APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Reconsideration of his previous request to correct his records to reflect he was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM), instead of the Army Commendation Medal (first oak leaf cluster).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, 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 believes that the other soldiers in the unit received their Meritorious Service Medal because they were not Hispanic.

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum of consideration (MOC) prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on                        14 January 1998 (COPY ATTACHED).

The contention that his award was downgraded due to discrimination constitutes new argument.

Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, that the MSM is awarded to a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or of a friendly foreign nation who distinguishes themselves by outstanding meritorious achievement or service in a noncombat area.  As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required.  Recommendations must be made within 2 years of the event or period of service and the award must be made within 3 years.  There are regulatory provisions for lost recommendations but not for late recommendations, reconsideration, nor for upgrading to a more prestigious award.  The regulation also provides that there is no automatic entitlement to an award upon departure either from an assignment or from the service.  Furthermore the Army discourages self-aggrandizement and precludes individuals from recommending themselves for awards. 

Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 10c provides, in pertinent part, that reconsideration of a Board decision will be made when additional evidence or other matter including, but not limited to factual allegations or arguments, that were not previously available to the Board has been submitted.

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 of record that the applicant’s award was downgraded because of his Hispanic surname or by reason of any discrimination.

2.  While his service and achievements were certainly noteworthy, they were more than adequately recognized by the awards he received during his 20 years of active duty.

3.  The applicant’s Meritorious Service Medal recommendation was processed to conclusion with no evidence of error or injustice.  The Army Commendation Medal awarded subsequent to his separation 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.  The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.

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

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director