RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 12 February 2008
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070018753
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:
Ms. Kathleen A. Newman
Chairperson
Mr. Jose A. Martinez
Member
Ms. Susan A. Powers
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 correction of his military records to show that he was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal.
2. The applicant states that his Army Commendation Medal, awarded for the period from 1 September 2003 to 10 February 2005, should be changed to a Meritorious Service Medal. He further states, An award was submitted for a Meritorious Service Medal which was signed and approved by MG B. When I received the award back, I received an Army Commendation Medal. MG B clearly approved the award as submitted; however, when the G1 [personnel officer] cut the order it was cut as an Army Commendation Medal. I went to the G1 to inquire about their mistake and the response I received was that MG B made a mistake and accidentally checked the wrong block. However, on the award recommendation if MG B wanted to downgrade the award he would have written it out in block 26d instead of approving the award as submitted.
3. The applicant provides a copy of the DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award)
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. At the time of his application, the applicant was serving on active duty as a sergeant first class, pay grade E-7, in the United States Army Guard Reserve (AGR).
2. Further review of Army records shows another copy of the subject DA Form 638. This copy appears to be the same as the copy provided by the applicant except for the entries in Item 26d. This copy shows that the commanding general checked the approved block in Item 26d and entered the notation ARCOM after the words Downgrade To, indicating that he approved a downgrade of the recommendation, awarding the Army Commendation Medal.
3. The DA Form 638, as provided by the applicant, shows that his station commander recommended him for award of the Meritorious Service Medal for the period from 1 September 2003 to 10 February 2005. The chain of command recommended approval. On 30 September 2005, the commanding general checked the approved block in Item 26d and signed the form. On
30 September 2005, the G1 published orders awarding the applicant the Army Commendation Medal-2nd Oak Leaf Cluster.
4. 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 evidence of record clearly shows that it was the commanding generals intent to downgrade the award recommendation to an Army Commendation Medal.
2. The evidence provided by the applicant is not sufficiently convincing to substantiate that an error was made regarding the award of this medal.
3. In view of the above, the applicants request should be denied.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__SAP__ __JAM___ __KAN__ 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.
_ Kathleen A. Newman ___
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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084708C070212
d. Based on the foregoing, the Chief of the Military Awards Branch recommended that the applicant's request should be denied, that he should receive the Army Commendation Medal (First Oak Leaf Cluster) approved by the Commanding General of the 5th Signal Command on 9 May 2002, and that the applicant's servicing personnel center should correct his official records to show this award. COL R, as the Chief of Staff and Headquarters Commandant of the 5th Signal Command at that time, indicated in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130004298
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 16 April 2013 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130004298 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant's request is based on the argument that the award approval authority's action to downgrade her award to an MSM was improper and illegal; however, it appears it was within the discretionary authority of the award approval authority to award the applicant the MSM in lieu of the BSM based on the current regulatory policy governing these awards. The evidence...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067395C070402
Evidence of record shows the award recommendation was initiated on 12 November 1998 and the award approval authority acted on 16 April 1999. Evidence of record also shows that the two intermediate authorities concurred with his recommendation for the Meritorious Service Medal and one intermediate authority recommended that the award be downgraded to the Army Commendation. This Board considered all information submitted and all available evidence of record in this case and found no...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140000682
The initial/original DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award) recommending award of the Bronze Star Medal, submitted on his behalf, was not submitted by COL PJR (Director of CTC-A), to the appropriate approval authority IAW Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards). HRC further stated, based upon the provided DA Forms 638, HRC officials note that on 19 March 2012 a request for reconsideration for the Bronze Star Medal was submitted through military channels and disapproved on 11 April 2012,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060000441C070205
Evidence of record shows the applicant was recommended and approved for the award of the ARCOM. However, the orders approval authority approved the award of the AAM and issued an AAM certificate in October 2002 instead of the ARCOM. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected as follows: a. by deleting DA Form 638, dated 25 October 2002; b. by deleting Permanent Orders Number 340-02, dated 6 December 2005; and c. by...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000566C070206
The DA Form 4980-14 provided by the applicant shows that he was awarded the Army Commendation Medal for the period 20 March 2003 to 30 April 2003 for "exceptionally meritorious service." The applicant contends that the Army Commendation Medal is not appropriate for his actions and service and that since he was recommended for award of the Bronze Star Medal his records should be corrected to show that award. However, the DA Form 638 shows that the chain of command recommended award of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004105768C070208
The applicant's military record shows that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 26 July 1990. The available evidence shows that, on 10 February 1997, the applicant was recommended for award of the MSM for the period of service from 22 July 1994 to 1 June 1997. The applicant's DD Form 214, issued on 16 April 1998 shows award of both the MSM and the ARCOM for the same period of service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130000559
On 22 September 2004, the applicant's company commander (CO) submitted a DA Form 638 to the battalion commander recommending the applicant for award of the Army Commendation Medal with V Device for his actions on 18 September 2004. Army Regulation 600-8-22, table 3-2 (Steps for preparing and processing awards using the DA Form 638) states, in part: a. The evidence of record does not show and the applicant has not provided any evidence that shows the appropriate approving authority did...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140004510
The applicant requests, in effect, that an Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) Certificate, dated 20 July 2012, and Permanent Orders (PO) 277-10, dated 3 October 2012, be removed from his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR). His AMHRR contains the contested ARCOM Certificate, which shows he received the award for the period 19 August 2009 through 27 July 2012 while he was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company (HHC), 1st Battalion, 502nd Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130005418
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 5 November 2013 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130005418 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests correction of his records to show he was awarded the Army Commendation Medal with "V" Device. Taken together the DD Form 214 and 215 show the applicant's authorized awards as the Army Commendation Medal with one bronze oak leaf cluster, Army Achievement Medal, Iraq Campaign Medal with two bronze service stars, Combat Infantryman Badge, National...