APPLICANT REQUESTS: Correction of his military records to reflect award of the Bronze Star Medal with “V” device. APPLICANT STATES: He was awarded an Army Commendation Medal with “V” device instead of a Bronze Star Medal based on an incomplete award recommendation. In support of his request he submit statements from two former soldiers who maintain the applicant’s heroism was downplayed because of a confrontation with his unit commander. Additionally, he submits an October 1994 statement from the former commanding general, 4th Infantry Division who indicated that had the information contained in the applicant’s request been available at the time he would have awarded him the Bronze Star Medal. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: The applicant entered active duty on 30 January 1968 and following completion of training as an infantryman was assigned to Vietnam in July 1968. According to his Army Commendation Medal with “V” device he was cited for heroism on 13 September 1968 when his: “company made contact with a well-entrenched enemy force.... Despite intense enemy automatic weapons and rocket fire, [the applicant] rushed forward to engage the enemy. As he maneuvered forward, an enemy soldier blocked his path and wounded him. Eliminating this opposition, [the applicant] moved forward, despite his wound. Flanking an enemy bunker he placed accurate fire on it, wounding its occupants thus enabling his company to continue its advance.” As a result of the injuries sustained on 13 September 1968 the applicant was evacuated and ultimately assigned to Fort Hood, Texas where he was released from active duty effective 18 September 1969 when it was determined that a commitment in his enlistment contract had not been fulfilled. The statements submitted in support of the applicant’s request were authored in 1989 and 1990. One statement credits the applicant with killing or wounding more enemy soldiers than what was inferred in his Army Commendation Medal citation and indicates the applicant and his commander “had a heated discussion” about the mission prior to his being evacuated. The second statement also refers to an “angry exchange of words” between the applicant and his commander and that the exchange resulted in downplaying the applicant’s role in the mission. This statement notes that the actions of the applicant and another soldier were key to the success of the unit’s mission and “in keeping our company from being overrun on that day....” A search of the Vietnam era awards files produced an order awarding a Bronze Star Medal with “V” device to the other soldier identified in the witness statement as having been a key player in the 13 September 1968 action. His Bronze Star Medal citation noted that: “Specialist “G’s” company was engaged by a well-entrenched enemy force.... During the initial barrage of enemy fire, Specialist “G” moved forward and engaged the enemy positions. Realizing that many of his wounded comrades were still exposed to the enemy fire, he maneuvered to a position from which he could engage the enemy positions with grenades. Then continually moving through the intense enemy fire, Specialist “G” carried several of his wounded comrades to safety and continued to place effective fire on the enemy until contact was broken.” Both valor awards were approved by the commanding general, 4th Infantry Division. The applicant’s award order was issued on 17 November 1968 while the other soldier’s award order was published on 28 November 1968. Army Regulation 600-8-22 states that no individual is entitled to an award and that each personal decoration requires a recommendation, approval through the chain of command and announcement in orders. Additionally, the Army does not condone self-recognition; therefore, a soldier may not recommended himself/herself for award of a decoration. 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. There is no evidence that the applicant’s 1968 award recommendation was initiated by the commander he allegedly had the altercation with or that a conscious decision was made to deny the applicant a higher decoration by “downplaying” his contributions. The citation contained in the Army Commendation Medal award order would not have been the sole document on which the award decision was based. Rather the original recommendation would have included an expanded narrative which may very well have included the additional details which, when reviewed, were determine only to warrant the award granted. 2. While the applicant’s actions were certainly noteworthy the Army Commendation Medal appropriately recognized his heroism. Even with the expanded details of the applicant’s actions they were not of the level displayed by the other soldier who was awarded the Bronze Star Medal. 3. Although the former division commander now believes the applicant should receive the Bronze Star Medal he makes that recommendation based solely on statements rendered nearly 30 years after the fact and without the benefit of comparison to the multitude of other awards he may have approved at the time. 4. The applicant’s belief that he deserves a higher decoration is not a basis to award that decoration and is tantamount to recommending himself for an award. 5. 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. 6. 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