RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  8 FEBRUARY 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060009673 


	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.



	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 service award, which was downgraded to an Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM), be upgraded to a Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) as originally recommended by members of his immediate chain of command.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his original recommendation for the award of the MSM shows an erroneous period of award from 19 January 2002 to 1 July 2003.  It should have been from 29 August 2000 to 18 March 2003.  The applicant admits that the award was processed while his unit was deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and he believes that the award was downgraded because the accomplishments cited on the award recommendation did not correspond with the dates covered by the award.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of the DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award), certificates, Officer Evaluation Reports (OER), Information Paper, Draft DA Form 638, and Congressional correspondence.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant’s records show he was appointed as a second lieutenant in the United States Army Reserve on 20 May 1994.

2.  The applicant’s OER shows that he was rated for 9 months as the "Battalion S-4" from the period 29 July 2000 to 1 June 2001.  He was assessed as "Outstanding Performance, Must Promote" by his rater and "Best Qualified" by his senior rater.  His OER also shows that he was rated as "Above Center Mass" by his senior rater with laudatory comments of "the applicant is by far one of the best captains in the battalion.  His performance as the S4 in the largest tactical aviation battalion in the Army has been outstanding."

3.  The applicant’s OER, from the period 2 June 2001 to 9 January 2002, rated the applicant for 7 months while performing the duties as the Brigade S-4.  The applicant was rated as "Outstanding Performance and Best Qualified" by his rater and senior rater, respectively.  He received glowing comments by his senior rater, such as "Personally selected by me to assume command of the Headquarters Company of the Army’s largest helicopter battalion."  

4.  On 14 February 2003, the applicant was rated for his performance as the Company Commander, Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 101st Aviation Regiment.  The period of the OER was listed as 10 January 2002 to      5 January 2003.  The applicant received an "Above Center of Mass" report with recommendations for future assignments as the Battalion S-3, Battalion Executive Officer and Brigade S-3.  

5. Additionally, the applicant was awarded the Army Achievement Medal (AAM) for his achievement while assigned as the Headquarters and Headquarters Company Commander.  The citation was awarded to the applicant for endless hours of support in preparation for the battalion’s deployment to Operation Enduring Freedom.  The period of the award was from 10 January 2002 through 25 January 2002.   

6.  The applicant’s OER, from 10 January 2003 to 15 June 2003, rated his performance as the Assistant Battalion S-3.  During this 5-month rating period, the applicant was rated as "Outstanding Performance, Must Promote" by his rater and "Best Qualified" by his senior rater.  The laudatory comments rendered by his senior rater included "Brilliant execution by a sensational officer.  Promote from below the zone to major and send to resident Commander’s General Staff College at the earliest opportunity."

7.  A certificate, dated 25 August 2003, shows that the applicant was awarded the ARCOM from 19 January 2002 to 1 July 2003 for meritorious service as the Assistant S-3.  Additionally, the applicant received a second award of the ARCOM during the same time period, 19 March 2003 to 31 May 2003, for meritorious service during combat operations as the Battalion Assistant S-3 to the 101st Airborne Division in Iraq.  

8.  The records also show that the applicant was awarded the Air Medal, from 
19 March 2003 to 31 May 2003, while serving as an aircrew member in Iraq.

9.  The applicant also provided two certificates for award of the ARCOM, dated 31 July 1996 and 3 May 1999.  Since both of these awards are outside of the period in question they have no bearing on this case.

10.  The applicant’s DA Form 638, dated 20 February 2003, shows he was recommended for the award of the MSM.  The period of the award was from     19 January 2002 to 1 July 2003.  The justification for the award of the MSM, as cited in the recommendation, was listed as: achievement 1. company commander of Headquarters and Headquarters Company; achievement 2. downsizing plans as the Brigade S-4; achievement 3. support of three different Task Forces as the Battalion S-4; and achievement 4. duties as the Battalion 
Assistant S-3.  The award was downgraded to an ARCOM (3rd Oak Leaf Cluster) by a major general, serving as the Acting Commanding General, XVIII Airborne Corps, Fort Bragg, North Carolina.  

11.  The applicant provided an information paper in reference to Section 1130 of Title 10, United States Code.  This section allows the Service concerned to review a proposal for the award of, or upgrading of, a decoration that is otherwise precluded from consideration by limitations established by law or policy.  The law also requires that a request of this nature be referred to the Service Secretary from a Member of Congress.  

12.  In a letter, dated 16 December 2005, the Chief, Army Awards Branch, informed the applicant’s Congressional representative that the branch was processing the applicant’s request for reconsideration for award of the MSM in accordance with Section 1130 of Title 10.  The applicant did not provide this Board with the Awards Branch final determination.  However, e-mail correspondence, dated 12 June 2006, indicate the applicant was advised that no further action could be taken on his request for award of the MSM, as the original recommendation was properly processed by the approval authority.

13.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 states that no individual is entitled to an award and the decision as to which award is appropriate are both subjective decisions made by the commander having award approval authority.  Awards for meritorious achievement or service will not be based upon the grade of the intended recipient.  Rather, the award should reflect both the individual’s level of responsibility and his or her manner of performance.  It notes that no individual is automatically entitled to an award upon departure from an assignment.   

14.  Additionally, that same regulation states that only one decoration will be awarded to an individual for the same act, achievement, or period of meritorious service.  The award of a decoration in recognition of a single act of heroism or meritorious achievement does not preclude an award for meritorious service at the termination of an assignment.  Recommendations for award of a decoration for meritorious service will not refer to acts of heroism or meritorious achievement which have been previously recognized by award of a decoration.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant argues that the period of the recommendation for the award of the MSM should be from August 2000 to March 2003.  However, evidence of record shows that during the period in question, the applicant was awarded an ARCOM for meritorious service from March 2003 to May 2003 as the Battalion Assistant S3, as well as an AAM for achievement as the company commander.  Therefore, the recommending authority was prohibited from citing the period and/or justification for which these awards were rendered. 

2.  Nevertheless, the applicant’s belief that if the period of the report was extended to cover all his accomplishments he would have received the award of the MSM is not a basis for awarding him the decoration, nor does it serve as justification to upgrade his ARCOM.  While the applicant may have been recommended for award of the MSM, the appropriate awards approval authority, a major general, elected to downgrade the award to an ARCOM, a decision which was well within his authority.

3.  While clearly the applicant contributed to the success and accomplishments of his organization, as documented through his previous awards and OERs, the service he rendered in his assignment appears to be the normal duties associated with his grade, branch, and specialty.

4.  The applicant’s award recommendation was submitted through appropriate command channels and processed to conclusion by the appropriate awards approval authority with no evidence of error or injustice.  Additionally, the applicant was afforded an opportunity to have his award recommendation submitted under Title 10, United States Code, Section 1130.  The Army Awards Branch appears to have processed this action to conclusion with no evidence of error or injustice.  

5.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show, or it just 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

___JR___  __DH ___  __RG  __  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.




____ Jeffrey Redmann_______
          CHAIRPERSON



INDEX

CASE ID
AR20060009673
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
20070208
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.