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 applicants 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 applicants 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
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003089776C070403
However, neither of these offices granted any relief and she now appeals to this Board by requesting that the ARCOM she received in April 2000 be revoked and that it be replaced with an MSM as originally recommended by her rater, a field grade officer, and her detachment commander. The DA IG further pointed out that under the governing regulation there was no entitlement to an award and that awards for meritorious service are not based solely upon the grade of the individual. The evidence...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060009673
The applicant requests that his service award, which was downgraded to an Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM), be upgraded to a Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) as originally recommended by members of his immediate chain of command. The applicants OER, from 10 January 2003 to 15 June 2003, rated his performance as the Assistant Battalion S-3. However, evidence of record shows that during the period in question, the applicant was awarded an ARCOM for meritorious service from March 2003 to May...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140004510
The applicant requests, in effect, that an Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) Certificate, dated 20 July 2012, and Permanent Orders (PO) 277-10, dated 3 October 2012, be removed from his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR). His AMHRR contains the contested ARCOM Certificate, which shows he received the award for the period 19 August 2009 through 27 July 2012 while he was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company (HHC), 1st Battalion, 502nd Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084708C070212
d. Based on the foregoing, the Chief of the Military Awards Branch recommended that the applicant's request should be denied, that he should receive the Army Commendation Medal (First Oak Leaf Cluster) approved by the Commanding General of the 5th Signal Command on 9 May 2002, and that the applicant's servicing personnel center should correct his official records to show this award. COL R, as the Chief of Staff and Headquarters Commandant of the 5th Signal Command at that time, indicated in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091048C070212
Counsel states that the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) corrected the applicant's Officer Evaluation Report (OER); however, the Officer Special Review Board (ORSB) refused to submit his records before a SSB. In a 10 October 2002 letter to this Board, the applicant's former senior rater, Col Sh, stated that he had discussed the writing of the OER with his peers at Fort Drum and the Transportation Branch at PERSCOM, and that it was his intent to provide an OER that would support his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100026727
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). However, there are no orders in his records and he has no orders showing more than three awards of the AAM. _______ _ 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080005313
On 3 September 2002, a subordinate officer (second lieutenant) submitted a Recommendation for Award (DA Form 638) recommending the applicant for award of the BSM for meritorious service during the period of 1 July to 1 October 2002. The company and battalion commanders recommended approval of the MSM; however, the group commander (colonel) downgraded the award to award of the ARCOM. Army Regulation 600-8-22 also states it is the responsibility of any individual having personal knowledge of...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2004-02065
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02065 INDEX CODE: 107.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 27 AUG 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to show that he was awarded the Legion of Merit (LOM), rather than the Meritorious Service Medal, Fourth Oak Leaf Cluster (MSM, 4OLC), for the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004105768C070208
The applicant's military record shows that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 26 July 1990. The available evidence shows that, on 10 February 1997, the applicant was recommended for award of the MSM for the period of service from 22 July 1994 to 1 June 1997. The applicant's DD Form 214, issued on 16 April 1998 shows award of both the MSM and the ARCOM for the same period of service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070016263
It appears that from January to February 1994 he was able to lose 20 pounds and comply with the Army's weight standards. While it is unfortunate that the applicant was not selected for promotion by the Fiscal Year 1994 E-7 Selection Board, it is a well known fact that promotion selection boards must select the best qualified Soldiers to meet the needs of the Army within each MOS and that there are normally more Soldiers eligible for promotion than there are promotions available. Inasmuch...