RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           4 January 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040000671


      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             |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Karen A. Heinz                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Robert Duecaster              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. James B. Gunlicks             |     |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 he receive the United Nations Medal (UNM)
and that one of his four Army Achievement Medals (AAMs) be upgraded to an
Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM).

2.  The applicant states that he was deployed to Haiti from 27 September to
        9 November 1994 during Operation Uphold Democracy.  The UNM was
awarded to those who deployed to Haiti at that time but he never received
the award.  He also believes the regulation states that if a Soldier has
three AAMs then the fourth should be an ARCOM.

3.  The applicant provides a letter from the National Personnel Records
Center dated 13 April 2004; his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or
Discharge from Active Duty); a 4-page printout entitled "Awards Issued
Since the Cold War"    from an unknown Internet site indicating the UNM and
the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (AFEM) were awarded for service in
Haiti during the period  16 September 1994 through 31 March 1995 for
Operation Uphold Democracy; a Certificate of Achievement; a memorandum
dated 15 February 1995; a memorandum dated 3 April 1995; four DA Forms 638-
1 (Recommendation for Award (for other than Valor) of Army Achievement
Medal (AAM), Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM), and Meritorious Service Medal
(MSM); and an AAM award certificate.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 21 April 1995.  The application submitted in this case is
dated        20 April 2004.

2.  Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for
correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery
of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law allows the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file
within the 3-year statute of limitation if the ABCMR determines that it
would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will
conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in
the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 April 1991.  In the
course of his enlistment he was recommended for award of the AAM three
times.  As a separation award, he was recommended for award of the ARCOM.
The company commander recommended downgrade of the award to the AAM and the
approval authority approved award of the AAM.
4.  The applicant deployed to Haiti from 24 September through 11 November
1994.  In a memorandum dated 15 February 1995 he was approved for award of
the AFEM for his participation in Operation Uphold Democracy in Haiti.

5.  The applicant was honorably released from active duty on 21 April 1995.
 His DD Form 214 shows he was awarded four awards of the AAM.  It does not
show he was awarded the UNM.

6.  The U. S. Army Human Resources Command's Awards and Certificates
Internet site contains the same "Awards Issued Since the Cold War" document
as that provided by the applicant.  It also shows the UNM and AFEM were
awarded for service in Haiti during the period 16 September 1994 through
     31 March 1995 for Operation Uphold Democracy.

7.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides that the ARCOM 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.  As with all personal decorations, formal
recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in
orders are required.

8.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 also 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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant met the eligibility criteria for award of the UNM.  This
award should be added to his DD Form 214 and issued to him.

2.  Upon the applicant's separation he was recommended for award of the
ARCOM but it appears the approval authority made the decision to award the
AAM.  Such a downgrade was within his authority.  There is no limitation on
the times a particular award can be given (i.e., after three AAMs the next
award must be an ARCOM).  However, in accordance with Title 10, U. S. Code,
section 1130 the Service concerned may review a proposal for the award of,
or upgrading of, a decoration.  The applicant has been advised by separate
correspondence of the procedures to follow to request his AAM be upgraded
to an ARCOM.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF

__kah___  __rd____  __jbg___  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to
warrant a recommendation for partial relief and to excuse failure to timely
file.  As a result, the Board recommends that the DD Form 214 of the
individual concerned be corrected by adding the United Nations Medal and
that this award be issued to him.

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is
insufficient to warrant consideration of a portion of the requested relief
at this time.  As a result, the Board recommends that so much of the
application that pertains to upgrading his AAM to the ARCOM be
administratively closed.




            ___Karen A. Heinz_____
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040000671                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050104                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT                                   |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Schneider                           |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.04                                  |
|2.                      |107.0020                                |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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