewer

casualties because of their tendency to serve disproportionately in noncombat roles: Although substantially overrepresented in the military as a statistical

matter, 21 Black servicemen “cluster pragmatically in

noncombat units whose training in mechanics, electronics, and logistics translates well into civilian

18 Id. at 16.

19 Id. at iii, 24.

20 See, e.g., Jim Tyson, Companies Must Venture into ‘Jungle’ of

Approaches to ESG Ratings, CFODive (Mar. 23, 2022),

https://www.cfodive.com/news/companies-must-venture-jungleapproaches-esg-ratings/620917/.

21 2020 Demographics, supra note 17, at 22.

careers.” 22 As a natural result, “‘[t]he proportion of

blacks to whites is very much smaller in the combat

arms than in other branches.’” 23

This reality is reflected in the Army’s FY 2020 Active-Duty Army statistics. For both officers and enlisted, those serving in “Operations” (combat arms) are

disproportionally White, while those serving in “Force

Sustainment” (non-combat arms) are disproportionally Black. 24

Not surprisingly, this racial disproportionality is

reflected also in casualty statistics for the two largest

U.S. military operations in the last 20 years, Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.

In Operation Iraqi Freedom, of the 4,418 U.S. military

deaths, non-minorities accounted for 3,645 (82.5%)

and Black individuals accounted for 441 (10%). 25 In

Operation Enduring Freedom, which took place primarily in Afghanistan, non-minorities accounted for

1,997 (85%) and Black individuals for 193 (8.2%) of the

2,349 U.S. military deaths. 26 In short, the casualties of

22 Sydney J. Freedberg, Jr., The Fallen: A profile of U.S. troops

killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, Gov’t Exec. (May 28, 2004)

(quoting

Maj.

Gen.

Robert

Scales,

USA,

Ret.),

https://tinyurl.com/276js9pe. This is, obviously, a rational choice

for servicemen who (appropriately) see the military as a steppingstone to a successful civilian career.

23 Id.

24 Strength Analysis & Forecasting Div., Off. of Dep’y Chief of

Staff, G-1, Dep’t of Army, Army Demographics: FY20 Army

Profile (Sept. 30, 2020), https://tinyurl.com/57ztkayw.

David A. Blum & Nese F. DeBruyne, Cong. Rsch. Serv.,

RL32492, American War and Military Operations Casualties:

Lists and Statistics 16 (2020), https://tinyurl.com/4b99xy93.

26 Id. at 12.

our most recent wars have not disproportionately burdened Black servicemen, despite their statistical

overrepresentation (17.2%) in our military.

Finally, in contrast to the Vietnam era, societal attitudes toward the U.S. military have now become

overwhelmingly positive and supportive, even though

our wars in the Mideast lasted twice as long as the Vietnam War. 27

3. Beyond these considerations, our nation’s military culture was built on the principle of “selfless service” as part of an enlightened warrior ethos. Civilians, to become effective warriors, must acquire more

than just the knowledge and technical training necessary to become effective warfighters on a lethal and

unforgiving battlefield. Equally essential is that they

undergo a significant and unnatural cultural transformation—one that includes a conscious, disciplined

subordination of self, including of sub-group identities

such as heritage, ethnicity and race—and assimilation

to the norms of the organization. Subordination is not

to be confused with abandonment. The warfighter

must develop the capacity to put, sometimes for extended periods, self-interest completely out of mind.

He/she must be able to trust every teammate as fully

sharing that selfless culture, unreservedly committed

to the organization and its mission, and to serving others without being concerned with self. Anything less is

corrosive to the unit cohesion that, on the battlefield,

27 D’Vera Cohn & Scott Funk, Chapter 5: The Public and the

Military, in War & Sacrifice in the Post-9/11 Era 59 (Pew Rsch.

Ctr.

2011),

https://www.pewresearch.org/socialtrends/2011/10/05/chapter-5-the-public-and-the-military/.

can make the difference between life and death and

mission success or failure.

This culture requires that each warfighter see fellow warfighters as totally committed teammates,

where race, ethnicity and heritage, while respected, do

not matter. Some refer to that element of the culture

as being “colorblind,” an imprecise term, but one that

is often heard in military circles. 28

This selfless-servant, “colorblind” culture is a national security imperative that is seriously weakened

by racial preferences. As Sun Tzu said two thousand

years ago, “he will win whose army is animated by the

same spirit throughout all its ranks.” 29 Our warfighters are thus expected to ignore racial and other differences to be maximally effective on the battlefield.

When bullets are flying and mortar shells landing,

warfighters cannot and do not care about the race of

their buddy or of their leaders. They must be (and are)

willing to risk their lives for another warfighter, regardless of skin color. The actions of numerous VFM

members exemplify this culture, and are well documented in the cases of VFM’s twenty-one Medal of

Honor recipients. See App. E at 38a.

The importance of this colorblind culture is also

highlighted in the analysis by Lt. General Gregory

Newbold, USMC, Ret., of the kind of culture that

makes a military sufficiently effective to deter potential enemies and/or decisively win the Nation’s wars.

28 See, e.g., Dakota Wood, Identity Politics and Critical Race

Theory Have No Place in U.S. Military, The Heritage Found.

(Mar. 29, 2021), https://tinyurl.com/2p9y9jec.

29 Sun Tzu, The Art of War 51 (Courier Corp. ed. 2002) (5th c.

BCE).

He wisely observed that “[a] military force’s greatest

strengths are cohesion and discipline. Individuality or

group identity is corrosive and a centrifugal force ***

[C]onformity creates efficiency and superior group results *** [W]hen we highlight differences or group

identity, we undermine cohesion and morale. Failure

results.” 30

4. Such analyses contrast sharply with the Becton

Group’s prior (implicit) claim that warfighters respond

more effectively when some of their leaders are of the

same color. Such a notion is contrary to the battletested, colorblind warrior ethos. Warfighters instead

want, and deserve, the best-qualified, most competent

leaders, who will ensure they are properly trained and

well-equipped and that the mission is well-planned

and executed. This includes having the ability to make

difficult decisions in response to changing, often ambiguous, circumstances sometimes instantly, with imperfect information and sometimes under fire. They

know leader competence gives them the best chance to

accomplish the mission and return safely.

Aircrews and those who are supported from the air

similarly want the most competent pilots that can be

found. 31 Sailors want the most competent captains,

Greg Newbold, A retired Marine 3-star general explains

‘critical military theory,’ Task & Purpose (Feb. 10, 2022),

https://taskandpurpose.com/opinion/critical-military-theory/.

31 One example of such a pilot is medevac pilot Major General

Patrick Brady, USA, Ret. His extraordinary courage and

leadership are credited with saving thousands of lives on the

battlefield, for which he received 10 valor awards including the

Medal of Honor and Distinguished Service Cross. See App. E at

37a. His profile at the Military College of South Carolina can be

found

here:

http://www.citadel.edu/root/images/patrick_h_brady_pdf.pdf.

capable of making extraordinarily difficult decisions,

sometimes under fire.

In short, all warfighters want, need, and deserve

optimal leader competence and quality, undiluted by

selection processes that employ preferences that, in

turn, can compromise competence.

Indeed, combat itself, though vicious and barbaric,

is a pure meritocracy that knows no preferences. That

is why the more effective and better-led fighting force

will generally defeat its opponent, regardless of other

disparities.

This important point is exemplified in the 1965

Battle of Ia Drang at LZ X-Ray. In that battle, Lieutenant Colonel Hal Moore’s superior leadership and

that of his subordinate leaders, combined with the

courage and discipline of his soldiers and supporting

aviators (two of whom are Medal of Honor recipients),

spared his untested battalion from being annihilated

by a numerically superior force that also had the significant advantages of superior terrain and supply. 32

Colonel Moore’s race (he was White) was not an issue.

His competence was quintessentially critical to the

outcome, for both the mission and his soldiers of all

races. 33

Similarly, the courage, bravery and resilience of our POWs,

nearly all pilots, is exemplified by VFM’s Air Force, Navy and

Marine former POW members. See App. E at 41a.

32 See generally Harold G. Moore & Joseph L. Galloway, We

Were Soldiers Once...and Young: Ia Drang—The Battle That

Changed the War in Vietnam (Random House 1992).

33 Moore retired as a three-star general and was widely praised

as a military hero. See Mike Guardia, Hal Moore: A Soldier Once

. . . and Always (Casemate 2021). One of Lt. Colonel Moore’s

General McMaster made a similar point when he

cautioned the Nation in 2021:

“The U.S. military must continue to evolve toward an institution in which all Americans, regardless of the color of their skin, can fully belong and enjoy equal treatment, because nothing is more destructive to teams than racism

or any form of prejudice. But civilian and military leaders must not allow reified postmodernist theories to erode the sacred trust between warriors or diminish the meritocracy

and objective realities that are essential to

preserving the warrior ethos as the foundation

of combat effectiveness.” 34

In short, our country fails its moral obligation to its

warfighters when merit in officer (or any) leader selection is diluted by preferences. “Qualified” isn’t good

enough. “Best-qualified” in such selections is our

moral obligation to our future warfighters and to the

Nation. Increased risk of casualties and of mission failure is the unacceptable price of allowing preferences

to dilute merit.

platoon leaders who received the Medal of Honor for his heroism

at LZ X-Ray is VFM member Colonel Joe Marm, USA, Ret. One

of the helicopter pilots who repeatedly flew into enemy fire to

support Moore’s battalion during the battle and who received the

Medal of Honor is VFM member COL Bruce Crandall, USA, Ret.

See Appendix E. Their actions exemplify the selfless servant,

warrior ethos necessary for survival and success on the

battlefield.

H.R. McMaster, Preserving the Warrior Ethos, Nat’l Rev.

(Oct.

28,

2021),

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2021/11/15/preservin

g-the-warrior-ethos/.

B. There is No Competent Evidence That

Race-Conscious Admissions Are Essential

for Military Effectiveness.

The Becton Group nevertheless claimed in 2015

that the ability to use racial preferences in college and

service academy admissions decisions is “indispensable” to national security. 35 This claim is unproven and,

in fact, patently untrue.

