BOARD DATE:	  30 July 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080018428 


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 reconsideration of the Board’s 21 October 2008 decision to deny his request to correct his records to show award of three Army Commendation Medals (Army Commendation Medal with second Oak Leaf Cluster), a second Army Good Conduct Medal, and qualification as an expert with the pistol, machinegun, and hand grenade.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his awards of the Army Commendation Medals were awarded by competent authority.  He notes his last award of the Army Commendation Medal resulted from the downgrade of a recommendation for award of the Meritorious Service Medal.  

3.  The applicant states that while his bar to reenlistment was recommended for removal and subsequently denied, he did in fact work very hard for the award and maintains he deserves it.

4.  The applicant states he has no documentation to prove he qualified as an expert on the various weapons but can only say that he had to qualify for firing when payroll had to be delivered to troops in the field.

5.  The applicant provides multiple documents which were in his possession regarding his military career.  The documents include various training certificates, evaluation reports, copies of his award orders, documents associated with his Department of the Army bar to reenlistment, and evidence that his final Army Commendation Medal was originally recommended as a Meritorious Service Medal.  Most of the documents were already in his Official Military Personnel File and previously seen by the Board.  However, the documents associated with the Meritorious Service Medal recommendation was not.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20080009457, dated 21 October 2008.

2.  Documents associated with the applicant’s final award of the Army Commendation, which was originally recommended as a Meritorious Service Medal, is new evidence which was not previously considered by the Board.  

3.  The applicant initially enlisted in the Regular Army on 31 October 1962 and was honorable released from active duty on 19 March 1967.  He again enlisted on 28 May 1975 and was honorably discharged on 26 May 1978.

4.  Records available to the Board indicate the following concerning the applicant’s awards of the Army Commendation Medal:

	a.  On 15 March 1967, Headquarters, US Army Headquarters Area Command (Vietnam) published General Orders Number 23, awarding the applicant the Army Commendation Medal for meritorious service during the period March 1966 to March 1967.  

	b.  On 29 October 1976, Headquarters, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg published Permanent Orders Number 59-3, awarding the applicant an Army Commendation Medal (first Oak Leaf Cluster) for meritorious service during the period 14 March 1974 to 17 November 1976.  The award recognized his performance of duty as an Aviation Maintenance Technician where he earned the respect and admiration of all members of the “Golden Knights.”  The award certificate was not issued until 17 November 1976 which was several weeks after the award orders were published but coinciding with the end date of the award period.

	c.  On 26 January 1977 the applicant was recommended for an “impact” Army Commendation Medal for the period 2 August 1976 to 12 January 1977 in recognition of his duties as the “Battalion’s Pay Documents and Finance Section….”  On 9 February 1977 the Army Commendation Medal certificate was issued.  On 11 March 1977 Headquarters, United States Army Field Artillery Center and Fort Sill published Permanent Orders 40-6, confirming the award but incorrectly identified the award as his first Oak Leaf Cluster, when it would have been the applicant’s third award (second Oak Leaf Cluster) of the Army Commendation Medal.  The award was in recognition of the applicant’s meritorious service.

	d.  On 18 May 1978 an unsigned memorandum notified the applicant’s commander at Fort Sill that a recommendation for award of the Meritorious Service Medal for the applicant had been downgraded to an Army Commendation Medal as determined by a “board of senior officers at this headquarters” to be appropriate recognition.  The resulting Army Commendation Medal recognizing the applicant’s meritorious service during the period 8 August 1975 to 26 May 1978 was announced on 22 May 1978 in Permanent Orders 
82-17 published by Headquarters, United States Army Field Artillery Center and Fort Sill.  The award certificate, signed on 18 May 1978, recognized the applicant’s outstanding service at Fort Sill while “serving in a multitude of positions” with the 18th Field Artillery at Fort Sill.  The award specifically cited the applicant’s “meticulous organization and technical expertise” which “enabled him to fashion, organize and maintain a Finance/Pay Complaint Section and Leave Control formally cited as the best at Fort Sill.” 

5.  Item 35 (record of assignments) on the applicant’s DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record – Part II) indicates the applicant was assigned to Fort Sill, Oklahoma between August 1975, following completion of advanced individual training, and May 1978 when he was discharged at the completion of his enlistment contract.  His 1978 DD Form 214 reflects award of two Army Commendation Medals (Army Commendation Medal w/1st Oak Leaf Cluster).

6.  As noted in the Board’s previous review, a bar to reenlistment was imposed against the applicant in February 1977.  On 20 January 1978 the applicant requested that the bar to reenlistment be lifted.  While members of his chain of command supported removal of the bar, ultimately, the Commander, United States Army Enlistment Eligibility Activity, in St. Louis, Missouri informed the applicant’s chain of command that the applicant’s request was not considered sufficiently meritorious to warrant favorable consideration and his request was denied.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Upon further review of the applicant’s Official Military Personnel File and the documentation provided by him in support of his request for additional awards of the Army Commendation Medal, it is noted that the applicant was awarded a total of four Army Commendation Medals.  While some of the dates of the awards overlap a further reading of the award certificates clearly show that in spite of the overlap of award periods specific and unique accomplishments served as the basis for each of the awards.

2.  The applicant’s fourth and final award of the Army Commendation Medal was initially recommended as a Meritorious Service Medal and was intended to recognize the applicant’s entire period of service at Fort Sill.  The fact that it was downgraded to an Army Commendation Medal does not negate the original intention of the award.

3.  As such, in view of the fact that each of the Army Commendation Medals recognizes specific accomplishments of the applicant, it would be appropriate and in the interest of equity and justice to correct his records to show award of four Army Commendation Medals (Army Commendation Medal w/third Oak Leaf Cluster) and thereby acknowledging the applicant’s contributions as was likely intended by members of his chain of command.

4.  Regrettably, while the applicant continues to believe that his service warrants award of a second Army Good Conduct Medal, the fact remains that in spite of his attempt to have the bar to reenlistment removed it was not removed and as such there continues to be no basis to award him a second Army Good Conduct Medal.  Notwithstanding the bar to reenlistment, the applicant did not meet length of service requirements for the second award and as such would not have been eligible for the award in any case.

5.  Additionally, there continues to be no evidence on which to correct the applicant’s record to show that he qualified as an expert with the pistol, machinegun, or hand grenade.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

___x____  ____x___  ___x____  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant partial amendment of the ABCMR’s decision in Docket Number AR20080009457, dated 21 October 2008.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing he was awarded four Army Commendation Medals (Army Commendation Medal w/3rd Oak Leaf Cluster).

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to award of a second Army Good Conduct Medal and qualification as an expert with the pistol, machinegun, and hand grenade.




      _______ _   __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)                                         AR20080018428



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080018428



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1