IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 27 October 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140021755 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 correction to his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show the Legion of Merit (LOM). 2. The applicant states item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded) of his DD Form 214 fails to show he was awarded the LOM by the Program Executive Officer for Tactical Missiles at Redstone Arsenal, AL in October 1996. The LOM was the last award he received and it failed to reach his administrative records in adequate time to be included on his DD Form 214. 3. The applicant provides no additional documents in support of his application. 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 was commissioned as an officer in the Regular Army on 11 May 1974. He served continuously on active duty and was honorably retired on 31 October 1996 in the rank of lieutenant colonel. He was transferred to the Retired List on 1 November 1996. The DD Form 214 he was issued does not show award of the LOM. He did receive four Meritorious Service Medals throughout his 22 years of active duty service. 3. The applicant's official military personnel file (OMPF) contains a DA 4980-11 (LOM Certificate) which shows he was potentially awarded an LOM on 13 February 1997 which was 12 days after he retirement date. The award citation states the award was given on the occasion of his retirement for distinguished service in a succession of challenging and responsible positions, culminating in his assignment as the Product Manager for the Fire Direction Data Center. There is no award approval authority signature on the certificate, though it does contain the preprinted signature of the Secretary of the Army. 4. There is no DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award) filed in the applicant’s OMPF. A review of his OMPF failed to reveal separate permanent orders announcing award of the LOM. Page 2 of the DA Form 638 required the orders issuing headquarters to assign a permanent order number to the form and then authenticate it on behalf of the awards approval authority. 5. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states the LOM is awarded to individuals who distinguish themselves by exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding services and achievements. The performance must merit recognition of key individuals for service rendered in a clearly exceptional manner. Performance of duties normal to the grade, branch, specialty, or assignment and experience of an individual is not an adequate basis for this award. In peacetime, service should be in the nature of a special requirement or an extremely difficult duty performed in an unprecedented and clearly exceptional manner. However, justification may accrue by virtue of exceptionally meritorious service in a succession of important positions. As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in permanent orders are required. The LOM certificate is overprinted with the Secretary of the Army’s signature. The approval authority’s signature is required on the left hand side of the LOM certificate. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The evidence of record is incomplete. A review of the applicant’s OMPF failed to reveal a copy of the DA Form 638 which would have annotated the permanent order number assigned to the award recommendation, thereby making it an official document. The LOM certificate filed in his OMPF is incomplete because it lacks the award approval authority’s signature. Regrettably, without the permanent order number the applicant’s DD Form 214 cannot be corrected to show award of the LOM. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___x____ ___x_____ ____x___ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. 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. 2. The Board wants the applicant and all others concerned to know that this action in no way diminishes the sacrifices made by the applicant in service to our Nation. The applicant and all Americans should be justifiably proud of his service in arms. ___________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) AR20140021755 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140021755 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1