1. There is no competent evidence that a particular

percentage, or greater number, of minority military officers is needed for our military to effectively execute

the national defense. Nor is there evidentiary support

for the claim that officer racial demographic parity

with enlisted members is essential to fielding an effective fighting force. Regardless of how the vague term

“critical officer diversity” is defined, either by absolute

number, by percentage, or by ratio, compared to the

number of minority enlisted service members led by

those officers, there simply is no evidence to support

such a theory.

To the contrary, as explained above, the immutable

human element of warfare requires a colorblind warrior ethos for trust, unit cohesion, and combat effectiveness. Thus, the premise that warfighters respond

and perform more effectively when they see racial demographic parity, or a certain number, or a certain ratio, of minority officers among their leaders, is contrary to decades of warfighting experience of the U.S.

military. It is also antithetical to the selfless-servant,

colorblind culture that has been and will always be essential to our military’s success on the battlefield.

35 See Becton III at 34.

2. Implicit in the Becton Group’s theory, moreover,

is that racial preferences are necessary to achieve and

maintain officer racial diversity. This notion is likewise untrue, particularly today. As noted earlier,

24.2% of the total Active Duty Officer Corps identified

as Racial Minorities—without even including Hispanic ethnicity data. 36 That is, undeniably, “officer racial diversity.” Moreover, it is well known that minorities are attending college in greater numbers, and

that the military employs aggressive, well-funded minority outreach and recruiting programs, especially at

the service academies. 37 Those circumstances no doubt

account for the above numbers.

Thus, even if officer racial diversity could be proven

essential to our military’s ability to execute our national defense in 2022, suspension of the Equal Protection Clause and section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of

1964 would not be necessary for ROTC programs and

our service academies to yield minority officers for the

military.

At West Point, for example, the percentages of minority cadets in the classes of 2022-2025 were reported

as 32%, 34%, 37%, and 40%, respectively. 38 These

numbers are no doubt bolstered by the fact that West

Point, for several years, has been graduating second

36 2020 Demographics, supra note 17, at 24.

37 See, e.g., Diversity at West Point: Multi-Cultural By Design,

U.S.

Mil.

Acad.

(last

accessed

May

https://www.westpoint.edu/admissions/prospectivecadets/diversity.

2022),

38 Class Profiles, U.S. Mil. Acad. (last accessed May 1, 2022),

https://www.westpoint.edu/about/west-pointstaff/g5/institutional-research/class-profiles.

generation (“legacy”) minority cadets, a trend that will

likely continue. 39

Further demonstrating that racial diversity can be

achieved even without racial preferences is the significant numbers of Black servicemen in high-profile

leadership positions in the last century. For example,

of the three main service academies, the Superintendents of two (the U.S. Military Academy and the U.S.

Air Force Academy) are Black. 40 In addition, Colin

Powell’s military achievements led to his becoming the

first Black Secretary of State. 41 While only three of the

current forty-one four-star generals are Black (one being the Chief of Staff of the Air Force), part of this is

likely due to the disproportionate (and understandable) preference of Black service members for noncombat roles, as explained above. 42

39 Interviews, Race in the Military, W. Point Ctr. for Oral Hist.

(last accessed May 7, 2022), https://tinyurl.com/y6n4t6kx; W.

Point Ass’n of Graduates Dev. Off., A Family’s Impact on West

Point, Together We Lead (Spring 2022) (describing the family of

a 1978 Black graduate, two of whose sons graduated in the

classes of 2005 and 2011, with three of the family members

having worked in the Admissions Office, one as an Outreach

Officer).

See Lieutenant General Richard M. Clark, U.S.A.F. (Oct.

2020), https://tinyurl.com/ykcwefan; Lieutenant General Darryl

A. Williams, U.S. Mil. Acad. (last accessed May 6, 2022),

https://www.westpoint.edu/about/superintendent.

Off. of Historian, U.S. Dep’t of State, Biographies of the

Secretaries of State: Colin Luther Powell (1937–2021) (last

accessed

May

2022),

https://history.state.gov/departmenthistory/people/powell-colinluther.

42 List of active duty United States four-star officers, Wikipedia

(last

accessed

May

2022),

For all these reasons, racial preferences are not

necessary to achieve a military that welcomes and attracts talented recruits of all races. At a minimum,

the Becton Group’s contrary claim is unproven. 43

II. National Security Is Better Served When Military Officer Accessions Are Race-Neutral

and Exclusively Merit-Based.

Successful execution of our Nation’s defense, moreover, requires that military officer accessions (the entry or reentry of officers into service), including college

ROTC and service academy admissions (and assignments and promotions) be race neutral and exclusively

merit based. 44 Anything less than a race-neutral meritocracy would jeopardize our national defense because use of racial preferences is highly detrimental to

military effectiveness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_duty_United_States

_four-star_officers.

43 Given the clear evidence on this point, moreover, there would

be no basis for deferring to military authorities if they claimed,

contrary to the facts, that racial preferences remain necessary to

that goal. See, e.g., Anderson v. Laird, 466 F.2d 283 (D.C. Cir.

1972) (holding that cadets and midshipmen at military academies

could not be forced to attend religious services in violation of their

constitutional rights).

A merit-based system would consider all factors deemed

relevant, including, in officer accessions, such things as an

individual candidate’s having overcome documented socioeconomic disadvantage or family hardship in a manner clearly

demonstrating leadership potential, so long as it is uniformly

considered, race-neutral, proportional to other factors, and not

used as a proxy for race. This would not apply to military officer

assignments or promotions, where merit must be judged based

A. Racial Preferences Reduce Military Effectiveness.

Racial preferences reduce military effectiveness

partly because of our society’s dominant definition of

“diversity” as purely a product of identity characteristics, such as gender and race, as opposed to varied professional and personal experiences. As a retired brigadier general stated, “[r]ather than diverse experiences,

backgrounds, and perspectives—that promote healthy

group decisions and outcomes—‘diversity’ has come to

mean only race, ethnicity, and sex.” 45

1. For several reasons, this fixation on race can

only foster a culture of arbitrary advancement, disunity, and frustration.

First, racial preferences blindly presuppose victimhood and disadvantages for minorities merely because

of skin color and a corresponding advantage for nonminorities merely because of skin color. But, in fact,

many non-minorities face socioeconomic or other hardships in their lives, and many minority applicants

come from well-educated, supportive families that are

economically stable. These race-based preferences are

thus inherently inaccurate in identifying the most deserving applicants who have overcome adversity.

Second, racial preferences also demean high-performing minority individuals by tainting any recognitions they earn with the suspicion that their race

tipped the scale in their favor compared to nonupon demonstrated performance and potential to perform

effectively at the next higher grade.

45 Chris Petty,

How today’s ‘diversity’ damages our military,

Am. Thinker (Mar. 19, 2022), https://tinyurl.com/27y7647y.

minority candidates. This “affirmative action” environment makes it impossible to know whether a promotion was earned by demonstrated performance or,

rather, was a “diversity promotion,” compromising the

presumption of merit that should accompany the promotion. Lacking that presumption only adds to the

leadership burden of the promoted officer.

Third, racial preferences sometimes result in less

than the best-qualified persons being selected as leaders. Not only does this result in less-than-the-bestavailable leadership in high-stakes situations, but it

also erodes trust in the integrity of superiors. Those

who are passed over for promotions and admissions

are led to suspect that superiors are concealing the use

of racial preferences and mischaracterizing functional

racial quotas as “goals.” Trust in leaders is a sine qua

non for combat effectiveness: Warfighters, especially

when in difficult circumstances, don’t respond as effectively to leaders whom they distrust. 46

2. A substantial body of evidence also suggests

that this emphasis on non-merit-based advancement

in the military leads to higher levels of dissatisfaction

and attrition.

For example, a recent study by Falk and Rogers

suggests that an emphasis on non-merit-based advancement in the military may, in fact, be driving

qualified officers out of the service. 47 In this study, researchers from the Harvard Kennedy School interviewed two groups of officers, some who were active

46 Id.

Sayce Falk & Sasha Rogers, Junior Military Officer

Retention: Challenges and Opportunities (Kennedy Sch. of Gov’t,

Harvard Univ. 2011), https://tinyurl.com/2p8v8bpt.

duty and others who had left the service. Seventy-one

percent of active duty officers responded that more of

the best young officers would stay if the military offered better assignments to the best officers, and 85%

of officers who had left the service agreed. 48 Additionally, when asked if the military personnel system did

a good job of weeding out weak leaders, only 18% of

active duty officers said yes, and only 10% out of the

service agreed. 49 Moreover, none of the study’s several

recommendations for improving officer retention mentioned any need for increased emphasis on racial or

ethnic diversity, any need for more minority officers,

or any need for racial preferences. These findings are

concerning and suggest that many officers believe

some factor or factors other than merit are being used

to make advancement decisions. 50

3. This troubling tension between achieving racial

diversity and rewarding merit is not waning. For example, the military recently eliminated the inclusion

of official photographs in personnel files that are considered by promotion boards. The stated purpose was

to eradicate any bias. But, when the racial diversity of

the officers selected decreased without photographs in

the records, Vice Admiral John Nowell, the Navy’s

Chief of Personnel, suggested photographs should be

reinstated. He said, “We’re very clear with our language to boards that we want them to consider

48 Id. at 63.

49 Id.

50 Id. at 37-38.

diversity across all areas***. I think having a clear picture just makes it easier.” 51

Similarly, Amicus received the following communication from a reliable source regarding the Army’s recently revamped command selection board procedures:

“An experienced general officer, who has been involved

in selections of officers for command positions, stated

that race was definitely a factor in command selection.

He told officers who were being considered for command that, if it appeared that the selection board

would not have a sufficient number [of] Black officers

on the command selection list based upon the objective

rating criteria, a Black officer with lower scores would

be added to the command list, over White officers with

higher scores/ratings.” 52

Perhaps to explain policies such as these, the current Secretary of Defense was recently quoted as saying, “[w]e are going to make sure that our *** leadership looks like what’s in the ranks of the military.” 53

Since the military wear uniforms, he was obviously not

referring to their clothing. Evidently, he was referring

to skin color, as part of a thinly veiled announcement

51 Harry Jackson, Opinion, Should Military Officers Be Chosen

Race?,

Wall

St.

J.,

(Aug.

