IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  12 July 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110004050 


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 award of the Combat Medical Badge and correction to his Army Commendation Medal to show the "V" device for valor.

2.  The applicant states his unit submitted a Bronze Star Medal award recommendation for valor and it was downgraded to an Army Commendation Medal without valor, the "V" device.  He states his citation does read for valor; however, it is not properly recorded on his award order.  In addition, he states he was denied the Combat Medical Badge on numerous occasions due to verbiage and lack of supporting documents.  He states he does not know how to obtain or process the information to submit a new award recommendation packet.  He states he was told he had to submit battlefield situational reports, trip tickets, or related documents from 2005.  He concludes by stating the policy in the theater of operations was staff sergeants/pay grade E-6 and below were not to receive Bronze Star Medals.  He states he does deserve the "V" device for his very deserving actions.  

3.  The applicant provides these documents:

* a DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award), dated 29 August 2005
* Permanent Order 267-27, dated 3 October 2005
* Memorandum, dated 3 August 2010
* Memorandum for Record, dated 24 February 2011


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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 7 June 1995.  He completed his initial entry training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 91D (Operating Room Specialist).  The highest rank he attained was sergeant/pay grade E-5.

3.  He was honorably released from active duty on 6 June 2001 and transferred to the Maryland Army National Guard (MDARNG).  A National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) shows he did not report to his MDARNG unit as ordered.  Therefore, he was discharged from the MDARNG on 7 June 2001.  

4.  He reenlisted in the ARNG in the State of Wisconsin (WIARNG) on 29 September 2003 for a 1-year period.  In 2004, he attended MOS training in an active duty status and was awarded MOS 91W (Health Care Specialist) by Orders 231-255 issued on 18 August 2004 by Headquarters, U.S. Army Medical Department Center and School, Fort Sam Houston, TX.

5.  On 6 October 2004, he was ordered to active duty in a mobilized status with his WIARNG unit in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. 

6.  Within his interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS) record, a DA Form 638 shows his company commander initiated and submitted an award recommendation for award of the Bronze Star Medal with "V" Device for: 

Valorous service on 22 August 2005 as the 3rd platoon combat medic during an improvised explosive device attack on their patrol.  (Applicant) placed himself in harms way to ensure the safety and security of his patrol members of which many were wounded.  This display of valor was contagious within his patrol as Soldiers were directed by (applicant) to perform critical first aid tasks on the injured soldiers under his supervision.  

7.  The intermediate authority, the battalion commander, recommended approval of this award recommendation as written, a Bronze Star Medal with "V" Device.

8.  The next intermediate authority, the brigade commander, recommended the aforementioned award be downgraded to an Army Commendation Medal with "V" Device.  The commander wrote, "YOUR CALM AND PROFESSIONAL RESPONSE TO THIS TRAGIC EVENT IS AN INSPIRATION TO US ALL.  YOUR ACTIONS WERE TRULY HEROIC IN NATURE.  YOU ARE TO BE COMMENDED!"

9.  The approval authority, a major general serving as the division commander, approved the brigade commander's recommendation.  However, he wrote that the approved award was the "ARCOM."  Item 29 of the DA Form 638 shows the approved award was the "ARCOM."  

10.  Permanent Order 276-27 awarded the applicant the approved award.

11.  On 26 November 2005, he was honorably released from active duty.  He was issued a DD Form 214 that shows he served in Iraq from 24 November 2004 to 30 October 2005 a duration of 11 months and 8 days.  Item 13 (Decorations, Medal, Badges, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) shows these awards:

* Army Commendation Medal (2nd Award)
* Army Achievement Medal (2nd Award)
* Army Good Conduct Medal (3rd Award)
* National Defense Service Medal (2nd Award)
* Army Service Ribbon
* Armed Forces Reserve Medal with mobilization device
* Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal
* Global War on Terrorism Service Medal

12.  The applicant provided a memorandum from the Awards and Decorations Branch of the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), dated 3 August 2010, addressed to the commander of his WIARNG unit.  This memorandum informed his chain of command (NGB and WIARNG) that their request to award the applicant the Combat Medical Badge was disapproved.  The reason for disapproval was eyewitness statements indicated on 22 August 2005 that the applicant was a member of a combat patrol when it encountered an improvised explosive device.  Within the information provided to HRC, there was no record or mention that the applicant performed his medical duties while his combat patrol was engaged in active ground combat with the purpose to close with and destroy the enemy with direct fires. 

