RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        6 November 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070006218


      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.

|     |Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano          |     |Director             |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Kenneth L. Wright             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. LaVerne M. Douglas            |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Michael J. Flynn              |     |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, award of the Army Commendation Medal
(ARCOM) and Armed Forces Reserve Medal (AFRM).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he was recommended for the ARCOM for
meritorious service upon the expiration of his term of service (ETS) from
active duty in 1994, and would like to know why the award was downgraded.
He further requests to be awarded the AFRM, for his qualifying service in
the Reserve Components (RC).

3.  The applicant provides a Recommendation for Award (DA Form 638), dated
11 May 1994 in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  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 also allows the
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an
applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations
if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.
While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided
in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a
substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is
granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the
applicant’s failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are
insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army and entered
active duty on 17 April 1992.  He served on active duty for 2 years, 4
months and 4 days through 20 August 1994, at which time he was honorably
released from active duty (REFRAD).  The separation document (DD Form 214)
he was issued shows that he earned the following awards during his active
duty tenure:  Army Achievement Medal (AAM); Army Service Ribbon (ASR);
National Defense Service Medal (NDSM); Overseas Service Ribbon (OSR);
Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle and Grenade Bars; and
Army Lapel Button.

3.  The applicant's Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) contains a
retirement points summary that shows he served in the United States Army
Reserve (USAR) from 30 March 1996 through 4 April 2000.  This document
further shows that during this period he earned 15 membership points per
year, for a total of
60 retirement points, and that he earned no qualifying years of service for
Reserve retirement purposes.

4.  The applicant provides a DA Form 638 that shows he was recommended for
the ARCOM for meritorious service from 17 September 1993 through 10 August
1994, based on his ETS.  This document confirms the award approval
authority downgraded the award to the AAM, which was awarded to the
applicant in Headquarters, 1st Battalion, 5th Air Defense Artillery Brigade
Permanent Orders Number 27-3 on 20 March 1994.  There is no documentation
in the record or provided by the applicant that shows he requested
reconsideration of the approval authority's downgrade action.

5.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes the Army's awards
policy.  Paragraph 1-16 provides guidance on reconsideration/appeal of
disapproved or downgraded award recommendations.  It states, in pertinent
part, that a request for reconsideration or 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.  One time
reconsideration by the award approval authority will be conclusive.
Recommendations are submitted for reconsideration or appeal only if new,
substantive and material information is furnished.

6.  Paragraph 3-5 of the awards regulation contains guidance on award
approval authority.  It states, in pertinent part, that approval
authorities must be in command or serving as head of principal
Headquarters, Department of the Army (DA) agency.  The approval authority
for award of the ARCOM and AAM is a commander or principle DA agency
Colonel.  Authority is extended to include those individuals occupying
vacant positions of approval authorities regardless of grade.  For example,
a Lieutenant Colonel assigned on orders as a Brigade Commander (an
authorized Colonel position) is authorized to act on recommendations for
award of the ARCOM.  Commanders having authority to approve an award may
delegate disapproval (to include downgrade) authority to their immediate
subordinate commanders, provided those subordinate commanders have
authority to approve the next lower award.

7.  Paragraph 5-8 of the awards regulation contains guidance on the AFRM.
It states, in pertinent part, that it is awarded for honorable and
satisfactory service as a member or former member of one or more of the
Reserve Components of the Armed Forces of the United States, including the
Coast Guard Reserve and the Marine Corps Reserve, for a period of 10 years.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's requests to know why his ARCOM was downgraded to an AAM
and to be awarded the AFRM were carefully considered.  However, there is
insufficient evidence to support his claims.

2.  The evidence confirms the applicant's ARCOM award recommendation was
properly processed through the appropriate award authority, who elected to
downgrade the award to an AAM, in accordance with the applicable
regulation. There is no indication that the applicant submitted a
reconsideration request or appeal of the downgrade action.  Further, he has
failed to provide additional documentary support that was not available to
the award approval authority at the time his award was downgraded with his
application to the Board.  Therefore, there is an insufficient evidentiary
basis to support reversing the decision of the award approval authority to
downgrade the applicant's ARCOM recommendation to the AAM.

3.  By regulation, the AFRM is awarded for honorable and satisfactory
service as a member or former member of one or more of the Reserve
Components of the Armed Forces of the United States, including the Coast
Guard Reserve and the Marine Corps Reserve, for a period of 10 years.  The
applicant's record confirms he served in the USAR for approximately 6
years.  Therefore, he does not meet the regulatory criteria for this award
and it would not be appropriate to award him the AFRM at this time.

4.  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.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___KLW    __LMD __  __MJF __  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.




                                  _____Kenneth L. Wright___
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20070006218                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2007/11/06                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1994/08/20                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |ETS                                     |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Ms. Mitrano                             |
|ISSUES         1.  46   |107.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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