In 1956, the Medal Awards Committee of the United States Maritime Administration made a study of awards and decorations to merchant seamen during the Second World War. Their findings described and analyzed the standards used in determining who merited an award. The study asserted the wartime Medal Awards Committee considered thousands of cases and “awarded a total of 145 distinguished Service medals, 380 meritorious service medals, and nine (9) gallant ship awards” (the numbers as cited by the 1956 study are refuted by a 1982 OMSA article stating 521). Mariners’ medals remained outside of the scope of the study since, although earmarked initially as a medal of merit, this medal was instead issued to seamen who received injuries as a result of enemy action; these awards became comparable to the Purple Heart awards to members of the armed services. Although not indicated by a medal or ribbon, letters of citation were an honor bestowed upon a seaman by the War Shipping Administrator and became part of a seaman’s permanent record; the number of these awards are unknown, but undoubtedly number in the thousands.
Based on the review of award cases, the wartime Committee under Frank Rusk had no established standards or criteria for award determinations. This was because the American Merchant Marine “Pyramid of Honor” was new and awards without precedent; thus, the Committee considered individual cases on their own merits. Yet, the Committee proceeded on a general pattern, and, to a certain extent, they were consistent with their determination. While changes in Committee personnel had some effect on the variation of awards, in most instances, all fell within the patterns, as noted below.
Citations
Citations each award had a grade of either “A,” “B,” or “C.” “A” cases were of an exceptional nature, but considered not sufficiently outstanding to warrant an award of the Meritorious Service medal; “B” cases were of a lesser degree, and “C” cases were less than that of “B.” These cases were subsequently reviewed and reconsidered for an award of a higher grade, especially when the Committee found additional material for consideration or when individual seamen became involved in another incident worthy of consideration for a different award.
“A,” “B,” and “C” cases generally fell into the following:
“Difficult and somewhat hazardous shipboard assignments, such as clearing fouled masthead rigging during a blow; attention to duty requiring long hours without relief; exacting time and attention to particular tasks; facing heavy seas and rough elements; faithfulness towards assignments; exceptional amount or quality of work performed such as making extensive and intricate repairs to machinery; etc.”
Meritorious Service Medal
Conditions for the award of the Meritorious Service medal involve noteworthy action, deed, or conduct at risk of life to save property and life of fellow crew members. The risk of loss of life or injury appears under these awards to only slightly less, yet distinctive, than in action meriting a Distinguished Service medal.
Examples
- Standing by pumps to fight fire when dangerously close to high explosives.
- Deliberately diving into shark-infested waters to rescue crew members from sinking vessel.
- Removing personnel from below the deck area and repairing ruptured connections notwithstanding imminent danger of boiler explosions.
- Assisting armed guard crews in manning guns with disregard of personal safety during strafing and bombing attacks.
- Rescuing others under hazardous conditions involving torpedoed vessels in rough seas.
Distinguished Service Medal
This award resulted from the noteworthy performance of outstanding nature involving an act, conduct, or display of valor beyond the line of duty. The recipients of this award almost invariably faced near or certain death or bodily injury.
Examples
- Facing close range and direct gun-fire in performance of rescue work where personal safety was extremely vulnerable.
- Volunteering for special assignment when in so doing, it meant almost certain death, injury, or an ordeal of suffering.
- Sacrificing position of safety for an almost certain loss of life, such as giving up space in a lifeboat and remaining on sinking craft.
- Refusing rescue aid and giving preference to saving lives of others, such as remaining with sinking craft rather than crowd into a dangerously overcrowded life raft.
- Under peril of being burned to death and without proper equipment, descending into the hold of vessel to extricate victims trapped under scalding steam and fire from ruptured boilers.
- Descending on a rope over the side of the vessel into a storm to rescue an unconscious victim washed overboard.
- Displaying courage and leadership in fighting furious fire surrounding high explosives, which, if detonated, would have caused complete loss of vessel and crew members.
Gallant Ship Award
The perpetuation of the ships’ names as gallant ships during the Second World War had been based on the display of stark courage of the crews in their stand against overwhelming odds during battle. The spirit of the award also permitted its award for outstanding gallantry in the event of maritime disasters or other emergencies to save life and property. This latter condition was later written into law.
Examples
“In eight of the nine awards, the records reflect that the vessels and the crews fought against prolonged series of bombing and submarine attacks and courageously repelled the enemy under odds that meant either death or surrender. These vessels were equipped with and used lighter armed weapons against much superior guns. They refused to give up when crippled, battered, and even ablaze and managed to outfight and outmaneuver the enemy to save a major portion of the lives of the crew members and valuable cargoes. The one instance of gallant ship award not resulting from enemy fire was an extremely hazardous nine-day rescue operation of a crew from a French destroyer during a violent storm and extremely heavy seas. In this instance, the gallant ship also managed to save a valuable warship by expert maneuvering and towing the stricken ship at extreme risk of loss and at terrific offs through submarine infested areas to a rendezvous point.”
SS Juan de Fuca documents
Below are a few documents from the Gallant Ship award case file on the SS Juan de Fuca which illustrate an awards file for a ship’s crew followed by copies of two citations (“Congratulatory Letters”).
The Master, Captain Charles S. Robbins – who was a recent recipient of the Merchant Marine Distinguished Service medal (below referenced as “Philippine Honor Award”) – felt strongly that his crew deserved recognition for the fine job of surviving enemy attacks and not abandoning their reef-crippled ship at Leyte Island in the Philippines. He was displeased that the U.S. Naval Armed Guard commander aboard received a commendation for convoy duty while his crew was left empty-handed. After consideration by the Medal Awards Committee, the ship did not earn the title of Gallant Ship since she did not fit into the rubric set during the Second World War for the award. The complete file is here.
References
A. A. Hart. “Seamen Awards Study.” Maritime Administration, Washington D. C., 1956.