RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  13 February 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060012259 


	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. Victoria A. Donaldson

Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. Hubert O. Fry, Jr.

Chairperson

Mr. William F. Crain

Member

Mr. Dale E. DeBruler

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 upgrade of the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) issued upon his retirement to the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM).

2.  The applicant states that is it unjust that the 3rd Brigade Commander gave him an ARCOM instead of the MSM after completing twenty years of honorable service.  The applicant continues that his military records show that he was selected for promotion to the rank of sergeant first class.

3.  The applicant provides a letter from US Army Human Resources Command-Military Awards Branch, a DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award), a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), and a copy of an ARCOM Certificate in support of this application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's records show that he enlisted in the Unites States Army Reserve (USAR) in the Delayed Enlistment/Entry Program on 24 January 1980.  He was discharged from the USAR on 15 January for the purpose of enlisting in the Regular Army.  Records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 16 January and served through several reenlistments until he was separated for the purpose of retirement on 31 May 2002. 

2.  Records show that applicant was honorably released from active duty on 31 May 2002 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) in the rank of staff sergeant/pay grade E-6 with 20 years and 5 days of active military service.

3.  The applicant's DD Form 214 does not show award of the MSM.  There are no orders in the available records which show the applicant was awarded the MSM.

4.  A DA Form 638, dated 5 March 2002, shows that the applicant's immediate supervisor recommended him for award of the MSM for the period January 1980 through May 2002.  The DA Form 638 shows the following proposed citation "For Meritorious and Selfless Service render from Jan 1980 to May 2002 as a Soldier in the United States Armed Forces.  [The applicant's name omitted] career is highlighted with continuous marks of excellence as an Administrative NCO.  His unrelenting efforts to be master of his own physical well being has won him thirteen awards for excellence in physical fitness.  [The applicant's name omitted] studious work habits has enabled him to excel as an Administrative NCO through out his career.  [The applicant's name omitted] undying efforts reflects excellence upon himself and was a credit to the Armed Forces of This Great Nation in which he served."

5.  The DA Form 638 shows that, on 5 March 2002, the applicant's commander recommended that the award be downgraded to the ARCOM and that, on 28 March 2002, the award approval authority authorized award of the ARCOM to the applicant.

6.  Records show that the applicant appealed to the US Army Human Resources Command-Military Awards Branch for upgrade of his ARCOM to a MSM.  The Army Decorations Board considered the applicant's request and determined that the degree of action and service did not meet the strict criteria for award of the MSM and reaffirmed award of the ARCOM to the applicant.

7.  The applicant provides a letter which he sent to the US Army Human Resources Command-Military Awards Branch for consideration with his request.  In this letter, the applicant argues that he has been discriminated against based on award of the ARCOM, that he earned numerous awards in over 20 years of military service, and that it is unjust that he was awarded the ARCOM instead of the MSM after completing over 20 years of honorable military service.

8.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides that the Army Commendation Medal 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.

9.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) 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.  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, reconsideration, nor for upgrading to a more prestigious award.  The regulation also provides that there is no automatic entitlement to an award upon departure either from an assignment or from the service.  
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that his ARCOM should be upgraded to a MSM based on over 20 years of military service was carefully considered and determined to be without merit.

2.  The applicant's records clearly show that although he was recommended for award of the MSM by his immediate supervisor, the applicant's commander determined that his overall records did not meet the criteria for award of the MSM.  The award approval authority concurred with the recommendation and elected to approve award of the ARCOM to the applicant for his service.

3.  The applicant appealed to the Army Decorations Board which also determined that the applicant's overall record of service did not meet the strict criteria for award of the MSM.

4.  There is no evidence in the available records and the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to show that the ARCOM should be upgraded to the MSM.  Therefore, there is no basis to grant the relief requested.

5.  While the decision of the ABCMR in this case is not favorable, the Board wants the applicant, his fellow veterans and all others concerned to know that this action in no way diminishes the applicant's service to the United States of America.  The applicant distinguished himself by serving over twenty years of honorable service.  Unquestionably, the applicant and all Americans should be very proud of his service in arms and the recognition accorded him.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

_DED___  _WFC__ _  __HOF__  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.





___Hubert O. Fry, Jr.___
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
YYYYMMDD
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE
YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR . . . . .  
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.