BOARD DATE:	  27 March 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110018221 


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, in effect, his Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) awarded on 17 June 2011 be upgraded to a Meritorious Service Medal (MSM).

2.  The applicant states:

* all previous individuals in his military position operating in support of  Operations Iraqi Freedom, Enduring Freedom, and New Dawn  (OIF/OEF/
OND) were awarded the MSM at the end of their one-year tour of duty
* he set a new standard for performance within his area and served in that capacity for 27 months
* his tour of duty was the longest of anyone in his area in support of OIF/OND
* the subject ARCOM award is an insult to his faithful service and furthermore substantiates his claim of retaliation related to his supervisor
* he submitted a complaint to the Department of Defense Inspector General (DOD IG) and his case is under investigation
* he received his ARCOM certificate in the mail at his residence the week of 18 July 2011

3.  The applicant provides:

* self-authored statements
* ARCOM Certificate
* DA Form 638-1 (Recommendation for Award)
* emails
* memorandum for record, dated 22 June 2011
* letter, U.S. Army Human Resources Command, Fort Knox, KY, dated 13 July 2011
* Orders Number 196-2220, Headquarters, U.S. Army Maneuver Center of Excellence, Fort Benning, GA, dated 15 July 2011
* DOD IG Reprisal Complaint submission

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  On 31 December 2008, the applicant was honorably released from the Ohio National Guard in the rank/grade of lieutenant colonel/O-5 and was transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group (Retired), St. Louis, MO.  He completed 22 years, 2 months, and 29 days of active military service.

2.  Orders Number  M-02-901911, U.S. Army Human Resources Command, St. Louis, MO, dated 5 February 2009, ordered the applicant to active duty in a retired status for a period not to exceed 365 days in support of OIF.

3.  On 20 February 2010, the applicant initiated a congressional inquiry to his Ohio Representative requesting assistance in obtaining an extension for his assignment.   On 3 March 2010, his extension was approved and his orders were changed to show he was ordered to active duty for a period not to exceed 730 days.

4.  On 12 January 2011, the applicant was notified that funding for Retiree Recall personnel would expire on 31 December 2011.

5.  The applicant's submission to the DoD IG shows the following:

   a. On 19 March 2011, the applicant was accused of divulging dignitary travel information and discussing matters outside his scope of responsibilities with dignitaries.  He received an email from his superior indicating the following:

		"[Applicant], obviously you failed to communicate any trust that we in "XX" region are coordinating this…what next?  Should we send S.D.?  Maybe our HR (human resources) rep (representative)?  …I will call you ASAP (as soon as possible), you appear to do what you want, and not what I require….maybe a swap with "X" will put us back on track…let's discuss."

   b. The applicant received a second email and was advised that "he was not authorized to discuss plans with anyone and to execute the drawdown."  

   c. On 1 April 2011, the applicant received an email from his superior which indicated the following:

      "Point is, you need to work thru [through] me and I don't feel this is happening.  What is your situation at home?"
   
   d. On 7 April 2011, the applicant received an email from his superior indicating the following:
   
   	"[Applicant], you have not acknowledged my past 4 emails…we need team play [Applicant], or we will have change…not a threat but an absolute promise."

   e. On 19 June 2011, the applicant communicated directly by email to a dignitary and provided information regarding the "organization going forward."  He later courtesy-copied and forwarded the email to his superior and others.  His superior responded with the following:

      "Do NOT communicate with anyone outside "X" until further notice-that's an order!  I will discuss this matter with our CG (commanding general)."

 	f.	A later email from his superior shows the following:

		"What are you doing raising this issue to "X" without discussing my position on this first?  What is our CG's position on this?  Do you know?- well, he has one, you are sending direct commo (communication) to "X"-totally bypassing your Bde Cdr (brigade commander) and CG?  You are wrong-again.   Do not communicate outside the "X" in Iraq until I can brief our CG on what to expect from your actions."

   g. On 20 June 2011, the applicant received the following email from his superior:

      "You do not correspond with her without going through me-to make it worse, you did not "cc" me-Do NOT correspond outside "X" until further notice-you are unsynchronized and violate all protocols for an "X" – stop any work on post 2011 now – refer inquires to "X," "X," or me."
   
	h.	On 21 June 2011, the applicant was advised that he was being relieved of his duties and that, in essence, he had 72 hours to leave Iraq.

	i.	On 24 June 2011, the applicant met with the "X" trial defense attorney to inquire about a possible investigation.  He was advised that if he had been subject to an investigation, he would not be permitted to exit the theater.  The applicant departed Iraq on the same date.

	j.	Orders assigning the applicant to the Fort Benning Transition Center are not available.

6.  Orders Number 196-2220, Headquarters, U.S. Army Maneuver Center of Excellence, Fort Benning, GA, dated 15 July 2011, released the applicant from active duty (REFRAD) and assigned him to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group (Retired), effective 1 October 2011.  His DD Form 214 confirms he was REFRAD on 1 October 2011.  He completed 2 years, 6 months, and 17 days of active military service during his recalled period of service.

7.  The applicant's DA Form 4980-1 and DA Form 638-1 confirm he was awarded the Army Commendation Medal for the period 15 March 2009 to 17 June 2011.

8.  The applicant did not provide any information concerning the findings of his DoD IG complaint.

9.  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.  

10.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 states the Meritorious Service Medal is awarded to members of the Armed Forces of the United States or of a friendly foreign nation who distinguish themselves by outstanding meritorious achievement or service.  After 16 January 1969 but prior to 11 September 2001, the Meritorious Service Medal was authorized to be awarded only for meritorious service or achievement while serving in a non-combat area.  As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required.  

11.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 states in paragraph 3-1:

	a.  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.  Awards for meritorious achievement or service 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.  No individual is automatically entitled to an award upon departure from an assignment.  Awards presented in conjunction with a permanent change of station will be limited to exceptional cases.  Certificates of Achievement and Letters of Commendation or Appreciation are appropriate means to recognize departing personnel.

	c.  No preconditions for an award may be established such as, for example, when Soldiers are informed in advance that attainment of specific goals will result in the automatic award of a given decoration.  Military decorations will not be used as prizes in contests.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant requests his ARCOM be upgraded to an MSM.  He cites the fact that all of his predecessors received MSMs and he served twice as long as they did and had major accomplishments.  It is his contention his supervisor purposely recommended him for an ARCOM as an insult born of personal animus.

2.  The applicant provided emails that showed his supervisor was upset with him for circumventing the chain of command in his dealings with senior leadership after he was repeatedly warned not to do so.  Whether this created a degree of animus on the part of the applicant's supervisor is open to debate.  However, in any subordinate-superior relationships it is incumbent on the subordinate to find a way to maintain a cordial relationship.  If the subordinate cannot abide the superior's methods or leadership style, his options are to get along or find a new job.  In any event, he should follow orders and it appears the applicant did not.

3.  Commanders make subjective determinations as to which award is appropriate.  The reasons for the applicant's receipt of an ARCOM vice an MSM are unknown; however, the applicant's chain of command would generally be deferred to in this instance.  The type of award given to his predecessors is not a correct measure of the type of award appropriate to his situation.  Additionally, his overall service during this period of award does not rise to the level of an MSM.



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)                                         AR20110018221



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110018221



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1