I saw a report on one of the local NYC news stations about the sisters of a man who died in Vietnam in 1968. At the time of his death he did not receive a Purple Heart because he reportedly died in an accident. Over the years his sisters came to realize that he died when the gun placement he was commanding misfired in a combat situation. According to the news report, that in fact qualifies for a Purple Heart, and the story was about the mountain the family climbed, and of course all the great help the news station gave to them, in finally getting the medal 50 years after he died.

Made me think. So if the gun misfired during training, no medal, but if the same thing happens in combat, medal. Does that really make sense? Isn't the training just as important to the combat mission as the combat itself, and to the overall cause of protecting the good citizens of the USA?

If someone dies on active duty outside combat, performing some function, which one must assume is important to the mission or why do it, isn't that just as much of a sacrifice in the service of the country as someone who falls in combat itself?

This is different, but similar in the sense that I am a bit uncomfortable picking and choosing who's ultimate sacrifice for country is worthy of which great honor.