RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        21 August 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070009486


      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. Deyon D. Battle               |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Conrad V. Meyer               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Dale E. DeBruler              |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Ernestine R. Moya             |     |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 removal of an Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM)
from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).

2.  The applicant states that in early January 2006, he forwarded
electronic mail (email) to the Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center
(EREC) requesting to have the ARCOM dated 7 November 2005, removed from his
OMPF.  He states that he was recommended for the ARCOM in question;
however, the recommendation was revoked and he was later recommended for
the Bronze Star Medal (BSM) for the same period of service.  He states that
he never received the orders revoking the ARCOM.  He states, in effect,
that he has made several attempts to have this matter resolved through his
chain of command, EREC and personnel services battalion and that his
attempts have been unsuccessful.  He states that he was told to submit an
Application for Correction of Military Records and, in effect, that his
application was never considered by the Board.  He states that after he
spoke with someone in the staff of the Board, he was told to resubmit his
application, along with the response that he received, and it should be
enough to have the matter resolved.  He states that he again spoke with
official at EREC and was informed that the only people who could resolve
this matter were the Army Board for Correction of Military Records because
his request involves two separate awards and two different order numbers.

3.  The applicant provides in support of his application, a copy of the
Permanent Order Number 311-11 awarding him the ARCOM and a copy of the
Permanent Orders Number 337-148 orders awarding him the BSM.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  After completing, 12 years, 8 months and 16 days of total active
service, the applicant reenlisted in the Army for an indefinite period of
service on 25 February 2000, in the pay grade of E-6.

2.  The available records show that on 1 August 2005, the Commander,
550th Area Support Medical Company, Camp Taji, Iraq, submitted a
recommendation for award of the BSM to the applicant for the period
covering 18 January 2005 to 18 January 2006.  The applicant's company
commander




recommended approval of the recommendation on 10 September 2005.  His
battalion commander downgraded the recommendation for award of the BSM to
an ARCOM on 1 October 2005 and his brigade commander concurred with the
battalion commander and recommended that the recommendation for award of
the BSM be downgraded to an ARCOM.

3.  On 7 November 2005, the approval authority approved the recommendation
and he directed the issuance of the ARCOM (Fourth Oak Leaf Cluster).
Accordingly, on 7 November 2005 in Permanent Order Number 311-11 was
published awarding the applicant the ARCOM (Fourth Oak Leaf Cluster) for
exceptionally meritorious service while serving as a platoon sergeant
during Operation Iraqi Freedom III.

4.  On 3 December 2005, Permanent Orders Number 337-148 was published
awarding the applicant the BSM for heroism, meritorious achievement or
service in ground combat, for the period covering 18 January 2005 to 18
January 2006.  The citation to orders indicates that he was awarded the BSM
for exceptionally meritorious service during Operation Iraqi Freedom III.

5.  A review of the available records fails to show that the order awarding
him the ARCOM (Fourth Oak Leaf Cluster) was ever revoked or included in his
OMPF.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  It appears that the applicant's request for removal of the ARCOM dated
7 November 2005 from his OMPF is one for which no effective relief can be
granted by the Board.

2.  The applicant's contentions and the documents that he submitted in
behalf of his application have been noted.  However, a review of the
applicant's OMPF fails to show that the order or citation awarding him the
ARCOM (Forth Oak Leaf Cluster) were ever voided or included therein.

3.  The available records indicate that the applicant's company commander
recommended him for award of the BSM for the period covering 18 January
2005 to 18 January 2006.  His battalion commander recommended a downgrade
of the award to the ARCOM (Fourth Oak Leaf Cluster) and his brigade
commander concurred with the battalion commander.  According, to the
available records, the approval authority approved the recommendation for
the ARCOM (Fourth Oak Leaf Cluster) and the citation and orders awarding
him this decoration should have been included in his OMPF.

4.  However, Permanent Orders Number 337-148 dated 3 December 2005 were
published awarding him the BSM for heroism, meritorious achievement, or
service in ground combat, for the period covering 18 January 2005 to 18
January 2006, in.  These orders and the citation are currently included in
his OMPF.

5.  The applicant's contention that he has made attempts to resolve this
issue through his chain of command, EREC and his local personnel services
battalion has also been noted.  Nonetheless, he has failed to provide
documentation to support his contention and as previously stated, the ARCOM
(Fourth Oak Leaf Cluster) is not currently filed in his OMPF.

6.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show 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.

7.  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

__CVM__  __DED__  __ERM__  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.





                                  ____Conrad V. Meyer___
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20070009486                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20070821                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  46   |107.0000/AWARDS & DECORATIONS           |
|2.  66                  |107.0020/ARCOM                          |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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