Sgt. Peralta’s Denied Medal of Honor: An Issue Worthy of “Meddling”

I have been a vocal critic of the previous administration—as I am beginning to be of this administration—for what I believe is a shameful lack of recognition for the valor and heroism of our brave troops who have been fighting and sacrificing, oftentimes with their lives, in the hells of Iraq and Afghanistan.

In turn, I have been criticized for “meddling in the business of the President, Congress and the Pentagon” and for “making it a popularity contest.”

I categorically reject both contentions.

First, the President, Congress and the Pentagon are neither sacrosanct nor infallible. Even in the realm of military awards and decorations, mistakes and injustices do occur. That is why we sometimes see a hero receiving the honor and recognition he or she has always deserved, fifty, one hundred years after the acts of valor.

Why? Most likely because some person or some group “meddled.”

Similarly, our justice system is neither sacrosanct nor infallible. How many unjust convictions have been overturned because someone decided to “meddle”? Sadly, some of that “meddling” has come too late for those who were already executed for a crime they did not commit.

Second, to even imply that the recommendation for the Medal of Honor, or the selection of its recipients would be based on “popularity,” is an intolerable insult to those who eventually receive this high honor—all too often posthumously.

Having said that, let me once more “meddle” in a case where our own military, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, the Secretary of the Navy, several Congressmen, and so many others—including fellow Marines whose lives were saved—have steadfastly maintained that a brave young Marine should be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.

It is the case of Marine Sgt. Rafael Peralta.

Volumes have been written about this young man’s heroism, about the recommendation by his own Commandant and by the Navy Secretary for the nation’s highest award, and about the eventual denial of that award by the Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates.

Instead, Sgt. Peralta was awarded the Navy’s second highest award for valor, the Navy Cross—an award that Sgt. Peralta’s family has declined.

The citation accompanying the award of the Navy Cross reads:

Clearing scores of houses in the previous three days [in Fallujah, Iraq], Sergeant Peralta’ asked to join an under strength squad and volunteered to stand post the night of 14 November, allowing fellow Marines more time to rest. The following morning, during search and attack operations, while clearing the seventh house of the day, the point man opened a door to a back room and immediately came under intense, close-range automatic weapons fire from multiple insurgents. The squad returned fire, wounding one insurgent. While attempting to maneuver out of the line of fire, Sergeant Peralta was shot and fell mortally wounded. After the initial exchange of gunfire, the insurgents broke contact, throwing a fragmentation grenade as they fled the building. The grenade came to rest near Sergeant Peralta’s head. Without hesitation and with complete disregard for his own personal safety, Sergeant Peralta reached out and pulled the grenade to his body, absorbing the brunt of the blast and shielding fellow Marines only feet away. Sergeant Peralta succumbed to his wounds. By his undaunted courage, intrepid fighting spirit, and unwavering devotion to duty, Sergeant Peralta reflected great credit upon himself and upheld the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and the United States Naval Service.

Incredibly, Gates’ appointed panel claimed that Peralta’s actions did not meet the standard of “without any possibility of error or doubt”. The central argument was as to whether the already critically wounded Peralta could have intentionally reached for the grenade, shielding his fellow Marines from the blast with his own body.

This, even though the citation for the Navy Cross unmistakably states: “Without hesitation and with complete disregard for his own personal safety, Sergeant Peralta reached out and pulled the grenade to his body, absorbing the brunt of the blast and shielding fellow Marines only feet away.”

According to USA Today, a report on the Marine Corps investigation said that after Peralta had been shot in the head, he “scooped an insurgent grenade under his body, absorbed the blast and died, according to five of the Marines who were with Peralta during the firefight.”

And,

The Marine Corps assembled extensive material supporting its Medal of Honor request, including witness statements, ballistic and forensic evidence and several medical opinions.

According to that investigation, Marines scrambling for cover after an insurgent threw a grenade toward them plainly saw Peralta reach with his arm to “scoop” the grenade under his body.

Scorch marks were later found on his flak jacket, along with embedded pieces of shrapnel and a part of the grenade fuse, the reports show. “There’s no way that grenade got under the center of mass of his body without him putting it there,” said Reserve Marine Lt. Col. Scott Marconda, who investigated the incident in 2004 as a major and judge advocate. “I’m not a cheerleader. It is what it is. And my point is: I believe that he did that.”

Notwithstanding eyewitness reports, Gates’ panel recommended that the Medal of Honor not be awarded. Gates has declined to provide an explanation “other than the facts did not meet the standard for a Medal of Honor.”

According to USA Today, Col. Eric Berg, an Army pathologist who autopsied Peralta’s remains, said in the 2005 report that the head wound would have been “nearly instantly fatal. He could not have executed any meaningful motions.” However, “Four other experts — Peralta’s battalion surgeon, and two neurosurgeons and a neurologist who examined the autopsy reports — said Peralta could have knowingly reached for the grenade. They say the ricochet was traveling at a ‘low velocity’ and would not have immediately killed him.”

After Sgt. Rafael Peralta was denied the Medal of Honor in 2008, questions have been raised about whether Peralta’s onetime status as an illegal immigrant played a part in the decision.

According to USA Today, Peralta first came to the United States from Mexico without legal documentation as a teen and joined the Marines the day he got his green card on April 17, 2000. He later became a naturalized citizen.

There has been a huge outcry at this injustice, by fellow Marines, other military, the media, elected officials, the American people and, naturally, by Sgt. Peralta’s family.

Members of California’s congressional delegation and numerous other groups and individuals have implored President Bush and the new president to review and reverse Gates’ unfortunate decision.

After president Obama’s inauguration, U.S. Rep. Duncan D. Hunter, R. Ca., son of Duncan L. Hunter, and a former Marine officer who served two tours in Iraq and one in Afghanistan, sent a letter to president Obama raising the case of Peralta.

The letter said, in part:

I am very concerned that the criteria for awarding the Medal of Honor, which have been historically based on eyewitness accounts, have now been replaced by modern forensic science…

I firmly believe that eyewitness accounts of the event should take precedent through the entire chain of command review process because heroic actions in combat cannot always be explained by science alone.

Of course, there are those who believe that Gates made the correct decision, and that is their right.

Just as it is my right and that of others to continue to “meddle” in a case where we believe that a young Mexican immigrant conspicuously distinguished himself by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States.