IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  3 February 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080017989 


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 Army Commendation Medal he received as an end of tour award for his service in Iraq be upgraded to a Bronze Star Medal.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that in his opinion, his company commander used the Army Awards Program as a way to punish him for contacting his battalion commander to discuss his issues and concerns regarding his commander's unethical and unprofessional conduct during their service in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.  As a result of his commander's abuse of the Army Awards Program, he requests that his end of tour award be upgraded from an Army Commendation Medal to a Bronze Star Medal for his service in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom from April 2005-May 2006.  His company commander initially submitted him for an Army Achievement Medal for his end of tour award and his battalion commander upgraded that award to an Army Commendation Medal.  He was the only officer in his unit, Company A, 422d Civil Affairs Battalion, to not receive the Bronze Star Medal.  Numerous noncommissioned officers and enlisted Soldiers also received the Bronze Star Medal.  Over the past three years, he has attempted to use his wartime chain of command, the US Army Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command Inspector General, his peacetime chain of command, the Department of Defense Inspector General and a Member of Congress to resolve this injustice but these entities were either unwilling or unable to help him. Therefore, he is hopeful that the Army Review Board can resolve this injustice.


3.  The applicant continues that when he initially received information that his commander had submitted him for an Army Commendation Medal for his end of tour award in January 2006, he immediately initiated an e-mail to him asking why he was the only officer in their company being submitted for an Army Commendation Medal while the rest of the officers were submitted for Bronze Star Medals?

4.  On 15 February 2006, his commander responded to his inquiry in an e-mail by stating, in effect, he was put in for an Army Commendation Medal and not a Bronze Star Medal, since he was already put in for the Bronze Star Medal which he said was coming for his actions on Thanksgiving Day.  So, that incident and award had to be excluded for the remaining of the time spent there.  If he wanted two Bronze Star Medals instead of just one for his tour, that could possibly take one he could nominate from a deserving noncommissioned officer and he would not do it.

5.  The applicant states, in effect, he received a Purple Heart for his injuries received on 24 November 2005 but never received a Bronze Star Medal for valor.  In early April 2006, he received an Army Achievement Medal from his battalion commander for his actions on 24 November 2005; therefore, by not receiving the Bronze Star Medal for valor for the vehicle borne improvised explosive device incident, in his opinion, his commander's reason for not submitting him for an end of tour Bronze Star Medal was no longer valid.

6.  The applicant further expands upon his reasons for his request to re-evaluate his end of tour award in an addendum annotated, "Attachment 1."

7.  In support of his request, the applicant submitted those documents identified as attachments 1 through 11 ["Attachment 1: 2006 Memorandum for Record - Attachment 2: US Army Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command Inspector General Letter - Attachment 3: DA Form 638 (Award Recommendation) Army Achievement Medal (VBIED(Vehicle-borne improvised explosive device) - Attachment 4: DA 638 Army Commendation Medal (End of Tour) - Attachment 5: DA 638 Initial Bronze Star Medal for Valor for VBIED - Attachment 6: 2006 Request for Assistance (E-mail) - Attachment 7: Department of Defense Inspector General response to a Member of Congress - Attachment 8:  The Member of Congress' Summary - Attachment 9: Operation Iraqi Freedom DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) - Attachment 10: Operation Iraqi Freedom officer evaluation report Initial Issues and Concerns - Attachment 11: DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report) Operation Iraqi Freedom officer evaluation report [listed on his electronic application to the Board.]


CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was ordered to active duty in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom on 18 April 2005.  He served in Iraq from 28 May 2005 through 10 May 2006.  He was honorably released from active duty in the rank of captain on 18 June 2006 and returned to an Army Reserve unit in Greensboro, North Carolina.  On the date of his release from active duty, the applicant had completed 1 year, 2 months, and 1 day net active service during the period of his mobilization.

2.  Item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) of the applicant's DD Form 214 shows he was awarded the Purple Heart // Army Commendation Medal // Army Achievement Medal (2nd Award) // Army Good Conduct Medal // Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal (3rd Award) // Iraq Campaign Medal // National Defense Service Medal (2nd Award) // Global War on Terrorism Service Medal // Armed Forces Reserve Medal // Army Service Ribbon // Overseas Service Ribbon // Army Reserve Components Overseas Training Ribbon // Armed Forces Reserve Medal with "M" Device // Multinational Force and Observers Medal // Combat Infantryman Badge // Air Assault Badge // and the Drill Sergeant Identification Badge.  The Bronze Star Medal is not shown among his authorized awards.

