RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	


	BOARD DATE:	  19 September 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070009847 


	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

Ms. Jeanne Marie Rowan

Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. James Vick

Chairperson

Mr. Ronald Gant

Member

Mr. Rowland Heflin

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 an appeal for a disapproved award recommendation for the Air Medal.

2.  The applicant states, in pertinent part, that after reviewing Army Regulation 600-8-22 he is positive he meets the criteria for award of the Air Medal.  He did not receive an explanation from his battalion commander or brigade commander as to why his award recommendation was disapproved.  He further states, in effect, that the approval authority unfairly disapproved his award recommendation because the battalion S1 did not submit his award recommendation in a timely manner to the intermediate approval authority at the brigade.  

3.  The applicant provides copies of DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award), award narrative, proposed award citation, DA Form 2823 (Sworn Statement), 
DA Form 851 (Request for Issue and Turn-In of Ammunition), an excerpt from Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards), a newspaper article, a personal narrative and a copy of his Officer Record Brief.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is an officer serving in the Regular Army.  He entered active duty on 16 May 1998 and has served continuously without a break in service.  He is a graduate of the Engineer Officer Basic Course and Combined Arms and Services Staff School.  He is in the Engineer Corps and holds the area of concentration 21B.  He has served two combat tours in Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.  

2.  The applicant's DA Form 638, undated, shows he was recommended by his battalion commander for award of the Air Medal.  The period of the award is for one day, 3 October 2005.  The justification for the award of the Air Medal was supported through a written narrative.  The narrative states, in effect, that the applicant served as an assistant helicopter flight crewmember during aerial resupply operations in hostile airspace near the vicinity of Ar Ramadi, Iraq, on 3 October 2005.  The flight missions resupplied ammunition to ground forces who were actively engaged in direct defensive combat operations after coming under attack by insurgent forces.  The applicant volunteered for the dangerous mission, then directly supervised loading the helicopter from the ammunition supply point, riding in the helicopter and unloading its cargo in the battalion area of operations while under indirect hostile fire.  The aircraft crew to include the applicant flew four resupply missions delivering a critical shortfall of ammunition to the armor battalion under attack.  

3.  On 27 April 2006, a personnel administrator authenticated a DA Form 638 certifying that the applicant was eligible for an award in accordance with 
Army Regulation 600-8-22 and that the information in Part 1 of said award request was administratively correct.  

4.  The battalion commander recommended approval in Block 23d (Recommend) of the DA Form 638 and signed the award recommendation.  He commented in Block 23i (Comments) "Certainly deserving of this achievement award.  His actions saved lives in combat during the ECP5 attack."  He did not date the award recommendation in Block 23c (Date), when he authenticated the award recommendation.

5.  The brigade commander as the intermediate award approval authority recommended disapproval of the Air Medal award recommendation in Block 24d (Recommend) on an unknown date, Block 24c (Date) of DA Form 638.  He did not provide comments on the DA Form 638, Block 24i (Comments).

6.  The final disapproval is not contained in the applicant's records. 

7.  The applicant provided three DA Forms 2823 (Sworn Statement) in support of his award recommendation and this application.  

	a.  The first sworn statement states, in effect, that the armor battalion came under heavy attack from insurgents and their available ammunition readiness rating went "red" or below the required ammunition on hand authorization level.  The Soldier states, in effect, the delivery of ammunition supplies was done by air and the applicant was an official escort on the aerial resupply mission.  The Soldier states, "I personally met him at the aircraft to receive the ammunition."  This Soldier's sworn statement is an eyewitness report to the applicant's award recommendation.

	b.  The second DA Form 2823 submitted was from an officer who was an eyewitness to the aerial ammunition resupply missions.  The officer states, in effect, he was responsible for requesting the ammunition and coordinating the resupply mission to include requesting the aviation helicopter assist to transport the ammunition from the tactical ammunition supply point to the battalion area under attack by hostile forces.  He states, in effect, the applicant drove a vehicle from the ammunition supply point to the helicopter-landing zone, helped to load the ammunition, then rode in the helicopter through hostile airspace to the tactical landing zone.  Then he supervised and assisted in the manual 
off-loading of the ammunition cargo while taking indirect enemy insurgent fire.  The officer states, in effect, the applicant directed the helicopter aircrew door gunners' sectors of fire to suppress the insurgents fire while he simultaneously coordinated the manual off-loading of the ammunition.  He boarded the helicopter and cleared it for takeoff returning to the ammunition resupply point for a total of four helicopter resupply missions. 

	c.  The third sworn statement was written by the applicant himself.  He states, in pertinent part, that the officer in charge had coordinated for the helicopter aerial resupply of critically short ammunition for their armor battalion under attack.  His aircraft made the first ammunition resupply mission into the battalion tactical area of operations while under insurgent attack.  His crew completed four missions.  He further states, in effect, that he and the captain who was in charge of the mission had the same responsibilities in directing the Soldiers on the ground to quickly assist in pushing the ammunition out of the aircraft and then clearing the aircraft for takeoff back to the resupply point. 

8.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides, in pertinent part, that the Air Medal (AM) is awarded in time of war for heroism in connection with military operations against an armed enemy and for meritorious achievement involving superior airmanship while participating in aerial flight that are accomplished with distinction beyond that normally expected in one's performance of duties.  The Air Medal is awarded for meritorious service for sustained distinction in the performance of aerial flight for a period of 6 months.  This award is primarily intended for crewmembers on flying status, but may also be awarded to those personnel whose combat duties require them to fly; for example, personnel in the attack elements of units involved in air-land assaults against an armed enemy.  These individuals must make a discernible contribution to the operation land combat mission or to the aircraft in flight.  Awards will not be made to individuals who use air transportation solely for the purpose of moving from one point to a point in the combat zone.

9.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, military decorations are awarded in recognition of heroism, meritorious achievement or meritorious service and that no individual is entitled to an award except the Purple Heart.  The decision to award an individual a decoration and the decision as to which award is appropriate are subjective decisions made by the commander having award approval authority.  Further, the award should reflect both the Soldier's level of responsibility and his or her manner of performance.  The degree to which an individual's achievement or service enhance the readiness or effectiveness of his or her organization will be the predominate factor as determined by the award approval authority.  Commanders may disapprove the next higher award normally associated with their grade provided such authority has been delegated to them.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that he is positive he meets the criteria for award of the Air Medal as outlined in Army Regulation 600-8-22.  His battalion commander, on an undated award recommendation, recommended to the brigade commander that the applicant receive the Air Medal for his performance of duties on 3 October 2005 while coordinating, supervising and delivering critical ammunition to the armor battalion's tactical location while under indirect enemy fire.  

2.  The applicant's belief that because he meets the general criteria of the Air Medal award based on his actions on 3 October 2005 while assisting in the aerial resupply of critical ammunition was not supported by the subjective decision of the brigade commander who recommended disapproval to the awards authority.  In the absence of extraordinary circumstances, the Board is reluctant to substitute its judgment for that of the commander who was on the scene during the combat operations and was familiar with the combat operation and with his subordinates' generally accepted duties and responsibilities.  

3.  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. 

4.  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

__JV____  __RG ___  ___RH __  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.



____      James Vick__________
          CHAIRPERSON


INDEX

CASE ID
AR20070009847
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
20070919
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.
107.0018
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.