| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Ms. Margaret K. Patterson | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Karol A. Kennedy | Member | |
| Mr. Richard T. Dunbar | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his records be corrected to show that he was awarded the Legion of Merit (LOM) upon his retirement.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was presented the LOM on 9 November 2000, in connection with his 31 December 2000 retirement for length of service. He also states that he was presented the medal by the officer who recommended him for the award. He further states that his wife was in attendance along with some 50 co-workers, friends and family. He goes on to state that on 5 December 2000, he reported to the out-processing facility to arrange for his final pay and to receive his report of separation (DD Form 214). At the time the clerk was preparing the DD Form 214 he (the applicant) mentioned that he had received an award of the LOM, but did not yet have the paperwork. The clerk immediately called for a copy of the award and was informed that the award had been downgraded to a Meritorious Service Medal (MSM). He goes on to state that at the time he was especially proud to receive the award because of the many sacrifices his wife had made and believed that it was as much hers as it was his. He was very embarrassed to find out that the award was presented prematurely and believes that there was a disconnect between the recommending and approving officials that caused his award to be downgraded. He also believes that he should be entitled to the award of the LOM as presented.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 6 July 2000, while the applicant was serving on active duty as a National Guard lieutenant colonel in the National Guard Bureau (NGB), a recommendation for award of the LOM was submitted through channels to the Chief of the NGB (a lieutenant general). The award was submitted in recognition of the applicant’s retirement from 29 years of service (of which 20 years was active duty) and was submitted by the Chief, Army Information Systems Division (a colonel).
On 1 November 2000, the Chief of the NGB downgraded the recommendation to an award of the MSM. The award was not administratively completed until 20 November 2000.
Meanwhile, on 9 November 2000, the applicant was presented with an award of the LOM (without orders).
On 31 December 2000, the applicant was honorably released from active duty and was transferred to the United States Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group (Retired). He had served 20 years, 1 month and 9 days of active service and 29 years, 1 month and 7 days of total service for pay. His DD Form 214 indicates that his highest award was the Defense Meritorious Service Medal and that he received three awards of the MSM.
On 9 April 2001, officials at the NGB responded to a Congressional Inquiry on behalf of the applicant, regarding his entitlement to the award of the LOM. Officials at the NGB informed the Congressional Representative that the award had been presented prematurely and without proper approval of the Chief, NGB. The official also apologized for the embarrassment caused by the premature presentation and advised the applicant that he could apply to this Board.
Army Regulation 600-8-22 prescribes Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning military awards. It provides, in pertinent part, that the Chief, NGB is the approval authority for all awards to National Guard personnel. Once awards are approved, orders will be published and certificates will be prepared for presentation. Each individual approaching retirement may be considered for an appropriate decoration based on his or her grade, years of service, degree of responsibility and manner of performance. The authority taking final action may award the decoration recommended, award a lesser decoration or consider the interim award (if given) as adequate recognition or disapprove award of any decoration.
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. While it is apparent that an administrative error occurred when the applicant was prematurely presented the LOM by the recommending official, the award had already been officially downgraded by the approving authority. Accordingly, the LOM presented to the applicant at the time was never an official award.
2. The Board is sympathetic to the embarrassment caused by the actions of the presenting official to the applicant and his family; however, the Chief of the NGB was within his authority to downgrade the recommendation and the Board finds no basis to dispute his judgment in this matter, especially given the fact that the applicant worked in the NGB and the Chief of the NGB was in a position to best make such a decision.
3. It appears that an officer subordinate to the Chief of the NGB presumed (without checking first) that the recommendation had been approved and prematurely presented the medal without authority to do so. While it is not the intent of the Department for mistakes like this to be allowed to occur, it is also not appropriate to grant awards that are not approved by the appropriate authorities simply because someone made a mistake and presented the wrong medal.
4. The Board commends the applicant for his many years of service to his country and encourages him to understand that the mistake made in his case was not made intentionally to embarrass him or his family. Unfortunately, the approving authority did not believe that the recommendation warranted an award of the LOM and the Board finds no basis to overturn that decision. The decision by the Chief of the NGB to award him the MSM does not diminish the quality of his service but simply implies that in the judgment of the approving authority, it did not warrant an award of the LOM.
5. 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
__mkp___ ___kak__ ___rtd___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001057767 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2001/10/02 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 55 | 131.0900/LOM |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
The last MSM period covered over five years of duty, but he would still have over 2 years before retiring. Several months before retiring, he was told by HQ AFRES Awards and Decorations personnel there should be no problem in his being awarded a retirement LOM since he had 30 years of service after commissioning. Would the recommended retirement LOM be downgraded to a MSM?
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140014835
The applicant states: a. the narrative portion of the DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award) initially recommending him for the LOM is incorrect; b. upon submitting his paperwork for retirement, his detachment commander asked for a copy of all of his officer evaluation reports in order to prepare his retirement award, to which he complied; c. after he read the award recommendation he informed his commander of the errors it contained, at which time, his commander told him it was already...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02845
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: In 1974, the original award approval correspondence was forwarded to Headquarters United States Air Force Europe (USAFE) for award of the LOM for superior service from 1967 to 1974. However, the position does not meet the criteria of serving in a qualifying position in accordance with AFI 36-2803, The Air Force Military Awards and Decorations Program. The complete MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He provided a copy of AF...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110008426
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) in the interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS) by: * removing an "interim" Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) that was awarded to him by the Commanding General (CG), U.S. Army Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command (Airborne) (USACAPOC(A)) for the period 27 August 2007 to 31 August 2009 * rescinding the revocation of an MSM awarded by the CG, U.S. Army Reserve...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067146C070402
Additionally, the applicant's record contains a copy of a completed DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award) that shows he was approved for award of the MSM as a retirement award. Available evidence shows that the applicant was approved for award of the MSM and that orders for the award were published. The applicant has not presented any definitive evidence, and the available records do not contain any evidence, to show that he was ever recommended and approved for award of the AM, or that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130018504
c. In May 2012, he submitted the award (recommendation) to the 3rd Army and in June 2012 one of his Soldiers notified him that a brigadier general downgraded his award to a Meritorious Service Medal (MSM). Finally, in November before he left the command he asked the 3rd Army Commander to authorize his 3rd Army award section to revoke the award orders and remove the award from his record. The regulation shows that award orders are filed in the performance section of the OMPF.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02511
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Air Force historically awards the LOM to colonels and above while the MSM is awarded to lieutenant colonels and below. On 22 Mar 04, the Board considered and granted the applicant's request for consideration for promotion to the grade of colonel by an SSB. Applicant notes that in accordance with the AFI the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council is the approval authority, the entire career...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140010446
d. The ARBA letter states that the applicant's MSM was not upgraded because his performance of assigned staff duties was insufficient. Only one decoration will be awarded to an individual for the same act, achievement, or period of meritorious service. Senator in 2012 for award of the LOM for achievement based on advice from the Awards Branch at HRC.
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01320
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force, which is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIDR states the Board needs to consider the merits of the applicant’s request for upgrade of the MSM to BSM. As of this date, this office has not received a response. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-00147
On 1 May 08, XXXX/A1DPM advised the applicant’s unit the recommendation must be submitted through the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) due to the fact the applicant was already retired. RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD : Mr. XXXXXXXXXX voted to correct the records but does not desire to submit a Minority Report.