RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  7 February 2008
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070017941 


	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. Michael L. Engle

Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. William D. Powers

Chairperson

Ms. Rose M. Lys

Member

Mr. Qawiy A. Sabree

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:

The applicant defers to counsel [Member of Congress].

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel requests reconsideration of his three earlier requests for award of the Soldier's Medal.

2.  Counsel states, that on 24 May 1981, the 1st Cavalry Division Horse Platoon, under the command of the applicant, was traveling to an event in East Texas when one of the horse trailers overturned when the road shoulder gave way.  The overturned trailer caused eight trapped horses to become furiously chaotic.  Under the leadership of the applicant, all horses were extracted and saved.  The applicant had put himself in serious danger by entering the trailer with frenzied horses to lead his troops and save lives.  This event was heavily documented and is corroborated by the testimony of a sergeant who was involved with the incident.  For the applicant's heroic actions and extraordinary leadership, his commanding general recommended him for award of the Soldier's Medal.  The applicant was never awarded the Soldier's Medal.  Instead, he received an Army Commendation Medal.  On 31 July 2003, the ABCMR reviewed the applicant's records.  The Board did not upgrade the Army Commendation Medal to a Soldier's Medal.  The Board incorrectly stated "at no time were any of the applicant's men trapped with the panicked horses, nor did the applicant ever have to enter the trailer with the panicked horses."  This statement is a staggering untruth, and suggests that the Board did not properly research the testimonies in support of the applicant's case.  Furthermore, that Board found that "there is no evidence that the applicant's actions involved personal danger or hazard and the voluntary risk of life."  It states instead that "such evidence would be, for example, that he went into the van with the panicked horses to save a Soldier who was trapped and wounded by the horses."  These statements are in direct contradiction to the testimony the Board was supposed to be considering.  The sergeant's testimony clearly states that " the applicant climbed into the trailer and up above the stalls."  "The applicant almost fell a couple of times and if he had he would have been killed or seriously injured.  He did not care about that, because he was more concerned about getting his horses and men safely off."

3.  Counsel further states that on 30 August 2005, the ABCMR again reviewed the applicant's case.  The Board found that the 2003 Board "appear[ed] to have confused the three statements and incorporated information from statement one (28 February 2003 statement from a sergeant) into its deliberation of the applicant's request for award of the Soldier's Medal when the statement had no bearing on the incident."  Though the Board did apologize "for the confusion regarding information contained in the 31 July 2003 Memorandum of Consideration,” they still refused to award the applicant the Soldier's Medal, claiming the incorrect findings of the 2003 Board to be "an appropriate conclusion."

4.  Counsel also states that the Soldier's Medal is awarded to any person of the Armed Forces of the United States who distinguished himself by heroism not involving actual conflict with an enemy.  The performance must have involved personal hazard or danger and the voluntary risk of life under conditions not involving conflict with an armed enemy.  Eye witnesses and his commanding general believe that the actions the applicant took on 24 May 1981 were heroic and involved the voluntary risk of life, and thus merit the award of the Soldier's Medal.  Accordingly, counsel requests the Board to review this issue again.

5.  Counsel provides no supporting documentation.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the two previous considerations of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR2003084242 on 31 July 2003; and Docket Number AR20040009549, on 30 August 2005.  Docket Number AR20070010140 was administratively closed on 23 October 2007, wherein the Board notified the applicant that it would not consider any future requests pertaining to the award of the Soldier's Medal.  As an exception to policy, the Board will again review this issue.

2.  Review of the Board's Memorandum of Consideration, dated 31July 2003, regarding only the issue of the Soldier's Medal, shows that the Army Decorations Board considered the applicant for award of the Soldier's Medal.  It states that the Army Decorations Board disapproved the recommendation for award of the Soldier's Medal, and instead awarded him the Army Commendation Medal.  The award citation reads, "For meritorious achievement while assigned as Commanding Officer, 1st Cavalry Division Horse Platoon, Fort Hood, Texas on 24 May 1981.  With horses and equipment loaded onto trailers [the applicant] departed with his unit for a rodeo in East Texas in support of Army Recruiters.  As the trailer attempted to turn out of the barn area the shoulder of the road gave way and the tires went down in a muddy ditch, tipping the trailer over and knocking the horses off their feet.  The horses began to thrash in the trailer and it began to shake violently.  [The applicant] climbed into the trailer, talking to his Soldiers and horses to calm everyone.  He quickly outlined a plan to get the horses and men out alive, directing the veterinarian to administer sedatives to several of the thrashing horses and they calmed down.  At great personal risk, [the applicant] climbed to the rear of the trailer and freed a horse and helped get the horse back on its feet.  Throughout the ordeal, [the applicant's] command presence and calm demeanor kept everyone in the operation calm, focused and working together."

3.  Further review of the 2003 case revealed that paragraph 3 of the DISCUSSION contained a confusing and inaccurate statement regarding the applicant's actions to save the lives of his men and horses.

4.  Review of the Board's Record of Proceedings, dated 30 August 2005, regarding only the issue of the Soldier's Medal, shows that the confusing statements in the previous case were acknowledged.  It further pointed out that the Army Decorations Board considered the recommendation for award of the Soldier's Medal and concluded that the degree of action and service rendered did not meet the strict award criteria, recommending instead an award of the Army Commendation Medal.  In this Board's DISCUSSION, the Board apologized for the confusion caused by the earlier Board, but found that the award of the Army Commendation Medal in lieu of the Soldier's Medal was an appropriate conclusion.

5.  Review of the applicant's third request concerning the award of the Soldier's Medal, dated 27 June 2007, shows that it was administratively closed by letter in accordance with the Board's policy concerning reconsiderations.

6.  Army Regulation 600-8-22, provides in pertinent part, that the Soldier's Medal is awarded for distinguished heroism not involving conflict with the enemy.  The same degree of heroism is required as for the award of the Distinguished Flying Cross.  The action must have involved personal danger or hazard and the voluntary risk of life.  Awards are not to be based solely upon the saving of a life. As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required.  

7.  Army Regulation 600-8-22, provides, in pertinent part, that the Distinguished Flying Cross is awarded to a person who distinguished himself/herself by a voluntary act of heroism or extraordinary achievement above and beyond the call of duty.  This regulation defines "Above and beyond the call of duty" as the exercise of a voluntary course of action the omission of which would not justly subject the individual to censure for failure in the performance of duty.  It usually includes the acceptance of existing danger or extraordinary responsibilities with praiseworthy fortitude and exemplary courage.  In its highest degrees it involves the voluntary acceptance of additional danger and risk of life.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence shows that the Army Decorations Board considered the recommendation for award of the Soldier's Medal and concluded that the degree of action and service rendered did not meet the strict award criteria.   Therefore, it approved instead an award of the Army Commendation Medal.

2.  The citation for award of the Army Commendation Medal clearly details the applicant's action of entering the trailer at great personal risk to get his men and horses out safely.  Therefore, the applicant's contention that his voluntary risk of life was not considered is not substantiated by the evidence.

3.  The applicant has not provided any substantiating evidence that has not already been considered by the Army Decorations Board and by this Board.

4.  The available evidence does not clearly show that the applicant's risk of life was truly voluntary, or that it was so extraordinary as to be above and beyond the call of duty.  The applicant was "in charge" of the operation.  As such, he was required to "do something" to correct the situation.  

5.  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 the aforementioned requirement.

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__QAS__  __WDP__  __RML __  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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20040009549, dated 30 August 2005; or in Docket Number AR2003084242, dated 31 July 2003.




__     William D. Powers __
          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.