RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:     .


      BOARD DATE:        7 July 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040001810


      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. Maria C. Sanchez              |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Melvin Meyer                  |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Eric Andersen                 |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Carol Kornhoff                |     |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 the VII Corps Certificate of Achievement he
received for his actions on 9 June 1979 be upgraded to an award of the
Soldier's Medal.  He also requests a personal appearance before the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that the VII Corps Certificate of
Achievement he received should be upgraded based on an unsolicited,
notarized recommendation by the former VII Corps Artillery commander who
was in command at the time of the incident and who signed the VII Corps
Certificate of Achievement.

3.  The applicant further states in his application that the Inspector
General of the 17th Field Artillery Brigade did not conduct a thorough
investigation of the fire and related actions which occurred at an
ammunition holding area located at Grafenwoehr, Germany, on 9 June 1979.
He continues that the Inspector General only contacted one of the Soldiers
involved regarding the fire.  The applicant stated that, as a result, he
conducted his own investigation and discovered that pictures were never
taken, repairs to the truck were never confirmed, statements were never
taken, and witnesses were never interviewed. He concluded that the incident
was "covered-up."

4.  As an addendum to his application, the applicant attached a four-page
letter, dated 17 May 2004, in which he describes in detail the incident,
alleges the battalion commander tried to shift the blame for the fire on
the applicant and other Soldiers, asserts that the investigation by the
Inspector General of the 17th Field Artillery brigade was not thorough or
properly conducted, and alleges that the battalion commander was drunk on
duty several times, failed all inspections and did not finish his command
on good terms.  In concluding this addendum, the applicant states that the
former VII Corps Artillery commander was previously aware of only a part of
the incident which is now why he supports award of the Soldier's Medal.
The applicant also contends that for these reasons he and five other former
Soldiers should now be given a chance to explain in person their claim for
the award they are seeking.

5.  In addition to the addendum, the applicant provides an undated two-page
"INTRODUCTION" and three-pages labeled "Contents" which provide a summary
of all of the documentation submitted in support of his application.  The
applicant submitted approximately 150 pages of documents in a bound volume
with tabs numbered 1 through 14.

6.  At tab number 6, the applicant also submitted five unsigned DD Forms
149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) on behalf of five other
Soldiers who were serving with the applicant at the time of the incident.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which
occurred on 12 October 2000, the date that the Army Decorations Board
denied the applicant's request for reconsideration of award of the
Soldier's Medal submitted under the provisions of Title 10, United States
Code, section 1130.  The application submitted in this case is dated 4 May
2004.

2.  Army Regulation 15-185 governs the operations of the ABCMR.  Paragraph
2-3(c) of this regulation states that an applicant with proper interest may
request correction of another person's military records only when the
person is incapable of acting on his or her own behalf, missing, or
deceased.  Further, the regulation requires that an applicant must send
proof of proper interest with the application when requesting correction of
another person's military records.

3.  In this case the applicant has submitted unsigned applications
requesting correction of the records of five other Soldiers without proof
of proper interest.  Therefore, the ABCMR will address the request for
correction of the applicant's records, but will not further discuss the
unsigned applications submitted on behalf of the other five Soldiers.

4.  The applicant's service personnel records show that he is currently
serving as lieutenant colonel in a Title 10 Active Guard Reserve position.


5.  The applicant did not submit a copy of the VII Corps Certificate of
Achievement presented to him because he states it was misplaced.  It is
also not filed in his military records.

6.  The applicant submitted copies of the VII Corps Certificates of
Achievement which were awarded to his fellow Soldiers for their actions on
9 June 1979.  The certificates were dated 4 September 1979 and signed by
the brigadier general in command of VII Corps Artillery.  These VII Corps
Certificates of Achievement are essentially the same with the exception of
name and rank.  The citation on the certificates states:

      ”The VII Corps Certificate of Achievement is awarded to [Rank and
name] 1st Battalion, 36th Field Artillery, for meritorious achievement
while assisting in the extinguishing of an ammunition fire at the
ammunition holding area in Grafenwoehr, Germany.  [Rank and name] risked
his own life attempting to, and eventually controlling a fire on a vehicle,
that if allowed to burn, would have destroyed over $20,000 in government
property and 23 lives.  His quick reaction and courage is indicative of his
value to the United States Army and reflect well upon him and VII Corps
Artillery."

