IN THE CASE OF

		BOARD DATE:	  4 June 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140005450 


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 Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) to the Bronze Star Medal (BSM).

2.  The applicant states:

	a.  This award was erroneously processed through the continental United States (CONUS) channels which caused an injustice and unequal treatment.  This is a case where an inexperienced supervisor sidestepped the awards system in Afghanistan to route a Soldier's award to CONUS instead of processing it through appropriate award channels in Afghanistan.  Both the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) and an Inspector General (IG) have found this to be erroneous.

	b.  On 14 February 2014, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) advised him to process his request through HRC before his request would be acted on by the ABCMR.  He contacted HRC several times via telephone and email requesting a denial letter.  Before submitting his request to the ABCMR, HRC advised him that they could not help him and they would not provide a denial letter because any action to change his award must originate with the chain of command that processed the award.

	c.  He advised HRC that Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) S____, the officer who processed his award, told him the Judge Advocate General's (JAG) Legal Center and School Commander in Charlottesville, VA, who approved his MSM, would not revoke it.  LTC S____ also told him the JAG Legal Center and School Commander wanted him to receive a BSM, but he could not approve a BSM because he was in CONUS.  Inasmuch as the MSM will not be revoked and HRC has stated that they cannot change the award, there are no additional administrative remedies.

	d.  He loves his country and loves serving in the Army.  He has faith the Army can fix this mistake.  If the ABMCR does not approve this request, this clear injustice will be a permanent part of his military records.

	e.  He is including three letters of recommendation from Soldiers who served with him in Afghanistan and attest to the injustice present in this case.  They recommend approval of the BSM to correct this injustice.  Even if the MSM were revoked, HRC explained that there is no requirement for LTC S____ to resubmit a new award recommendation and, even if she did, the BSM would have to be approved in Afghanistan.  The entire command structure in Afghanistan has changed with the drawdown, so processing an award in this manner is not possible.

	f.  This petition will show he was the only Soldier out of 21 of his peer JAG captains (CPT's) in Afghanistan from 2011 to 2012 not to be awarded the BSM.  He deployed to Afghanistan from September 2011 to September 2012 as an Army Trial Defense Service (TDS) attorney.  He handled high-profile murder and homicide cases while serving in Afghanistan, including the Staff Sergeant B____ murder case.  Going into hostile combat areas that were repeatedly attacked to represent Soldiers in military justice matters was difficult.  Yet observing and learning that 21 of his peer CPT's whom he served with in Afghanistan were awarded BSM's when he was awarded an MSM from a commander not even in Afghanistan has been much harder to bear.

	g.  The reason he received a CONUS MSM was because he received a new supervisor just 7 weeks before he redeployed.  LTC S____ was new and did not yet know how the awards process in Afghanistan worked or the various commanders in Afghanistan who could approve award of a BSM when the time came to submit his award.  The BSM is a significant award authorized only for service in a combat zone.  A leader has to staff the award recommendation through command award boards for approval.  This did not happen because LTC S____ was new in theater and was not familiar with where appropriate commanders were located.

	h.  LTC S____ was located in Bagram and he was in Kabul.  Being new and not aware of the commanders in the Kabul region where he was located, she downgraded the BSM prepared by his prior supervisor to an MSM and emailed it to the Army JAG Legal Center and School, some 7,007 miles away.  LTC S____ could have submitted an award recommendation for him to the International Security Assistance Force Joint Command (IJC) Commander in Kabul.  Colonel (COL) G____ confirms this in his letter of recommendation where he discusses how one of his subordinates in Kabul received a BSM.  Unfortunately, this did not happen in his case because LTC S____ was not aware that this was an option.

	i.  Had she contacted COL G____ and submitted his recommendation to the IJC commander of the Kabul region where he was serving, a BSM very likely would have been approved because a subordinate in his office (CPT H____) was awarded a BSM from the IJC Commander.  This disparity in awards and the injustice resulting from it is why COL G____ submitted the enclosed recommendation for him to receive a BSM.

	j.  LTC S____ arrived in Afghanistan just 7 weeks before he redeployed.  He was the first Soldier to redeploy under her watch.  LTC S____ may have had good intentions in processing an MSM, but her actions are hard to understand because she downgraded the BSM award recommendation prepared by LTC M____ whom he served the first 9 months of his deployment under and ignored the instructions in his orders assigning him to the deployed commander for award purposes.  Processing the award in CONUS was also contrary to Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards), paragraph 3-14(b), as well as the Afghanistan awards SOP.  In essence, she went around the appointed awards system rather than staff the award through the designated Afghanistan award channels.  Sending the award recommendation to CONUS prevented Afghanistan commanders from evaluating his performance and awarding him the BSM.

	k.  In this case, his was the only award recommendation sent to CONUS of any CPT in Afghanistan.  This raises a "red flag."  HRC found this was improper and the award should be revoked (letter enclosed).  Had LTC S____ contacted the Staff JAG in Kabul where he was located, he would have helped her submit a recommendation that very likely could have been approved.  The fact that she recommended each of her six Defense Counsel CPT subordinates for BSM's after he left – each of which was approved – is powerful evidence that she learned how the awards system functioned after being in Afghanistan for a few months.  His receipt of a lesser award because LTC S____ was new to the theater is an injustice.

