IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 4 June 2009 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080019857 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) be added to his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge). 2. The applicant states that due the innovative work he did with his first unit in Vietnam, he was promoted and transferred to another unit after 9 months. He was told that an ARCOM was normally awarded after serving a year with a unit, and he found an internet site which shows that he was awarded the ARCOM. 3. The applicant provides his DD Form 214, an ARCOM order for another individual, and an Annual Supplement to The Unit History of the 221st Aviation Company. That supplement shows the applicant was awarded the ARCOM.  However, neither the date of award nor the order number was indicated in this supplement. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. The applicant's military records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army, on 31 January 1968, and he was awarded the military occupational specialty of aircraft electrician. He served in Vietnam from 6 November 1968 through 5 December 1969 and he was honorably released from active duty in pay grade E-5 on 29 January 1971. 3. The applicant's records do not contain any orders awarding him the ARCOM or a recommendation for the ARCOM. 4. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards)provides that the ARCOM may be awarded to any member of the Armed Forces of the United States who, while serving in any capacity with the Army after 6 December 1941, distinguished himself by heroism, meritorious achievement or meritorious service. As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required. 5. Title 10 of the U. S. Code, section 1130 (10 USC 1130) provides the legal authority for consideration of proposals for decorations not previously submitted in timely fashion. It allows, in effect, that upon the request of a Member of Congress, the Secretary concerned shall review a proposal for the award or presentation of a decoration (or the upgrading of a decoration), either for an individual or a unit, that is not otherwise authorized to be presented or awarded due to limitations established by law or policy for timely submission of a recommendation for such award or presentation. Based upon such review, the Secretary shall make a determination as to the merits of approving the award or presentation of the decoration. 6. Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Military Personnel Information Management/Records) prescribes the policies governing the OMPF, the MPRJ, the Career Management Individual File, and Army Personnel Qualification Records. In pertinent part, this regulation states that for U.S. military decorations the only acceptable source documentation is the order, letter, or memorandum which awards the decoration. Award certificates, citations, or separation certificates alone will not be the basis for entry of a decoration. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. Unfortunately, the Annual Supplement to The Unit History of the 221st Aviation Company is not a document which is used to verify entitlement to an award or decoration. The only acceptable source documentation is the order, letter, or memorandum which awards the decoration. 2. This is logical since awards and decorations can be downgraded, disapproved, or otherwise not acted upon. 3. As such, there is insufficient evidence in which to grant the applicant's request. 4. While the available evidence is insufficient for awarding the applicant an ARCOM, this in no way affects the applicant’s right to pursue his claim for the ARCOM by submitting a request through his Member of Congress under the provisions of 10 USC 1130. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____X__ ___X____ __X_____ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. ___________X____________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080019857 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080019857 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1