19,

2021),

https://www.wsj.com/articles/military-officers-affirmativeaction-identity-politics-diversity-and-inclusion-nationalsecurity-11629402318.

52 Confidential written communication to counsel for Amicus

(Nov. 23, 2021) (on file with counsel).

Aaron Kliegman, Pentagon’s Embrace of Wokeness

Undermining Ability to Wage War, Critics Warn, Just the News

(Feb.

24,

2022),

https://justthenews.com/government/security/pentagonsembrace-wokeness-undermining-ability-wage-war-critics-warn.

of a policy of racial balancing in our military. Thus, the

policy of using racial preferences in officer command

selection and promotions, under the vague guise of “inclusion,” has begun to proliferate, necessarily diluting

merit selection, compromising leader quality, demeaning those involved, eroding morale, and reducing overall military effectiveness.

4. Such policies have potentially cataclysmic implications for national security. One formerly highranking member of the Joint Staff explained that such

policies contribute to our potential adversaries’ becoming less likely to be deterred from aggressive military

action and more likely to draw us into war. 54 A retired

Navy Captain reached a similar conclusion. 55

These are examples of Grutter’s consequences in

the military. Our current military has become brazen

in its use of racial preferences in officer assignments

and promotions, ignoring the Equal Protection Clause

and section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The

disingenuous claim that racial preferences are “essential to national security” is a contrived attempt to

withstand strict scrutiny and unsupported by any

competent evidence, much less the convincing body of

evidence that should be required before so drastic a

step as ignoring the Constitution is permitted. And,

as explained, the current use of racial preferences in

54 Greg Newbold, How Woke U.S. Military Leaders Make U.S.

Enemies More Likely to Start a War, The Federalist (July 29,

2021),

https://thefederalist.com/2021/07/29/how-woke-u-smilitary-leaders-make-u-s-enemies-more-likely-to-start-a-war/.

55 Phillip Keuhlen, Does the Navy’s New Emphasis on ‘Diversity’

Put the Nation at Risk?, Am. Greatness (Nov. 5, 2021),

https://tinyurl.com/mr2mukyt.

the military actually erodes trust, undermines unit cohesion, and compromises military effectiveness.

B. The Service Academies’ Experience With

Racial Preferences Illustrates This Threat

To National Security.

Military academies, once the gold standard for excellence and personal accountability, now fully reflect

this trend of racial preferences diluting merit. Data

from West Point and the Naval Academy demonstrate

that racial identity plays a significant role in admissions, and, as a result, minority students are disproportionately failing at these schools.

For example, research conducted on 1990s admissions data from West Point showed there were “155

Asian rejectees (43 percent) and 1,647 white rejectees

(33 percent) who ha[d] both math and verbal SATs

equal to or higher than the black admittee math and

verbal SAT medians . . . [and] 160 Asians (38 percent)

and 2,626 whites (37 percent) [were] rejected by the

U.S. Military Academy who attained a class rank

equal or better than the rank of the black admittee median.” 56

This same research paper used similar admissions

data from the United States Naval Academy to estimate the odds of acceptance at the Academy based on

the applicant’s race. Using “ethnic group membership,

gender, SAT scores, and high school rank as predictor

variables,” the researchers estimated that the “blackto-whites odds of admission are 4.44 to 1, the Hispanicto-white odds are 3.32 to 1, and the Asian-to-white

56 Robert Lerner & Althea K. Nagai, Preferences in the Service

Academies 11, Ctr. for Equal Opportunity (Oct. 16, 2006),

https://tinyurl.com/4xzb8prd.

odds are 0.67 to 1.2.” 57 These racial disparities reflect

significant harm to less favored races seeking admission.

Another researcher who examined data provided

by the U.S. Military Academy found similar results.

His examination of demographic data for the classes of

2000 to 2020 showed substantial differences in standards, specifically, substantially lower scores and

higher admissions rates for Black individuals, and to

a lesser extent Hispanic individuals, compared to

White and Asian individuals. The author concluded

that the academy intentionally seeks racial diversity

and is willing to alter its admissions standards to

achieve it. 58

The same study found that performance for cadets

who graduated tracked demographic SAT trends, with

the composite grade point average (for academic, military, and physical performance during the 4-year period, called “CQPA”), averaging 3.06 for Asian individuals, 3.02 for White individuals, 2.76 for Hispanic individuals, and 2.51 for Black individuals. 59 Attrition

rates followed the same trend, with the Asian rate at

17%, the White rate at 21%, the Hispanic rate at 24%,

and the Black rate at 31%. 60

The researcher concluded that, in deliberate pursuit of class composition goals, the Academy employs

race-based admission strategies and that these

57 Id. at 8.

On Diversity as Strength, usmaData (June 10, 2018),

https://usmadata.com/2018/06/10/on-diversity-as-strength/.

59 Id.

60 Id.

strategies include extension of “preferences to minority candidates who, on average, have significantly

lower SAT scores than non-minority candidates who

have higher SAT scores.” He also noted that Academy

racial diversity admissions (“class composition”) goals

are explicitly identified. 61

The researcher further showed that, to achieve

class composition goals for minorities, the Academy

admits “marginally qualified candidates with a known

and higher probability of failure [and that] marginally

qualified candidates are failing by the Academy’s own

metrics.” 62 He further concluded that “more marginal

performers are graduating into the Army *** [while]

marginally qualified candidates [as cadets] consume

resources to try to get to graduation, and take up slots

that other, available, better qualified individuals could

have filled ***.” 63

The researcher further observed that “[t]here are

real and tangible costs to pursuing the diversity strategy, and no supporting quantifiable argument [is] offered for pursuing the strategy.” 64 He concluded that

the academy “is deliberately seeking and tolerating

low performance and accepting high failure rates that

hurt cadets to meet arbitrary student body composition goals by skin color.” 65 When the data are examined critically, the researcher observed, it is clear that

61 Id.

62 Id.

63 Id.

64 Id.

65 Id.

this strategy yields “worse outcomes” than would result if racial preferences were not used. 66

This harmful emphasis on race is also reflected in

the Navy’s recent decision, described above, to cease

“blind review” of personnel files by officer promotion

boards after the blind reviews led to fewer minority

promotions than before. If the objective is to find the

most qualified candidate, it is unclear how a photograph’s revealing race or ethnicity is relevant to a promotion selection decision—as opposed to being guided

in that decision solely by the record of the officer’s experiences and performance reports—would further

this goal. Although the officer promotion procedure is

distinct from the admissions procedures at service

academies, statements like these by high-ranking military officials reveal a leadership mindset toward

training and selecting officers that values race for its

own sake, rather than merit.

In short, in the military as elsewhere, as the Chief

Justice wrote in Parents Involved in Community

Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, treating racial

balancing as an end in itself would effectively ensure

that race will always be relevant in American life, and

that the “ultimate goal of eliminating entirely from

governmental decision-making such irrelevant factors

as a human being’s race will never be achieved.” 551

U.S. 701, 730 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). And in the military setting, racial balancing affirmatively harms rather than promotes national security.

66 Id.

CONCLUSION

Our nation’s security is of paramount importance,

and race-conscious admissions and promotions in the

military lessen this security by undermining, rather

than advancing, the compelling interest in a strong

military. While military recruiting that promotes diversity by, for example, conducting extensive outreach

to all racial demographics is laudable, efforts to engineer racial diversity through racial preferences in admissions decisions, at the expense of equal treatment,

inevitably fail to enhance necessary military effectiveness. Accordingly, the alleged need for racial preferences in the military cannot reasonably be invoked to

support the kinds of racial preferences in which respondents engage.

Respectfully submitted,

GENE C. SCHAERR

Counsel of Record

ERIK S. JAFFE

H. CHRISTOPHER BARTOLOMUCCI

HANNAH C. SMITH

KATHRYN E. TARBERT

JORDAN E. SMITH

ANNIKA M. BOONE*

SCHAERR|JAFFE LLP

1717 K Street NW, Suite 900

Washington, DC 20006

(202) 787-1060

gschaerr@schaerr-jaffe.com

CLAUDE M. MCQUARRIE III

MCQUARRIE LAW OFFICE

20887 Sweetglen Drive

Porter, TX 77365

Counsel for Amicus Curiae

May 9, 2022

* Not yet admitted to the D.C.

bar. Practicing under the supervision of D.C. Bar members pursuant to Rule 49(c)(8).

APPENDIX

TABLE OF APPENDICES

Appendix A:

VFM Member List ......................................... App. 1a

Appendix B:

VFM Membership Demographics and

Accomplishments ...................................... App. 14a

Appendix C:

Paygrades and Corresponding Ranks ......... App. 21a

Appendix D:

VFM Special Recognition and Senior

Leadership Summary .................................. App. 27a

Appendix E:

VFM Medal of Honor Recipients

and Prisoners of War ................................... App. 38a

Appendix A

VFM MEMBER LIST

TOTAL MEMBERS: 627 1,2

ARMY

GEN Bell, Burwell III

GEN Brown, Arthur Jr.

GEN Anonymous 3

LTG Crocker, George

LTG Fields, Harold Jr.

LTG Johnson, James Jr.

LTG Mixon, Benjamin

LTG Ohle, David

LTG Spigelmire, Michael

LTG Trefry, Richard

LTG Ulmer, Walter

LTG Woodmansee, John

LTG Anonymous

MG Andreson, Ronald

MG Brady, Pat MoH 4

MG Childers, Carroll

MG Cole, Thomas

MG Csrnko, Thomas

MG Dozier, James

MG Graham, Todd

MG Hagan, Craig

MG Hamilton, Mark

MG Harrell, Gary

Membership data as of May 9, 2022. Current membership

information may be accessed at https://bit.ly/VFMpublicdocs.

2 For explanation of rank abbreviations, see Appendix C.

At the time of enrollment, members were asked to indicate

whether they authorized the inclusion of their name in a member

list that would accompany this brief. Those who withheld such

authorization are listed here anonymously.

4 MoH denotes Medal of Honor Recipient.

MG Horst, Karl

MG Jackson, James

MG Nichols, Stephen

MG Raines, William Jr.

MG Anonymous

BG Bahnsen, John Jr.