3.  A DA Form 638, dated 4 February "2005" (sic, 4 February 2006), the applicant submitted in support of his request shows he was recommended for award of the Army Commendation Medal for service for the period 10 June 2005 to 15 May 2006.  The recommendation was submitted by the acting unit first sergeant.  The recommendation was endorsed by the battalion commander on 1 March 2006 and by the brigade commander on 2 March 2006.  The application was approved and he was awarded the Army Commendation Medal by Permanent Orders 061-31, dated 7 March 2006.

4.  The applicant submitted a copy of an incomplete DA Form 638, dated 30 November 2005.  This DA Form 638, it appears, was prepared with the intent of awarding the applicant the Bronze Star Medal, for valor, for action 
on 24 November 2005.  There is no indication the recommendation was submitted through channels for approval or disapproval action or that it was approved, downgraded, or disapproved.  The name and title of the recommending official is that of the unit executive officer, a major.

5.  A DA Form 638, dated 17 March 2006, shows the applicant was recommended for award of the Army Achievement Medal for achievement for the period 24 November 2005 to 24 November 2005.  The recommendation was submitted by the unit first sergeant.  A recommendation for the approval of the award was made by the unit commander and the battalion commander approved the recommendation.  The applicant was awarded the Army Achievement Medal by Permanent Orders 448-12, dated 30 March 2006.

6.  On 22 May 2006, the applicant received a letter in response to his visit to the inspector general's office concerning his award.  In the response, the inspector general informed him a thorough inquiry into the issue had been conducted and it had been determined that the Commander, United States Army Special Operations Command, had the approval authority for retroactive awards of the Bronze Star Medal.  He was advised the process was through his chain of command and in accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-22.  The applicant was further advised about what should be included in a future submission for an award and provided him with recommendations to, in effect, strengthen a future recommendation.

7.  The applicant submits a copy of an e-Mail message to individuals in his wartime chain of command.  In this message, he asks for their assistance in having orders for award of the Army Commendation Medal and the Army Achievement Medal revoked so that a recommendation could be submitted in his behalf for award of the Bronze Star Medal as his end of tour award by his peacetime chain of command.

8.  In this same message, the applicant gives, in some detail, those actions that transpired which he believed resulted in his having received the Army Achievement Medal instead of the Bronze Star Medal for valor for actions in a Thanksgiving bombing and an Army Commendation Medal as his end of tour award.  In this same message, the applicant advises former members of his chain of command what actions he has taken up to that point and that his intention was to combine both actions into one recommendation for award of the Bronze Star Medal.

9.  On 6 September 2007 the Department of Defense Inspector General advised the applicant's Member of Congress of their findings regarding complaints the applicant had submitted to the Department of Defense hotline pertinent to allegations his commander had abused his authority through, in effect, use of the Army Awards Program.  The applicant's Member of Congress was advised of the determination arrived at by the Director, Military Reprisal Investigations, that the applicant's allegations did not meet the timely reporting requirements under 10 United States Code 1034 as implemented by Department of Defense Directive 7050.6, "Military Whistleblower Protection."  The applicant's Member of Congress was further advised of actions the applicant and his unit were advised they could pursue in their quest for a retroactive award of the Bronze Star Medal.  The Member of Congress was advised that further review of the matter at issue was not warranted.

10.  The applicant submitted a self-authored, undated, document titled, "Officer Evaluation Report (DA Form 67-9) Additional Comments" in which he expresses concerns he had about the officer evaluation system, his performance evaluation and actions he took to ensure that he received a fair evaluation.  In this same document, the applicant also includes comments regarding his commander's ethics - the negative manner in which he spoke about members of the command and how he continually portrayed the leadership of higher units as not taking care of the company while stressing he was the only one who cared for their well-being

11.  In paragraph 8 the applicant describes indicators that he had received he would be receiving a negative officer evaluation report for standing up to his commander for his troops and questioning his unethical leadership style.  One indicator, according to the applicant, was his having been submitted for an Army Achievement Medal as an end of tour award while all other officers in the unit were put in for a Bronze Star Medal, including the commander.