7.  On 30 September 1981, the applicant wrote to the lieutenant general in
command of VII Corps regarding his efforts to upgrade the Certificate of
Achievement for award of the Soldier's Medal or the Army Commendation Medal
for actions on 9 June 1979.  Attached with this letter, the applicant
provided a five-page summary of the events, and requested an investigation
into this matter. The applicant alleged that his battalion commander would
not take action to upgrade the Certificate of Achievement because of
potential adverse publicity about the maintenance of the vehicle which
caught fire on 9 June 1979.

8.  The applicant continued that his new battery commander informed him
that the battalion commander was tired of hearing about the incident, to
drop it and stated that if he had not attempted to put the fire out, he
would have been court-martialed for dereliction of duty and willful
destruction of government property.  He further stated that he spoke with
the Inspector General of the 17th Field Artillery Brigade and was told to
forget the award.  The applicant stated that after the change in command,
he spoke with his new battalion commander about the incident; however, the
new battalion commander told the applicant that he did not feel he should
overrule the previous commander's decision.

9.  The documentation submitted by the applicant shows that, at the same
time he wrote to the commanding general of VII Corps, he also provided the
same information to five United States Senators and requested upgrade of
the VII Corps Certificate of Achievement to the Soldier's Medal or the Army
Commendation Medal.

10.  On 16 October 1981, the Adjutant General of Headquarters, VII Corps,
responded to the applicant on behalf of the corps commander.  The letter
advised him that, since the VII Corps Artillery commander approved the
Certificates of Achievement, the request for reconsideration for upgrade
was referred back to the VII Corps Artillery.

11.  On 18 December 1981, the Congressional Correspondence Agency responded
on behalf of the Secretary of the Army to all five United States Senators.
The letters essentially stated that any individual who has personal
knowledge of an act, achievement, or service may submit a recommendation
into military channels for consideration of an award.  The letter continued
that the merits of the recommendation for the Certificate of Achievement,
in effect, were reviewed in succession by the battalion, brigade and corps
artillery commanders, all of whom had the opportunity to recommend a higher
award.  However, those commanders concluded that the Certificate of
Achievement was "adequate and just recognition" for the applicant's actions
on 9 June 1979.

12.  The letter concluded that "in the absence of evidence that the facts
surrounding the incident were suppressed or that the chain of command acted
improperly, it would be inappropriate for the Department of the Army to
take further action in this case."

13.  On 22 January 1982, the Adjutant General of Headquarters, VII Corps
responded on behalf of the commanding general of the VII Corps regarding
the applicant's request for the Soldier's Medal.  The letter stated that a
formal investigation was conducted into the matter.  The letter also stated
that "after due consideration and a through investigation, the VII Corps
Artillery commander decided that the decisions of the commanders involved
were consistent with their prerogatives as commanders."

14.  Additionally, the letter stated that two officers (a colonel and a
lieutenant colonel who were the applicant's brigade and battalion
commanders at the time of the incident) were contacted by the 17th Field
Artillery brigade commander.  Both officers expressed clear recollections
of having considered all factors of the incident.  In conclusion, the
letter stated that both officers feel the Certificate of Achievement was
appropriate.

15.  Military correspondence shows that the applicant submitted a request,
dated 31 December 1997, under the provisions of Title 10, United States
Code, Section 1130 through a Member of Congress to the Secretary of the
Army.  This request was to upgrade his VII Corps Certificate of Achievement
to award of the Soldier's Medal.  With his request, the applicant submitted
a DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award) which contained the following
proposed citation:

      "To Second Lieutenant [applicant's name omitted]  For Heroism – Not
involving actual armed conflict…..While serving as a member of an
ammunition detail with Battery C, 1st Battalion, 36th Field Artillery, 17th
Field Artillery Brigade, Augsburg, Germany.  Second Lieutenant [applicant's
name omitted] distinguished himself by heroic action while assisting in
extinguishing an electrical fire aboard a heavily laden ammunition 5-ton
truck on the evening of 9 June 1979 at the North Tank Trail Ammunition
Holding Area, Grafenwoehr, Germany.  By unselfishly risking his life in
this critical situation Second Lieutenant [applicant's name omitted] was
directly responsible for saving the U.S. government more than a half-
million dollars in military property and more than 23 lives.  His quick
reaction by staying to fight the intense fire when all but a few other
soldiers fled is in keeping with the highest traditions of military
heroism, reflecting great credit upon himself, his unit, and the United
States Army."

