APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Award of the Meritorious Service Medal.

APPLICANT STATES:  He was originally recommended for award of the Meritorious Service Medal but an “injustice” occurred when the award was downgraded to an Army Commendation Medal. He cites several achievements during his military career which he believes justifies award of the Meritorious Service Medal, including serving as the public affair office representative during a deployment to Cuba, arranging media coverage for visiting dignitaries at Fort Drum, New York, coordination of a ceremony in Czechoslovakia, and production of a history of the 1st Infantry Division in Germany.

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

He served an initial period of active duty between 1976 and 1983 prior to reenlisting on 21 July 1988.  During his initial term of service he was trained and performed duties as a journalist.  Upon reenlisting he was trained as an infantryman but again primarily performed duties as a journalist.

While performing duties as a photo journalist during his assignment with the 1st Infantry Division in Germany he was awarded four Army Achievement Medals and two Army Commendation Medals.  Two of the Army Achievement Medals were awarded on 1 October 1990; one for his contributions to the public affairs office which resulted in positive comments about the organization’s newspaper by Department of the Army and the second for his involvement with the Czechoslovakian ceremony.  In July 1991 he was recognized for his history of the 1st Infantry Division.  He received an Army Achievement Medal and an Army Commendation Medal as a result of his deployment to Southwest Asia.  While both were for essentially the same events and the same period one was awarded for achievement while the other was awarded for service.

The applicant was recommended for award of the Meritorious Service Medal for the period 21 July 1988 through 20 July 1992 by the NCO in charge of the Fort Drum, Public Affairs Office.  The proposed recommendation noted the applicant had served exceptionally as a journalist and “significantly contributed to meeting command and public information mission requirements.”  The division’s public affairs officer supported the recommendation but the commander, 10th Division Support Command downgraded the award to an Army Commendation Medal.  The approving authority noted that while the applicant “did a super job and [was] deserving of a medal...[he did] not feel that the responsibilities of his position and actions [were] commensurate with the award of a MSM.”

On 20 July 1992 the applicant was released from active duty in pay grade E-4 having reached his retention control point.

Army Regulation 600-8-22 states that on individual is automatically entitled to an award and 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.  The Army does not condone self-recognition; therefore, a soldier may not recommend 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. 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.  While his service and achievements as a journalist were certainly noteworthy they were more than adequately recognized by the seven awards he received during his four year enlistment contract.

3.  The applicant’s Meritorious Service Medal recommendation was processed to conclusion with no evidence of error or injustice.  The Army Commendation Medal awarded upon his separation in 1992 was appropriate and there is no reason for the Board to question the subjective decision of the awards approval authority.

4.  The applicant's belief that he should have received the Meritorious Service Medal is not a basis for awarding the decoration and is tantamount to recommending himself for an award.

5.  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