IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	        04 SEPTEMBER 2008

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080005643 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests that his award of the Army Achievement Medal (AAM) dated 15 May 1991 be upgraded to an Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was recommended for award of the ARCOM for a period of service in which he was serving in a combat zone during Operation Desert Shield/Storm.  He goes on to state that he was reassigned by his unit and his commander downgraded the award from an ARCOM to an AAM for no reason.  He also states that he was not in the same unit after his return to the Continental United States.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his award of the AAM, a copy of a request for orders attaching the applicant to another unit for duty effective 26 March 1991, a copy of a Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report ending January 1991, and one page from his Personnel Qualification Record (DA Form 2-1).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant initially enlisted in the Florida Army National Guard (FLARNG) on 5 October 1972.  He completed his initial active duty for training as a finance specialist on 23 March 1973 and was honorably released from active duty and returned to his FLARNG unit. 

3.  On 13 April 1973, he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years and assignment to Fort Benning, Georgia.  He remained on active duty through a series of continuous reenlistments and was promoted to the pay grade of E-7 on 1 June 1983.

4. On 14 September 1990, while stationed at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, the applicant deployed to Southwest Asia (SWA) in support of Operation Desert Shield/Storm. On 26 March 1991, his battalion commander requested attachment orders that attached the applicant to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, XVIII Airborne Corps, to support that unit’s contracting office.

5.  Meanwhile, on 23 March 1991, officials at the XVIII Airborne Corps Acquisition Section submitted a recommendation for award of the ARCOM to the applicant for the period of 17 January to 20 March 1991.  The recommendation (DA Form 638) clearly showed the applicant’s unit as being the 101st Finance Support Group (FSG).

6.  On 9 May 1991, the battalion commander of the 101st Finance Support Group downgraded the recommendation to award of the AAM.  The applicant departed SWA on 14 April 1991 and returned to his unit at Fort Campbell. The AAM was awarded on 15 May 1991.

7.  On 31 October 1992, the applicant was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD) at Fort Benning and was placed on the Retired List effective 1 November 1992.  He had served 20 years, 2 months and 26 days of total active service.  He was still assigned to the 101st FSG at the time of his REFRAD.

8.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides Department of the Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning individual military decorations.  It provides, in pertinent part, that 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.  Awards for meritorious achievement or service will not be based upon the grade of the intended recipient.  Rather, the award should reflect both the individual’s level of responsibility and his or her manner of performance.  The degree to which an individual’s achievement or service enhanced the readiness or effectiveness of his or her organization will be the predominant factor.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  While it is noted that the applicant was recommended for award of the ARCOM by officials at the unit to which he was attached, the applicant was still assigned to the 101st FSG and as such, the commander of that unit still had the authority to approve or disapprove awards for all members assigned to his unit.

2.  Although the applicant may believe that he was deserving of the award of the ARCOM for the period of 17 January to 20 March 1991, the ultimate decision as to what award was appropriate for his service rested with the battalion commander (awards approval authority) of the unit to which the applicant was assigned.

3.  The applicant’s contention that the commander downgraded the award for no reason has been noted; however, the applicable regulation does not require a commander to justify his or her reasons for downgrading or upgrading an award for a member under his or her command.

4.  It is also recognized that commanders are entrusted to maintain the integrity and consistency of the awards program within their command to ensure that individuals are properly recognized with the awards that are appropriate for their service and/or achievements and it would be inappropriate to second-guess the judgment of the commander on-the-ground 17 years after the fact.

5.  Therefore, without sufficient evidence to show that the commander’s judgment at the time was flawed, there appears to be no basis to grant the applicant’s request for an upgrade of that award.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__XXX __  __XXX__  __XXX__   DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  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.

2.  The Board wants the applicant and all others concerned to know that this action in no way diminishes the sacrifices made by the applicant in service to the United States during the Global War on Terrorism.  The applicant and all Americans should be justifiably proud of his service in arms.



      ___        XXX                ___
                CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080005643



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080005643



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1