RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  25 March 2008
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070013914 


	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:


Ms. Shirley L. Powell

Chairperson

Ms. Yolando Maldonado

Member

Mr. Edward E. Montgomery

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, through his Congressman, award of the Bronze Star Medal (BSM) for his meritorious service during the period 13 March 2004 to 28 February 2005 when he served in Iraq in direct support of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF).  

2.  The applicant states, in pertinent part, that his company and brigade commanders recommended him for award of the BSM.  He states he was awarded an Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) for this period of service, but the ARCOM award order was revoked in anticipation that the BSM would be favorably approved and awarded.  He firmly believes that he was to be awarded the BSM when the ARCOM order was revoked, but somehow the BSM award recommendation was lost.  

3.  The Congressman states, in pertinent part, that the applicant served our nation with distinction and valor in the OIF and that his commanding officers recommended him for the BSM.  However, the paperwork did not make it through the necessary processes.  At his request, the Army Decorations Board reviewed the applicant's BSM award recommendation endorsed by his former chain of command.  The Army Decorations Board denied the applicant’s request for the BSM citing that "the degree to action and service rendered did not meet the strict criteria for the proposed award."  The Congressmen states he is deeply concerned by the implications of this judgment.

4.  The Congressman states that the Army Decorations Board disregarded the applicant's chain of command’s recommendation and the firsthand accounts of individuals serving directly with the applicant in Iraq.  He states, in effect, that the Soldiers who served with the applicant and he, himself, believe that the applicant's actions are meritorious and deserving of recognition with award of the BSM.  He further states that the applicant has a distinguished record of accomplishment as a Soldier who consistently goes beyond the call of duty and is one of the best, and brightest, members of the Army in his opinion.

5.  The applicant provides copies of the following documents in support of his application.

     a.  DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) with a separation effective date of 19 March 2005;

     b.  DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award) dated 2 September 2004;

     c.  Permanent Order (PO) 295-06, dated 16 September 2004, which awarded the ARCOM to the applicant for his meritorious service from 13 March 2004 to 28 February 2005 in Iraq;

     d.  memorandum, dated 12 November 2004, from Headquarters, 30th Brigade Combat Team (BCT) directing that PO 295-06 be revoked;

     e.  PO 322-226, dated 17 November 2004, which revoked the ARCOM awarded in PO 295-06;

     f.  a letter, dated 18 May 2007, from the Army Decorations Board denying award of the BSM and reaffirming award of the ARCOM;

     g.  PO 138-27, dated 18 May 2007, which awarded the ARCOM for his period of service in OIF from 13 March 2004 to 28 February 2005;

     h.  seven letters of recommendation from Soldiers and officers in the applicant's unit; and

     i.  numerous electronic messages which historically outlines the applicant's request for award of the BSM which are outlined in the Table of Contents.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is currently a captain in the Army Reserve assigned to Headquarters, 3rd Brigade, 75th Division stationed at Fort Sheridan, Illinois. 

2.  The applicant was ordered to active duty in support of OIF on 1 October 2003. The DD Form 214 he was issued when he was released from active duty on 19 March 2005, shows he served in an imminent danger area in Iraq from 1 March 2004 to 2 December 2004. 

3.  Item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) of the applicant's DD Form 214 shows award of the ARCOM (2nd Award).  It does not show award of the BSM.

4.  The applicant's official electronic military personnel record contained a copy of DA Form 638, which shows that on 2 September 2004, the applicant's company commander recommended him for award of the BSM citing the following achievements: 

     a.  His resourcefulness in coordinating with civilian contractors ensured the  installation of armor plating on the platoon's military vehicles to protect his 27 Soldiers.  He further served as the Security Officer in Charge (OIC) for a 45-vehicle convoy during a 650-mile road march to Iraq from Kuwait with no injuries or vehicular accidents.

     b.  He established the Base Defense Operations Cell and wrote the standard operating procedure for the perimeter reaction force at Forward Operating Base KMTB to include ground medical evacuation procedures.  Under his direct leadership, the perimeter reaction force within two months of inception executed over 100 patrols, seven raids, detained 10 suspects, and discovered four abandoned munition bunkers filled with over 5,000 pieces of ordnance. 

     c.  He ignited enthusiasm within his platoon by pushing training responsibilities to the lowest level ensuring his noncommissioned officers could write operations orders and effectively use troop leading procedures in the execution of combat missions.  The brigade operations officer, a superior commissioned officer, recognized this achievement.   

     d.  He led and participated in over 150 combat patrols, totaling over 75,000 miles throughout the 1st Infantry Division tactical operations area and the Iraqi Theater of Operations.  His platoon encountered eight improvised explosive devices (IEDs), three vehicle-borne IEDs, and 11 small arms attacks without sustaining injuries or vehicular damage, which was attributed to his leadership and tactical awareness. 

