REPLY TO

ATTN OF:

SUBJECT

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

WASHINGTON ~.5, D.C.

Designs for lXlew Air Force Medal of Honor

OQMO HereiLdic Officer Dept of the Army ATTN: Lt Col Whiting Tempo B Bldg Washington 25, D. C.

1. Reference is made to the attached proposed designs for the new Air Force bled~ of Honor prepared by your Institute of Heraldry.

2. We have reviewed these designs and desir~ to co~mend your ax~ists for the effort and fine workmanship that went into their development of this project for the Air Force.

3- It ~as the feeling of our staff, however, that the following modifi- cations should be made to give our medal more distinctive characteristics:

/ a. The star design should be placed in an upright position, i.e.,

one point of the star facing up to coincide with Air Force usage.

b. We would prefer not to use "Minerva" or "Mercury" in our design. Our principal objection to this is that "Minerva" is on the present Medal of Honor, and "Mercury" is on our new Airman’s Medal. We suggest that the head of the "Goddess of Liberty" be substituted therefore.

c. The ea~le and cloud design from our seal should be made a part of the attaching device, but preferably without the "valor" bar.

4. We would like to see modifications of your designs l, 2, and 4, with the suggestions outlined above incorporated therein, for further review by this headquarters. We realize that this is a time-consuming project, but ~ill appreciate any effort to expedite this matter.

FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

C0], Deputy Chief Personne! S.~:vices ]}ivis~on Directorat~ of 7~[iiitary Personnel

4 Arch i. Design #l 2. Design #2 3. I~slgn #3

Figure 1: Home’s Septentber 14, 1961 letter.

objections, and the suggestion that the Air Force Medal of

Honor incorporate Liberty instead of Minerva or Mercury,

the Army left no doubt that it thought little of them. As

Army Lieutenant Colonel French wrote to the Air Force

on November 28, 1961:

Placing one point of the star in an upright position is not

considered the most suitable positioning for this medal.

The arrangement with two points upward, as used by

the Army and Navy Medals of Honor, is unique for this

highest award [and] in contradistinction to the Silver Star,

the Bronze Star Medal and other military and civilian

usage. (emphasis supplied)3

As French also explained, having one point of the star

uptight presented "an awkward appearance" and gave rise

to "mechanical difficulties" when attaching a suspension.

On the other hand, "suspension of the star with two points

Vol. 62, No. 2 (March-April 2011) 5

Ltr DAF, Hq USAF (AF~4P-12); 14 Sep 61, Designs for New Air Force Meda! of Honor

2d Ind (A_F’£MP-!2)

Hq USAF~ Wash 25~ D. C.

TO: OQI4G Heraldic Officer~ Dept of the Army, ATTN: Lt Col ~iting~ Tempo B Bldg~ Wash 25~ D. C.

i. This headquarters has carefully reviewed the attached proposed designs for the new Air Force Medal of Honor and submits the following comments:

a. We have selected Design i and Design 1B as being most pleasing. Howev~r~ we would like to see the face of the Goddess from our Statue of Liberty used as the central figure instead of F~nerva, Mars~ or Liberty from the U. S. dime. Also~ we would like to have the words "United States Air Force" used instead of "United States of America" on Design l, and the words "United States Air Force" and "Valor" used instead of "United States of America" on Design lB. We believe these changes can be made ~ith overlays.

b. We suggest Designs 2_A~ 2B~ and ~A and 4B be withdrawn. Although they show excellent workmanship~ we do not think they are sufficiently distinctive to warrant further consideration.

c. We do need at least three different designs for better selectivity and request your artists come up with two additional ideas which do not use the star design or ancient Greek figures as the principal theme.

2. We appreciate your willingness to help us achieve our objective in this matter. Please feel free to contact our project officer, Lt Col R. D. Norton~ Ext 69383 or 69584~ on any phase of this project.

FOR THE CHIEF OF ~

~R, ZTSSELL G. I~A;~KEY, Co[, USAI~.

Personnel Services Division

Direc~r~ of ~H~ary Perso~l

3 Arch nic

Figure 2: Pankey’s January 15, 1962 letter.

upward" looked better and made it easier to attach the suspension that would link the five-pointed star to the ribbon.4

As for the Air Force suggestion that Liberty be the centerpiece of the new Medal of Honor, French wrote:

the U.S. ten-cent coin and may tend to degrade the value of the medal. While the head of Minerva is used on the Army Medal of Honor (except for facing in the opposite direction), its use on the Air Force Medal of Honor would perpetuate the prestige attached to this award. However, the head of Mars, God of War ... may be considered equally appropriate as an alternate choice)

The head of the Goddess of Liberty, even with the additions of neckline and shoulders, looks too much like

