IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	        21 MAY 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090000514 


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 DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show award of the Meritorious Service Medal.

2.  The applicant states that he was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal upon retirement; however, when he received the medal, he did not receive the orders.  

3.  The applicant provides a Standard Form 180 (Request Pertaining to Military Records), dated 30 November 2007; a self-authored letter, dated 11 January 2009; copies of Orders 192-2 and 193-4, issued by Headquarters, U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command, Fort Monmouth, NJ, on 5 and 6 October 1988; a copy of his DD Form 214, dated 30 September 1989; copies of letters, dated 21 June 2007 and 24 December 2007, from the National Personnel Records Center, St. Louis, MO; a copy of his DA Form 2166-6 (Enlisted Evaluation Report) for the period November 1987 through May 1988; and copies of various letters, dated on miscellaneous dates, to his former units and/or commanders, in support of his request.  

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 is a retired sergeant first class (SFC) who was trained in military occupational specialty (MOS) 98C (Electronic Warfare/Signal Intelligence Analyst).  He held several staff and leadership positions throughout his military career and was placed on the Retired List in his retired grade of SFC on 1 October 1989.  He was credited with over 20 years of active military service.

3.  Item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded and Authorized) of his DD Form 214, dated 30 September 1989, shows he was awarded the Overseas Service Ribbon (2nd Award), the Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon with Numeral 3, the Good Conduct Medal (5th Award), the National Defense Service Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, the Joint Service Achievement Medal, the Meritorious Unit Commendation, the Joint Service Commendation Medal, and the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badges with Rifle and Pistol Bars.  Item 13 does not show award of the Meritorious Service Medal.

4.  The applicant's records do not contain permanent orders awarding him the Meritorious Service Medal.

5.  In his self-authored letter, dated 11 January 2009, the applicant states that prior to his retirement, he was recommended for award of the Meritorious Service Medal and had a hand in putting in the recommendation prior to signing out on transition leave.  He departed Fort Monmouth, NJ, in September 1989 and retired in October 1989.  In or around November 1989, he received the actual medal in the mail but without orders.  He concludes that he has been pursuing this issue for some time and has met with negative results.   

6.  The applicant provides copies of various letters, dated on miscellaneous dates subsequent to his retirement, to his former units and/or commanders, 

requesting assistance in obtaining orders that show he was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal.  However, there is no indication that he received a response to his letters. 

7.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides, in pertinent part, that the Meritorious Service Medal is awarded to members of the Armed Forces of the United States or of a friendly foreign nation who distinguish themselves by outstanding meritorious achievement or service in a noncombat area.  As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required.  Recommendations must be made within 2 years of the event or period of service and the award must be made within 3 years.  There are regulatory provisions for lost recommendations but not for late recommendations, reconsideration, nor for upgrading to a more prestigious award.  The regulation also provides that there is no automatic entitlement to an award upon departure either from an assignment or from the service.  

8.  Title 10 of the U. S. Code, section 1130 (10 USC 1130) provides the legal authority for consideration of proposals for decorations not previously submitted in a 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 received the Meritorious Service Medal is noted.  However, there is no evidence in the available records and the applicant did not provide any evidence that shows he was awarded this medal.  As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required for award of the Meritorious Service Medal.  Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to grant the applicant the requested relief.

2.  However, while the available evidence is insufficient for awarding the applicant the Meritorious Service Medal, this in no way affects his right to pursue his claim for this award by submitting a request through his Member of Congress under the provisions of 10 USC 1130.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___X_____  ___X_____  ___X_____  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 our Nation.  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)                                         AR20090000514



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090000514



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1