| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Wanda L. Waller | Analyst |
| Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Melinda M. Darby | Member | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his Army Commendation Medal be upgraded to the Meritorious Service Medal.
APPLICANT STATES: That his final Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) Evaluation Report and the statements on the award recommendation do not support the award approval authority’s decision to downgrade the award. He also contends that there was no explanation given for the decision to downgrade the award. In support of his application, he submits DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award), dated 3 March 2000; an award certificate for the Army Commendation Medal; NCO Evaluation Report covering the period June 1999 through May 2000; and retirement orders, dated 9 May 2000.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant retired in the rank of sergeant first class on 30 June 2000 from the U.S. Army Reserve after completing over 20 years of active duty service in the Active Guard Reserve Program.
DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award), dated 3 March 2000, shows the applicant was recommended for award of the Meritorious Service Medal for meritorious service for the period 1 June 1999 to 30 June 2000. The two intermediate authorities recommended approval of the recommendation. However, the award approval authority disapproved the recommendation for award of the Meritorious Service Medal and downgraded the recommendation to an award of the Army Commendation Medal for meritorious service. The Army Commendation Medal was announced in orders on 16 April 2000.
In support of his claim, the applicant provided a copy of his NCO Evaluation Report for the period covering June 1999 through May 2000. This report shows that the applicant’s overall performance was rated as “Successful” and his overall potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility was rated as “Superior” by the Senior Rater.
Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, that the Meritorious Service Medal is awarded to a members of the Armed Forces of the United States or of a friendly foreign nation who distinguish 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.
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. As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required.
Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides in paragraph 3-1c that the decision to award an individual a decoration and the decision as to which award is appropriate are both subjective decisions made by the commander having award approval authority.
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. Evidence of record shows that the applicant’s immediate supervisor at the time in question recommended him for the Meritorious Service Medal for meritorious service for the period 1 June 1999 to 30 June 2000. Evidence of record also shows that the two intermediate authorities concurred with his recommendation for the Meritorious Service Medal. However, the award approval authority disapproved the recommendation for the Meritorious Service Medal and downgraded the recommendation to an award of the Army Commendation Medal for meritorious service for the period 1 June 1999 to
30 June 2000.
2. The applicant has not presented any evidence that the award process or the decision by the appropriate award approval authority for the Army Commendation Medal was flawed or otherwise unjust, improper or inequitable.
3. This Board considered all information submitted and all available evidence of record in this case and found no compelling evidence which warranted upgrading the applicant’s award of the Army Commendation Medal to the Meritorious Service Medal.
4. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.
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
INW_____ MMD___ JTM_____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002067219 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020416 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 107.0017 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067395C070402
Evidence of record shows the award recommendation was initiated on 12 November 1998 and the award approval authority acted on 16 April 1999. Evidence of record also shows that the two intermediate authorities concurred with his recommendation for the Meritorious Service Medal and one intermediate authority recommended that the award be downgraded to the Army Commendation. This Board considered all information submitted and all available evidence of record in this case and found no...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090007845
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 | 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 | CY2009 | 20090012378
The applicant provides a self-authored statement, dated 17 July 2009; a DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award) for the BSM, dated 4 April 2005, and citation; a commander's statement, dated 8 April 2005; two DA Forms 2823 (Sworn Statements); an ARCOM with Valor certificate, dated 15 August 2005; and his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) in support of his application. There is no evidence of record that indicates the applicant or anyone in his chain of command...
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 | CY2001 | 2001061816C070421
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his Army Commendation Medal be upgraded to a Meritorious Service Medal. The DA Form 638 provided by the applicant, dated 8 September 1994, shows the applicant was recommended for award of the Army Commendation Medal (First Oak Leaf Cluster) for meritorious service for the period 14 March 1992 to 15 July 1994. This Board considered all information submitted and all available evidence of record in this case and found no compelling evidence which warranted upgrading...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000566C070206
The DA Form 4980-14 provided by the applicant shows that he was awarded the Army Commendation Medal for the period 20 March 2003 to 30 April 2003 for "exceptionally meritorious service." The applicant contends that the Army Commendation Medal is not appropriate for his actions and service and that since he was recommended for award of the Bronze Star Medal his records should be corrected to show that award. However, the DA Form 638 shows that the chain of command recommended award of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061765C070421
The applicant’s DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) does not show the Meritorious Service Medal, the Army Achievement Medal or the Overseas Service Ribbon as authorized awards. Evidence of record shows that the applicant was recommended for award of the Army Commendation Medal, not the Meritorious Service Medal as claimed. Evidence of record further shows that the lieutenant colonel in command of the 103d Military Intelligence Battalion, who was also the...
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 | 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...