APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Consideration for award of the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM).

APPLICANT STATES:  The fact that proper disposition of the award recommendation was not handled according to Army Regulation or Inspector General interpretation.

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

On 18 February 1964, he enlisted in the Regular Army.  On 25 November 1966, he was transferred to the Army Reserve for 4 years and discharged on 
17 February 1970.

On 23 May 1979, he enlisted in the Army Reserve and on 25 October 1981, he was discharged with 2 years, 5 months and 2 days credited reserve time.

On 26 October 1981, applicant was commissioned a First Lieutenant in the USAR.  He was ordered to active duty on 15 March 1982 for two years with a release date of 14 March 1984.

Between 18 November 1983 and 3 January 1986, applicant’s active duty commitment was amended five times with a final release date of 21 April 1986 and 4 years, 1 month and 7 days of creditable service.

On 19 May 1986, he was recalled to active duty for 3 years and promoted to 
the grade of Captain with a DOR of 25 October 1985.

Army Regulation 600-8-22, Military Awards, indicates in pertinent part, it is the responsibility of any individual having personal knowledge of an act, achievement or service believed to warrant the award of a decoration to submit a formal recommendation into military command channels for consideration within 2 years of the act, achievement or service to be honored and the award must be made within 3 years.  There are regulatory provisions for lost recommendations but not for late recommendations, reconsideration or for
upgrading to a more prestigious award.

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

1.  In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

2.  There is no evidence that a recommendation was made or that orders were published for award of the MSM.

3.  In view of the foregoing, there is 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