APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his Army Achievement Medal (AAM) be upgraded to an Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM).

APPLICANT STATES:  That in February 1988 his commander informed him that he was being recommended for the ARCOM.  On 28 March 1988, after his discharge, he received the AAM with no explanation why the award was downgraded.  He contends that he had a good record and should have been awarded the ARCOM.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

He enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years on 6 June 1984 and was honorably separated in pay grade E-5 per his request, pursuant to an early transition program.  His awards include the AAM, the Good Conduct Medal, the NCO Professional Development Ribbon, the Army Service Ribbon, the Army Superior Unit Award, and the Air Assault Badge.

The applicant was awarded the AAM for meritorious service upon completion of his service on 28 March 1988.  The record contains no evidence to show that he was recommended for an ARCOM.

Army Regulation 600-8-22, Military Awards, provides in pertinent part, that the decision to award an individual a decoration and the decision as to which award is appropriate are both subjective decisions made by the commander having award approval authority.  No individual is automatically entitled to an award upon departure from an assignment.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The record does not contain and the applicant has not provided any evidence to indicate that a prejudicial error occurred in awarding him the AAM.

2.  Notwithstanding his contention that he had a good record, award determinations are subjective decisions by the commander concerned and in the absence of evidence of error, it would be inappropriate for this Board to arbitrarily upgrade his award.

3.  In view of the foregoing, there appears to be no basis for granting the applicant’s request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

                       GRANT          

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION




						Karl F. Schneider
						Acting Director