USN Rear Adm. Robert W. Hayler: The Gatekeeper to the Medal of Honor

What happens when the person in charge of the process of decorating military personnel has received honors outside of regulations? This is the curious, and somewhat troubling, case of the head of the Navy Awards and Decorations board.

U.S. Navy Rear Admiral Robert Ward Hayler was born on 7 June 1891 in Sandusky, Ohio and graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1914. During World War I, he served on the battleship USS Oklahoma at Scapa Flow, Scotland. After the war, he studied ordnance engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and rose through the ranks. From June 1939 to June 1942, he served as Inspector of Ordnance in charge of the Naval Torpedo Station. His Navy Commendation Medal citation from 1945 claimed his duties allowed this department, once war started in 1941, to become a:

“highly successful and efficient wartime production and ranging station for torpedoes…This splendid record of achievement in the manufacture and ranging of torpedoes is a monument to the brilliant administration of…Hayler, who contributed vitally to the success of the entire underwater ordnance program by his successful inauguration of this station’s multiple and varied activities.”

However, when one analyzes the U.S. Navy’s torpedo problems after the outbreak of war, a debacle that cost the lives of thousands of sailors, one finds his recognition was without merit. For the first year of the war, U.S. submariners and ships went off to combat with defective torpedoes. As a result, enemy vessels were notified of the submarines’ presence and were able to counterattack them. Other times, these defective torpedoes turned around and sank the crafts from which they had been fired. like with USS Tullibee and USS Tang. Due to these defects, defects that the Inspector of Ordnance in charge of the Torpedo Station, Captain Hayler, was in part responsible for, the submarine service earned, according to former Naval officer and historian Anthony Newpower, “the highest casualty rate of any branch of the military service.” Many torpedoes, developed under Hayler, were dysfunctional. Several torpedo parts that were in use under Hayler’s tenure had been developed before his time, but the defective engineering was not ascertained during his duties in Newport, something that should have been identified and fixed since he was supposed to make sure all the “parts worked together.” Luckily, the U.S. Navy fixed many of these problems by 1943 and our submarines then decimated the Japanese navy and merchant marine fleets. Hayler received his award in 1945 for his involvement in torpedo development, even though many knew the torpedoes from 1939-42 were faulty. This seems to be the only black mark on Hayler’s otherwise stellar career. However, it exposes a pattern where medals were occasionally awarded, but not earned.

Six months after World War II broke out, Hayler left torpedo problems for others to fix and went to sea to fight the enemy. Captain Hayler took command of the 600-foot cruiser USS Honolulu and its 870-man crew from 18 June 1942 to 7 March 1944. During this command, he participated in the August 1942 bombardment of Kiska, Alaska. Later, he took part in the Battle of Tassafaronga at Guadalcanal on the night of 30 November 1942, where his “fine seamanship” and “gallant leadership under fire” turned back a Japanese force that had damaged several U.S. ships. He received the Navy Cross for his actions.

Later, he supported the landings at New Georgia on 5-6 July 1943 and engaged the enemy at the Battle of Kula Gulf, displaying superior leadership, for which he received a second Navy Cross. Then on 12-13 July 1943, he combated forces off Kolombangara Island in the British Solomon Islands, leading a “cruiser line of battle into action with an opposing Japanese force of six enemy vessels.” He directed “accurate fire upon the…enemy formation and was in large measure responsible for the…destruction of at least four and probably all of these Japanese ships.” In this battle, Japanese destroyers launched four torpedoes at Hayler. He evaded three, but the fourth crumpled his bow. “With complete calmness and fortitude…Hayler directed the control of this damage and brought his ship safely into port,” read his commendation. For these actions, Hayler received a third Navy Cross.

Inexplicably, a Silver Star was also awarded to Hayler, but in that citation, only the battle action was mentioned, not the saving of his vessel. The wording for the battle action in the Silver Star and Navy Cross citations is the same; Admiral Halsey endorsed his Silver Star. In February 1947, the Awards and Decorations Board noticed this duplication and another review of his Silver Star was held, but the board kept the status quo. Yet only a few months later, Hayler’s office wrote the commanding general of Fleet Marine Force, Pacific for Aircraft about another case that “since only one decoration or medal may be awarded for the same act or acts, it is necessary to set aside and cancel previous awards.” However, this criterion was not applied to Hayler—was that due to his position? And why did Hayler later not act on this apparent violation of regulations, which made him a beneficiary of a double award for one action? One could argue this is possibly a second black mark on Hayler’s career using a double standard—and the sad thing is it was unnecessary. Three Navy crosses were enough without adding a Silver Star that was, in the end, against regulations. However, Hayler was not alone. USMC Maj. Gregory “Pappy” Boyington was also awarded two awards for the same actions that received the same citation: The Navy Cross and the Medal of Honor.

It appears that multiple awards for the same actions was very rare for most members of the service, especially enlisted men, but if someone was at the top of the food chain, then regulations were not always followed—especially when political considerations were at stake and the “good old boy's network” was in play. These men in power, who did indeed perform heroic acts and demonstrate brilliant leadership, seemed to have a need to decorate each other like English royalty, which one Marine described as being: “Like Mexican generals.”

