APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) he was awarded in 1994 be upgraded to a Meritorious Service Medal (MSM).

APPLICANT STATES:  That a clerical error was made and the ARCOM should have been an MSM.  He contends that the award recommendation form (DA Form 638-1) supports an MSM.  He includes a letter from his former battalion commander who states that an error was made in the award recommendation which he failed to catch.

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

He was recommended for award of the ARCOM for service by his detachment commander on 22 June 1994.  The award recommendation was concurred in by the battalion commander who added a note that the applicant had done an excellent job and forwarded the recommendation to the group commander for approval.  The group commander approved the award on 22 June 1994.  Orders were published on 28 July 1994 showing that he had been awarded the ARCOM 2d oak leaf cluster.

On 22 August 1995 the battalion commander provided his comments concerning the applicant’s ARCOM recommendation.  He stated that an error was made by the detachment commander that was not noticed or corrected by the company commander or himself.  Therefore, the award recommended was for an ARCOM rather than an MSM.

The Special Forces Group to which the applicant belonged at the time of the award recommendation was deactivated in 1994.

Army Regulation 600-8-22, Military Awards, Table 3-2 lists the delegation of awards approving authority under peacetime criteria.  It shows the approval authorities for the MSM are commanders or principal agency officials in the grade of major general for US Army personnel assigned and attached for duty to their command or agency.

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.  Notwithstanding the retrospective letter supporting his request, there is no other evidence to suggest that he should have been recommended for the MSM rather than the ARCOM.  The recommendation was processed through the proper chain of review without change or nonconcurrence and is, therefore, presumed to have been the appropriate award.

2.  The awards regulation specifies that approval authority for the MSM is a commander in the grade of major general or higher. Obviously, the award never processed to that level because it was only an ARCOM recommendation (ARCOM approval authority is vested in commanders in the grade of colonel or above).  In the absence of evidence that the recommendation was reviewed by a commander authorized to approve the higher award or that a prejudicial error occurred in the processing of the recommendation, it would be inappropriate for this Board to arbitrarily upgrade the 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