BG Audino, Ernie

BG Crow, John

BG Foust, Jerome

BG Marshall, Jeffery

BG Nicholson, John

BG Petty, Chris

BG Stringham, Joseph

BG Trifiletti, Anthony

BG Zais, Mitchell

BG Anonymous

COL Ballard, Don MoH

COL Barnes, Thomas

COL Baxter, Vicki

COL Benson, John

COL Bolinger, Marvin

COL Bondshu, Arthur

COL Bowman, Greg

COL Bramblett, Howard

COL Bridges, Gary

COL Briggs, Richard

COL Brooks, Johnny

COL Burcham, Jerry

COL Choppa, Robert

COL Clarke, Bruce

COL Crandall,

Bruce MoH

COL Crosby, George

COL Dillon, Robert

COL Donaghy, Michael

COL Donlon, Roger MoH

COL Fegan, Charles

COL Ford, Michael

COL German, Abraham

COL Godwin, James Jr.

COL Greco, George

COL Hadden, Mayo III

COL Hansen, Mark

COL Hathaway, John

COL Hoffman, Jeffrey

COL Hueman, Thomas

COL Hug, Jack

COL Hughes, William

COL Hurtado, Arthur

COL Jackson, Joseph Jr.

COL Johnson, Bradley

COL Kitterman, Jay

COL Kushner, F. Harold

COL Lackey, Alan

COL Lentz, Carl

COL Marm,

Walter Jr. MoH

COL Mastrovito, Nick Jr.

COL Mejasku, Joseph

COL Merrill, Will III

COL Mowery, James

COL O’Connell,

James Jr.

COL Padgett, Michael

COL Palmatier, Bruce

COL Prince, William

COL Quackenbush,

Robert

COL Redmond, Lawrence

COL Savory, Carlton

COL Scannell, John

COL Shipley, Richard

COL Shippee, Ronald

COL Sipantzi, Vahan

COL Stefan, James Sr.

COL Surdu, John

COL West, Sterling

COL Williams, Harold Jr.

COL Zais, Barrie

COL Anonymous

LTC Adams, John Jr.

LTC Altobello, Roy

LTC Armstrong,

Council Jr.

LTC Bahnsen, Peter III

LTC Bailey, William

LTC Barbee, Elmer

LTC Benson, Roy

LTC Benway, Kenneth

LTC Bireley, Judson

LTC Bradley, John

COL Thiessen, LaVoy Jr. LTC Brauer, Albert II

COL Tobin, John

LTC Brown, Royal III

COL Totten, Robert

LTC Cerrone, Michael

COL Vernon, Frederick II LTC Coombs, John

LTC De Moya, Rick

COL Webb, Gerald

LTC Fardink, Paul

LTC Fellinger, Paul

LTC Fletcher, Bill

LTC Ford, Richard

LTC Fritz, Harold MoH

LTC Gardiner, Paul

LTC Gifford, Edward III

LTC Gleszer, Peter

LTC Gregor, William

LTC Hidalgo, Manuel

LTC Howe, Chuck

LTC Hueman, Kevin

LTC Hughes, John

LTC Jilbert, Gerald

LTC Johnson, Fred

LTC Keller, Robert

LTC Leskovjan, Larry

LTC Luker, William

LTC Lupfer, Timothy

LTC Maertens,

Thomas Jr.

LTC Marsh, Stephen

LTC McKay, Karen

LTC Mills, Hugh

LTC Nickel, Gary

LTC Odom, Michael

LTC Piraneo, Charles

LTC Randall, Charles

LTC Searles,

Jonathan Sr.

LTC Shaw, Charles

LTC Shea, Daniel

LTC Toler, Michael

LTC van Dam, Bruce

LTC Wade, Dean

LTC Walls, Russell

LTC Warncke, Ron

LTC Whitworth, John

LTC Anonymous

MAJ Alexander, Robert

MAJ Bowden, James

MAJ Brennan, Ambrose

MAJ Coleman, William

MAJ Dumais, Richard

MAJ Dynes, John

MAJ Griffin, John

MAJ Miller, John

MAJ Morin, Mark

MAJ Norris, Timothy

MAJ Rice, Frederick C.

MAJ Rodriguez,

Wilfred Jr.

MAJ Shimp, Robert

MAJ Smith, Mark

MAJ Sugdinis, Joel

MAJ Taylor, James MoH

MAJ Whitner, Glen

MAJ Anonymous

CPT Camacho, Isaac

CPT Carson, Craig

CPT Chin, Johnson

CPT Coughlin, David

CPT Cunningham, David

CPT Davis, Donald

CPT Evans, Brad

CPT Gemberling, Dean

CPT Gregory, William

CPT Hargis, James

CPT Hoppe, Thomas

CPT Hurley, Jeanell

CPT Ishimoto, Wade

CPT Jones, Cliff

CPT Kim, Jimmy

CPT Lentini, Anthony Jr.

CPT Lukehart, Paul

CPT Maguire, Stephen

CPT McDougald, Charles

CPT McKeown, John

CPT McQuarrie,

Claude III

CPT Merrill, Mike

CPT Minshew,

Charles Jr.

CPT Mitchell, Eugene

CPT Moore, Earl

CPT Musser, Kurt

CPT Nerdahl, John

CPT Newgent, Matthew

CPT Qualls, Kendall

CPT Reams, Larry

CPT Rodriguez, Leo

CPT Sarpen, Gary

CPT Shook, Tommy

CPT Sorrow, Jerry

CPT Vinson, Douglas

CPT Wood, David

CPT Anonymous

1LT French, William

1LT McLaughlin, Eugene

1LT Prosser, Donald

1LT Anonymous

CW5 Adair, Michael

CW5 Wilke, Daniel

CW4 Harbin, Michael

CW4 Talton, Michael

CW4 Watkins, Roger

CW4 Mooney, James Jr.

CW4 Anonymous

CW2 Samuels, Stanley

SGM Anderson, John

CSM Armandariz,

Roberto

SGM Giglia, David

SGM Gleason, Edward Jr.

SGM Holcom, Floyd

SGM Hux, Will

SGM Johnson, Gregory

CSM Leon, Angel

CSM Snider, Ernest

CSM Anonymous

MSG Denham, Daniel

MSG Foster, Paul

MSG Guerra, Jose

MSG Petry, Leroy MoH

1SG Phillips, James

MSG Sinyard, Cletis

MSG Wardlow, Eric

MSG Winnewisser,

Edward

MSG Woodhead, Robert

MSG Anonymous

SFC Davis, Sammy MoH

SFC Ford, Patrick

SFC Heid, Eric

SFC Mansour,

Rouhana IV

SFC Morris, Melvin MoH

SFC Van Ness, William

SFC Anonymous

SSG Byrd, Don

SSG Corcoran, Stephen

SSG Grounds, Phill

SSG Hempel, Steven

SSG Largent, Joshua

SSG Meyer, John

SSG O’Neil, Jimmie

SSG Romesha, Clint MoH

SGT Grimaldi, Saverio

SGT Harlow, Robert

SGT Krutina, Danny

SP5 McCloughan,

James MoH

SGT Moran, J. Blair

SGT Pauley, Danny Joe

SGT Roeder, Robert

SP4 Abijaoude, Oswaldo

SP4 Black, Doug

SP4 Caspary, Louie

SP4 Fitzmaurice,

Michael MoH

SP4 Llewellyn, Henry

SP4 True, Jessica

SP4 Webb, Jimmy

PFC McKeever, William

NAVY

ADM Johnson, Jerome

ADM Smith, Leighton

VADM Emery, George

VADM Robinson, David

RADM Bremner, Bruce

RADM Byrd, John

RADM Dantone, Joseph

RADM Flatley, James III

RADM Johnson,

J. Michael

RADM Newman, William

RADM Anonymous

RDML Christenson,

Ronald

RDML Long, Noah Jr.

RDML Scott, Hugh

CAPT Bailey, Larry

CAPT Burbage, Charles

CAPT Carey, David

CAPT Cargill, Lee

CAPT DeWitt, Paul

CAPT Donahue, Conrad

CAPT Estes, Edward

CAPT Flanagan, Thomas

CAPT Knutson, Rodney

CAPT Mann, John

CAPT McDaniel, Eugene

CAPT Metzger, William

CAPT Plumb, Joseph Jr.

CAPT Ramsey, Brenton

CAPT Reinhold, Baron

CAPT Rumph, Scott

CAPT Schery, Mike

CAPT Schoeffel, Peter

CAPT Sheridan, Robert

CAPT Stafford, Perry

CAPT Stratton, Richard

CAPT Tredennick, Harry

CAPT Treis, Robert

CAPT Tulley, James Jr.

CAPT Tuma, David

CAPT Tupacz, Eugene Jr.

CAPT Ward, Jack

CAPT Williams, Lewis

CAPT Anonymous

CDR Antrim, Stanley

CDR Bowen, John

CDR Carpenter, Allan

CDR Clifford, Bill

CDR Hewitt, Frank

CDR Hinckley, Robert

CDR Keuhlen, Phillip

CDR Martin, George

CDR Mobilia, Ross

CDR Murchison, Grover

CDR Shankel, William

CDR Thornton, Gary

CDR Wheat, David

CDR Young, Richard

CDR Anonymous

LCDR Barnes, George

LCDR Daley, Thomas

LCDR Davey, Bruce

LCDR Herman, Roger

LCDR Jackson, Harry

LCDR Jasser, M. Zuhdi

LCDR Knudson, Thomas

LCDR Neumann, Robert

LT Horne, Alvin

LT McCain, Todd

LT McCauley, William

LT O’Neill, John

LT Pigeon, Lawrence

LT Reinhold, Eric

LT Saacke, Paul

LT Sawyer, Willits

LT Simmons, Derek

LT Spancake, Steven

LT Stearns, Theodore

LT Thornton,

Michael MoH

LT Anonymous

LTJG Flynn, James

LTJG Sacco, Joseph

LTJG Weekley, Richard

ENS Worrell, Stewart

CWO4 Chaudoin, Thomas

SCPO Jones, Clifford L.

PO2 Fey, David

PO2 Forke, Edward

PO2 Peterson, L. Carl

PO2 Anonymous

PO3 Ingram,

Robert MoH

PO3 Mann, Ricki

PO3 Turpin, Trayntor

PO3 Anonymous

AIR FORCE

Gen Dugan, Michael

Gen Fogleman, Ronald

Gen Hostage, Gilmary III

Gen Kutyna, Donald

Gen O’Loughlin, Earl

Gen Smith, Lance

Gen Anonymous

Lt Gen Bishop, Robert Jr.

