IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  4 October 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110005490 


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 records to show that his Army Commendation Medal includes the "V" Device.

2.  The applicant states the recommendation for award of the Army Commendation Medal was written on the only form available to the recommender, which was the form for "other than valor."  He states the recommending officer indicated he was requesting the applicant's commander make the award with "V" Device.  He further states he was told that since the Army Commendation Medal was issued on a recommendation for combat action that the "V" Device was a given and it was authorized.  He states that he now knows that to be untrue.  He adds that achievements 1 through 4 in Part B (Justification and Citation Data) of the DA Form 638-1 (Recommendation for Award (For Other Than Valor) of Army Achievement Medal, Army Commendation Medal, and Meritorious Service Medal) clearly demonstrate this award was recommended based on what the officer felt to be circumstances meriting the "V" device for valor.

3.  The applicant provides his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), a DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214), and a DA Form 638-1.

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.  His military records show he enlisted in the Regular Army on 3 October 1985.  He completed training and was awarded the military occupational specialty of psychological operations specialist.

3.  A DA Form 638-1 provided by the applicant shows he was awarded the Army Commendation Medal by Permanent Order Number 10-169, dated 18 April 1991.  The achievement narratives in the recommendation for award of the Army Commendation Medal indicated the applicant's team came under fire from multiple directions and he continued to broadcast even after taking a defensive position on the berm.  Another narrative indicated on a different occasion he made broadcasts from a location 200 to 600 meters in front of friendly forces.  The narrative continues by indicating the missions were in dangerous areas the enemy used for ambushes.  The proposed citation indicates it was awarded for meritorious service.

4.  He was honorably released from active duty on 31 July 1992.  He completed a total of 6 years, 9 months, and 29 days of creditable active service.

5.  His DD Form 214 shows the Army Service Ribbon, Army Lapel Button, National Defense Service Medal, Southwest Asia Service Medal with two bronze service stars, Kuwait Liberation Medal (Saudi Arabia), Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16), Overseas Service Ribbon, Army Good Conduct Medal (2d Award), Army Commendation Medal, Driver's Badge, Army Achievement Medal (2d Award), and Humanitarian Service Medal.  His DD Form 215, dated 1 December 1992, shows the Southwest Asia Service Medal with three bronze service stars instead of two.

6.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states the Army Commendation Medal may be 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.  As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required.

7.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 states that the DA Form 638 will be used to initiate, process, and approve award recommendations of all U.S. Army individual decorations, to include valor and heroism decorations.  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; if the act occurred in aerial flight, the type and position of the aircraft and the individual’s crew position; the 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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The DA Form 638-1 used for recommending him for the Army Commendation Medal was in fact that used "for other than valor."  The DA Form 638-1 indicates he performed his duties in an outstanding manner in a dangerous combat environment including while under fire.  This speaks highly of his duty performance and courage.

2.  The DA Form 638-1 contains no annotation or other evidence that the recommender of the award intended for the award to be for valor.  This form does not contain the prescribed requisite narrative elements for valor or otherwise indicate the award was to be for a valorous act.  As such, there is insufficient evidence to show he performed a specific act of valor that would warrant adding the "V" device to his Army Commendation Medal.
 
3.  In view of the foregoing, there is an insufficient basis for granting the applicant's request.



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)                                         AR20110005490



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110005490



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1