IN THE CASE OF:	

		BOARD DATE:	      2 April 2009  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080016519 


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 correction of his military records to show award of the Army Commendation Medal.

2.  The applicant states that when he was discharged from the 1st Armored Division, he was presented with a certificate for award of the Army Commendation Medal. 

3.  The applicant provides, in support of his application, an unsigned copy of a DD Form 638 (Recommendation for Award) with citation.

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.  On 31 January 1966, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  He completed his initial training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 71H (Personnel Specialist).  He was subsequently assigned for duty with the 19th Field Artillery Regiment, located at Fort Hood, Texas.

3.  On 5 March 1967, the applicant was assigned as an officer candidate for training as a field artillery officer at Fort Sill, Oklahoma.   

4.  On 14 August 1967, the applicant was discharged for the purpose of accepting a commission as a field artillery officer.  His DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge), effective 14 August 1967, is not available for review.  

5.  Item 41 (Awards and Decorations) of the applicant's DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows that he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, Good Conduct Medal, and the Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar.

6.  On 15 August 1967, the applicant was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR), Field Artillery Corps.  He was subsequently returned to Fort Hood for duty with the 19th Field Artillery Regiment. 

7.  On 14 August 1969, the applicant was released from active duty and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group (Reinforcement) to complete his remaining Reserve obligation.  He had attained the rank of first lieutenant and had completed a total of 3 years, 6 months, and 14 days of creditable active duty service.

8.  Item 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) of the applicant's DD Form 214, effective 14 August 1969, shows "None."

9.  The applicant has provided a copy of a DA Form 638, dated 31 July 1969.  It indicates that he was recommended for award of the Army Commendation Medal for the period from 1 September 1967 to 4 August 1969.  It also indicates that he had not been previously recommended for this award or that he had received any other awards.  The citation shows that the award was to be for meritorious service as a forward observer, and later as a battalion adjutant.  A proposed citation is attached as an enclosure.  The form does not contain any authenticating signatures.   There is no available evidence showing that this recommendation was approved by the appropriate authority. 


10.  Review of the Awards and Decorations Computer Assisted Retrieval System (ADCARS), an index of general orders issued during the Vietnam era between 1965 and 1973 maintained by the Military Awards Branch of the United States Army Human Resources Command, failed to reveal any orders awarding the applicant the Army Commendation Medal.

11.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides, in pertinent part, that award of any personal decoration requires a formal recommendation, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders.  Recommendations must be made within 2 years of the event or period of service and the award must be made within 3 years.  

12.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1130 provides the legal authority for consideration of proposals for decorations not previously submitted in timely fashion.  It allows, in effect, that upon the request of a Member of Congress, the Secretary concerned shall review a proposal for the award or presentation of a decoration (or the upgrading of a decoration), either for an individual or a unit, that is not otherwise authorized to be presented or awarded due to limitations established by law or policy for timely submission of a recommendation for such award or presentation.  Based upon such review, the Secretary shall make a determination as to the merits of approving the award or presentation of the decoration.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that he was awarded the Army Commendation Medal and that it should be made a matter of his military records is noted.  However, there is no evidence in the available records that shows he was awarded the Army Commendation Medal by the appropriate approving authority. 

2.  Although the applicant provided a copy of a DA Form 638 recommending him for award of the Army Commendation Medal with the proposed citation, there is no signature by the recommending official and no record of the final disposition of the recommendation.  As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders (emphasis added) are required for award of the Army Commendation Medal.  Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to grant the applicant the requested relief.

3.  While the available evidence is insufficient for awarding the applicant the Army Commendation Medal, this in no way affects the applicant’s right to pursue his claim for the Army Commendation Medal by submitting a request through his Member of Congress under the provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1130.

4.  In view of the above, the applicant's request should be denied.

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)                                         AR20080016519



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080016519



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1