The problem with Hayler was that he knew better and had the power to follow the regulations he had sworn to enforce when he took over the duties of the Navy’s Awards and Decorations office in 1945. Learning about this has been a troubling revelation of this research. In reviewing numerous officer and enlisted men’s files, this study has found that double awarding only happened to officers, never to enlisted men.

None of this is to say that Hayler wasn’t an exemplary leader. Before he took over the Awards and Decoration office, he was promoted on 7 March 1944 to rear admiral and given command of Cruiser Division Twelve of four ships taking part in the assaults on Saipan, Tinian, Guam and Palau from June through August 1944. He also repulsed air attacks and rescued downed pilots during the Mariana Turkey Shoot in June 1944. Halsey wrote, “Hayler…performed his duty as Commander Cruiser Division TWELVE in an outstanding manner. He was alert, thorough and efficient. He continued the exceptional training and performance of this crack cruiser division.”

With his fleet, he helped take over Ulithi Atoll in August and September 1944 and provided fire support for the Angaur invasion (where my uncle, USMC 1st Lt. Frank Rigg, fought). Rear Admirals Howard Kingman and William Blandy wrote excellent reports on Hayler. Hayler participated in Leyte’s occupation in the Philippines on 19 October until 29 October. His superior, Vice Admiral Jesse B. Oldendorf, wrote,

“Hayler…understands the Japanese enemy well, and…has always succeeded admirably against him…[H]e was…successful in assisting in preparing the landing beaches for the landing of the SIXTH Army, which landed with minimum casualties. This is an accomplishment worthy of the highest praise.”

A few days later, Hayler took part in the Battle of Surigao Strait in Leyte Gulf on 25 October 1944. Throughout the Leyte campaign, Hayler weathered numerous Kamikaze attacks.

On 11 December, he was transferred to Washington D.C. to the Bureau of Naval Personnel and took as additional duty the Board of Awards and Decorations on 9 June 1945. And it seems, when he took over this office, he was given more power than anyone in the history of the United States military when awarding Medals of Honor. On taking over this office, Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal granted Hayler carte blanche to recommend whether awards should be approved or disapproved within the Navy Department (the Marine Corps is under the Navy). Forrestal wrote to Hayler and conferred the following to him:

“The Board shall be responsible for considering and making recommendations to the Secretary of the Navy concerning the following subjects:…(b) Legislative matters, General Orders, and Executive Orders concerning decorations, awards, and campaign medals including any changes therein…(e) Definition of policies for guidance of officers to whom authority to make certain awards is delegated.”

As President Roosevelt had declared, the Secretary of the Navy was the only person who “could issue direct orders to the different chiefs” in the Department of the Navy, and with this mandate above, Forrestal had given Hayler free reign over medal awarding giving him authority over superior officers when it came to the final decision on valorous awards. So even if Fleet Marine Force Pacific commander, Lt. Gen. Roy S. Geiger; Pacific Fleet commander, Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz; Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Alexander A. Vandegrift; and a host of other flag officers and their awards boards were not in agreement with Hayler’s recommendation, they could do nothing about it after Hayler exercised his powers and recommended a Medal of Honor be awarded. In other words, when a potential Medal of Honor recipient’s file crossed Hayler’s desk, he had the power to award or deny him the medal.

Hayler was the gatekeeper for most of the Iwo Jima and Okinawan Marine and Navy Medals of Honor (27 at Iwo Jima and 14 at Okinawa). Vice Admiral Frank Jack Fletcher wrote of Hayler conducting his duties at the board as “a flag officer of unusual intelligence and judgement who combines diligence with common sense.” Admiral Arthur J. Hepburn stated:

“The four citations for service in combat sufficiently attest to [Hayler’s] outstanding qualities of decision, judgement and the ease with which he assumes and discharges responsibilities of the highest order. His work on the General Board, of an entirely differently nature, reflects these same qualities.”

Hayler was the highest authority in the land for Navy, Marine and Coast Guard servicemen in the summer of 1945 when it came to awarding medals, and he took his responsibilities seriously. He responsible for anointing America’s future heroes.

 These facts are important to know when exploring the Medal of Honor recipient Hershel Woodrow “Woody” Williams’ case because, without the powers bestowed to Hayler, Williams would have never received the Medal of Honor. As I have mentioned in earlier posts, Williams never received approvals for the Medal of Honor from Geiger, Nimitz nor Vandergrift, nor their boards—the very men in the chain of command necessary to approve Williams’ valorous decoration. Hayler had, for some reason, taken it away from them and approved the decoration himself. In many respects, Hayler’s actions made a mockery of the process since Williams did not receive the necessary endorsements from the Marine Corps for a Medal of Honor.

As I start to unravel how an unqualified Marine received a Medal of Honor, these facts will play an important role. Join me this week as I explore Williams’ wartime actions, how he received the Medal of Honor, and why we should be concerned that he didn’t earn it.

For more, see my new book, “Flamethrower”: https://www.amazon.com/Flamethrower-Recipient-Williams-Controversial-Holocaust/dp/1734534109/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=flamethrower+by+bryan+mark+rigg&link_code=qs&qid=1592239708&sourceid=Mozilla-search&sr=8-1&tag=mozilla-20