| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Vic Whitney | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman | Member | |
| Mr. Thomas B. Redfern | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his award of the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) be upgraded to the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM).
APPLICANT STATES: That he believes the orders approving official downgraded his recommendation for the MSM prior to the award approving authorities decision on the recommendation in violation of regulation. He submits a copy of the Recommendation for Award, his award certificate, and several NCO Evaluation Reports in support of his application.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
At the time of the contested award recommendation, the applicant was serving as the brigade intelligence and security NCO in the pay grade of E-7. The 16 June 1999 award recommendation covered a 3-year period of assignment to the brigade in various staff positions. The occasion for the recommendation was the applicant's permanent change of station.
The award recommender was the brigade operations sergeant major. The justification for the award of the MSM was presented with four major achievements accomplished by the applicant. On 28 June 1999, the company commander recommended approval of the MSM. On 6 July 1999, the brigade commander recommended approval of the MSM for the applicant.
The award approval authority, a lieutenant general, downgraded the recommended award to the ARCOM in his own hand. The date of this action is shown as 29 July 1999. The action by the approval authority was forwarded to the orders issuing activity, the personnel actions division of the corps headquarters. The orders data shows that the ARCOM with second oak leaf cluster was approved and issued on 16 July 1999, which appears to have been 13 days prior to the action by the award approval authority.
The award certificate for the applicant's ARCOM shows that it was for the period of 29 July 1996 to 29 July 1999, the date shown as the approval authorities action. The lieutenant general signed the certificate and the signature date is shown as 16 July 1999, the same date as the approval of the award orders.
The applicant's NCO Evaluation Reports provide no evidence in support of his claim that his award was downgraded in violation of regulation.
In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was provided by the Awards Branch, Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM). The PERSCOM notes that the award certificate was signed and the orders for the award issued on 16 July 1999. An apparent error occurred when the award through date was entered as the award approval authority date. The opinion was provided to the applicant for rebuttal but no response was received.
Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides the Army policy for military awards. The rules for processing the award recommendation state that the recommendation will be forwarded through command channels to the award approval authority with each intermediate commander providing his/her recommendation. Approval authorities may make award decisions without referral to an awards board.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion, it is concluded:
1. It appears that an administrative error occurred when the award through date was entered as the award approval authority date on the award recommendation form.
2. The fact that the award certificate was signed on 16 July 1999, the same date as the orders approval date, is further evidence that the award approval authority took action prior to the through date of the award.
3. 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.
4. 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
__ro___ ___dh___ ___tr_____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002074804 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20021107 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 107.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
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 | CY2008 | 20080002285
The applicant requests, in effect, that a Department of the Army (DA) Certificate for award of the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) for the period 1 September 2000 through 1 August 2004 be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) and replaced with a DA Certificate for award of the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) for the same period. The applicant's iPERMS record contains the Department of the Army (DA) Certificate for the ARCOM; Permanent Order 209-12, dated 28 July 2004,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012259
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...
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 | 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 | CY2002 | 2002075571C070403
Two general orders awarding the applicant the Army Good Conduct Medal are in his file -- General Orders 1868, Headquarters, U. S. Army, Europe and Seventh Army dated 16 April 1975 (awarding him the Army Good Conduct Medal for the period 14 December 1969 to 13 December 1972) and General Orders 210, Headquarters, U. S. Army Field Artillery Center and Fort Sill dated 21 January 1974 (awarding him the Army Good Conduct Medal third award for the period 14 December 1972 to 13 December 1975). His...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090998C070212
The applicant’s OMPF currently shows that she was recommended for award of a MSM and that the recommendation was downgraded by the approval authority and approved as an award of the ARCOM, 1OLC. Evidence of record shows that the approval authority at Fort Leonard Wood revoked the award due to cancellation of the applicant’s PCS. Evidence of record also shows that the ARCOM, 1OLC was never presented to the applicant, thus negating the reason for filing the DA Form 638 in her OMPF.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140001975
The applicant states he retired from the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 31 December 1997 and these awards were not added to his records. The applicant provides: * DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty), with an effective date of 12 July 1979 * DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) * a letter from National Personnel Records Center, St. Louis, MO, dated 17 January 2014 * a DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award) and a certificate that show he was awarded the MSM * three...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071298C070402
Military Personnel Message Number 99-182, Subject: Zones of Consideration for CSM Appointment, Promotion to SGM, Selection for USASMC and QMP (Qualitative Management Program), announced in June 1999 that the CY 99 CSM/SGM/USASMC board would convene in October 1999. On 1 September 1999, the applicant signed a declination statement and his records were therefore not considered by the FY 99 board. The applicant’s OMPF that would have been reviewed by the CY 99 board and the OMPF that was seen...
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...