| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. James E. Anderholm | Member | ||
| Ms. Yolanda Maldonado | Member |
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant’s military records show that on 31 March 2003, she was released from active duty for the purpose of retirement after completing a total of 21 years, 3 months, and 3 days of active military service. At the time of her separation, she held the rank and pay grade of sergeant first class/E-7
(SFC/E-7).
2. Permanent Orders Number 20-1, dated 20 January 2000, issued by the
98th ASG, authorized the award of the ARCOM 4th Oak Leaf Cluster (OLC) to the applicant, for her meritorious service for the period 29 May 1997 through
26 March 2000, as a member of the 235th Base Support Battalion (BSB). The commander of the 98th ASG approved the award on 19 January 2000.
3. On 17 April 2000, the applicant requested the immediate revocation of Permanent Orders Number 20-01 and of the ARCOM 4th OLC it authorized. She included a memorandum with her explanation of why she was requesting revocation of the award. It indicted that the award did not accurately reflect her selfless service while assigned to the 235th BSB, which included her service in two very prestigious positions that included detachment first sergeant (1SG) and Noncommissioned Officer In Charge (NCOIC) of a training in-processing center.
4. On 12 June 2000, the applicant requested that the ARCOM 4th OLC authorized in Permanent Orders 20-01 be upgraded to a MSM. She claimed that the MSM originally recommended was more befitting and reflective of her performance.
5. On 20 June 2000, the applicant submitted a memorandum to the 1st Infantry Division requesting revocation and upgrade of the ARCOM 4th OLC in question. She indicated that she made this request given the command sergeant major’s refusal to maintain an open line of communication and based on the many requests she made that were previously disapproved.
6. The commander of the 98th ASG responded to an EO complaint that had been submitted by the applicant. In this response, he indicated that he found no basis to conclude that she had been targeted for unfair treatment based on either her race or gender. The ASG commander pointed out, as a matter of information, that of the individuals cited in her complaint, one was a white female, two were black males, and three were white males. He further stated that no formal EO complaints had been filed within the 235th BSB for at least the last three years, and it seemed suspect to him that all of these leaders would focus only on the applicant to create a hostile environment.
7. On 1 March 2001, the USAREUR IG responded to an inquiry from the applicant. This response indicated that the original recommendation for the MSM was disapproved by the BSB commander, who directed that another DA Form 638 be submitted for an ARCOM. The IG indicated that this was a procedural error and that the appropriate action for the BSB commander to take would have been to recommend a downgrade to the recommended award on the original
DA Form 638 and not to have a new DA Form 638 submitted. The IG further indicated that the location of the applicant’s original requests for revocation of the ARCOM and upgrade to an MSM were on file at the 235th BSB S-1 office and each request did in fact receive due process.
8. On 8 June 2001, the DA IG responded to an inquiry from the applicant. In this response, the DA IG indicated that it found that her grievance that her end of tour award was not afforded due process in accordance with the awards regulation was valid. However, it also stated that the BSB commander after considering her position at the time, the incident involving her and her ex-husband, and her overall performance of duty determined that the ARCOM was the appropriate award for her to receive. 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. Finally, it was determined that further action in regard to the end of tour award was not necessary or appropriate.
9. Army Regulation 600-8-22 contains the Army’s awards policy. Chapter 3 contains guidance on awarding Army individual decorations. It states 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. It further states that awards for meritorious achievement or service will not be based upon the grade of the intended recipient and no preconditions for an award may be established. It further provides that commanders may disapprove the next higher award normally associated with their grade. A commander in the grade of colonel may approve award of the ARCOM.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant’s claim that the ARCOM she received for meritorious service, for the period 29 May 1997 through 16 March 2000, should be upgraded to a MSM was carefully considered. However, the available evidence does not support granting this requested relief.
2. The evidence of record confirms that the 98th ASG commander determined the appropriate award for the applicant to receive was the ARCOM. By regulation, the 98th ASG commander had the authority to disapprove the MSM, the next higher award, and to approve the ARCOM on the applicant.
3. In view of the facts of this case, although administrative errors made in the processing of the applicant’s award recommendation, these errors did not impact the final award received by the applicant, as confirmed in the DA IG letter to the applicant. Thus, there does not appear to be any injustice related to the award in question that would warrant upgrading the award at this time.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ _____ GRANT RELIEF
________ ________ _____ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__RA__ ___YM_ __RO___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003089776 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/12/18 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | N/A |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | N/A |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | N/A |
| DISCHARGE REASON | N/A |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 46 | 107.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056538C070420
The applicant provides the front page from a Recommendation for Award (for other than Valor) of Army Achievement Medal (AAM), Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM), and Meritorious Service Medal (MSM), DA Form 638, dated 20 May 1992, in which he was recommended for the ARCOM 4 th OLC for the period 6 March - 19 May 1992. The DA Form 638 indicates that his previous awards included the ARCOM 2d OLC. On 7 July 2001, PERSCOM indicated to an analyst with the Board that it could not be determined...
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 | CY2010 | 20100026727
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). However, there are no orders in his records and he has no orders showing more than three awards of the AAM. _______ _ x _______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
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 | CY2011 | 20110019071
The applicant requests correction of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period ending 6 October 2006 to show the following awards: * Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) (2nd Award) * Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) (6th Award) * Army Achievement Medal (AAM) (4th Award) * Korea Defense Service Medal (KDSM) 2. Her record contains two orders and she provided two additional orders showing she was awarded a total of four ARCOMs. Her record also contains...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080012911
The DA Form 638 submitted by the applicant shows that she was recommended for award of the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM). Block 26 (Approval Authority) of the DA Form 638 shows the signature block of a brigadier general as the approval authority. Without a complete DA Form 638 awarding the applicant the ARCOM, there is insufficient evidence in which to grant her request.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110018221
The applicant requests, in effect, his Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) awarded on 17 June 2011 be upgraded to a Meritorious Service Medal (MSM). The applicant provides: * self-authored statements * ARCOM Certificate * DA Form 638-1 (Recommendation for Award) * emails * memorandum for record, dated 22 June 2011 * letter, U.S. Army Human Resources Command, Fort Knox, KY, dated 13 July 2011 * Orders Number 196-2220, Headquarters, U.S. Army Maneuver Center of Excellence, Fort Benning, GA, dated...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02234
Since the applicant’s supervisor at Ramstein AB called her previous supervisor at Lackland AFB to inquire about the level of the decoration, and he was told they did not consider her for an MSM because the multiyear retention bonus was not paid, administrative channels are considered to have been exhausted, and it is appropriate for the case to be considered by the BCMR. Her complete submission is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR...
Her request for senior rater endorsement on the EPR should not be granted at this time. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and provides the wing commander’s concurrence of her request for senior rater indorsement. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice to warrant amending the MSM citation to include...
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...