5.  This same DA Form 638 shows that the brigade commander downgraded the BSM to an ARCOM per the authority of the Multi-National Force Commanding General's award delegation memorandum dated 5 June 2004.  The brigade commander, a brigadier general, signed but did not date the award recommendation form. 

6.  The Commanding General of the 30th BCT signed the applicant’s ARCOM certificate on 16 September 2004.  This certificate shows the applicant was awarded the ARCOM for meritorious service from 13 March 2004 to 28 February 2005 while assigned to Golf 202, Air Defense Artillery, by PO 295-06, published by Headquarters, 30th BCT.  

7.  On 22 October 2004, the Adjutant of the 30th BCT signed the DA Form 638, Part V (Orders Data), which shows the approved award was the ARCOM and the award permanent order number was PO 259-06. 

8.  On 12 November 2004, Headquarters, 30th BCT directed through a memorandum that PO 295-06, which awarded the applicant the ARCOM for his meritorious service in support of OIF, be revoked.  On 17 November 2004, 
PO 322-226 revoked award of the ARCOM. 

9.  On 19 March 2005, records show the applicant was released from active duty and transferred to Battery G, 202 Air Defense Artillery, and the Illinois ARNG.  

10.  The applicant provided individual supporting statements, which are summarized as follows:

     a.  a sergeant stated, in pertinent part, that the applicant used his own money to provide supplies for the Soldiers and that he was always prepared for training to include publishing training schedules during their mobilization training prior to deployment.  After deployment, the applicant's networking skills and resourcefulness significantly contributed to armor improvement so that the Soldiers felt protected and better secured in their military vehicles.  During missions, the applicant was extremely quick to react to IEDs and ambushes.  

     b.  a first sergeant stated, in effect, that the applicant was an outstanding leader and proficient in the performance of convoy escort missions.  He further states that the applicant's platoon encountered the most contact with the enemy and he attributed the applicant's high standards to their effective use of rapid reaction drills during contact.  

     c.  a staff sergeant stated, in effect, that he was with the applicant on 6 November 2004 when two IEDs detonated near their convoy.  He witnessed first hand the applicant's leadership when the applicant established a triage area for the wounded to include convoy perimeter defenses so medical evacuation helicopters could land and transport the two wounded Iraqi soldiers to medical treatment facilities.  

     d.  a staff sergeant stated, in effect, that on 18 November 2004 he was with the applicant during convoy operations when their convoy encountered an IED which detonated damaging three vehicles and was immediately followed by an ambush with small arms fire.  The convoy was split into two sections and their were wounded Soldiers.  He witnessed the applicant return fire, direct his gunner to use high explosive rounds into the enemy positions, and then pursue the attackers which resulted in finding evidence that the attack had been planned.  

     e.  a sergeant stated, in effect, that during their pre-deployment training the applicant used his personal finances to provide platoon members with copies of unit training manuals and standard operating procedures.  The applicant used sand training tables extensively prior to deployment, and then effectively continued to use sand training tables during combat operations.  He ensured that all Soldiers understood their mission and tasks during each convoy operation by reading the operations order to all members of the convoy.  The Soldiers felt safe under the applicant's leadership during convoy operations.

     f.  a major stated, in effect, that during the deployment the applicant performed a myriad of complex and dangerous tasks in support of the major's battalion to include leading the Rapid Reaction Force as part of the forward operating base's security plan ensuring that their location was impenetrable by the enemy.  During patrols, the applicant's platoon located enemy weapons cashes that led to the recovery of these weapons and their subsequent destruction.  The applicant's platoon became known for their ability to efficiently and effectively conduct combat patrols and escort convoys throughout the entire area of operations.  This officer states he knew the applicant was recommended for the BSM, but for unknown reasons it was not processed in Iraq and he strongly recommends award of the BSM.

     g.  a Soldier stated, in effect, that the applicant took care of his Soldiers ensuring that their vehicles received additional armor protection, kept them informed, let the Soldiers do their jobs, and generally provided better leadership than the other platoon leaders. 