12.  As a result of his report to his chain of command about his concerns about receiving a fair evaluation report, the applicant's rater was changed.  The applicant 
submitted a copy of what he termed his "Operation Iraqi Freedom Officer Evaluation Report."  The applicant's performance was rated as "Satisfactory" by his rater and "Best Qualified" by his senior rater.  The senior rater indicated the applicant should be promoted to major ahead of his peers.

13.  Army Regulatioin 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning individual and unit military awards.  The goal of the total Army awards program is to foster mission accomplishment by recognizing excellence of both military and civilian members of the force and motivating them to high levels of performance and service.  This same regulation states, in effect, 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.  Additionally, the regulation states that no individual is automatically entitled to an award upon departure from an assignment.  Awards presented in conjunction with a permanent change of station will be limited to exceptional cases.  The regulation also provides that certificates of achievement and letters of commendation or appreciation are appropriate means to recognize departing personnel.

14.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, that the Bronze Star Medal is awarded in time of war for heroism and for meritorious achievement or service.  As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required.

15.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides that the Army Commendation Medal may be 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, distinguished himself or herself by heroism, meritorious achievement or meritorious service.  As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required.

16. Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides in paragraph 3-1.c. 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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  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.

2.  The Board considered the applicant's request to upgrade award of the Army Commendation Medal to the Bronze Star Medal.

3.  The evidence shows that a DA Form 638 was prepared on 30 November 2005 recommending the applicant for award of the Bronze Star Medal for Valor for his actions on 24 November 2005.  There is no indication the recommendation which was prepared by the unit's executive officer was submitted through channels for approval or disapproval action or that it was approved, downgraded, or disapproved.  The recommendation is void of any signatures.

4.  The evidence does show that the applicant was awarded the Army Achievement Medal for his actions on 24 November 2005.  This recommendation was submitted by the unit first sergeant.  The recommendation was approved and he was awarded the Army Achievement Medal by Permanent Orders 448-12, dated 30 March 2006.

5.  The applicant's allegation he was recommended for award of an Army Achievement Medal as his end of tour award cannot be substantiated by the evidence.  The evidence shows that the applicant was recommended for award of the Army Commendation Medal for service for the period 10 June 2005 to 15 May 2006.  The recommendation was submitted by the acting unit first sergeant.  The recommendation was endorsed by the battalion commander and by the brigade commander.  The application was approved and orders were promulgated announcing this award.  The applicant was awarded the Army Commendation Medal as an end of tour award.

6.  It is noted that both the battalion and the brigade commanders recommended to the award approval authority that the Army Commendation Medal, not the Bronze Star Medal, be awarded.  It appears that the applicant's unit commander, whose ethical conduct he had questioned, was not involved in the awards recommendation process for the applicant.  It further appears that both the battalion commander and the brigade commander felt that the Army Commendation Medal was appropriate as an end of tour award for the applicant.

7.  The applicant's allegation he was the only officer in his unit to not receive the Bronze Star Medal cannot be verified by the evidence available to the Board.

8.  The e-mail the applicant alleges to have sent to his commander in January 2006 inquiring why he was the only officer to be recommended for award of the Army Commendation Medal instead of the Bronze Star Medal as an end of tour award and the reply allegedly made by the commander in February 2006 were not made available to the Board by the applicant.

9.  The applicable regulation prescribes the Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning individual and unit military awards.  The goal of the total Army awards program is to foster mission accomplishment by recognizing excellence of both military and civilian members of the force and motivating them to high levels of performance and service.

10.  This same regulation states, in effect, 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.  The authority taking final action may award the decoration recommended, award a lesser decoration or disapprove award of any decoration.  No justification is required for any of the decisions made by the approval/disapproval authority.

11.  While the applicant may feel that he has been discriminated against and that he deserves a Bronze Star Medal as opposed to the Army Commendation Medal for his service in Iraq, this issue has been reviewed previously by such entities as the US Army Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command Inspector General, the applicant's peacetime chain of command, the Department of Defense Inspector General and a Member of Congress.  It appears that these reviews failed to find that abuses were made in the decision making process that determined which Soldier received what award for their Iraq service.  Those in key leadership positions over the applicant appear to have made a difficult subjective decision about the award the applicant deserved.  The applicant's submission, it is finally noted, contains mainly the applicant's perspective and critical and important information that may have impacted the decision to award him the Army Commendation Medal may not have been made available for the Board's review by him. Therefore, 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

___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)                                         AR20080017989





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080017989



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1