Lt Gen Brown, Richard

Lt Gen Coolidge,

Charles, Jr.

Lt Gen Hamm, Charles

Lt Gen Kelley, Jay

Lt Gen Kinnan, Timothy

Lt Gen Kwast, Steven

Lt Gen Remington,

Jeffrey

Lt Gen Anonymous

Maj Gen Baldwin,

Charles

Maj Gen Borling, John

Maj Gen Bracken,

Edward

Maj Gen Collins, Richard

Maj Gen Comer, Richard

Maj Gen Commons,

David

Maj Gen Fortner, Larry

Maj Gen Halloran,

Patrick

Maj Gen Hunt, James

Maj Gen MacLane, Bruce

Maj Gen Marr, Richard

Maj Gen McBroom, John

Maj Gen Miller, John Jr.

Maj Gen O’Mara,

Raymund

Maj Gen Post, David S.

Maj Gen Rayburn,

Bentley

Maj Gen Scott,

Winfield III

Maj Gen Smith, Perry

10a

Maj Gen Winters,

John Jr.

Maj Gen Anonymous

Brig Gen Ball, William

Brig Gen Bundy, Richard

Brig Gen Carr, Chalmers

Brig Gen Cubero, Ruben

Brig Gen Fleming,

Thomas

Brig Gen Goodrich, Dan

Brig Gen Johnston,

James III

Brig Gen Mansfield,

Robert Jr.

Brig Gen Mueh, Hans

Brig Gen Rinebarger,

Teddy

Brig Gen Welch, William

Brig Gen Anonymous

Col Austin, William II

Col Bending, Michael

Col Brockman, John

Col Brown, Kenneth Jr.

Col Certain, Robert

Col Colter, Craig

Col Cordier, Kenneth

Col Crum, William

Col Desilets-Bixler,

Nicole

Col Fer, John

Col Hungerbeeler,

Henry Sr.

Col Jackson, Jackie

Col Kirk, Thomas Jr.

Col Long, Gordon

Col Mac Isaac, Richard

Col Maness, Robert

Col Meck, Tracey

Col Moe, Thomas

Col Morgan, Sherman

Col Nations, William

Col Parker, Amy

Col Parker, Roy II

Col Paulson, Ajrn

Col Pefley, Michael

Col Perini, Michael

Col Petersen, Barbara

Col Peterson, Kurt

Col Robinson, Paul Jr.

Col Rybak, Richard

Col Scott, Ronald Jr.

Col Seares, David

Col Stutz, Leroy

11a

Col Torreano, Mark Sr.

Col Vogel, Richard

Col Waddell, Dewey

Col Webb, Ronald

Col Wells, William

Col Wray, James

Col Zietlow, James

Col Anonymous

Lt Col Austin, William C.

Lt Col Ayres, Tim

Lt Col Bone, Gary

Lt Col Brown, Robert II

Lt Col Cliatt, Jeffrey

Lt Col Dolan, Michael

Lt Col Fletcher, Keith

Lt Col Gauntt, William

Lt Col Gervais, Thomas

Lt Col Gimarc, John

Lt Col Greer, Charles Jr.

Lt Col Hamlin, Kenneth

Lt Col Hannen, John Jr.

Lt Col Hess, Jay

Lt Col LeCato, Harvey

Lt Col Mastin, Ronald

Lt Col Mosher, Duane

Lt Col Nance, Keith

Lt Col Piowaty, John

Lt Col Potter, Gary

Lt Col Schlabs, Glenn

Lt Col Schwertfeger,

William

Lt Col Sherman, John

Lt Col Staiger, Kathryn

Lt Col Tingman, Kenneth

Lt Col Anonymous

Maj Carlin, Bernard

Maj Craig, Patricia

Maj Crecca, Joseph

Maj Hipps, Robert

Maj Jones, Robert

Maj Rose, Michael

Maj Seifert, Robert

Maj Smith, Robert J.

Maj Zawacki, Robert

Maj Zielinski, David

Maj Anonymous

12a

Capt Beecham, Brent

Capt Chambers, Carl

Capt Ebner, David

Capt Grant, Cecil, Jr.

Capt Green, Linda

Capt Haugh, Dennis

Capt Karr, Jordan

Capt Lyle, Richard

Capt Marvel, William

Capt Mastrovito, Rita

Capt Pettyjohn, Karen

Capt Sturman, John

Capt Wells, Kenneth

Capt Anonymous

CMSg Battle, Kenneth

MSgt White, Sarah

MARINES

LtGen Hailston, Earl

LtGen McCorkle,

Frederick

MajGen Krupp, Dennis

MajGen Kuklok, Kevin

MajGen Livingston,

James MoH

BrigGen Weise, William

Col Barnum,

Harvey Jr. MoH

Col Beavis, Robert

Col Couvillon, David

Col Fischer, Robert

Col Hanvey, Stephan

Col Landes, Burrell

Col Leighton, David

Col Modrzejewski,

Robert MoH

Col Patrow, Michael

Col Sime, Colben Jr.

Col Vargas, Jay MoH

Col Welch, Patricia

Col Anonymous

LtCol Bailey, Richard

LtCol Cathcart, Donald

LtCol Cole, Jeffrey

LtCol Collins, Raymond

LtCol Cooper, Kenneth

LtCol Fiorillo, Michael

LtCol Hilton, Judson

LtCol Smith, Richard

LtCol Swindle, Orson

Maj Bloom, David

Maj Marmon, Anthony

13a

Maj Anonymous

Capt Alstad, John

Capt Brooks, Robert

Capt Buckley, Rich

Capt Hapke, Norman Jr.

Capt Kleiboeker, Ronald

Capt Lottie, Richard

Capt McEncroe, Jack

Capt Papineau, Thomas

Capt Park, Brian

Capt Redmond, Thomas

Capt Regan, John

Capt Ryman, Michael

Capt Zobenica, Ronald

Capt Anonymous

CWO4 Williams,

Hershel MoH

SgtMaj Chevalier, Paul

MGySgt McCartney,

Lawrence

MGySgt Anonymous

MSgt Franklin, David

Sgt Bolinder, Thomas

Sgt Eden, Judith

Sgt O’Malley,

Robert MoH

Cpl Birdsong, Grady

Cpl Prestanski, Harry

Cpl Rohrer, Robert

COAST GUARD

VADM Thorsen, Howard

RADM Day, Steven

RADM McKinley, Andrew

CAPT Anonymous

CDR Tirpak, Garrett

14a

Appendix B

VFM MEMBERSHIP DEMOGRAPHICS

AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS

GENERAL

Total VFM Members

Army

Air Force

Navy

Marines

Coast Guard

627

308

160

Officers (Total)

General/Flag Officers

545

119

Warrant Officers

W-5s

Enlisted

E-9s

Minorities

Females

Combat Tours

Combat Command or Combat Leadership

Positions

Career Command/Leadership Positions

(combat and non-combat)

Years Served

Corporate Leadership Positions

934

476

1,769

14,397

290

15a

AWARDS AND DECORATIONS1,2

Medal of Honor

Distinguished Service/Navy/Air Force Cross

Silver Star

Distinguished Flying Cross3

Bronze Star Medal with Valor4

Bronze Star Medal (without valor)

Air Medal with Valor5

Air Medal (without valor)

Other Valor Awards

Prisoner of War Medal

Purple Heart

Combat Action Awards

(CIB/CAB/CMB/CAR/AFCAM)

142

220

212

360

366

2,192

163

215

217

COMBAT ACTION AWARDS

CIB (Combat Infantryman’s Badge)

CAB (Combat Action Badge)

CMB (Combat Medic Badge)

CAR (Combat Action Ribbon)

AFCAM (Air Force Combat Action Medal)

139

1 The highest three military decorations that are awarded

solely for “valor” are, in descending order, the Medal of Honor;

the Distinguished Service Cross (Army), Navy Cross (Navy,

Marine Corps and Coast Guard when operating under Navy

authority), and Air Force Cross (Air Force); and the Silver Star.

Criteria for each are explained at Military Awards for Valor-Top

3, Description of Medals, U.S. Dep’t of Def. (last accessed May 7,

2022), https://valor.defense.gov/description-of-awards/.

“Valor is an act or acts of heroism by an individual above what

is normally expected while engaged in direct combat with an

enemy of the United States, or an opposing foreign or armed

force, with exposure to enemy hostilities and personal risk.” Off.

of Under Sec’y of Def. for Pers. & Readiness, Dep’t of Def., DoDI

16a

1348.33, DoD Military Decorations and Awards Program 20 (Apr.

9, 2021), https://tinyurl.com/5n95uatk.

2 Several other “multi-purpose personal military decorations”

sometimes are used to recognize “valor.” They include the

Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC), Bronze Star Medal (BSM), Air

Medal (AM) and various commendation medals. When these are

used to recognize “valor” (as defined above), the citation should

specify the award to include the “V” device. Id. For the DFC,

however, this was not always true, with DFCs’ having been

routinely awarded—without inclusion of the “V” designation—to

recognize valorous actions (see n.3, infra). A 2016 regulation

revision attempted to standardize practices regarding award of

the DFC prospectively. Id.

The data provided here represent the numbers of valor awards

(and BSMs and AMs without “valor”), including “Other Valor

Awards,” received by VFM members. The Prisoner of War Medal,

Purple Heart, and Combat Action Awards are not “valor” awards

but are relevant decorations.

The DFC is awarded for heroism or extraordinary

achievement while participating in aerial flight. The actions

must be entirely distinctive, involving operations that are not

routine. Fact Sheet Display, Distinguished Flying Cross, A.F.

Pers.

Ctr.

(last

accessed

May

2022),

https://www.afpc.af.mil/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/421931/

distinguished-flying-cross/. The actions involved need not

necessarily have been in combat.

All but one VFM member who reported award of the DFC also

reported combat deployments. (The one DFC recipient who

reported no combat deployments flew with the U.S. Air Force Air

Demonstration Squadron—Thunderbirds—which may explain

the circumstances of his DFC award.) Review of citations, e.g.,

MG Brady’s six DFC citations, Awards, Patrick Brady, Mil.

