MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 14 May 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002067395

         I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director
Ms. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Chairperson
Ms. Kathleen A. Newman		Member
Mr. Donald P. Hupman		Member

         The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date. In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

         The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

         The Board considered the following evidence:

         Exhibit A - Application for correction of military
records
         Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
         advisory opinion, if any)

---

APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his Army Commendation Medal be upgraded to the Meritorious Service Medal.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that the period of award on the award recommendation is incorrect and that the award recommendation should have been considered by the United States Army South Commander. He claims that the award recommendation was submitted in a timely manner; however, it was held up during the review process by the intermediate authorities. He also claims that the Theater Support Brigade Commander had no option but to downgrade the award since the recommendation was so late. In support of his application, he submits a letter of explanation, dated 7 January 2002; a DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award), dated 12 November 1998; four Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) Evaluation Reports; a Letter of Appreciation, dated 16 April 1996; change of station orders, dated 22 February 1995; and reassignment orders, dated 12 May 1999.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:

The applicant enlisted on 5 August 1986, served as an infantryman and was honorably discharged on 26 June 1999 by reason of physical disability with severance pay.

The applicant’s service personnel records show that he was assigned to the
5th Battalion, 87th Infantry in Panama from 15 April 1995 through 27 May 1999.

DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award), dated 12 November 1998, shows the applicant was recommended for award of the Meritorious Service Medal for meritorious service for the period 4 August 1996 to 28 April 1999. Two intermediate authorities recommended approval of the recommendation and one intermediate authority recommended that the award be downgraded to the Army Commendation Medal. 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 21 April 1999.

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 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.

Paragraph 1-17 (Period of Award) of Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, that for meritorious service awards, the cited period is limited to the period of service during which the individual served under the recommending command, except in the case of retirement awards.

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.

Paragraph 3-4d (Peacetime Award Approval Authority) of Army Regulation
600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, that commanders having authority to approve an award may delegate disapproval authority to their immediate subordinate commanders, provided those subordinate commanders have authority to approve the next lower award.

Paragraph 1-14 (Time Limitations) of Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, that a recommendation for an award of a military decoration must be entered administratively into military channels within two years of the act, achievement, or service to be honored.

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 the applicant was assigned to the 5th Battalion, 87th Infantry in Panama from 15 April 1995 through 27 May 1999.

2. The Board considered the applicant’s contention that the period of award
(4 August 1996 to 28 April 1999) on the DA Form 638 is incorrect. However, in accordance with the governing awards regulation, the cited period is limited to the period of service during which the individual served under the recommending command, not necessarily the exact dates of service under the recommending command.

3. The Board considered the applicant’s contention that the award recommendation should have been considered by the United States Army South Commander. However, in accordance with the governing awards regulation, commanders having authority to approve an award may delegate disapproval authority to their immediate subordinate commanders, provided those subordinate commanders have authority to approve the next lower award.

4. The Board considered the applicant’s contentions that the award recommendation was delayed by the intermediate authorities and that the Theater Support Brigade Commander had no option but to downgrade the award since the recommendation was so late. However, in accordance with the governing awards regulation, a recommendation for an award of a military decoration must be entered administratively into military channels within two years of the act, achievement, or service to be honored. Evidence of record shows the award recommendation was initiated on 12 November 1998 and the award approval authority acted on 16 April 1999. Therefore, the applicant’s contentions appear to be without merit.

5. 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 4 August 1996 to 28 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. 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 4 August 1996 to 28 April 1999.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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

MHM___ KAN_____ DPH_____ DENY APPLICATION

                  Carl W. S. Chun
                  Director, Army Board for Correction
of Military Records

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002067395
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	20020514
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
DATE OF DISCHARGE
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	107.0017
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.