16.  On 9 October 1998, the applicant wrote to the former commanding
general of the VII Corps Artillery (now a retired major general) regarding
the upgrade of the Certificate of Achievement to a Soldier's Medal.  In the
letter, the applicant described the sequence of events that happened on 9
June 1979 and requested assistance on how to upgrade the certificate to
either a Soldier's Medal or an Army Commendation Medal.

17.  On 10 December 1998, the retired general officer responded to the
applicant's request.  In this letter, the retired general officer advised
him that the Soldier's Medal or Army Commendation Medal can be awarded for
the incident if it had more eyewitnesses accounts.  The retired general
officer also stated that he is including a statement that will mention
that, if he had known then what he knows know about the incident, then he
would have recommended the Soldier's Medal.  The retired general officer
concluded by discussing the option to file a request for an award of the
"Soldier's Medal or Commendation Ribbon" through a Member of Congress to
the Military Awards Branch.

18.  In another letter dated, 10 December 1998, the retired major general
stated that he was in command of VII Corps Artillery at the time
recommendations were received for award of the VII Corps Certificates of
Achievement to six Soldiers who fought a fire on an ammunition truck in an
ammunition holding area in Grafenwoehr, Germany.  He states that, based on
the information he received about the fire, the award of the Certificates
of Achievement appeared appropriate at that time.

19.  The retired general officer further stated that he has since learned
the fire was far more serious than was reported by his battalion commander
and there was imminent, not potential, threat to both property and life.
He continues that, if the Soldiers had been unsuccessful, it was highly
probable that they would have been killed in the attempt and as many as
17 other soldiers would have been killed or injured.  The retired general
officer concluded that, if he had known what he now knows, then he would
have rejected the recommendation for award of the VII Corps Certificate of
Achievement as inappropriate for the deeds being recognized.  He stated
that he would have recommended award of the Soldier's Medal instead.

20.  The applicant provided a letter, dated 2 October 2000, from the Chief,
Military Awards Branch, U.S. Total Army Personnel Command, addressed to a
Member of Congress.  This letter informed the Member of Congress that, on
31 December 1997, another Member of Congress had recommended to the
Secretary of the Army that the Soldier's Medal be awarded to six Soldiers,
including the applicant.  The letter continued that the Army Decorations
Board considered the request on 8 January 1998 and determined that the
degree of action and service rendered did not meet the criteria for the
proposed award of the Soldier's Medal.  The Chief of the Military Awards
Branch stated that, based on the recommendation of the Army Decorations
Board, the Commanding General of the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command, on
behalf of the Secretary of the Army, disapproved the award of the Soldier's
Medal and affirmed that the Certificate of Achievement was the appropriate
award.

21.  The Chief of the Military Awards Branch further explained that a
request for reconsideration was submitted by the applicant through a member
of Congress.  The request for reconsideration was accepted based on the
submission of new documents by the Member of Congress on 30 August 2000.
The Member of Congress was further advised that the request for
reconsideration and the new evidence he submitted would be considered at
the next convening Army Decorations Board.

22.  A letter, dated 14 November 2000, from the Chief, Military Awards
Branch advised the Member of Congress that the Army Decorations Board
reconsidered the request for award of the Soldier's Medal to the applicant.
 The Chief of the Military Awards Branch stated that, on 12 October 2000,
the Army Decorations Board determined that the degree of action and service
rendered by the applicant did not meet the criteria for the proposed award
of the Soldier's Medal.  The letter concluded that based on the
recommendation of the Army Decorations Board, the Commanding General,
United States Total Army Personnel Command, on behalf of the Secretary of
the Army, disapproved the award of the Soldier's Medal and affirmed that
the previously awarded Certificate of Achievement was the appropriate award
for the applicant's actions.