Times

(last

accessed

May

2022),

https://valor.militarytimes.com/hero/2540, shows that most (all

in General Brady’s case) do not include the “V” device, but they

do document heroism and/or extraordinary achievement in aerial

flight in combat operations. The majority of the DFCs reported

here, therefore, recognize heroism or extraordinary achievement

in combat.

17a

The Bronze Star Medal is awarded to those who have

distinguished themselves “by heroic or meritorious achievement

or service, not involving participation in aerial flight, in

connection with military operations against an armed

enemy.” Fact Sheet Display, Bronze Star Medal, A.F. Pers. Ctr.

(last accessed May 7, 2022), https://www.afpc.af.mil/FactSheets/Display/Article/421879/bronze-star-medal/. The

award

recognizes acts of heroism performed in ground combat if they

are of lesser degree than that required for the Silver Star. Id. It

is thus the fourth highest award for heroism or meritorious

achievement for actions on the ground. When awarded for

“valor,” the citation will indicate inclusion of the “V” device. Off.

of Under Sec’y of Def. for Pers. & Readiness, Dep’t of Def., DoDI

1348.33, DoD Military Decorations and Awards Program 20 (Apr.

9, 2021), https://tinyurl.com/5n95uatk. “All [BSM] awards for

non-valorous achievement or service must satisfy the

requirements for personal exposure to hostile action or

significant risk of exposure to hostile action.” Id. at 14.

5 The

Air Medal is awarded for single acts of heroism or

meritorious achievements while participating in aerial flight in

actual combat in support of operations. Fact Sheet Display, Air

Medal, A.F. Pers. Ctr. (last accessed May 7, 2022),

https://www.afpc.af.mil/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/421927/airmedal/. The award recognizes achievement less than that

required for the Distinguished Flying Cross, but which is above

and beyond what is expected of professional airmen. Id. When

awarded for “valor,” the citation will indicate inclusion of the “V”

device. Id.

18a

OFFICER COMMISSIONING SOURCES

Service Academy Graduates

ROTC

OCS

OTS

PLC

Other

292

100

SERVICE ACADEMY GRADUATES

USMA

USNA

USAFA

USCGA

USMMA

167

COMBAT TOURS

Korea

Vietnam

Gulf War

Iraq

Afghanistan

Other

535

105

121

MINORITIES

Asian

Black

Hispanic

Native American

Pacific Islander

Other

19a

PAYGRADE

O-10

O-9

O-8

O-7

O-6

161

O-5

124

O-4

O-3

O-2

O-1

W-5

W-4

W-3

W-2

W-1

E-9

E-8

E-7

E-6

E-5

E-4

E-3

E-2

E-1

20a

This page intentionally left blank.

21a

Appendix C

PAYGRADES AND CORRESPONDING RANKS

Paygrade

O-10

Army

Air Force

Gen

U.S. Marine

Corps

Gen

Navy/Coast

Guard

ADM

GEN

O-9

General

LTG

General

Lt Gen

General

LtGen

Admiral

VADM

Lieutenant

General

Maj Gen

Lieutenant

General

MajGen

Vice Admiral

O-8

Lieutenant

General

Major General

O-7

Brigadier General

O-6

COL

Brig Gen

Brigadier

General

Col

BGen

Brigadier

General

Col

Rear Admiral

Upper Half

RDML

Rear Admiral

Lower Half

CAPT

Colonel

Captain

RADM

22a

Paygrade

O-5

Lt Col

U.S. Marine

Corps

LtCol

Navy/Coast

Guard

CDR

Lieutenant

Colonel

MAJ

Lieutenant

Colonel

Maj

Lieutenant

Colonel

Maj

Commander

Major

O-3

CPT

Capt

Lieutenant

Commander

O-2

Captain

1LT

Captain

1st Lt

Captain

1stLt

Lieutenant

LTJG

First Lieutenant

First

Lieutenant

2d Lt

First

Lieutenant

2ndLt

Lieutenant,

Junior Grade

ENS

Second

Lieutenant

Second

Lieutenant

Ensign

O-4

O-1

Army

Air Force

LTC

2LT

Second Lieutenant

LCDR

23a

Paygrade

W-5

CW5

U.S. Marine

Corps

CWO5

Navy/Coast

Guard

CWO5

W-4

Chief Warrant

Officer 5

CW4

Chief Warrant

Officer 5

CWO4

Chief Warrant

Officer 5

CWO4

W-3

Chief Warrant

Officer 4

CW3

Chief Warrant

Officer 4

CWO3

Chief Warrant

Officer 4

CWO3

W-2

Chief Warrant

Officer 3

CW2

Chief Warrant

Officer 3

CWO2

Chief Warrant

Officer 3

CWO2

Chief Warrant

Officer 2

Chief Warrant

Officer 2

Chief Warrant

Officer 2

WO1

Warrant Officer

W-1

Army

Air Force

24a

Paygrade

Army

Air Force

U.S. Marine

Corps

Navy/Coast

Guard

E-9

SGM/CSM/SMA

CMSgt/CMSAF

MGySgt/

SgtMaj

MCPO/MCPON/

MCPOCG

Sergeant Major

Chief Master

Sergeant

Master Gunnery

Sergeant

Master Chief

Petty Officer

Chief Master

Sergeant of the

Air Force

Sergeant Major

Master Chief

Petty Officer of

the Navy

Command

Sergeant Major

Sergeant Major of

the Army

Master Chief

Petty Officer of

the Coast Guard

E-8

MSG/1SG

SMSgt

MSgt

SCPO

Master Sergeant

Senior Master

Sergeant

Master

Sergeant

Senior Chief Petty

Officer

First Sergeant

25a

Paygrade

Army

Air Force

U.S. Marine

Corps

Navy/Coast

Guard

E-7

SFC

MSgt

GySgt

CPO

Sergeant First

Class

Master

Sergeant

Gunnery

Sergeant

Chief Petty

Officer

SSG

TSgt

SSgt

PO1

Staff Sergeant

Technical

Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Petty Officer

1st Class

SGT

SSgt

Sgt

PO2

Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Sergeant

Petty Officer

2nd Class

SPC/CPL

SrA

Cpl

PO3

Specialist

Corporal

Senior Airman

or Sergeant

Corporal

Petty Officer

3rd Class

E-6

E-5

E-4

26a

Paygrade

Army

Air Force

U.S. Marine

Corps

Navy/Coast

Guard

E-3

PFC

A1C

LCpl

Private

First Class

Airman

First Class

Lance Corporal

Seaman

PV2

Amn

PFC

Private 2

Airman

Private

First Class

Seaman

Apprentice

PVT

Pvt

Private

Airman Basic

Private

Seaman Recruit

E-2

E-1

27a

Appendix D

VFM MEMBERSHIP SPECIAL RECOGNITIONS

AND SENIOR LEADERSHIP SUMMARY

SPECIAL RECOGNITION

Medal of Honor Recipients

Distinguished Service/Navy/Air Force

Cross Recipients

Total Combat Valor Awards Received

> 900

Prisoners of War

Service Academy Distinguished Graduate

Award (post career) Recipients

U.S. Military Academy

U.S. Naval Academy

U.S. Air Force Academy

SENIOR LEADERSHIP SUMMARY

Four-star Generals/Admirals

Service Chiefs of Staff (Air Force)

Vice Chiefs of Staff/Vice Chief of Naval

Operations (Army, Navy)

Four-star Commands Held

CINC, USFK-UNC Korea

CINC, USAREUR/7th Army

CINC, U.S. Naval Forces Europe/

NATO CINC Allied Forces

Southern Europe

28a

SENIOR LEADERSHIP SUMMARY (CONT’D)

Four-star Commands Held (cont’d)

Cdr, NATO IFOR, Bosnia

CG, Air Combat Command

CG, Air Force Logistics Command

CG, Air Force Space Command

CG, NORAD & U.S. Space Command

CINC, U.S. Transportation Command

CG, Air Mobility Command

CINC, U.S. Air Forces Europe,

Cdr, Allied Air Forces Central Europe

CG, U.S. Joint Forces Cmd & NATO Supreme

Allied Cdr for Transformation

Anonymous (3)

Three-star Generals/Admirals

Significant Three-star Staff Positions Held

Dep’y Chief of Staff,

Personnel (Army, Air Force) (2)

Dep’y Chief of Staff,

Programs and Resources (AF)

Dep’y Chief of Staff,

Plans & Operations (AF)

Dep’y Chief of Naval Operations,

Plans Policy & Operations (Navy)

Dep’y Commandant for Aviation, HQ USMC

Inspector General, HQ Dep’t of the Army

Anonymous

29a

SENIOR LEADERSHIP SUMMARY (CONT’D)

Three-star Commands Held

CG, I Corps

CG, III Corps (2)

CG, V Corps

CG, VII Corps

CG, U.S. Army Pacific

CG, U.S. Army Special Operations Command

CG, U.S. Army Space & Missile Defense

Command

Cdr, Second Fleet & NATO Striking Fleet

Cdr, Submarine Force Atlantic Fleet/Cdr,

Submarine Allied Command Atlantic

Cdr, Naval Surface Force Pacific Fleet

CG, 3rd Air Force

CG, 7th Air Force (2)

CG, Air Component Command, RoK/

U.S. Combined Forces Command, RoK

CG, Air Education and Training Command

CG, USAF Air University (2)

III Marine Expeditionary Force & MCB Japan

CG, U.S. Marine Forces Pacific/

U.S. Marine Forces Central Command/

Fleet Marine Force, Pacific,

U.S. Marine Corps Bases, Pacific

Cdr, Atlantic Area & U.S. Maritime

Defense Zone Atlantic

Anonymous (3)

30a

SENIOR LEADERSHIP SUMMARY (CONT’D)

Other Notable Commands

CG, 82nd Airborne Div. (2)

CG, 6th Infantry Div.

CG, 24th Infantry Div.

CG, 25th Infantry Div.

CG, 2nd Armd Div.

