| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti | Analyst |
| Mr. Luther L. Santiful | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Curtis L. Greenway | Member | |
| Mr. Ronald J. Weaver | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That he be given a military decoration for “my dedication and desire to perform to the fullest of my abilities as a Cavalry Soldier.”
APPLICANT STATES: His Enlisted Evaluation Reports and Enlisted Efficiency Reports (EER’s) clearly show his attitude and desire to excel in everything he did. One EER shows that he single handedly ran the troop tactical operations center and provided the crucial liaison between the commander and the platoons. He also points out that he was rated as being amongst the very best and his evaluators stated that they would promote him. His rater also commented that the applicant should be highly recommended for his efforts. The applicant concludes that he realizes that while there is a degree of expectation of everyone in uniform, some deserving soldiers do not receive awards because time isn’t found to recommend them.
In support of his request he submits three extremely laudatory EER’s.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 24 August 1973, was awarded the military occupational specialty of field communication specialist, and was promoted to pay grade E-4.
He was assigned to a cavalry troop in Germany on 11 April 1975, where he was assigned to the position of senior field radio mechanic, which was authorized a sergeant, pay grade E-5.
On 16 August 1976, the applicant was honorably released from active duty. He had served 2 years, 11 months and 23 days on active duty, and had been awarded the National Defense Service Medal and the Good Conduct Medal.
Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides that with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required. Recommendations must be made within 2 years of the event or period of service and the award must be made within 3 years. There are regulatory provisions for lost recommendations but not for late recommendations, reconsideration, nor for upgrading to a more prestigious award.
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. As acknowledged by the applicant, a soldier must be recommended for an award.
2. While the applicant’s EER’s show that he performed his duties to a high degree of proficiency and professionalism, he was not recommended for any award.
3. While the applicant may theorize that the sole reason for him not being recommended for an award was that his superiors didn’t have the time to write such a recommendation, this is speculative at best.
4. A commander is in the best position to evaluate whether a soldier is worthy of an award, since the commander has an overview of the performance and accomplishments of everyone in his or her command. For example, did certain junior enlisted members receive awards because they worked 14 days in a row, with little to no sleep? Did that effort result in the accomplishment of a task which was thought to be impossible to accomplish? As a result of that task being accomplished, was the squadron able to function at a higher level of efficiency than ever before recorded? Because of the comparative nature of awards, it would be inappropriate for the Board to impose its authority over that of the commander on the ground during the time in question.
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
___lls ___ ____rjw__ ____clg__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003084692 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030805 |
| 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. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040008519C070208
The applicant requests, in effect, that his military records be corrected to show that he was assigned to B Company (Troop), 3rd Squadron, 7th Cavalry during the period from November 1972 to June 1977. The preponderance of evidence in this case shows that the applicant was assigned to B Troop, 3rd Squadron, 7th Cavalry during the period from November 1972 to 14 June 1976. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070017941
The Board incorrectly stated "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." 2. Review of the Board's Memorandum of Consideration, dated 31July 2003, regarding only the issue of the Soldier's Medal, shows that the Army Decorations Board considered the applicant for award of the Soldier's Medal. [The applicant] climbed into the trailer, talking to his Soldiers and horses to calm everyone.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1990-1993 | 9306347
A 4th Endorsement, dated 8 April 1987, from the Chief, Personnel Division (a colonel), HQ, Department of the Army (DA), Office of the Chief, Army Reserve (OCAR), to the Commander, U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Center, indicates that the request for involuntary release from the AGR program was disapproved; that, although the applicant was ineligible for further duty as a recruiter, per Army Regulation 601-1, documentation submitted did not substantiate release from active duty; that a review of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004103323C070208
The applicant states, in effect, that he was reduced in rank as a result of a medical condition that was beyond his control. During this counseling, the applicant was notified that his duty performance was below the standards of a noncommissioned officer with his time in service and rank. Therefore, this Board has determined that his reduction in rank based on inefficiency was appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060011713
The applicant's military records do not show that he was awarded the Presidential Unit Citation. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to correction of his records to show this award. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned to show award of the Presidential Unit Citation.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068027C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: Through counsel, that the applicant’s relief for cause Officer Evaluation Report (OER) be altered or deleted (the applicant’s counsel only states that he is appealing the contested OER), and that the applicant be given promotion reconsideration to lieutenant colonel. In the relief for cause OER he was given, his rater stated, “[The applicant’s] duty...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9707423
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 9 January 1997, the Physical Disability Branch, U. S. Total Army Personnel Command, approved the PEB findings that he was physically fit for active military service. His EERs immediately preceding that period and the one received after that date all rated his duty performance as “outstanding” or “excellent.” The rater on the last EER did comment that the applicant had...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065596C070421
The applicant requests correction of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) to show award of the Combat Infantryman Badge. The applicant states that a former fellow soldier was awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge and they were assigned to the same unit. The applicant is entitled to the first award of the Good Conduct Medal based on completion of qualifying service from 9 July 1968 to 8 July 1970 ending with termination of a period of Federal...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072601C070403
This regulation further shows that the applicant's major command, the 11 th Air Calvary Regiment, was awarded the Valorous Unit Award (VUA) during the time the applicant was assigned. The applicant held an infantry MOS and served as a rifleman in a cavalry unit during a time when that unit was awarded the VUA. Also, the applicant is entitled to the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) Gallantry Cross Unit Citation with Palm, four bronze service stars to his Vietnam Service Medal, and the VUA.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003089132C070403
The applicant requests that his records be corrected to reflect award of the Purple Heart and the Combat Infantryman Badge. The evidence confirms that the applicant was awarded the Purple Heart. The evidence also confirms that the applicant met the requirements for award of the Combat Infantryman Badge.