23.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides, in pertinent
part, that the Soldier's Medal is awarded for distinguished heroism not
involving actual conflict with the enemy.  The same degree of heroism is
required as for award of the Distinguished Flying Cross.  The performance
must have involved personal hazard or danger and the voluntary risk of life
under conditions not involving conflict with an armed enemy. Awards of the
Soldier’s Medal will not be made solely on the basis of having saved a
life.  As 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 or
reconsideration.

24.  Paragraph 10-7 of Army Regulation 600-8-22, in pertinent part,
provides the eligibility criteria and issuance of Certificate of
Achievement.  Commanders may recognize periods of faithful service, acts,
or achievements which do not meet the standards required for decorations by
issuing to individual U.S. military personnel a DA Form 2442 (Certificate
of Achievement) or a Certificate of Achievement of local design.

25.  Paragraph 5e of Army Regulation 672-5-1 (Awards), in effect at that
time, shows that the Army Commendation Medal may be awarded for heroism,
meritorious achievement, or meritorious service by an commander or Head of
a Department of the Army staff agency in the grade or position of a
brigadier general or higher, to members of the U.S. Army below the grade of
brigadier general under their command or staff jurisdiction.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his VII Corps Certificate of Achievement
should be upgraded to a Soldier's Medal or the Army Commendation based on
actions at Grafenwoehr, Germany, 9 June 1979.

2.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily
appear, that the record is in error or unjust.

3.  Evidence of record shows that the applicant was recommended for award
of the VII Corps Certificate of Achievement by his chain of command.  The
applicant's battery commander, battalion commander, the commander of the
17th Field Artillery Brigade recommended approval of this level of
recognition.  The commander of the VII Corps Artillery approved and signed
the VII Corps Certificate of Achievement presented to the applicant.

4.  Each of these commanders in the chain of command had the opportunity to
recommend a higher degree of recognition for the applicant.  However, they
elected not to do so at the time of the incident based on the facts.

5.  Records show that in 1981 the applicant appealed to the VII Corps
commander and five United States Senators for an investigation into
upgrading of his VII Corps Certificate of Achievement to an award of the
Soldier's Medal or to an award of the Army Commendation Medal.  After
thorough investigation of the matter, Department of the Army officials
advised the five Senators in December 1981 that the chain of command
reviewed the recommendation for award of the certificate of achievement and
concluded that it was "adequate and just recognition for the actions" of
the applicant.

6.  The VII Corps Adjutant General also responded to the applicant in
January 1982 regarding award of the Soldier's Medal or the Army
Commendation Medal instead of the VII Corps Certificate of Achievement.  He
stated that a formal investigation had been conducted into the applicant's
allegations, that the VII Corps Artillery commander and the 17th Field
Artillery Brigade commander considered the recommendation for award of the
certificate of achievement, and that the former battalion and brigade
commanders had also been consulted.

7.  In conclusion, the VII Corps Adjutant General wrote that the decisions
of the 17th Field Artillery Brigade commander and the VII Corps Artillery
commander were consistent with their prerogatives as commanders.
Furthermore, the applicant's battalion and brigade commander at the time of
the incident stated that they considered all of the factors raised by the
applicant in his letters to the VII Corps commander and the recognition
provided was "appropriate."

8.  In 1998 and 2000, requests, submitted under the provisions of Title 10,
United States Code, section 1130, for award of the Soldier's Medal to the
applicant were considered by the Army Decorations Board based on authority
delegated by the Secretary of the Army.  Both times, it was determined that
applicant's actions did not merit the proposed award of the Soldier's Medal
and that the VII Corps Certificate of Achievement was the appropriate level
of recognition for the applicant's actions on 9 June 1979.

9.  The applicant contends that there are "glaring inconsistencies" in the
VII Corps Certificate of Achievement and that only those present are aware
of them. This contention essentially ignores two key facts.  First, VII
Corps officials conducted a formal inquiry into the matters raised by the
applicant in his letters to the VII Corps commander and five United States
Senators.  Secondly, officers in command at the time of the incident on 9
June 1979 attested that, when they recommended recognition for the
applicant, they considered the same issues later addressed by the applicant
in his letter to the VII Corps commander and the Members of Congress.
Therefore, it is clear that the chain of command, senior Army officials,
and Members of Congress were aware of the facts in this matter and that
formal inquiry into the matter affirmed award of the VII Corps Certificate
of Achievement.  As a result, this contention by the applicant is not
sufficient as a basis for upgrade of this certificate of achievement to
award of the Soldier's Medal or the Army Commendation Medal.

