IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  23 February 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090004851 


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 an earlier request for upgrade of his Silver Star (SS) to a Distinguished Service Cross (DSC).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, there are errors or discrepancies in the previous Record of Proceedings (ROP) issued by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) regarding his assignment history.

3.  The applicant provides an SS award recommendation and proposed citation from his former company commander, dated 8 October 1996, 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 ABCMR in Docket Number AR20080009645, on 28 October 2008.

2.  The applicant provides a recommendation for the SS and proposed citation submitted by his former company commander, dated 8 October 1996, as new evidence which was not previously considered by the Board.  Therefore, reconsideration is warranted.


3.  The applicant's records show that he enlisted on 23 October 1940 for a period of three years and he served honorably until his retirement on 1 June 1963.

4.  The applicant was awarded the Bronze Star Medal (BSM) with "V" Device for heroic achievement in action during the period 15 to 23 March 1945.

5.  The applicant's BSM with "V" Device was subsequently upgraded to an SS and this award was announced in Department of the Army, U.S. Total Army Personnel Command, Alexandria, VA, Permanent Orders 022-12, dated 22 January 1997.

6.  On 12 February 2008, The Adjutant General (AG) responded to a Member of Congress, who had inquired about the award upgrade action on behalf of the applicant.  In this response, The AG indicated the Army Decorations Board (ADB) had given full consideration to the applicant's request for upgrade of his SS to the DSC in February 2002; however, it determined the SS was the appropriate recognition for his valorous actions.  The Commander, United States Army Human Resources Command (HRC), Alexandria, reviewed and concurred with the ADB's recommendation.

7.  The applicant provides an award recommendation and proposed citation from his former company commander.  This recommendation was for award of the SS and it was used by the ADB when it upgraded the applicant's BSM with "V" Device to the SS in 1997.  The former commander made no DSC recommendation.

8.  The applicant also questions the assignment history outlined in the original ROP completed on his prior case.  However, he provides no official records or documents confirming the history he outlines.

9.  Army Regulation 600-45 provided the Army's awards policy in effect at the time in question.  Paragraph 12 governed award of the DSC and stated, in pertinent part, that the DSC was awarded to any person who, while serving in any capacity with the Army of the United States, distinguished himself or herself by extraordinary heroism in connection with military operations against an armed enemy.  Paragraph 12b states, in pertinent part, the standards for this award as "The act or acts of heroism performed must have been so notable and have involved the risk of life so extraordinary as to set the individual apart from his or her comrades."




DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that his SS should be upgraded to the DSC was carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence to support this claim. 

2.  The evidence of record in this case shows the applicant's BSM with "V" Device was upgraded to the SS in 1997 based on the recommendation and proposed citation submitted by his former company commander, which he now submits in support of this request for reconsideration.  The recommendation of the former company commander was that the BSM with "V" Device be upgraded to the SS.  It did not contain a recommendation for the DSC.

3.  The applicant's request for award of the SS to the DSC and all the supporting records and documents he provided was considered by the ADB in February 2002.  The ADB, after carefully reviewing and considering the upgrade request, concluded the SS was the appropriate award for the applicant's actions.

4.  The evidence now provided by the applicant was appropriately reviewed and considered by the ADB when it originally upgraded his BSM with "V" Device to the SS, and when it considered his request to upgrade the SS to the DSC.  It was further reviewed and carefully considered, in some form, by this Board during its original review of this case. 

5.  The evidence now provided by the applicant fails to provide any new and compelling argument that was not considered during the prior reviews by the ADB and by this Board.  As a result, absent substantial compelling new evidence to support award of the DSC, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to call into question the decisions of the ADB and the original decision of this Board that the SS is the appropriate award in this case.

6.  The applicant's contention that the assignment history documented in the original ROP was in error and the record of assignments he provides was also carefully considered.  However, the assignment record documented in the original ROP was taken from his available service personnel records and notwithstanding his argument to the contrary, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support a change to the assignment information currently contained in his record.  Further, the applicant is advised that even if the assignment history recorded in his record contains some error, it would not impact the award decision in question given this was based on a specific period and action.

7.  Based on the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's requested relief
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 AR20080009645, dated 28 October 2008.



      ___________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)                                         AR20090004851



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090004851



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1