MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 31 July 2003
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2003084242

         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
Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Ms. Gail J. Wire		Chairperson
Ms. Karen A. Heinz		Member
Mr. Robert L. Duecaster		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 letters of appreciation, his letters of commendation, and certificates of achievement be added to his Military Personnel Records Jack (MPRJ). He submits two additional DD Forms 149 requesting award of the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) and the Army Achievement Medal (AAM). He submits a fourth DD Form 149 requesting award of the Soldier’s Medal. In a fifth DD Form 149, the applicant requests reconsideration of the Board’s denial of his request to change his discharge due to physical disability to placement on the Retired List due to physical disability.

APPLICANT STATES: His letters of appreciation, letters of commendation and certificates of achievement belong in his MPRJ. As for the Soldier’s Medal, he participated in and directed the rescue of eight horses and their riders from an overturned horse trailer in May 1981. He nominated 13 of his soldiers for the impact Army Commendation Medal, all of which were approved. He was told by the Commanding General that he was to receive the Soldier’s Medal for his part in the incident. However, he never received that decoration.

In support of his request for decorations, he submits award recommendations for the ARCOM, the AAM and the Soldier’s Medal, along with statements from his unit’s former Command Sergeant Major (who did not address the incident which formed the basis of the recommendation for the Soldier’s Medal) and from a sergeant. The sergeant stated that the applicant’s swift response, cool head and spontaneous actions saved the lives of every horse and every man in the trailer when a horse trailer tipped over with horses inside. The sergeant describes how the applicant successfully directed the righting of the trailer, and the safe removal of the horses from the trailer after it was righted. At no time were any of the applicant’s men trapped with the panicked horses, nor did the applicant ever have to enter the trailer with the panicked horses. As for his physical disability, he submits a statement from the sergeant who was driving a van in which the applicant was a passenger. The sergeant stated that everyone in the van was bruised up, and the applicant had some serious headaches after the accident and was given about one week of physical therapy. The applicant also submits copies of his letters of appreciation, his letters of commendation, and his certificates of achievement that he wants added to his MPRJ.

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

The applicant’s military history is chronicled in the Board’s original consideration of his request to have his discharge due to physical unfitness corrected to placement on the Retired List for physical unfitness (AR2000045484 dated 3 May 2001), and need not be reiterated.

In the processing of this case, the applicant’s request for the ARCOM, the AAM and the Soldier’s Medal was sent to the Army Decorations Board. The Army Decorations Board awarded the applicant the ARCOM and the AAM he
requested. However, the Army Decorations Board disapproved his request for the Soldier’s Medal and awarded him an oak leaf cluster (second award) of the ARCOM for the actions which he believes warrants the Soldier’s Medal. The Total Army Personnel Command has amended the applicant’s separation document to add these decorations.

Army Regulation 640-10 prescribes what documentation is to be filed in a soldier’s MPRJ. Table 3-1 states that certificates of appreciation, commendation or achievement are to be filed in the MPRJ of soldiers in pay grades E-5 and below. Upon promotion to pay grade E-6, all such certificates are to be removed from the soldier’s MPRJ.

Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides that the Soldier's Medal is awarded for distinguished heroism not involving conflict with the enemy. The action must have involved personal danger or hazard and the voluntary risk of life. Awards are not to be based solely upon the saving of a life.

Army Regulation 15-185, sets forth the procedures for processing requests to correct military records. Paragraph 2-15b provides specific guidance to be applied in cases involving requests for reconsideration that are received more than 1 year after the Board’s original consideration or after the Board has already reconsidered the case.

In such cases, the staff of the Board will review the request to determine if substantial relevant evidence has been submitted that shows fraud, mistake in law, mathematical miscalculation, manifest error, or if there exists substantial relevant new evidence discovered contemporaneously with or within a short time after the Board’s original decision. If the staff finds such evidence, the case will be resubmitted to the Board. If no such evidence is found, the application will be returned to the applicant without action.

DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1. There are no provisions for filing letters of commendation or certificates of achievement in the MPRJ’s of soldier’s above the rank of sergeant. Since the applicant was an officer, these certificates and letters were properly not filed in his MPRJ.

2. Since the Army Decoration Board awarded the applicant the ARCOM and the AAM, that portion of his request need not be considered by the Board.

3. However, the Army Decoration Board did not award the applicant the Soldier’s Medal, which requires this Board to consider that portion of the applicant’s request. In this regard, the statement from the sergeant who witnessed the incident clearly shows that the applicant performed his duties as an officer in an exemplary manner, and did so in the face of possible danger due to his proximity to panic stricken horses. However, there is no evidence that the applicant’s actions involved personal danger or hazard and the voluntary risk of life. Such evidence would be, for example, that he went into the van with the panicked horses to save a soldier who was trapped and wounded by the horses. As such, it would appear that the Army Decoration Board’s decision to award the applicant an oak leaf cluster to his ARCOM was and is appropriate.

4. As for the applicant’s request for reconsideration of the Board’s denial of his request to change his discharge due to physical disability to placement on the Retired List due to physical disability, more than 1 year has elapsed since the original consideration of his case and his current application does not contain any evidence that meets the criteria for reconsideration. Accordingly, there is no basis for reconsidering this portion of his request.

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

____rld __ ___kah__ ____gjw _ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003084242
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	20030731
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	107.00
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.