MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  7 November 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2002074804

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Vic Whitney		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman		Member	
	Mr. Thomas B. Redfern		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his award of the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) be upgraded to the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM).

APPLICANT STATES:  That he believes the orders approving official downgraded his recommendation for the MSM prior to the award approving authorities decision on the recommendation in violation of regulation.  He submits a copy of the Recommendation for Award, his award certificate, and several NCO Evaluation Reports in support of his application.

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

At the time of the contested award recommendation, the applicant was serving as the brigade intelligence and security NCO in the pay grade of E-7.  The 16 June 1999 award recommendation covered a 3-year period of assignment to the brigade in various staff positions.  The occasion for the recommendation was the applicant's permanent change of station.

The award recommender was the brigade operations sergeant major.  The justification for the award of the MSM was presented with four major achievements accomplished by the applicant.  On 28 June 1999, the company commander recommended approval of the MSM.  On 6 July 1999, the brigade commander recommended approval of the MSM for the applicant.

The award approval authority, a lieutenant general, downgraded the recommended award to the ARCOM in his own hand.  The date of this action is shown as 29 July 1999.  The action by the approval authority was forwarded to the orders issuing activity, the personnel actions division of the corps headquarters.  The orders data shows that the ARCOM with second oak leaf cluster was approved and issued on 16 July 1999, which appears to have been 13 days prior to the action by the award approval authority.

The award certificate for the applicant's ARCOM shows that it was for the period of 29 July 1996 to 29 July 1999, the date shown as the approval authorities action.  The lieutenant general signed the certificate and the signature date is shown as 16 July 1999, the same date as the approval of the award orders.

The applicant's NCO Evaluation Reports provide no evidence in support of his claim that his award was downgraded in violation of regulation.

In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was provided by the Awards Branch, Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM).  The PERSCOM notes that the award certificate was signed and the orders for the award issued on 16 July 1999.  An apparent error occurred when the award through date was entered as the award approval authority date.  The opinion was provided to the applicant for rebuttal but no response was received.
Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides the Army policy for military awards.  The rules for processing the award recommendation state that the recommendation will be forwarded through command channels to the award approval authority with each intermediate commander providing his/her recommendation.  Approval authorities may make award decisions without referral to an awards board.

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, it is concluded:

1.  It appears that an administrative error occurred when the award through date was entered as the award approval authority date on the award recommendation form.

2.  The fact that the award certificate was signed on 16 July 1999, the same date as the orders approval date, is further evidence that the award approval authority took action prior to the through date of the award.

3.  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 this requirement.

4.  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

__ro___  ___dh___  ___tr_____  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002074804	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20021107	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	107.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.