IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  31 March 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090003578 


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, through a Member of Congress, reconsideration of his previously denied request for correction of his military records to show award of the Bronze Star Medal.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was recommended for award of the Bronze Star Medal by the former Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2 (Intelligence Directorate) of the 100th Infantry Division for his service during World War II.  The applicant contends that his personnel records for the period of 1946 through 1958 were lost.  The applicant concludes that his attached status complicated his chain of command and caused administrative confusion which possibly resulted in diverted or lost documents.

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored statement and a notarized letter from his former supervisor as documentary evidence in support of this application.

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 AC94-08354, on 2 August 1995.


2.  The applicant's Member of Congress provides new arguments that the applicant's commanding officer recommended him for award of the Bronze Star Medal and that it was approved prior to the applicant's release from active duty, which were not previously reviewed by the ABCMR.  Therefore, it is considered new evidence and as such warrants consideration by the Board.

3.  The applicant's record shows he was inducted into the Army of the United States and entered active duty on 19 June 1942.  He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training.  Upon completion of advanced individual training, he was awarded the military occupational specialty (MOS) 745 (Rifleman).  At a later date, he served in MOS 345 (Truck Driver, Light) and MOS 653 (Squad Leader).  The highest enlisted rank the applicant attained was the rank of corporal (CPL)/grade 5.  On 21 July 1943, upon completion of the Officer Candidate School, the applicant was discharged with an honorable characteriza-tion of service for the purpose of accepting appointment as a second lieutenant in the Army of the United States.

4.  On 22 July 1943, the applicant was commissioned as a second lieutenant and awarded MOS 1174 (Antiaircraft Automatic Weapons Officer).  He subsequently served in MOS 8503 (Aerial Photo-Interpreter) and MOS 9318 (Order of Battle Analyst).  The applicant was promoted to first lieutenant in the Army of the United States effective 5 February 1945 and in the United States Army Reserve effective 15 January 1946.

5.  During the period of 11 July 1944 through 19 March 1946, the applicant served as an Order of Battle Analyst in the European Theater of Operations.  During the majority of this time period, he was assigned to Headquarters, 28th Infantry Division and attached to Headquarters, 100th Infantry Division, for duty as the officer in charge of an Order of Battle Team within the G2 (Intelligence) Directorate.

6.  The applicant's WD AGO Form 67 (Efficiency Report), dated 27 February 1945, covered the period of 1 July 1944 through 31 December 1944 and was rendered by Lieutenant Colonel R____, the Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2 of the 100th Infantry Division.  Lieutenant Colonel R____ wrote the following general estimate about the applicant:  "A quiet, efficient officer who shows a considerable interest in his work.  Possesses an analytical mind and usually renders a practical solution to problems assigned to him.  Tends to stray from the major aspects of his work at times unless carefully supervised, but can be depended upon at all times."  Block L, the portion of the form reserved for entering personal observations of outstanding specialties of value in military service, was left blank.

7.  The applicant's WD AGO Form 67, dated 1 July 1945, covered the period of 1 January 1945 through 30 June 1945 and was also rendered by Lieutenant Colonel R____.  Lieutenant Colonel R____ wrote the following general estimate about the applicant:  "An officer with a vivid imagination, who is at all times most meticulous and complete in carrying out staff missions.  Lacks organizational and command ability, but his willing and conscientious nature make him an asset as a junior staff officer in his specialty."  Block L, the portion of the form reserved for entering personal observations of outstanding specialties of value in military service, was left blank.

8.  On 14 August 1945, the applicant received a Letter of Commendation from Major General B____, the Commanding General of the 100th Infantry Division.  The general commended the applicant for the work he had done in obtaining models and sketches of Japanese material and equipment.  He continued that the applicant's "keen interest, enthusiasm, energy, initiative, and devotion to duty would have greatly aided the division in training for its primary mission, that of combat against the Japanese.  If the end of the war had not stopped our training along this particular line, the division would have found this material invaluable."  He concludes that it had been a pleasure having the applicant and his team attached to the division during its operations in the European Theater of Operations.

9.  On 28 January 1946, a request for the applicant to wear the Army Commendation Ribbon was disapproved by the Adjutant General of the War Department based upon the fact that his service performed in sustained operational activities against an enemy, or in direct support of operational activities against an enemy, and for which the Bronze Star Medal might have been awarded had already been recognized in a Letter of Commendation from Major General B____, dated 14 August 1945.

