![\"Combat](\"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/12\/Combat-action-badges-for-phonies.jpg\")
<\/a><\/center><\/p>\nMilitary.com<\/a> reports that legislation in Congress may make the award of Combat Action Badge retroactive to soldiers serving as long ago as the Second World War;<\/p>\n The Combat Action Badge, authorized for soldiers in combat who are not eligible for the Combat Infantryman Badge or Combat Medical Badge, was established in 2005 to recognize that many troops \u2013 regardless of their specialty \u2013 were coming under fire and engaging the enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan.<\/p>\n Rep. Richard Nugent, R-Florida, has filed legislation for retroactive CAB authorization for several years, even making it tax-neutral by requiring those who might be approved for the medal to purchase it directly from the supplier.<\/p>\n The House adopted his bills but the Senate has balked.<\/p>\n “I’ve never gotten a good explanation for why the Senate is so opposed to it. There is no cost to the taxpayer associated with the badge and these men and women have clearly earned the recognition,” Nugent said Thursday.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Well, first of all, Representative Nugent, the CAB is one of those badges covered by the Stolen Valor Act of 2013, meaning that someone wearing it without earning it is subject to prosecution. Secondly, the award of the badge is pretty specific<\/a>;<\/p>\n Specific Eligibility Requirements:<\/p>\n May be awarded to any soldier. Can you imagine the documentation that would appear, mostly from badge-hunters, to prove that they were “actively engaging or being engaged by the enemy”, from, say, the Korean War? Representative Nugent claims that there is no expense to the taxpayer involved – but who is going to do the research necessary to approve the potentially millions of awards and verify that only eligible applicants will get the award? Not to mention the other millions of phonies who will wear it like they wear the 3rd award of the CIB now, with no fear of being prosecuted, even though it’s illegal.<\/p>\n It will only serve to dilute the symbolism and meaning of the award, and it’s phony bait – as evidenced by the photo above that I scraped from somewhere on the internet. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\n Soldier must be performing assigned duties in an area where hostile fire pay or imminent danger pay is authorized.
\n Soldier must be personally present and actively engaging or being engaged by the enemy, and performing satisfactorily in accordance with the prescribed rules of engagement.
\n Soldier must not be assigned\/attached to a unit that would qualify the soldier for the CIB\/CMB.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n