To say that the Air Force was unreceptive to the Institute’s November 1961 letter is an understatement: the service

6 JOMSA

rejected the suggestions about the placement of the star, and the suggestion to use Minerva or Mars. On the contrary, in a January 15, 1962 letter to the Army, Colonel Rnssell G. Pankey, Chief of the Air Force’s Personnel Services Division, insisted not only that the Institute should incorporate Liberty’s likeness into any future design proposals, but wrote that the Air Force "would like to see the face of the Goddessfivm our Statue of Liberty used as the central figure" in future drawifigs. (emphasis supplied)6

But Pankey’s letter also reveals that, despite these detailed criticisms and additional guidance to the Institute of Heraldry, Air Force leaders were still very much undecided about even a basic design for the new Air Force Medal of Honor. Pankey also asked the Institute to provide "at least three [new] different designs" and requested that Institute "artists come up with two additional ideas which do not use the star design or ancient Greek figures as the principal theme."7 A copy of Pankey’s January 1962 letter is at Figure 2.

On May 4, 1962 Air Force representatives met at the Institute’s offices to "review new design sketches" for the Medal of Honor. In accordance with Air Force desires, the Institute had produced "several versions of two basic design concepts ...using elements of the Statue of Liberty as the central device.’’8 Army artists also had acquiesced on the placement of the star, as "all of the designs had the star with one point up as requested by the Air Force." Both designs also incorporated a laurel wreath around the star, similar to that used on the Army Medal of Honor, except that the wreath on the Air Force design was open at the top to differentiate it from the Army version. Finally, the Institute also had designed two "suspension devices" from which to hang the star and attach the ribbon.9

The Air Force, now satisfied with the Institute’s product, selected a design that featured a three-quarter view of the face of the Statue of Libe~nty, with her ann visible at the lower left. The selected design apparently also had a five- pointed star with one point up. But there is a mystery here: the design fo~varded to the United States Co~mnission of Fine Arts for approval had the star pointed down. Similarly, there is a mystery about the suspension device selected for the new Medal of Honor. While Air Force representatives selected a suspension device consisting of "an Air Force eagle with open cloud," the suspension device ultimately approved by the Comlnission was a thunderbolts-and-wing device taken directly from the Air Force Coat-of-Arms, attached to a bar with the word VALOR. It seems that the Institute and Air Force changed the placement of the star and substituted the thunderbolt-and-wing suspension device sometime between May and Septelnber 1962, when

the Institute forwarded the final design to the Commission of Fine Arts.

In any event, on September 25, 1962, Mr. David E. Finley, the Commission’s chairman, wrote to the Institute of Heraldry. In that letter, Finley stated that the proposed Air Force Medal of Honor design was "approved in general" except that the Commission wanted a "smaller profile of the head from the Statue of Liberty, without the ann." This was because the design selected by the Air Force was too "crowded" and a smaller profile would "enhance the sculptural quality of the medal.’’l° A copy of Finley’s September 1962 letter is at Figure 3.

On October 5, 1962, the Institute notified theAir Force that it was revising its design to comply with the Commission’s comments and, on November 13, 1962, asked the Air Force if it wanted to comment on the modified design before the Institute sent it to the Commission for final approval. On November 20, the Air Force informed the Institute of Heraldry that it was "pleased with the design as revised" and requested that this design be submitted to the Commission "for final review." The Commission approved the final Medal of Honor design on December 19, 1962.

On March 25, 1963, the Air Force Chief of Staff approved the new design for the Medal of Honor and, on May 1, 1963, Brigadier General Godfrey T. McHugh, Air Force aide to the President, showed the new design to John F. Kennedy. As Kennedy "liked" the design, the Air Force had its new decoration. ~ Since Lewis J. King, Jr., a sculptor by profession and a civilian employee at the Anny’s Institute of Heraldry, was the principal artist in the final design proposal, he is credited with being the designer of the Air Force Medal of Honor.

The first metal strikings of the new Medal of Honor were done in October 1963 by the Medallic Art Company of New York City. There were some hiccups with the manufacturing process; the heating of the pendant to apply green enamel presented a number of problems. Additionally, in April 1964, the Air Force directed Medallic to "re-work Miss Liberty’s face" to make her more attractive. In an April 3 memorandum the Air Force complained that Medallic’s metal engraver had failed "to capture the sharp clear lines and youthful spirit" of Liberty. This failure, in fact, had "transformed" Liberty "into a chubby matron and reduced the aesthetic potential inherent in the approved design.’’~2

By mid-1965, the Medallic Art Company had overcome the enameling problem. The company also had sufficiently improved Liberty’s face to obtain approval, as the Air Force

Vol. 62, No. 2 (March-April 2011) 7