RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 18 OCTOBER 2005
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050009385
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 |
| |Mr. Ronald DeNoia | |Analyst |
The following members, a quorum, were present:
| |Mr. John Slone | |Chairperson |
| |Ms. Ms. Linda Simmons | |Member |
| |Mr.Kenneth Lapin | |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 downgraded recommendation for award of
the Bronze Star Medal (BSM) to the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) be
changed to approved.
2. The applicant states the recommendation for award of the BSM is fully
supported by the narrative and clearly meets the requirement for award.
3. The applicant provides a DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award) with
the narrative description.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant was recommended for award of the BSM by his platoon
leader on 10 August 2004 for meritorious service in Kuwait and Iraq.
2. On 16 August 2004 the company commander approved the award of the BSM.
3. On 3 September 2004 the battalion commander disapproved the award of
the BSM and downgraded it to an ARCOM.
4. On 19 September 2004 the brigade commander concurred with the downgrade
of the award to ARCOM.
5. On 19 September 2004 the applicant was awarded the ARCOM.
6. AR 600-80-22 (Military Awards) provides, in pertinent part, 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.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. 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. The applicant has failed to
submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.
2. In accordance with regulatory guidance the two commanders at the high
end of the chain of command decided that although the applicant provided
highly outstanding performance of duty, it did not merit the award of the
BSM and they disapproved the recommendation and downgraded it to an ARCOM.
3. In view of the above there is no basis to grant relief in his case.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
____JS__ ___LS __ ___KL __ 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.
______________________
CHAIRPERSON
INDEX
|CASE ID |AR20050009385 |
|SUFFIX | |
|RECON | |
|DATE BOARDED |20051018 |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
|DISCHARGE REASON | |
|BOARD DECISION |DENY |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
|ISSUES 1. |107.0014.0000 |
|2. | |
|3. | |
|4. | |
|5. | |
|6. | |
-----------------------
[pic]
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090002756
In support of the request for reconsideration, counsel provides copies of a Memorandum for Record (MFR) from the applicant's former battalion commander, the applicant's Non-Commissioned Officer Report for the period ending October 2004, a DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award), a Narrative Summary for award of the BSM to the applicant, an advisory opinion from the Military Award Branch to the Army Review Board Agency, electronic mail (email) correspondence from the applicant's former...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080006605
The applicant's Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) contains a recommendation for award (DA Form 638), dated 26 September 2003, which was submitted by the applicant's unit commander, a captain, and recommended the applicant receive the BSM, for meritorious service from 24 February through 1 December 2003. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090002964
By regulation, colonel-level commanders may approve awards of the ARCOM and may disapprove or downgrade awards of the BSM and reconsideration, and request for reconsideration or the appeal of a disapproved or downgraded award recommendation must be placed in official channels within 1 year from the date of the awarding authority's decision and must contain new substantive and material information. There is no evidence of record that indicates the applicant or anyone in his chain of command...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090012378
The applicant provides a self-authored statement, dated 17 July 2009; a DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award) for the BSM, dated 4 April 2005, and citation; a commander's statement, dated 8 April 2005; two DA Forms 2823 (Sworn Statements); an ARCOM with Valor certificate, dated 15 August 2005; and his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) in support of his application. There is no evidence of record that indicates the applicant or anyone in his chain of command...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070013914
a. DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) with a separation effective date of 19 March 2005; b. DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award) dated 2 September 2004; c. Permanent Order (PO) 295-06, dated 16 September 2004, which awarded the ARCOM to the applicant for his meritorious service from 13 March 2004 to 28 February 2005 in Iraq; d. memorandum, dated 12 November 2004, from Headquarters, 30th Brigade Combat Team (BCT) directing that PO 295-06 be revoked; e. PO...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080013878
He states that this ARCOM should be rescinded and he should instead be awarded the BSM. The DA Form 638 submitted by the applicant confirms his commander recommended him for and he was awarded the ARCOM for his service performed in support of OIF by the appropriate award approval authority. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was awarded the ARCOM, as recommended by his commander, and that this was the award the chain of command felt was appropriate to recognize the applicant's...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120008400
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The evidence of record does not support the applicant's request for correction of his record to show he was awarded the BSM. Based on these records, it appears the approval authority determined the ARCOM was the appropriate award for his service and downgraded the BSM recommendation.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100011851
Paragraph 1-14 of the awards regulation outlines time limitations and states each recommendation must be entered into channels within 2 years of the act, achievement, or service to be honored. One time reconsideration by the award approval authority will be conclusive. Therefore, absent documented acts of valor or documented special achievement outside of his duty performance, which would have been well known to his chain of command, to include the award approval authority, there is no...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100014872
The applicant provides the following documentation: * two letters of support * three DA Forms 2166-8 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER)) covering the period 1 November 2007 through 31 August 2009 * BSM packet (award recommendation, narrative, citation, and certificate), dated 10 March 2009 * Headquarters, Multi-National Division (Baghdad), Camp Liberty, Iraq, Permanent Orders Number 083-001, dated 24 March 2009, revoking award of the BSM * DA Form 638 (Recommendation for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014393
The applicant has not stated that other members of the convoy who also fired at the attacking insurgents were awarded the BSM for valor. While the applicantÂ’s commander states that he recommended the applicant for the BSM for valor, there is no record of this recommendation. As such, it must be presumed that the applicantÂ’s commander either recommended the applicant for the ARCOM for valor or, at very least, signed off on that award recommendation.