RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        21 September 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060002499


      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. William F. Cain               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Jeffrey C. Redmann            |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. David W. Tucker               |     |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, in effect, an upgrade of his Meritorious
Service Medal to an award of the Legion of Merit.

2.  The applicant states that the Legion of Merit is a more "appropriate"
award for a 100 percent disabled combat veteran retiring from active duty
as a lieutenant colonel.  He continues that a Meritorious Service Medal is
typically awarded to reservists in the grade of lieutenant colonel who are
retiring from reserve service, but the Legion of Merit is the usual award
for a lieutenant colonel who is retiring from active duty.

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored letter, dated 25 January 2006;
two pages of emails; a DA Form 67-8 (U.S. Army Officer Evaluation Report),
dated 24 April 1984; a DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award), dated 8
November 2003; an undated Narrative; an undated proposed Citation; a three-
page letter addressed to a United States Senator, dated 31 March 2004; a
U.S. Army Health Professional Support Agency letter, dated 16 January 1989;
a Office of the Chief, Army Reserve memorandum, dated 17 May 1989; a U.S.
Army Reserve Personnel Center memorandum, dated 24 May 1989; a Meritorious
Service Medal Certificate, dated 17 May 1989; and a letter addressed to a
United States Senator from the U.S. Army Human Resources Command, Military
Awards Branch, dated 12 January 2004, in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which
occurred on 5 August 1985, the date of his retirement.  The application
submitted in this case is dated 25 January 2006.

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 limitations 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’s military records are not available to the Board.  This
case is being considered using reconstructed records which primarily
consists of a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active
Duty), a DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or
Discharge from Active Duty), retirement information, and other
correspondence regarding his retirement.

4.  The applicant's DD Form 214 shows that he was honorably retired from
active duty with permanent physical disability on 5 August 1985.  Item 12
(Record of Service) of the applicant's DD Form 214 shows he served a total
of 11 years, 7 months, and 11 days of active service and a total of 11
years, 7 months, and 18 days of inactive service.

5.  Item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations and Campaign Ribbons
Awarded or Authorized) of the applicant's DD Form 214 shows the was awarded
the Small Arms Expert Marksman Ribbon, the National Defense Service Medal,
the Republic of Vietnam Service Medal, the Combat Infantryman Badge, the
Air Medal (1 Oak Leaf Cluster), the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal, the
Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry with Silver Star, the Parachute Badge, the
Army Commendation Medal with "V" Device and 1st Oak Leaf Cluster, the
Bronze Star Medal with "V" Device and 1st Oak Leaf Cluster, the Armed
Forces Reserve Medal, the Good Conduct medal, the Army Reserve Components
Achievement Medal, the Republic of Vietnam Armed Forces Honor Medal First
Class, the Pathfinder Badge, the Army Service Ribbon, the Army Achievement
Medal, and the Republic of Vietnam Staff Service Medal First Class.

6.  The applicant's DD Form 214 and DD Form 215 does not show award of the
Meritorious Service Medal.

7.  The applicant submitted a letter from the US Army Health Professional
Support Agency, dated 16 January 1989.  The United States Army Reserve
(USAR) Army Medical Department (AMEDD) Personnel Counselor informed the
Army Reserve Personnel Center [St. Louis, Missouri] upon retirement from
the U.S. Army Reserve, reservists are given the Meritorious Service Medal,
for their devoted service to the Total Army.  The USAR AMEDD Personnel
Counselor continued that upon the applicant's medical retirement on
5 August 1985, he was not awarded the Meritorious Service Medal.

8.  The USAR AMEDD Personnel Counselor continued that the applicant served
in the active duty component for 12 years, including the Republic of
Vietnam with Military Assistance Command Vietnam Headquarters, served
9 years of active USAR service, and served on an Active Guard/Reserve tour.
 The USAR AMEDD Personnel Counselor concluded that it was apparent the
applicant served over 20 years of qualifying service for the award of the
Meritorious Service Medal.

9.  The applicant submitted a Meritorious Service Medal certificate, dated
17 May 1989.  The certificate shows the following citation:

      "Outstanding meritorious service over a long and distinguished
military career as a Citizen Soldier of the United States Army Reserve
whose service was characterized by selfless dedication and great personal
commitment from 6 August 1975 through 5 August 1985.  This dedicated
service, marked with significant contributions, has greatly improved the
effectiveness of the United States Army."

10.  The applicant submitted an incomplete copy of DA Form 638, dated
8 November 2003.  This form shows that the applicant was recommended for
award of the Legion of Merit for the period 5 August 1975 through 5 August
1985 for the purpose of retirement.