10.  Block 13 (Title-Description-Related Civilian Occupation) of the applicant's WD AGO Form 100 (Army of the United States - Separation Qualification Record) covering the period of 23 July 1943 through 19 March 1946 shows a summary of his duties and responsibilities as an Order of Battle Analyst.
It reads as follows:  "Was with the 100th and 28th Infantry Divisions in Europe.  Advised the Division G-2 of identification, location, strength and morale of enemy units (German).  Was responsible for all enemy documents captured by the Division and for document analysis.  Gathered information from all available intelligence sources for oral or written presentation to Division G-2.  Assisted in writing G-2 periodic reports, estimates of enemy situation and post-action reports.  Was liaison with other military intelligence teams and higher intelligence agencies."

11.  Block 23 (Remarks) of the applicant's WD AGO Form 100 for the period ending 19 March 1946, in pertinent part, shows he received a Letter of Commendation from Major General B____, Commanding General of the 100th Infantry Division, for duty as Order of Battle Analyst with 100th Infantry Division and was eligible for award of the Army Commendation Ribbon.  This form does not show award of the Bronze Star Medal.

12.  On 30 December 1953, the applicant submitted a request for award of the Commendation Ribbon with Metal Pendant based upon the fact that he received a Letter of Commendation from Major General B____, dated 14 August 1945.

13.  AGO Form 01220 (Bronze Star Medal or Commendation Ribbon Worksheet), dated 12 January 1954, shows the applicant was approved for award of the Commendation Ribbon with Metal Pendant based upon his receipt of a Letter of Commendation from Major General B____, dated 14 August 1945.  This form also shows the proposed citation for the award was "for meritorious service in ground combat against the armed enemy in the European Theater of Operations."

14.  On 21 January 1954, the applicant submitted a letter to the Department of the Army, Office of the Adjutant General, in which he identified a typographical error in the title of the Letter Orders he had received for award of the Commendation Ribbon with Metal Pendant.  The applicant pointed out that the title of the Letter Orders erroneously read, "Letter Orders - Bronze Star Medal" instead of "Letter Orders - Commendation Ribbon with Metal Pendant."

15.  On 29 January 1954, in response to the applicant's letter, the Adjutant General issued the applicant a Corrected Copy of Letter Orders, dated 15 January 1954.  The subject line was corrected to read, "Letter Orders - Commendation Ribbon with Metal Pendant."  The Orders cited his receipt of a Letter of Commendation from Major General B____, dated 14 August 1945, as the basis for this award.  The Adjutant General instructed the applicant to destroy the erroneous Letter Orders he had been issued previously.  Additionally, the Adjutant General sent a letter to the Commanding General of the Philadelphia Quartermaster Depot, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, asking that the Corrected Copy of the applicant's Letter Orders be substituted for the erroneous Letter Orders, dated 15 January 1954, subject:  "Bronze Star Medal."  Evidence shows a Commendation Ribbon with Metal Pendant was properly engraved and shipped from the Philadelphia Quartermaster Depot, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to the applicant at his home address.


16.  On 9 February 1957, the applicant submitted a letter to the Adjutant General Awards Division requesting that they investigate the possibility of him having been awarded a Bronze Star Medal during his World War II service.  The applicant stated that the basis of his request was that he had been informed through an acquaintance that a recommendation for the Bronze Star Medal had been made, but because of subsequent unit transfers, it was never received by the applicant.

17.  On 27 May 1957, the Chief, Field Records Branch of the Kansas City Records Center, informed the Adjutant General that a search of the 1944 through 1946 records on file for the 100th Infantry Division did not reveal a copy of a recommendation for award of the Bronze Star Medal for the applicant.

18.  On 18 July 1957, the Adjutant General informed the applicant that a thorough search of the records for the 100th Infantry Division failed to reveal evidence that he was awarded or recommended for award of the Bronze Star Medal.

19.  As supporting documentation for his original application to the ABCMR, the applicant provided a notarized statement, dated 28 February 1993, from then retired Colonel R___, who, as previously mentioned, was the applicant's former supervisor during the period of time in question.  The colonel stated that he was the head of the G2 section and reported directly to the commander of the 100th Infantry Division, a major general.  The colonel also stated that he was reassigned from the 100th Infantry Division on 21 October 1945, but recalled recommending the applicant for award of the Bronze Star Medal based upon his outstanding service to the 100th Infantry Division in the European Theater of Operations and his preparation for deployment to the Pacific Theater of Operations prior to his departure.  The colonel, in pertinent part, further stated that the division's movement to the Pacific was cancelled because the Pacific War ended.

