To the editor:

There can be no serious doubt about which version of the events leading to John Kerry and Larry Thurlow receiving the Bronze Star is the true one. One is a recollection 35 years later of a highly biased witness who brags about his hatred of Kerry. The other is based on an independent and objective investigation of the circumstances of the action by people who had no ax to grind, made shortly after it happened.

The Defense Department does not pass out medals without investigating the facts. Thurlow, as well as Kerry, must have been debriefed at the time, and Thurlow must have told a different story then. It is not likely that he would have been awarded a medal for bravery under fire if he told them there was no fire.

For Thurlow to claim that his current story is correct and the Defense Department’s is wrong would be laughable if it were not so damaging. It displays contempt for the Defense Department’s process for determining eligibility for medals, and, if one believes Thurlow, casts suspicion on every other military medal. If the Department was wrong on Thurlow’s medal and on all five of Kerry’s, how can we be sure that any medals they awarded were deserved?

Robert C. Casad,

Lawrence