CG, Military District Washington

CG, U.S. Army Recruiting Command

CG, Joint Forces HQ National Capital

Region & MDW

CO, U.S. Army 75th Ranger Regiment (2)

Cdr, Carrier Battle Group Six (2)

Cdr, Carrier Group Three

Cdr, Carrier Group Four &

NATO Carrier Striking Fleet

Cdr, Carrier Group Eight

Cdr, Submarine Group Five

(West Coast Pacific Fleet)

Cdr, Cruiser Destroyer Group 8

CG, MCAS Cherry Point

CG, Third Marine Aircraft Wing

CG, Marine Air Ground Combat Center

CG, 1st Marine Expeditionary Brigade

CG, 4th Marine Division

CG, Marine Forces Reserve

31a

SENIOR LEADERSHIP SUMMARY (CONT’D)

Other Notable Commands (cont’d)

CG, Second Marine Air Wing

CG, III Marine Expeditionary Brigade

CG, 4th Marine Aircraft Wing

CG, Marine Corps Reserve Support Command

CG, AF Doctrine Center (3)

CG, AF Personnel Center

Cdr, Seventh Coast Guard District

Cdr, USCG Reserve

Cdr, U.S. Navy Blue Angels

Anonymous (5)

Ships Commanded

USS Coral Sea (CV-43)

Midway-class carrier (2)

USS America (CV-66)

Kitty Hawk-class supercarrier

USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CV-69)

Nimitz-class carrier

USS Abe Lincoln (CG-3) (CVN-72)

Nimitz-class carrier

USS Saratoga (CVA-60)

Forrestal-class supercarrier

USS Ohio (SSBN-726) Ohio-class

nuclear powered ballistic missile submarine

32a

SENIOR LEADERSHIP SUMMARY (CONT’D)

Ships Commanded (cont’d)

USS Groton (SSN-694)

Los Angeles-class submarine

USS Luce (DDG-38)

Farragut-class guided missile destroyer

USS Richmond K. Turner (DLG-20)

Leahy-class cruiser destroyer

USS San Jose (AFS-7)

Mars-class combat stores ship

USS Canon (PG-90) Asheville-class gunboat

USS Ready (PG-87) Asheville-class gunboat

USS Savannah (AOR-4)

Wichita-class replenishment oiler

USS Kalamazoo (AOR-6)

USS Caloosahatchee (AO-98)

USS Wichita (AOR-1)

USS White Plains (AFS-4)

Mars-class combat stores ship

NORAD, Command Director

Cdr, Medium Attack Tactical Electronic

Warfare Wing Pacific

Director, Reserve and Military Personnel, USCG

Director, Officer Personnel Management Systems

XXI Task Force (Army)

33a

SENIOR LEADERSHIP SUMMARY (CONT’D)

Service Academy Superintendent (USAFA)

Service Academy Commandants

(USMA, USCGA) (2)

Service Academy Deans (USAFA)

Senior Service School Commandants

National War College (2)

Air War College (2)

Naval War College

Other Service School Commandants

U.S. Army AMEDDC&S (2)

U.S. Special Forces WOI School

U.S. Army Training Center Commanding

Generals

CG, U.S. Army Armor School

CG, U.S. Army Infantry School

& Ft. Benning

CG, U.S. Army Transportation Center

& School

CG, U.S. Army JFK Special Warfare Center

& School

Anonymous

White House Assignments

Military Assistant to the President

Anonymous (2)

34a

SENIOR LEADERSHIP SUMMARY (CONT’D)

University/College Presidents

University of Alaska

Colorado Technical University

OTHER LEADERSHIP

Chairman of the Board, USNA Alumni Ass’n

Naval Academy Board of Visitors

Trustee, USNA Foundation Athletic & Scholarship

Program

President & CEO, Navy-Marine Corps Relief

Society

Chair, Senior Advisory Group to Director, Los

Alamos Nat’l Laboratory

General Chair, Submarine Technology Symposium

Trustee & Committee Chair, West Point Ass’n of

Graduates

Chair, Technical College of the Low Country

Foundation

NSA Advisory Board

Dep’y Ass’t SECNAV Reserve Affairs

Chair, SC Commission for Minority Affairs

White House Fellow & Staff (2)

Dir., DOD Coop Threat Reduction

Defense Health Board

Dir., Political Military Affairs Asia Pacific, JCS

35a

OTHER LEADERSHIP (CONT’D)

Civilian Aide SECARMY

IT Director, USDA

Dep’y Ass’t SECDEF, Civil Military Policy

Ass’t U.S. Attorney

State Dir. Transportation, MO

Spec. Ass’t to Dep’y Under Secretary Navy

Dir., USA Vietnam War Commemoration

Manager, Sandia National Labs

Commissioner, U.S. Comm. Int’l Religious Freedom

Dep’y Dir. Spec Ops to Ass’t SECDEF for Spec Ops

Dir., Emergency Operations, DoE

Navy Liaison, House of Representatives

Member, Reserve Forces Policy Board

Dir., Ohio State Dep’t Veterans Services

Secretary, American Battle Monuments

Commission

NORAD PAO

Chief of Base, CIA

DAIG Inspection Team Chief

President, Colorado Board of Health

Dir., White House Military Operations

Chairman, Naval Aviation Museum Foundation

National President, Air Force Association

Ass’t Secretary of Commerce, FTC

FEMA Federal Coordinating Officer

36a

OTHER LEADERSHIP (CONT’D)

Squadron Commander, MS Civil Air Patrol

Sr. Defense Reform Advisor

Army Science Board

Dep’y PEO Armored Systems Modernization

Sec’y, CA Dep’t Veterans Affairs

N.C. House of Representatives

Pres., Comm’n on the Assignment of Women

in the Armed Forces

Commandant, VA Nursing Home

U.S. Deputy & Acting Sec’y Education

Leadership Course Director, USAFA

Anonymous (4)

COMBAT COMMANDS/LEADERSHIP POSITIONS HELD 1

Combatant Command

Corps

Division

Fleet

Group

Wing

Brigade

Regiment

1 Partial data for principal command levels, mostly Army and Air

Force.

37a

COMBAT COMMANDS/LEADERSHIP POSITIONS HELD

(CONT’D)

Battalion

Squadron

Company

Troop

Platoon

HIGHEST COMMANDS/LEADERSHIP HELD NON-COMBAT2

Combatant Command

Corps

MAJCOM

Numbered Air Force

Division

Fleet

Group

Wing

Brigade

Regiment

Battalion

Squadron

Company

Troop

Platoon

Partial data for the highest level of command held not in

combat.

38a

Appendix E

VFM MEDAL OF HONOR RECIPIENTS AND

PRISONERS OF WAR

MEDAL OF HONOR RECIPIENTS

COL Donald E. Ballard, USA

The Recipients, Donald Everett Ballard, Cong.

Medal of Honor Soc’y (last accessed May 8, 2022),

https://www.cmohs.org/recipients/donald-eballard

Col. Barney Barnum, Jr., USMC

The Recipients, Harvey Curtiss “Barney” Barnum

Jr., Cong. Medal of Honor Soc’y (last accessed May

2022),

https://www.cmohs.org/recipients/

harvey-curtiss-barney-barnum-jr

MG Patrick H. Brady, USA

The Recipients, Patrick Henry Brady, Cong. Medal

of Honor Soc’y (last accessed May 8, 2022),

https://www.cmohs.org/recipients/patrick-h-brady

COL Bruce P. Crandall, USA

The Recipients, Bruce P Crandall, Cong. Medal of

Honor Soc’y (last accessed May 8, 2022),

https://www.cmohs.org/recipients/bruce-pcrandall

SFC Sammy Davis, USA

The Recipients, Sammy Lee Davis, Cong. Medal of

Honor Soc’y (last accessed May 8, 2022),

https://www.cmohs.org/recipients/sammy-l-davis

39a

COL Roger H. Donlon, USA

The Recipients, Roger H.C. Donlon, Cong. Medal

of Honor Soc’y (last accessed May 8, 2022),

https://www.cmohs.org/recipients/roger-h-donlon

SP4 Michael J. Fitzmaurice, USA

The Recipients, Michael John Fitzmaurice, Cong.

Medal of Honor Soc’y (last accessed May 8, 2022),

https://www.cmohs.org/recipients/michael-jfitzmaurice

LTC Harold A. Fritz, USA

The Recipients, Harold Arthur Fritz, Cong. Medal

of Honor Soc’y (last accessed May 8, 2022),

https://www.cmohs.org/recipients/harold-a-fritz

PO3 Robert R. Ingram, USN

The Recipients, Robert Ronald Ingram, Cong.

Medal of Honor Soc’y (last accessed May 8, 2022),

https://www.cmohs.org/recipients/robert-r-ingram

Maj. Gen. James E. Livingston, USMC

The Recipients, James Everette Livingston, Cong.

Medal of Honor Soc’y (last accessed May 8, 2022),

https://www.cmohs.org/recipients/james-elivingston

40a

COL Walter Joseph Marm, Jr., USA

The Recipients, Walter Joseph Marm Jr., Cong.

Medal of Honor Soc’y (last accessed May 8, 2022),

https://www.cmohs.org/recipients/walter-j-marmjr

SP5 James C. McCloughan, USA

The Recipients, James C McCloughan, Cong.

Medal of Honor Soc’y (last accessed May 8, 2022),

https://www.cmohs.org/recipients/james-cmccloughan

Col. Robert J. Modrzejewski, USMC

The Recipients, Robert Joseph Modrzejewski,

Cong. Medal of Honor Soc’y (last accessed May 8,

2022),

https://www.cmohs.org/recipients

/robert-j-modrzejewski

SFC Melvin Morris, USA

The Recipients, Melvin Morris, Cong. Medal of

Honor Soc’y (last accessed May 8, 2022),

https://www.cmohs.org/recipients/melvin-morris

SGT Robert E. O’Malley, USMC

The Recipients, Robert Emmett O’Malley, Cong.

Medal of Honor Soc’y (last accessed May 8, 2022),

https://www.cmohs.org/recipients/robert-eomalley

41a

MSG Leroy A. Petry, USA

The Recipients, Leroy Arthur Petry, Cong. Medal

of Honor Soc’y (last accessed May 8, 2022),

https://www.cmohs.org/recipients/leroy-a-petry

SSG Clinton Romesha, USA

The Recipients, Clinton Lavor Romesha, Cong.