10.  The applicant contends that his battalion commander tried to shift the
blame for the fire on him and other Soldiers by stating that the fire would
not have occurred if proper maintenance had been conducted.  Other than the
applicant's statement, there is no evidence that the battalion commander
blamed the applicant or other Soldiers for the fire.  Furthermore, this
matter was raised in the applicant's letter to the VII Corps commander and
was formally investigated.  It is presumed that, if faulty maintenance was
the cause of the fire, then appropriate action was taken.  However, this
contention has no bearing on upgrade of the applicant's VII Corps
Certificate of Achievement.

11.  The applicant contends that the investigation conducted by the 17th
Field Artillery Brigade Inspector General into the events of 9 June 1979
was a cover-up.  The applicant has not provided a copy of the report of
investigation by the Inspector General.  As a result, it is not possible to
determine if the applicant's contentions regarding this investigation are
accurate.

12.  The applicant alleges that his battalion commander was drunk on duty
several times, failed all inspections and did not finish his command on
good terms.  These matters raised by the applicant have no bearing on
upgrading of a certificate of achievement approved and signed by the VII
Corps Artillery commander.

13.  The 10 December 1998 letter from the former VII Corps Artillery
commander attests that, at the time he was informed of the incident, he
believed award of the certificate of achievement was appropriate.  This
retired general officer now believes that he was not fully informed on the
real gravity of the incident at that time and that the Soldier's Medal is
appropriate recognition for the applicant's actions.

14.  At the time of the applicant's actions, the Commanding General of VII
Corps Artillery was not the approval authority for award of the Soldier's
Medal.  By regulation, recommendations for award of the Soldier's Medal at
that time were considered at Department of the Army level.

15.  After the former VII Corps Artillery commander acknowledged that he
did not have all the facts regarding the applicant's actions, award of the
Soldier's Medal to the applicant has been considered and reconsidered by
the Army Decorations Board.

16.  The Army Decorations Board determined in 1998 and in 2000, after due
consideration of all evidence submitted by the applicant, that his actions
did not merit award of the Soldier's Medal.  The Army Decorations Board
also determined that the VII Corps Certificate of Achievement awarded to
the applicant for his actions on 9 June 1979 was the appropriate level of
recognition.

17.  The Army Decorations Board's 1998 and 2000 considerations of the
Soldier's Medal for the applicant's 9 June 1979 actions is the same
Departmental consideration which was required for award of the Soldier's
Medal at the time of the incident in 1979.  Furthermore, all evidence which
the former VII Corps Artillery commander states that he did not have at the
time he approved award of the VII Corps Certificate of Achievement was
available for submission by the applicant to the Army Decorations Board.

18.  The preponderance of evidence in this case shows that award of the VII
Corps Certificate of Achievement was properly recommended by the chain of
command and awarded to the applicant.

19.  The preponderance of evidence shows that the applicant had ample time
to gather all evidence relevant to the events which occurred at the
ammunition holding area at Grafenwoehr, Germany, on 9 June 1979 and submit
it to the Army Decorations Board.

20.  Evidence of record shows that the Army Decorations Board properly
considered and reconsidered award of the Soldier's Medal to the applicant
and determined that his actions do not merit this decoration.  In the
absence of evidence which shows the Army Decorations Board's consideration
of award of the Soldier's Medal to the applicant was flawed, in error, and
unjust, there is insufficient evidence upon which to overturn the decision
not to award the Soldier's Medal to the applicant.

21.  Based on all of the foregoing, the applicant has failed to prove
through a preponderance of evidence that his actions at the ammunition
holding area at Grafenwoehr, Germany, on 9 June 1979, satisfy the criteria
for award of the Soldier's Medal or the Army Commendation Medal in this
case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__mm___  __ck____  __ena___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that 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 to show that he
was awarded the Soldier's Medal or the Army Commendation Medal.





                                  _____Melvin H. Meyer   ___
                                            CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040001810                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005/07/07                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  56   |107.0010/SM                             |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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