11.  The applicant submitted a narrative which shows the following
statement:

      LTC [name omitted] served in every component of the Army during his
23 years in uniform.  In his final assignment, he was a Major working in a
position slated for a LTC and in the absence of the unit commander, a
senior Medical Corps colonel, he ran the daily operations of the unit as
the Senior Operations Officer.  Although working above his grade and
despite painful service-connected disabilities which eventually retired
him, LTC (then Major) [omitted name] distinguished himself by developing
and implementing administrative procedures which improved the overall
efficiency of the 56th Station Hospital and improved the commander's
organizational and control over and understanding of the various divisions
and programs within the unit.  His exemplary contributions won him the
respect and admiration of the members of the unit and the contributions he
made became visible to higher headquarters.  LTC (then Major) [name
omitted] served as CAMIS project officer at Headquarters, 5th Army where he
developed an automated system for quicker and easier identification and
assignment of professional personnel to units in a mobilization posture
dramatically increasing the efficiency of the Continental Army Management
Information System and overall mobilization readiness of the Army's reserve
components.  LTC (then Major) [name omitted] served as Management
Information Systems Officer of the 95th Division (Training) where the unit
had just organized as MIS section.  LTC (then Major) [name omitted] quickly
became the unit's expert in the use and application of newly acquired
automation equipment.  Going above and beyond the call of duty, he
voluntarily worked overtime continually and tirelessly applying innovative
techniques to gain more out of equipment thought to be more limited in
scope, which won him admiration and respect of his superiors and
colleagues.  He was able to automatic functions of key personnel beyond the
command's expectations which eliminated manual work and streamlined
processes of three major staff offices increasing productivity of
headquarters personnel and contributing to the overall efficiency and
mobilization readiness of the unit.  As a recruiting officer for a USAR
unit, LTC [name omitted] was highly effective in recruiting personnel into
the Army at a time when recruiting was very difficult.  His exceptional
abilities resulted in the unit gaining and exceeding strength requirements
and the commander frequently had to request permission of Headquarters, 5th
Army to allow double slotting of personnel.  Exercises he participated in
were touted as best ARTEPs ever held because of his exceptional ability."

12.  The applicant submitted a Proposed Citation which shows the following:

      "Lieutenant Colonel [name omitted] served in the armed forces of his
country for twenty three years and throughout his career served in every
component of the Army.  He entered military service as a Private and worked
himself through the ranks of the grade of Lieutenant Colonel before
retiring from active duty.  During his many years of service he achieved
qualification in three different branches and made exemplary contributions
to a variety of Army units whether as a combat experience infantry officer,
or later in his career as a Medical Service Corps officer.  Because of his
broad base of experience, global perspective, and diverse military and
civilian education he was able to bring to each assignment an unusually
high degree of innovative spirit and creativity coupled with a tireless
work ethic which resulted in improvements in the units in which he served.
He was often assigned to branches or duties outside his own field of
expertise.  But that never swayed him.  He always rose to those challenges
and acquitted himself well by  not only becoming an expert in his assigned
duties, but by leaving each command better off than when he'd arrived. His
innumerable achievements and contributions to his country, his dedicated
service and tireless efforts were in concert with the highest standards and
traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon himself
and the United States Army."


13.  The applicant submitted a partially ineligible DA Form 67-8 (Officer
Evaluation Report) covering the period 27 August 1983 through 13 April
1984.  This form shows the senior rater placed the applicant in the top
block.

14.  On 12 January 2004, the U.S. Army Human Resources Command, Military
Awards Branch, responded to a United States Senator's letter regarding the
applicant's request to upgrade his retirement award to a Legion of Merit.
The Chief, Military Awards Branch informed the U.S. Senator that the
applicant's DD Form 214 was needed before the request could be submitted to
the Army Decorations Board for consideration.

15.  On 4 January 2005, an Awards Analyst from the U.S. Army Human
Resources Command responded to the applicant's inquiry via electronic mail
(e-mail).  The Awards Analyst informed the applicant that a review of the
information he faxed and the documents available in his Official Military
Personnel File (OMPF) concluded that there was insufficient documentation
to submit the case to the Army Decorations Board for consideration.  The
Awards Analyst continued that they noted in his original request that his
paperwork for his retirement award had been lost and never processed;
however, in fact, the Meritorious Service Medal was approved as his
retirement award.

16.  The Awards Analyst concluded that a statement from his primary rater
was not enough evidence to support his claims and that additional
documentation (i.e., officer evaluation reports, statements from his former
chain of command, and other award citations) is needed to support an
upgrade of his retirement award to a Legion of Merit.

17.  On 5 January 2005, the Awards Analyst from the U.S. Army Human
Resources Command responded to an inquiry from a United States Senator's
office regarding the applicant's request to upgrade his retirement award.
The Awards Analyst stated that the Army Decorations Board could not
complete a fair review of the applicant's case without supporting
documentation.  The Awards Analyst continued that without supporting
documentation that would suggest the Meritorious Service medal was not the
appropriate award then the Board would have no basis to overturn a previous
commander's decision to award the Meritorious Service Medal.

