After World War II it was noted that the standards set for U.S. Navy pilots regarding Congressional Medals of Honor were far higher than those for U.S. Marine Corps pilots. Twelve Marines were awarded the CMH during WWII as opposed to two from the Navy (See Encl. C-1). Indeed, at least five Marine Medals of Honor were given for four or five aerial victories on one mission and the first U.S. Navy fighter pilot to be awarded the Medal of Honor (Butch O'Hare) scored five for his. COMMANDER VRACIU CLEARLY EXCEEDED THE REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED BY THIS PRECENDENT ON THE JUNE 19 MISSION ALONE. But remember, he was nominated for FOUR MISSIONS not just one (8 kills, one probable, six of them in eight minutes and the solo sinking of a large Japanese merchant ship) .

  In 1947 the Navy Department Board of Review for Decorations and Medals was convened. Vice Admiral A. W. Radford and Rear Admiral John J. Clark (the latter a Task Group Commander in the actions at the First Battle of the Philippine Sea in 1944) both added their support for Vraciu's nomination. The Admirals stated that Vraciu was "exceptionally well qualified for the award of the highest medal that may be presented" and offered their "strongest possible recommendation" bringing the total number of Admirals in favor of the award to seven (See Encl.D).

  The senior member of the Navy Department Board of Review for Decorations and Medals, Captain J. L. Callan, noting that said Board was being dissolved on 10 April 1947, sent a letter to Admiral Murray (dated 09 April, 1947, the day prior to the dissolution!) asking for comments or recommendations (See Encl. C-2). Admiral Murray again rejected the idea of a Medal of Honor for Vraciu and made multiple errors in his evaluation leading us to believe he was not aware of the totality of the original nomination (See Encl. E) .

 

Murray noted that Vraciu was being nominated for a period from April to June 1944. In fact Vraciu was nominated for a period from 14-20 June 1944.

Murray stated that Vraciu's performance "did not set him apart" from all other naval aviators despite the fact that:

• He single-handedly engaged enemy fighters on multiple occasions.
  
• Scored eight kills and one probable.
  
• Set the all-time record for aerial victories by a carrier pilot with 19.
  
• Single-handedly sank the largest merchant ship of the battle despite intense AA fire.
  
• Saved his ship from dive bomber attack by destroying six in a span of eight minutes (AN ABSOLUTELY UNPRECEDENTED FEAT!) while suffering a badly malfunctioning engine, oil-smeared windscreen, enemy fighter opposition, and intense AA fire from his own ships.
  
• Vraciu was the only Navy Cross recipient from the Battle of the Philippine Sea sent home for a war bond tour. Alex was a national celebrity for his actions and was clearly the star of the battle. This is incontrovertible evidence that his actions set him apart from all other aviators of that period.

Murray emphasized ONLY the 19 June 1944 mission (six kills in one hop), which on its own qualifies for a Medal of Honor, not the TOTALITY OF THE NOMINATION (FOUR MISSIONS and setting the RECORD for carrier pilots).

Murray even went so far as to suggest that, despite all the difficulties he faced, Vraciu's actions on 19 June were "normal duties" and that failure to engage the enemy (despite a malfunctioning airplane in the face of both hostile and friendly fire) would have resulted in "censure".

  Despite Murray's errors (and the endorsement of seven Admirals who felt the Medal of Honor was deserved), an apparently randomly selected junior officer was assigned the task of signing off on a rejection of the Medal of Honor on behalf of the board, some eighteen days after its dissolution. The stated justification looked as if it had come straight from Murray's desk:

  "The Board of Decorations and Medals has carefully reviewed the case of Lieutenant (j.g.) Alexander Vraciu U.S. Naval Reserve and is of the opinion that his performance of duty during April-June 1944 was not sufficiently outstanding to meet the high requirements for the Medal of Honor." (Emphasis added.) (See Encl.F.)

  How can anyone consider this a careful review? Vraciu was nominated for actions that took place from 14-20 June 1944. April and May have no bearing on this nomination, yet the Board called its review careful. Also, Vraciu exceeded the requirements of the Medal of Honor based upon Navy and Marine Corps precedent on just the 20 June mission. Adding in the actions of the other three dates listed in the original nomination it is clear that Vraciu's performance was beyond comparison and thus set the standard for bravery, intrepidity, and courage above and beyond the call of duty.

  Adding insult to injury, the Board was dissolved before a final decision on Vraciu's Medal of Honor was even made! The Board never even ruled and, if Captain' Callan's position as the Senior Member of the Board is any indication, had it rendered a decision it would have ruled in favor of the Medal of Honor. Captain Callan even wrote a letter protesting the decision to turn down the Medal of Honor and called it "an injustice" (See Encl. G) .

  A review of this case in 1990 was all but ignored by the Navy Department which cited incorrect information in turning down the award once more. Nobody allowed Commander Vraciu an opportunity to correct the record and the Secretary of the Navy even stated that Alex's Medal of Honor nomination did not stem from his immediate superior. In fact, FIVE of Vraciu's IMMEDIATE superiors (Squadron Commander, Air Group Commander, Carrier Commander, Task Force Commander, and Pacific Fleet Fast Carrier Task Force Commander) approved of the nomination.

  Thus we find ourselves over sixty years later still facing the same problem: COMMANDER VRACIU'S MEDAL OF HONOR NOMINATION HAS NEVER RECEIVED A FAIR REVIEW.

  (It is worth noting that the Navy Department, after a tremendous amount of prodding, finally attempted to correct--without comment or apology--the numerous errors listed in the permanent Navy Cross Citation issued to Commander Vraciu. It took them two additional attempts to get it right.)