13.  The applicant provided a memorandum, dated 24 February 2011, that states: 

Due to the fact civilians were in our vicinity, the order to hold fire was given.  A river directly to the west prohibited our element from maneuvering and closing with the enemy.  Our lead vehicle was completely destroyed and could not be abandoned.  We had one U.S. [killed in action] and three severely injured U.S. Soldiers that could not be moved.  Our [quick reaction force] was deployed and attacked as they were attempting to reach our location.  A unit performing operations to our North was diverted to our location for support.  They were able to suppress any enemy movement by direct fires.  After link up and consolidation with this supporting unit we were ordered to return to base . . . all of this took place while I was performing my medical duties.

14.  References:

   a.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning individual and unit military awards.  The objective is to enable award authorities to recognize Soldiers for valor, meritorious service and achievement; and to document and record that recognition for historical purposes.  The decision to award an individual a decoration and the decision as to which award is appropriate are both subjective decisions made by the commander having award approval authority.  The decision to decorate a Soldier will not be based upon the grade of the intended recipient.  Rather, the award should reflect both the individual’s level of responsibility and his or her manner of performance. The degree to which an individual’s achievement or service enhanced the readiness or effectiveness of his or her organization will be the predominant factor.

   b.  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.  Narratives for valor must contain a description of the following elements: 

* terrain and weather of the area in which the action took place
* enemy conditions, to include morale, proximity, firepower, casualties and situation prior to, during and after the act
* the effect of the act on the enemy
* the action of comrades in the immediate vicinity of the act and the degree of their participation in the act
* degree to which the act was voluntary
* the degree to which the act was outstanding and exceeded what was normally expected of the individual
* all unusual circumstances  and overall effects or results of the act

   c.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 states heroism award recommendations will contain eyewitnesses statements preferably in the form of certificates, affidavits, or sworn statements; extracts from official records such as sketches, maps, diagrams, photographs and so forth that support and amplify stated facts for the heroic or valorous action.  

   d.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 states the "V" device is worn to denote participation in acts of heroism involving conflict with an armed enemy.  It was originally worn only on the suspension and service ribbons of the Bronze Star Medal to denote an award made for heroism (valor).  Effective 29 February 1964, the "V" device was also authorized for wear on the Air Medal and Army Commendation Medal for heroic acts or valorous deeds not warranting awards of the Distinguished Flying Cross or the Bronze Star Medal with "V" device.  

	e.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 states the Bronze Star Medal is awarded in time of war for heroism and for meritorious achievement or service, not involving participation in aerial flight, in connection with military operations against an armed enemy, or while engaged n military operations involving conflict with an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.  
 
	f.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 states the Combat Medical Badge is awarded to medical department personnel (colonel and below) who are assigned or attached to a medical unit of company or smaller size that is organic to an infantry unit of brigade, regimental or smaller size which is engaged in active ground combat.  Battle participation credit is not sufficient; the infantry unit must have been in contact with the enemy and the Soldier must have been personally present and under fire during such ground combat. 

	g.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 states that, on or after 18 September 2001, medical personnel assigned or attached to or under operational control of any Combat Arms unit of brigade or smaller size, who satisfactorily perform medical duties while the unit is engaged in active ground combat, provided they are personally present and under fire, are eligible for award of the Combat Medical Badge.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant was initially recommended for the BSM for Valor.  His brigade commander recommended the award be downgraded to an ARCOM for Valor.  

2.  The commanding general wrote the approved award was the ARCOM (not specifying that it was for Valor) and the approved award was listed as the ARCOM (not specifying that it was for Valor).  However, it would appear that the commanding general was approving the brigade commander's recommendation for an ARCOM for Valor.  As such, it would be appropriate to add this award to his DD Form 214.

3.  The applicant's chain of command award recommendation to award him the Combat Medical Badge was denied by HRC because the evidence made available to HRC did not show his combat patrol/unit was actively engaged with enemy forces or that he was personally present and under direct or indirect fire from enemy forces.  The applicant's memorandum also states the fact that he was not under direct or indirect fire from enemy forces because there was a cease-fire order due to civilians or noncombatants in their immediate vicinity.  

4.  While it is understood the applicant performed his life saving duties under extreme situational duress, there is no evidence to show he was personally present and performed these medical life saving duties while under enemy fire.  Therefore, with no supporting evidence showing his combat patrol was directly engaged with the enemy, this Board cannot approve award of the Combat Medical Badge.



BOARD VOTE:

___X_____  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ____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 a recommendation for partial relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by amending his DD Form 214 for the period ending 26 November 2005 to reflect "Army Commendation Medal (2nd Award and with "V" Device)" in lieu of "Army Commendation Medal (2nd Award)."

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented was 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 the Combat Medical Badge.  



      ___________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)                                         AR20110004050



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110004050



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1