Medal of Honor Soc’y (last accessed May 8, 2022),

https://www.cmohs.org/recipients/clinton-lromesha

MAJ James A. Taylor, USA

The Recipients, James Allen Taylor, Cong. Medal

of Honor Soc’y (last accessed May 8, 2022),

https://www.cmohs.org/recipients/james-a-taylor

LT Michael E. Thornton, USN

The Recipients, Michael Edwin Thornton, Cong.

Medal of Honor Soc’y (last accessed May 8, 2022),

https://www.cmohs.org/recipients/michael-ethornton

Col. Jay R. Vargas, USMC

The Recipients, Jay R Vargas, Cong. Medal of

Honor Soc’y (last accessed May 8, 2022),

https://www.cmohs.org/recipients/jay-r-vargas

42a

CWO4 Hershel W. Williams, USMC/USA

The Recipients, Hershel Woodrow “Woody”

Williams, Cong. Medal of Honor Soc’y (last

accessed May 8, 2022), https://www.cmohs.org/

recipients/hershel-woodrow-woody-williams

PRISONERS OF WAR

Col William R. Austin II, USAF

Biographies on Prisoners of War and Missing in

Action, Austin William Renwick II, P.O.W.

Network (last accessed May 8, 2022),

https://www.pownetwork.org/bios/a/a043.htm

Lt Col Timothy R. Ayres, USAF

Biographies on Prisoners of War and Missing in

Action, Ayres Timothy R., P.O.W. Network (last

accessed

May

2022),

https://www.pownetwork.org/bios/a/a070.htm

Maj Gen John L. Borling, USAF

Biographies on Prisoners of War and Missing in

Action, Borling John Lorin, P.O.W. Network (last

accessed

May

2022),

https://www.pownetwork.org/bios/b/b093.htm

CPT Isaac Camacho, USA

Biographies on Prisoners of War and Missing in

Action, Camacho Issac “Ike”, P.O.W. Network (last

accessed

May

2022),

https://www.pownetwork.org/bios/c/c134.htm

43a

CAPT David J. Carey, USN

Biographies on Prisoners of War and Missing in

Action, Carey David Jay, P.O.W. Network (last

accessed

May

2022),

https://www.pownetwork.org/bios/c/c076.htm

CDR Allan R. Carpenter, USN

Biographies on Prisoners of War and Missing in

Action, Carpenter Allan Russell, P.O.W. Network

(last

accessed

May

2022),

https://www.pownetwork.org/bios/c/c077.htm

Col Robert G. Certain, USAF

Biographies on Prisoners of War and Missing in

Action, Certain Robert Glenn, P.O.W. Network

(last

accessed

May

2022),

https://www.pownetwork.org/bios/c/c165.htm

Capt Carl D. Chambers, USAF

Biographies on Prisoners of War and Missing in

Action, Chambers Carl Dennis, P.O.W. Network

(last

accessed

May

2022),

https://www.pownetwork.org/bios/c/c079.htm

Col Kenneth W. Cordier, USAF

Biographies on Prisoners of War and Missing in

Action, Cordier Kenneth William, P.O.W. Network

(last

accessed

May

2022),

https://www.pownetwork.org/bios/c/c094.htm

44a

Maj Joseph Crecca, USAF

Biographies on Prisoners of War and Missing in

Action, Crecca Joseph, P.O.W. Network (last

accessed

May

2022),

https://www.pownetwork.org/bios/c/c099.htm

CAPT Edward D. Estes, USN

Biographies on Prisoners of War and Missing in

Action, Estes Edward Dale, P.O.W. Network (last

accessed

May

2022),

https://www.pownetwork.org/bios/e/e029.htm

Col John Fer, USAF

Biographies on Prisoners of War and Missing in

Action, Fer John, P.O.W. Network (last accessed

May

2022),

https://www.pownetwork.org/bios/f/f007.htm

Lt Col William A. Gauntt, USAF

Biographies on Prisoners of War and Missing in

Action, Gauntt William Aaron, P.O.W. Network

(last

accessed

May

2022),

https://www.pownetwork.org/bios/g/g078.htm

Lt Col Jay C. Hess, USAF

Biographies on Prisoners of War and Missing in

Action, Hess Jay Criddle, P.O.W. Network (last

accessed

May

2022),

https://www.pownetwork.org/bios/h/h047.htm

45a

Maj Robert C. Jones, USAF

Biographies on Prisoners of War and Missing in

Action, Jones Robert Campbell, P.O.W. Network

(last

accessed

May

2022),

https://www.pownetwork.org/bios/j/j016.htm

Col Thomas H. Kirk, Jr., USAF

Biographies on Prisoners of War and Missing in

Action, Kirk Thomas H., P.O.W. Network (last

accessed

May

2022),

https://www.pownetwork.org/bios/k/k023.htm

CAPT Rodney A. Knutson, USN

Biographies on Prisoners of War and Missing in

Action, Knutson Rodney Allen, P.O.W. Network

(last

accessed

May

2022),

https://www.pownetwork.org/bios/k/k048.htm

COL F. Harold Kushner, USA

Biographies on Prisoners of War and Missing in

Action, Kushner Floyd Harold, P.O.W. Network

(last

accessed

May

2022),

https://www.pownetwork.org/bios/k/k051.htm

LTC Ronald L. Mastin, USAF

Biographies on Prisoners of War and Missing in

Action, Mastin Ronald Lambert, P.O.W. Network

(last

accessed

May

2022),

https://www.pownetwork.org/bios/m/m022.htm

46a

CAPT Eugene B. McDaniel, USN

Biographies on Prisoners of War and Missing in

Action, McDaniel Eugene Baker “Red”, P.O.W.

Network (last accessed May 8, 2022),

https://www.pownetwork.org/bios/m/m101.htm

CAPT William J. Metzger, Jr., USN

Biographies on Prisoners of War and Missing in

Action, Metzger William John Jr., P.O.W.

Network (last accessed May 8, 2022),

https://www.pownetwork.org/bios/m/m113.htm

Col Thomas N. Moe, USAF

Biographies on Prisoners of War and Missing in

Action, Moe Thomas Nelson, P.O.W. Network (last

accessed

May

2022),

https://www.pownetwork.org/bios/m/m114.htm

CAPT Joseph C. Plumb, Jr., USN

Biographies on Prisoners of War and Missing in

Action, Plumb Joseph Charles, P.O.W. Network

(last

accessed

May

2022),

https://www.pownetwork.org/bios/p/p064.htm

Col Paul K. Robinson, Jr., USN

Biographies on Prisoners of War and Missing in

Action, Robinson Paul K., P.O.W. Network (last

accessed

May

2022),

https://www.pownetwork.org/bios/r/r095.htm

47a

CAPT Peter V. Schoeffel, USN

Biographies on Prisoners of War and Missing in

Action, Schoeffel Peter Vanruyter, P.O.W. Network

(last

accessed

May

2022),

https://www.pownetwork.org/bios/s/s090.htm

Lt Col William R. Schwertfeger, USAF

Biographies on Prisoners of War and Missing in

Action, Schwertfeger William R., P.O.W. Network

(last

accessed

May

2022),

https://www.pownetwork.org/bios/s/s182.htm

CDR William L. Shankel, USN

Biographies on Prisoners of War and Missing in

Action, Shankel William Leonard, P.O.W.

Network (last accessed May 8, 2022),

https://www.pownetwork.org/bios/s/s095.htm

MAJ Mark A. Smith, USA

Biographies on Prisoners of War and Missing in

Action, Smith Mark Allyn, P.O.W. Network (last

accessed

May

2022),

https://www.pownetwork.org/bios/s/s189.htm

LtCol Richard E. Smith, USAF

Biographies on Prisoners of War and Missing in

Action, Smith Richard Eugene, Jr., P.O.W.

Network (last accessed May 8, 2022),

https://www.pownetwork.org/bios/s/s107.htm

48a

CAPT Richard A. Stratton, USN

Biographies on Prisoners of War and Missing in

Action, Stratton Richard Allen “Dick”, P.O.W.

Network (last accessed May 8, 2022),

https://www.pownetwork.org/bios/s/s122.htm

Col Leroy W. Stutz, USAF

Biographies on Prisoners of War and Missing in

Action, Stutz Leroy William, P.O.W. Network (last

accessed

May

2022),

https://www.pownetwork.org/bios/s/s123.htm

LtCol Orson G. Swindle III, USMC

Biographies on Prisoners of War and Missing in

Action, Swindle Orson George III, P.O.W. Network

(last

accessed

May

2022),

https://www.pownetwork.org/bios/s/s126.htm

CDR Gary L. Thornton, USN

Biographies on Prisoners of War and Missing in

Action, Thornton Gary Lynn, P.O.W. Network

(last

accessed

May

2022),

https://www.pownetwork.org/bios/t/t045.htm

Col Richard Vogel, USAF

Biographies on Prisoners of War and Missing in

Action, Vogel Richard Dale, P.O.W. Network (last

accessed

May

2022),

https://www.pownetwork.org/bios/v/v010.htm

49a

Col Dewey W. Waddell, USAF

Biographies on Prisoners of War and Missing in

Action, Waddell Dewey Wayne, P.O.W. Network

(last

accessed

May

2022),

https://www.pownetwork.org/bios/w/w058.htm

Col Ronald J. Webb, USAF

Biographies on Prisoners of War and Missing in

Action, Webb Ronald John, P.O.W. Network (last

accessed

May

2022),

https://www.pownetwork.org/bios/w/w064.htm

Capt Kenneth R. Wells, USAF

Biographies on Prisoners of War and Missing in

Action, Wells Kenneth Roth, P.O.W. Network (last

accessed

May

2022),

https://www.pownetwork.org/bios/w/w099.htm

CDR David R. Wheat, USN

Biographies on Prisoners of War and Missing in

Action, Wheat David Robert, P.O.W. Network (last

accessed

May

2022),

https://www.pownetwork.org/bios/w/w067.htm

CAPT Lewis I. Williams, Jr., USN

Biographies on Prisoners of War and Missing in

Action, Williams Lewis Irving Jr., P.O.W.

Network (last accessed May 8, 2022),

https://www.pownetwork.org/bios/w/w070.htm

Anonymous (6)

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.