11.  The applicant provided an extensive chronological history of electronic messages in hard copy format, which shows that he had been trying to upgrade his ARCOM OIF service award to a BSM.  On 4 October 2006, the applicant's first sergeant stated, in effect, that he had complained to the command sergeant major (CSM) because G Battery's entire unit end of tour awards were initially downgraded by CSM M________ and General H________.  He states he complained to the CSM, then all the ARCOM award orders were rescinded, and that new award recommendations for the BSM were resubmitted through the chain of command to the award approval authority. 

12.  In an email, dated 4 October 2006, the 30th BCT Administrative Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) responded to an inquiry from the applicant's first sergeant and provided an electronic copy of the permanent order that revoked the applicant’s ARCOM and a signed copy of a DA Form 638 that shows the Brigade Commanding General recommended approval of awarding the applicant the BSM.  

13.  In an email, dated 5 October 2006, the applicant wrote to Human Resources Command-Alexandria (HRC).  He stated, in effect, that he was recommended for a BSM but the Brigade Commander downgraded it to an ARCOM.  He further stated that his battery first sergeant complained to the brigade command sergeant major about the downgrade and then his ARCOM award order was rescinded.  He stated he understood that his BSM award recommendation was resubmitted and that the brigade commander recommended approval of the BSM.  However, the 1st Infantry Division never returned his award recommendation.   The applicant then applied through his Congressman to the Army Decorations Board requesting that the BSM be awarded for his meritorious service in support of OIF. 

14.  On 18 May 2007, the Army Decorations Board determined that the degree of action and service rendered did not meet the strict criteria for the proposed BSM award and reaffirmed the previously awarded the ARCOM.  Permanent Order 138-27, published by HRC-Alexandria, dated 18 May 2007, announced award of the ARCOM for his period of service from 13 March 2004 to 28 February 2005 in support of OIF.

15.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides, in pertinent part, that the BSM is awarded in time of war to any person who distinguished himself or herself by heroic and or meritorious achievement or service to a lesser degree that that required for award of the Legion of Merit.  Award of the BSM is limited to Soldiers who receive imminent danger pay.  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.  The award should reflect both the individual's level of responsibility and his manner of performance.  The degree to which an individual's achievement or service enhanced the readiness or effectiveness of his organization will be the predominant factor.  No individual is automatically entitled to an award upon departure from an assignment nor are preconditions for an award authorized.  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.  This delegation must be in writing. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record, specifically the applicant's official military personnel record, shows that the applicant was recommended for award of the BSM by his company commander and that his brigade commander, with delegated authority, downgraded the award to an ARCOM.  Records show that the approved ARCOM permanent order was rescinded.  The applicant contends and electronic communications supports his contention that his company and brigade commanders resubmitted an award recommendation for the BSM for his meritorious service during OIF.  Records do not show that the 1st Infantry Division Commander acted on the second award recommendation. 

2.  The applicant applied through his Congressman to the Army Decorations Board requesting award of the BSM.  The Army Decorations Board reaffirmed award of the ARCOM, and subsequently HRC-Alexandria published permanent orders awarding the applicant the ARCOM for his meritorious tour of service in Iraq. 

3.  The applicant's electronic messages and the individual statements from former Soldiers and superior commissioned officers were reviewed.  There is no compelling evidence in these communications which warrants upgrading his award of the ARCOM to the BSM.  The brigade commander's decision was subjective which takes into consideration his experience and knowledge of all subordinates within the BCT and their effectiveness on the battlefield.  While the applicant’s performance of duty was unquestionably outstanding, it is evident that his performance was not as meritorious as those Soldiers who were awarded the BSM in the eyes of his brigade commander.  In our highly professional Army, the “bar” for certain awards is understandably raised, especially in a theater of combat operations which brings out the best in our Soldiers.  

4.  Therefore, the 2007 decision of the Army Decorations Board that the ARCOM was the appropriate recognition for the applicant's period of service in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom appears proper and just. 

5.  This action in no way diminishes the meritorious service by the applicant in service to the United States during OIF.  His service was recognized with award of the ARCOM and he and all Americans should be justifiably proud of his service in arms.   

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__YM___  __SLP___  __EEM__  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.


_____Shirley L. Powell____
          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.