IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  30 December 2008

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080015403 


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, in effect, that the Commendation Ribbon with Metal Pendant, which is now known as the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM), he was awarded be changed to a Bronze Star Medal (BSM).   

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he received the ARCOM for meritorious achievement based on a combat patrol he organized and led into enemy territory while serving in Korea on 15 February 1953.  He claims the governing awards regulation in effect at the time did not authorize the award of the ARCOM for meritorious achievement in combat, and that instead the BSM was the authorized award for meritorious achievement in a combat environment.  As a result, he believes it would be appropriate to correct his record to show that he was awarded the BSM for his meritorious achievement in combat on 15 February 1953, instead of the ARCOM he now holds. 

3.  The applicant provides three self-authored letters to the Board:  a letter, dated 7 August 2008, addressed to a Member of Congress; a letter, dated 3 July 2008, addressed to the Military Awards Branch; and a letter, dated 7 December 2006, addressed to St. Louis, Missouri.  He also provides a letter that he received from the Military Awards Branch, dated 3 June 2008; and ARCOM orders, dated 
11 May 1953, in support of his application.  


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's record shows he was commissioned a second lieutenant (2LT) in the United States Army Reserve (USAR) on 28 July 1951 and entered active duty in that status on 24 September 1951.  

3.  The applicant's record shows he served in Korea from 7 August 1952 through 24 August 1953.  The record shows that during his tour in Korea, he was assigned to Company F, 7th Cavalry Regiment, and he performed duties in military occupational specialty (MOS) 1542 (Infantry Platoon Leader).  

4.  The applicant's record contains a record of award (AGO Form 07080), which confirms he was awarded the ARCOM for meritorious service in Korea from 15 to 16 February 1953.  The accompanying award citation states the applicant received the award for meritorious achievement which consisted of his organizing and executing an ambush patrol in enemy territory.  The citation indicates there was no contact with the enemy during the patrol.  

5.  On 12 September 1953, the applicant was honorably released from active duty, in the rank of first lieutenant (1LT), after completing 1 year, 11 months, and 19 days of active military service.  The separation document (DD Form 214) he was issued at the time shows he earned the following awards:  Korean Service Medal with 3 bronze service stars; United Nations Service Medal; "CR/MP"; and Purple Heart.  

6.  The applicant provides a letter from the Chief, Military Awards Branch, United States Army Human Resources Command (HRC), dated 3 June 2008, which responded to a letter written by a retired lieutenant general (LTG), on behalf of the applicant, to the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, in which it was requested the applicant's ARCOM be changed to a BSM.  
7.  The HRC awards official stated that as the applicant had been advised previously, his request could not be provided to the Army Decorations Board for consideration because the applicant had failed to provide new, substantive, and material information concerning why the award should be changed.  The applicant was advised that he could apply to this Board if he believed that decision was unfair or unjust.  

8.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) contains the Army's awards policy.  Paragraph 3-17 contains guidance on the ARCOM.  It states that the ARCOM was established by War Department Circular 377, 18 December 1945 (amended in DA General Orders 10, 31 March 1960).  Paragraph 3-17 further states, in pertinent part, that the ARCOM is awarded to any member of the Armed Forces of the United States who, while serving in any capacity with the Army after 6 December 1941, distinguishes himself or herself by heroism, meritorious achievement or meritorious service.  Awards of the ARCOM may be made for acts of valor performed under circumstances described above which are of lesser degree than required for award of the BSM.  Awards of the Army Commendation Ribbon and of the Commendation Ribbon with Metal Pendant were designated by Department of the Army (DA) General Orders 10, 31 March 1960, as awards of the ARCOM, without amendment of orders previously issued. Table 3-4 stipulates, in pertinent part, that the ARCOM is awarded for combat or noncombat achievement or service and is awarded in both War and Peace.  

9.  Army Regulation 600-45 (Decorations) contained the Army's awards policy at the time the applicant served.  Paragraph 17.1 contained guidance on the Commendation Ribbon and stated, in pertinent part, that it was awarded to members of the Armed Forces who distinguished themselves through meritorious service or meritorious achievement on or after 7 December 1941.  It further stated that the Commendation Ribbon would be awarded when the operational requirements for the BSM are not fully met.  It further stated, in pertinent part, that it was particularly desired that the Commendation Ribbon be awarded to outstanding company grade officers, warrant officers, and enlisted men.  The regulation did not prohibit the award of the Commendation Ribbon during war or for service or achievement in combat.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that he should have been awarded the BSM instead of the ARCOM for his achievement in Korea in February 1953 was carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence to support this claim.  


2.  By regulation, the ARCOM may be awarded during both war and peace, and for combat and noncombat actions.  The governing awards regulation at the time of the applicant's service did not prohibit award of the ARCOM for achievement or service in combat and given the citation for his award confirms there was no contact with enemy forces during the patrol in question, it must be presumed the award approval authority at the time determined the operational requirements necessary to support award of the BSM had not been met and that the ARCOM was the appropriate award to recognize the applicant's achievements for planning and executing this patrol.  As a result, absent any additional compelling evidence that the decision to award the ARCOM was in error or unjust, or that would clearly support award of the BSM, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting the requested relief.  

3.  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 this requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___x____  ___x____  ___x____  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.




      _______ _x   _______   ___
               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)                                         AR20080015403



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080015403



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1