BOARD DATE:	  11 February 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130010931 


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 an upgrade of his retirement award from a Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) to a Legion of Merit (LM).

2.  The applicant states the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) downgraded his retirement award to an MSM based on a lack of cumulative achievements; however, HRC failed to request additional achievement information prior to rendering a decision on his original award recommendation.

3.  The applicant provides:

* DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award), dated 15 May 2012, approved in Permanent Order Number 194-1 issued by HRC, Fort Knox, KY, dated 23 July 2012
* DA Form 4980-12 (MSM Certificate)
* letter from Colonel (COL) H____ C. R____, U.S. Army (Retired), dated 13 November 2012
* letter from Mr. L____ O. H____, Deputy Director, Enlisted Personnel Management Directorate, HRC, Fort Knox, KY, dated 21 December 2012
* letter of recommendation from Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) D____ A. Y____, U.S. Army (Retired), dated 17 July 2013
* compact disc containing DA Form 638 input

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant entered military service in August 1970.

2.  On or about 19 June 1980 after prior service in the U.S. Navy and U.S. Naval Reserve, the applicant enlisted in the Army National Guard (ARNG) where he served until he was honorably discharged from the ARNG on 18 December 1985.

3.  On or about 19 December 1985, he enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR).  He continued to serve through multiple reenlistments in a variety of stateside, overseas, and combat assignments, and he was promoted to the rank/grade of master sergeant (MSG)/E-8 on 1 January 2003.

4.  On 9 June 2003, he was mobilized and ordered to active duty in support of Operation Noble Eagle.  On 5 June 2006, he was honorably released from active duty and returned to the control of the USAR.

5.  On 18 March 2007, he was mobilized and ordered to active duty in support of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF).  He deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan and he was honorably released from active duty and returned to the control of the USAR on 8 September 2008.

6.  On 11 October 2008, he was voluntarily ordered to active duty in support of OEF (Contingency Operations-Active Duty Operational Support).  On 24 March 2009, he was honorably released from active duty and returned to the control of the USAR.

7.  On 13 March 2010, he was mobilized and ordered to active duty in support of OEF.  He deployed to Afghanistan and he was honorably released from active duty and returned to the control of the USAR on 2 March 2011.

8.  HRC Orders C-03-103948, dated 14 March 2011, transferred him to the Retired Reserve effective 12 March 2011.

9.  HRC Orders P03-942650, dated 18 March 2011, placed him on the Retired List effective 1 April 2011.

10.  His Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) contains a number of different DD Forms 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) that document various periods of active duty performed throughout his total period of military service.  None of the DD Forms 214 indicate he was previously awarded the LM; however, they do indicate he was awarded the MSM (2nd Award).

11.  The DA Form 638, dated 15 May 2012, shows:

* the applicant was recommended for award of the MSM (3rd Award) by the Chief of the Army Reserve Enlisted Operations Branch, HRC
* the period covered was from 10 March 2001 to 11 March 2011 (10 years)
* the applicant was recognized for over 40 years of service
* the applicant's two deployments in support of OEF were acknowledged

12.  HRC Permanent Order Number 194-1, dated 23 July 2012, awarded him the MSM (3rd Award) for meritorious service covering a 10-year period from 10 March 2001 to 11 March 2011.  The HRC Commander, a major general, approved his retirement award and signed his award certificate.

13.  On 13 November 2012, COL (Retired) H____ C. R____, one of the applicant's former commanders, appealed to HRC for reconsideration of the applicant's retirement award and an upgrade of the applicant' MSM to an LM.

14.  On 21 December 2012, HRC considered COL (Retired) R____'s request for an upgrade of the applicant's retirement award and determined the award would remain as originally presented.

15.  The applicant provided a letter of recommendation from LTC (Retired) D____ A. Y____, dated 17 July 2013, in which he expresses surprise that the applicant's retirement award was not an LM.  LTC (Retired) Y____ attributes certain coalition force achievements in Afghanistan to the applicant's performance of duty and professionalism.

16.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning individual and unit military awards.

	a.  The MSM 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 in a noncombat area.  As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required.  Recommendations must be made within 2 years of the event or period of service and the award must be made within 3 years.  There are regulatory provisions for lost recommendations but not for late recommendations, reconsideration, or for upgrading to a more prestigious award.  This regulation also provides that there is no automatic entitlement to an award upon departure, either from an assignment or from the service.

	b.  The LM is awarded to individuals who distinguish themselves by exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding services and achievements.  The performance must merit recognition of key individuals for service rendered in a clearly exceptional manner.  Performance of duties normal to the grade, branch, specialty, or assignment and experience of an individual is not an adequate basis for this award.  In peacetime, service should be in the nature of a special requirement or an extremely difficult duty performed in an unprecedented and clearly exceptional manner.  However, justification may accrue by virtue of exceptionally meritorious service in a succession of important positions.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request for an upgrade of his retirement award from an MSM to an LM was carefully considered.

2.  It was the recommender's prerogative to determine the appropriate level of retirement award based on his or her professional experience, interpretation of the regulation, and analysis of the recommended Soldier's career achievements. 
He recommended the applicant for award of the MSM (3rd Award).  Based on the DA Form 638, the applicant's career length and number of deployments were noted and considered.

3.  The award approval authority concurred with the recommendation and approved award of the MSM (3rd Award) as a retirement award.  There is no evidence of error or injustice.

4.  One of his former commanders appealed to HRC on his behalf in an effort to have his retirement award reconsidered.  After further review, HRC determined his retirement award was appropriate as written and previously approved.

5.  The supporting third-party recommendations he provided in support of an upgrade which attest to his exceptional duty performance were carefully considered.  Clearly he contributed to the success and accomplishments of the organizations with which he was associated during his military career.

6.  However, his belief that he should have been awarded the LM, although supported by former members of his chain command, is not a basis for awarding him the LM, nor does it serve as justification to upgrade his MSM (3rd Award).

7.  There is no evidence in the available records and the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to show the approved MSM (3rd Award) should be upgraded to the LM.  Therefore, there is no basis to grant the requested relief.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___X_  ___X_____  ___X_____  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.

2.  While the decision of the ABCMR in this case is not favorable, the Board wants the applicant, his fellow veterans, and all others concerned to know this action in no way diminishes the applicant's service to the United States.  The applicant distinguished himself by over 40 years of honorable service.  Unquestionably, the applicant and all Americans should be very proud of his service in arms and the recognition accorded him.



      ___________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)                                         AR20120005117



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130010931



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1