18.  The Awards Analyst stated that regrettably the applicant's OMPF was
lost but without supporting documentation they could only assume the
commander who awarded the Meritorious Service Medal made the appropriate
decision and the burden of proof otherwise lies with the applicant.

19.  The applicant submitted a self-authored letter, dated 25 January 2006,
wherein, he states that the recommendation for his retirement award was
lost at the unit of his last assignment.  He continues a Meritorious
Service Medal was recommended four years later by a colleague because he
mentioned that he never received a retirement award.

20.  The applicant further states that the individual was never in his
chain of command; therefore, does not know the details of his last tens
years of assignments.  He continues that the individual did not account for
the fact the proper award for retiring reservists may be a Meritorious
Service Medal; however, a retiring lieutenant colonel on extended active
duty should be awarded a Legion of Merit.

21.  The applicant states that a member of his former chain of command
initiated another recommendation for award of the Legion of Merit based on
the loss of the original recommendation and per direction of U.S. Army
Human Resources Command Awards Branch.  The applicant contends that when
the U.S. Army Human Resources Command was notified by the National Archives
and Records Administration that his records were missing, the Awards Branch
"refused" to process his DA Form 638 for award of the Legion of Merit.

22.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states, in pertinent part,
that the Legion of Merit is awarded to individuals who distinguish
themselves by exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of
outstanding services and achievements.  The performance must merit
recognition of key individuals for service rendered in a clearly
exceptional manner.  Performance of duties normal to the grade, branch,
specialty or assignment and experience of an individual is not an adequate
basis for this award.  In peacetime, service should be in the nature of a
special requirement or an extremely difficult duty performed in an
unprecedented and clearly exceptional manner.  However, justification may
accrue by virtue of exceptionally meritorious service in a succession of
important positions.  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.

23.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, that the
Meritorious Service Medal is awarded to members of the Armed Forces of the
United States or of a friendly foreign nation who distinguish themselves by
outstanding meritorious achievement or service in a noncombat area.  As
with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the
chain of command, and announcement in orders are required.
24.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides in paragraph 3-1c 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 requests that his Meritorious Service Medal be upgraded
to a Legion of Merit.

2.  In absence of the applicant's service records, it is presumed that the
applicant's chain of command properly recommended him for award of the
Meritorious Service Medal for his retirement.

3.  Evidence shows the applicant submitted a request to upgrade his
Meritorious Service Medal to the Legion of Merit under the provisions of
Section 1130 of Title 10 United States Code.  Evidence further shows that
the applicant's request was not considered by the Army Decorations Board
due to insufficient supporting documentation.

4.  After review of the available records which contain very few documents
and the documents the applicant submitted, regrettably, they are not
sufficient enough to support his request for an upgrade to award of the
Legion of Merit.  The applicant did not provide sufficient supporting
documentation which shows he met the criteria set by regulation that his
performance merit recognition for service rendered in a clearly exceptional
manner.  Performance of duties normal to the grade, branch, specialty or
assignment and experience of an individual is not an adequate basis for
this award.  In peacetime, the service should be in the nature of a special
requirement or an extremely difficult duty performed in an unprecedented
and clearly exceptional manner for award of the Legion of Merit.

5.  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.

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the
applicant's request at this time.



7.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 5 August 1985, the date of his
retirement; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for
correction of any error or injustice expired on 4 August 1989.  In November
2003, the applicant submitted a request under the provisions of Section
1130 of Title 10 of United States Code to the U.S. Army Human Resources
Command Army Decorations Board.  On 5 January 2005, the applicant was
notified that his case was returned without action.  Therefore, the
applicant filed within the ABCMR's statute of limitations.

8.  In arriving at its decision, the ABCMR wants the applicant to know that
the decision to not upgrade his retirement award from the Meritorious
Service Medal to the Legion of Merit in no way diminishes the quality of
his service to our Army and our Nation.  The applicant's service
demonstrated the finest traditions of the officer corps and should be a
source of pride to the applicant.

9.  Evidence shows that the applicant’s records contain administrative
error which does not require action by the Board.  Therefore,
administrative correction of the applicant’s records will be accomplished
by the Case Management Support Division (CMSD), St. Louis, Missouri, as
outlined by the Board in paragraph 2 of the BOARD
DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION section below.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

_JCR____  _DWC___  _WFC___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  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.



2.  The Board determined that administrative error in the records of the
individual should be corrected.  Therefore, the Board requests that the
CMSD-St. Louis administratively correct the records of the individual
concerned to show award of the Meritorious Service Medal.




                                    __William F. Crain_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060002499                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060921                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY with Admin Note                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.  55   |107.0009.0000                           |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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