IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  12 January 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100019675 


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 that the Legion of Merit (LOM) awarded to him on 
18 January 2008 and revoked on 15 June 2009 be reauthorized and re-issued.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, the LOM was unjustly and incorrectly revoked because it was done 3 months after this Board directed that the General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) be transferred to the restricted portion of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).  He goes on to state the GOMOR in question was in his OMPF when the awards board approved the LOM.  After the GOMOR was transferred to the restricted section of his OMPF there was no justification for review, it should not have been used against him again.  He continues by stating the lieutenant general who signed the recommendation for the award was aware that he had received a GOMOR and still believed he was deserving of the award.  In addition, the fact that this Board granted him FULL relief and moved the GOMOR to the restricted section of his OMPF it means the GOMOR should never have been in the performance section of his OMPF.  He also states that revoking the LOM means he served 20 years in the National Guard Bureau (NGB) and Human Resources Command and received no recognition for his service.  He also states he does not believe that proper procedures were followed in revoking the LOM and that given the time that elapsed between the award being approved and revoked that an awards board could say they would not have approved the award had they known the GOMOR was in his records.



3.  The applicant provides copies of:

* A two-page continuation/explanation of his application
* His appeal to the HRC and the HRC response
* This Board’s previous decision to transfer his GOMOR to the restricted portion of his OMPF
* Three DA Forms 638 (Recommendation for Award) of the LOM
* An Army Times article
* His Congressional Testimony
* Division Briefing Charts 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The evidence of record indicates the applicant has been affiliated with the United States Army since 1974 with the exception of a brief break in service in 1981.  In 1982 he was appointed as a warrant officer and has been on active duty under the Active Guard Reserve (AGR) program since 1988.  In 1985 he was notified that he was eligible to receive retired pay at age 60.  He was promoted to the rank of CW5 in October 2000.

2.  On 7 June 2005, while assigned to the Human Resources Command (HRC) – Alexandria he was issued a Memorandum of Reprimand by The Adjutant General of the Army essentially for misuse of his position and disregard for Army policies and regulations.  The imposing official directed that it be filed in his military personnel records jacket (MPRJ) for a period of 3 years or upon reassignment, whichever occurred first.

3.  On 23 November 2005, he was issued a GOMOR for driving while intoxicated (DWI).  The imposing official directed that the GOMOR be filed in his OMPF.

4.  On 18 January 2008, Permanent Orders Number 018-15, issued by the United States Army Human Resources Command awarded the applicant the LOM for the period 1 February 1998 to 14 January 2007.

5.  As of 8 April 2008, the applicant was ordered to active duty in an AGR status with the Arizona Army National Guard (AZARNG) and he continues to serve on active duty in the AZARNG.

6.  The applicant applied to this Board to have the 2005 GOMOR transferred to the restricted portion of his OMPF because it was the only blemish on his 
24 years of service and because he had continued to serve with distinction both before and after the incident.  On 19 March 2009, the Board directed that the GOMOR be transferred to the restricted portion of his OMPF.
7.  On 15 June 2009, the Chief, Military Awards Branch, HRC dispatched a memorandum to the applicant informing him that on 22 May 2009, the Military Awards Board determined that had it known he had received a GOMOR, his award of the LOM would not have been approved and the board decided to revoke the LOM.  He was also advised that he could appeal the revocation in accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-22, paragraph 1-30a.  The details surrounding the discovery of the information that served as the basis for his LOM being revoked is not in the available records. 

8.  The applicant filed an appeal of the revocation of the award with the support of The Adjutant General of Arizona (a major general) and on 21 October 2009 the Chief, Military Awards Branch at HRC informed the applicant that the Commanding General, HRC had carefully considered and denied his appeal.

9.  A review of the applicant’s OMPF shows that during the period of 1992 to 1998 he was awarded three Army Commendation Medals and two Meritorious Service Medals.

10.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards),  provides, in pertinent part, that once an award has been presented, it may be revoked by the awarding authority if facts subsequently determined would have prevented original approval of the award had they been known at the time.  The decision to revoke an award may not be delegated by the awarding authority.  In making the decision, the awarding authority may consider a statement of concurrence or nonconcurrence (with comments) from the individual concerned.  Upon revocation, the affected individual will be informed that he or she may appeal the revocation action through command channels to the Commander HRC for final review.

11.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 also states there is no automatic entitlement to an award upon departure either from an assignment or from the service.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s performance of duty during the period in question is not in doubt, neither is the applicant’s misconduct.

2.  While the applicant would have the Board to believe the awards board was in error to revoke his LOM because he had his GOMOR transferred to the restricted fiche before the awards board became aware of its existence, his contention lacks merit.


3.  Although there is no explanation as to why the awards board was not made aware of the presence of the GOMOR in his OMPF at the time the LOM was approved it does not relieve that board of its responsibility to be consistent in its decisions and it does not appear that it was consistent to award the applicant the LOM after he had been reprimanded. 

4.  The applicant’s claim that his award was not properly revoked in accordance with the applicable regulation has also been noted and found to lack merit.  The Commander, HRC approved the award of the LOM and he revoked it through the awards branch in accordance with applicable regulations. 

5.  The applicant’s contention that he received no recognition for his 20 years of service in the area has also been noted and found to lack merit.  The applicant received numerous awards and some of them overlap the period of the LOM.  While it is understood why he desires the LOM, his lapse in judgment that caused him to be reprimanded diminished his service below that required for such an award.

6.  Accordingly, he has failed to show through the evidence submitted with his application and the evidence of record that his LOM was improperly revoked, regardless of how the information became available to the awards board.

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)                                         AR20100019675



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100019675



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1