RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:         14 OCTOBER 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2004101023


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

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Ms. Deborah L. Brantley           |     |Senior Analyst       |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Fred Eichorn                  |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Linda Simmons                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Richard Dunbar                |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests that his Bronze Star Medal with “V” device,
awarded in August 2001 for his heroic actions on 1 December 1944, be
upgraded to an award of the Silver Star.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his request to the Army
Decorations Board, via his congressional representative, to reconsider his
original request for award of the Silver Star was denied because it lacked
“substantive new and relevant evidence…not previously considered by the
Board.”

3.  The applicant argues that the request for reconsideration did contain
“substantive new and relevant evidence” provided in the form of a statement
and new award recommendation from his former commander, who had initiated
the original recommendation for an award of the Silver Star.

4.  The applicant provides copies of correspondence from the Army Awards
Branch, Human Resources Center-Alexandria denying the request for
reconsideration, copies of correspondence from his congressional
representative, and a copy of the original Silver Star recommendation as
well as a copy of the revised recommendation.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Documents available to the Board indicate that the applicant has had
several applications for various awards considered by this Board.  In 1998
the Board denied the applicant’s petition (AC85-07984F) for an award of the
Bronze Star Medal with “V” he claimed he was entitled to based on the
wording of a Presidential Unit Citation and the award of the Distinguished
Service Cross to his platoon leader.  He noted in that application that he
was told that the members of his platoon were told they would get the
Bronze Star Medal.

2.  A March 2000 letter to the Board, from the applicant’s former
commander, which is also contained in documents available to the Board,
stated that he (the former commander) wrote to the Board in December 1999
recommending that the applicant be awarded the Bronze Star Medal for
“aggressive action in hand-to-hand combat and then inflicting numerous
casualties while under heavy enemy fire and with complete disregard for his
personal safety was a gallant act and also merits recognition.”  The
applicant’s action occurred during a battle on
1 December 1944 which resulted in his platoon leader being awarded
Distinguished Service Cross.

3.  The December 1999 recommendation for the Bronze Star Medal with “V”
device, authored by the applicant’s former commander, noted that:

      On 1 December 1944 [the applicant] served as Runner for Platoon Leader
      Lieut. (then Technical Sergeant) Walter Y--- on a nigh combat patrol
      near Saare-Union, France.  He closely supported Lieut. (then T-Sgt) Y--
      - in hand-to-hand combat with enemy, shooting them as they broke and
      ran.  He then placed himself courageously at the center of the assault
      line, inflicting numerous casualties on the enemy with skillful rifle
      fire.  He continued his aggressive fire helping Lieut. (then T-Sgt) Y--
      -, who was firing a captured enemy machine gun, to repel an enemy
      counter-attack.  Lieut. (then T-Sgt) Y--- and [the applicant] were the
      last to withdraw and while doing so, [the applicant] positioned an
      enemy anti-tank gun so that Lieut. Y--- could drop a grenade down the
      barrel.


The former commander stated that Lieutenant (then T-Sgt) Y--- was awarded
the Distinguished Service Cross and a battlefield commission as a result of
his actions.

4.  The applicant and his former commander were advised to pursue the
recommendation for an award of the Bronze Star Medal with “V” device via
the Army’s Award Branch.

5.  It is unclear from documents in available records if the applicant or
his former commander ever pursued an award of the Bronze Star Medal with
“V” device.  However, in April 2001, the applicant’s congressional
representative referred a recommendation for award of the Silver Star by
the applicant’s former commander for the applicant’s 1 December 1944
actions, to the Army Decorations Board.  That recommendation reflected
short descriptive sentences (hand to hand combat with enemy machine
gunners, inflicting many casualties with skilful rifle fire, complete
disregard for personal safety under enemy fire) regarding the applicant’s
actions on 1 December 1944.  The recommendation was considered by the Army
Decorations Board and down graded to an award of the Bronze Star Medal with
“V” device.








6.  In December 2002 the applicant’s former commander initiated a second
recommendation for award of the Silver Star in an effort to further clarify
the applicant’s actions on 1 December 1944, and requested that he be
reconsidered for the Silver Star.  In his December 2002 recommendation the
former commander expanded the narrative description of the applicant’s
action, noting that the applicant:

      stopped machine gun fire upon his comrades by overrunning an enemy
      machine gun position and killing the two enemy machine gunners after
      hand to hand combat, following this he placed himself in an exposed
      forward position to direct his rifle fire effectively and skillfully
      against the enemy while also drawing enemy fire upon himself and away
      from his comrades, then while under enemy fire he first shot two enemy
      firing sub-machine guns and inflected substantial casualties upon the
      remaining enemy completely suppressing their fire and destroying their
      position and ability to inflict harm upon his comrades, he then
      positioned any enemy anti-tank gun so that his platoon leader could
      drop a grenade down the barrel and destroy it.

7.  In a separate statement the applicant’s former commander noted that he
could understand why the Army Decorations Board reached their decision and
stated that there “were important and favorable results” of the applicant’s
“conduct” that he had not stated in the original recommendation.

8.  In response to the request for reconsideration and second award
recommendation, the Army’s Awards Branch responded that “Department of
Defense policy allows for reconsideration of an award recommendation only
if there is substantive new and relevant evidence presented that was not
previously considered by the board.”  The conclusion was that there “has
been no new substantive evidence submitted to warrant reconsideration by
the board” and informed the applicant that he could appeal to this Board.

9.  Department of Defense Instructions 1348.33-M do state that
“recommendations are submitted for reconsideration only if new, substantive
and material information is furnished….”







DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence indicates that the applicant’s recommendation for award of
the Silver Star was processed to conclusion by the Army Decorations Board
which determined that his actions warranted an award of the Bronze Star
Medal with “V” device.

2.  The applicant’s records, which would have been available to the Army
Decorations Board, would have contained the 1999 summary of the applicant’s
December 1944 actions, which originally served as the basis for a
recommendation for the Bronze Star Medal with “V” device.  The information
contained in that 1999 summary was essentially the same information
contained in the second recommendation for award of the Silver Star which
the applicant contends should have been sufficient for reconsideration.
Hence, the Army Awards Branch determined that there was no “substantive new
and relevant evidence presented that was not previously considered by the
Board” was an appropriate determination.

3.  To continually revisit an award recommendation by further expanding,
defining, or embellishing one’s achievements and/or contributions in an
effort to “justify” a higher decoration is neither practical, nor
appropriate.  While the applicant’s actions were certainly commendable,
they were appropriately recognized by an award of the Bronze Star Medal
with “V” device.

4.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in
error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would
satisfy that requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__FE ___  __LS  ___  __RD ___  DENY APPLICATION





BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable
error or injustice.  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.





                                  ______Fred Eichorn________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004101023                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20041014                                |
|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.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]