Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711258A
Original file (9711258A.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
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

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084708C070212

    Original file (2003084708C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 | CY2008 | 20080005313

    Original file (20080005313.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012259

    Original file (20060012259.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    Records show that the applicant appealed to the US Army Human Resources Command-Military Awards Branch for upgrade of his ARCOM to a MSM. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides that the Army Commendation Medal 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 or herself by heroism, meritorious achievement or meritorious service. The applicant's records clearly show...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01159

    Original file (BC 2014 01159.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant’s DD Form 214 reflects the award of the following Air Force Medals and/or Ribbons: - Air Force Commendation Medal - National Defense Service Medal The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant provided a...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060009673

    Original file (20060009673.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 applicant’s 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 | CY2011 | 20110011365

    Original file (20110011365.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests that the award of the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) be removed from his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty). A review of his official records shows no evidence to indicate that he was awarded the MSM during the period covered by the DD Form 214. Accordingly, it would be appropriate at this time to remove the award of the MSM from his DD Form 214.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01504

    Original file (BC-2002-01504.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    In support of his application, he provided personal statements, several sworn and supportive statements by the Air Force Surgeon General and other individuals who observed his actions on 11 September 2001, extracts from periodicals concerning his actions on 11 September 2001, and a copy of the Citation to Accompany the Award of the Airman’s Medal. DPPPR noted that the recommendation for award of the Airman’s Medal was downgraded to the MSM and that a request for reconsideration for an...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090007845

    Original file (20090007845.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states the recommendation for his award of the Meritorious Service Medal was approved through the whole chain of command with the highest recommendations and the Orders Data section of the DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award) shows the award given as the Meritorious Service Medal. Therefore, the commanding general of the 4th Infantry Division was the approval authority for awards of the Meritorious Service Medal. The decision to award the applicant an Army Commendation...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064659C070421

    Original file (2001064659C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It also concluded that the applicant had subsequently been awarded the MSM, which included his achievements in Bosnia and that he could not receive an award of the JSCM for the same period. The applicant was recommended for an award and the available evidence shows that the proper authority denied the recommendation. The applicable regulation provides that an individual cannot receive two awards for the same act or period of service.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03695

    Original file (BC-2003-03695.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel takes exception to the advisory opinions and presents arguments contending the application is timely, his client is not seeking promotion on the basis of expediency, she did attempt to involve the IG and upgrade the AFCM, and sufficient evidence has been provided to warrant granting the relief sought. It...