20.  On 16 May 1994, along with his original application to the ABCMR, the applicant provided a self-authored account of the events that occurred pertaining to his award of the Bronze Star Medal, dated 12 January 1994.  He stated, in effect, that he was recommended for award of the Bronze Star Medal by his former supervisor, then Lieutenant Colonel R____, for outstanding service as an officer in charge of an Order of Battle Team during his tenure with the 100th Infantry Division.  The applicant contended that although he was informed that the award was approved prior to being released from active duty, he never received the award.  The applicant continued that over the years, he had made numerous inquires about the status of his award, but to no avail.  He opined that the most recent response he had received from the United States Army Reserve Personnel Center was bureaucratic and did take either the letter that his former supervisor had provided or the cogent wartime circumstances which played a role in this matter into consideration.

21.  On 30 November 2007, the Chief, Military Awards Branch of the United States Army Human Resources Command responded to a congressional inquiry, dated 16 November 2007.  In his response, the Chief, Military Awards Branch, informed a Member of Congress that a review of the historical records for the World War II era did not reveal general orders awarding the applicant the Bronze Star Medal.

22.  Paragraph 3-14 of Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides, in pertinent part, that the Bronze Star Medal is awarded to any person who, while serving in any capacity in or with the Army of the United States after 6 December 1941, distinguished himself or herself by heroic or meritorious achievement or service not involving participation in aerial flight in connection with military operations against an armed enemy or while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.  Awards may be made for acts of heroism performed under circumstances described above which are of lesser degree than required for the award of the Silver Star.  The Bronze Star Medal may be awarded for meritorious achievement or meritorious service according to the following:

	a.  Awards may be made to recognize single acts of merit or meritorious service.  The lesser degree than that required for the award of the Legion of Merit must nevertheless have been meritorious and accomplished with distinction.

	b.  Award may be made to each member of the Armed Forces of the United States who, after 6 December 1941, has been cited in orders or awarded a certificate for exemplary conduct in ground combat against an armed enemy between 7 December 1941 and 2 September 1945, inclusive, or whose meritorious achievement has been otherwise confirmed by documents executed prior to 1 July 1947.  For this purpose, an award of the Combat Infantryman Badge or Combat Medical Badge is considered as a citation in orders.  Therefore, the Bronze Star Medal is to be awarded to individuals who were authorized either badge for service during World War II.

23.  Paragraph 3-17 of Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, that the Army Commendation Medal 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 Army Commendation Medal may be made for acts of valor performed under circumstances described above which are of lesser degree than required for award of the Bronze Star Medal.  These acts may involve aerial flight.  Awards of the Army Commendation Ribbon and of the Commendation Ribbon with Metal Pendant were redesignated by Department of the Army General Orders 10, 31 March 1960, as awards of the Army Commendation Medal, without amendment of orders previously issued.

24.  Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR.  Paragraph 2-9 contains guidance on the burden of proof.  It states, in pertinent part, that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity, which is that what the Army did was correct.  The ABCMR is not an investigative body and decides cases based on the evidence that is presented in the military records provided and the independent evidence submitted with the application.  The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that his military records should be corrected to show award of the Bronze Star Medal was carefully considered and determined to lack merit.

2.  Although the applicant's former supervisor recalled (48 years later) recommending him for award of the Bronze Star Medal, he also stated that he departed the division before a final determination on the recommendation was rendered.  Additionally, the applicant's record is void of and he has failed to provide any evidence that he was awarded or recommended for award of the Bronze Star Medal.  In light of the fact that the applicant was a lieutenant working on the division staff, it is not unreasonable to assume that the applicant was recommended for award of the Bronze Star Medal and it was subsequently downgraded to a Letter of Commendation by the commanding general.

3.  The applicant's repeated attempts to acquire the Bronze Star Medal began back in 1957, when the Adjutant General made it quite clear that a search of the 1944 through 1946 records on file for the 100th Infantry Division did not reveal evidence that he was awarded or recommended for award of the Bronze Star Medal.


4.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, there is insufficient evidence upon which to base award of the Bronze Star Medal in this case.  As a result, the regulatory burden of proof necessary to support award of the Bronze Star Medal has not been satisfied.  Therefore, it would not be appropriate to grant the requested relief.

5.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant did not submit any evidence that would satisfy this requirement.  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.

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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AC94-08354, dated 2 August 1995.



      _______ _   __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)                                         AR20090003578





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090003578



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1