	l.  The BSM is awarded for "heroic or meritorious achievement or service…in connection with military operations against an armed enemy (Army Regulation 600-8-22, paragraph 3-14b, dated 15 September 2011)."  His service was in connection with operations against an armed enemy as was that of his 21 peer CPT's who were awarded the BSM.  He traveled extensively in hazardous combat areas and the locations he served in Afghanistan received indirect artillery fire on dozens of occasions.
	m.  The BSM is a combat award, the MSM is not.  The BSM is recognized in our society for service in the combat zone.  It qualifies the recipient for additional government benefits over those of a Soldier with an MSM.  Many states grant free license plates to service members who are awarded the BSM.  One of these states is Massachusetts, a state where he studied for hundreds of hours to pass the bar examination and where he pays annual dues for the right to practice law. 
He would like to retire to Massachusetts and have the same benefits for which 21 of his peers can qualify if they live in Massachusetts.

	n.  A BSM is also very important in obtaining post-government employment.  It is an injustice that he cannot qualify for the same government benefits or post-government opportunities as his peers, despite the fact that they rendered the same deployed service.  Awards are also normally mentioned in their résumés.  He would like to have equal credibility with his peers in his professional references.  He served in support of operations against an armed enemy as the language in his award recommended demonstrates.  He frequently traveled to perilous places because of the cases he was assigned and repeatedly visited very dangerous places where numerous Soldiers or civilians were killed or wounded including Forward Operating Base (FOB) Rushmore, FOB Zangabad, and the Bagram and Kandahar air bases.

	o.  Normally his exposure to hostile fire was limited; however, it became very personal during a rocket attack at Kandahar air base on 5 April 2013.  He cited this information because the fight in Afghanistan was real and he was close enough to experience it.

	p.  HRC determined that his CONUS MSM was "not processed correctly under regulation."  This error warrants correction.  His deployment orders issued by Headquarters, U.S. Army Garrison Command, Fort Knox, KY, specified in subparagraph l that "[d]uring [the] period of assignment/deployment, [the] gaining/deployed unit commander has responsibility for personnel service support to include awards and decorations…"  This language is clear in showing his deployment award should have been processed in Afghanistan by a deployed unit commander.  The MSM was approved just 1 day after its submission.  This supports the conclusion that there was minimal consideration at higher levels for other avenues for award of a BSM that could have been pursued in Afghanistan. 
This is understandable because it is normal for higher commanders to defer to a leader on the ground in the combat zone for information.  In this case, a new leader's mistake resulted in this error.

	q.  He contacted the IJC IG, COL L____ N____, for guidance about what to do about the awards.  COL N____ sent him a copy of the IJC awards SOP and stated the SOP gave specific guidance about when the BSM is proper compared to the MSM.  COL N____ explained that the BSM is the proper award for the type of service he and CPT H____ performed in the combat zone because of the guidance in the SOP pertaining to service in connection with combat operations as follows:

Bronze Star Medal (BSM) vs. Meritorious Service Medal (MSM).  The MSM is for non-combat meritorious service or achievement and the BSM is for meritorious service or achievement in connection with military operations against an armed enemy.  If the approval authority desires to award the MSM as an alternative award to a BSM recommendation, then he/she should first ensure the achievements are for non-combat meritorious achievement or service.

	r.  COL N____ also explained that a CONUS commander is not authorized to award the BSM so routing an award recommendation to CONUS resulted in an automatic downgrade of the award.  The facts and the submitted documents show beyond a preponderance of the evidence that an error and injustice have occurred in this case.  COL G____, a senior officer on the ground who observed his performance in Afghanistan, submitted the enclosed BSM recommendation to correct this error and injustice.

3.  The applicant provides copies of the following:

* Officer Record Brief
* Headquarters, U.S. Army Garrison Command, Orders XX-213-0001
* Combined Joint Task Force-1 (CJTF-1) and Regional Command-East Awards Staff Action Cover Sheet
* three DA Forms 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER))
* DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award) for Military Outstanding Volunteer Service Medal (MOVSM)
* DA Form 638 for MSM
* note from LTC S____
* memorandum for record (MFR), dated 6 January 2013, subject:  Memorandum in Support of BSM for (Applicant)
* memorandum, dated 1 November 2013, subject:  Request for Evaluation of Deployment MSM for Proper Handling
* memorandum, dated 8 November 2013, subject:  Reconsideration of Afghanistan Service Award for (Applicant)
* memorandum, dated 3 December 2013, subject:  (Applicant) Deployment Award
* DA Form 638, narration, and citation for BSM for (Applicant)
* narrative and citation for BSM for CPT P____ G. J____
* narrative and citation for BSM for CPT D____ H____


* Headquarters, IJC, SOP 071 – Awards and Decorations
* travel itinerary and risk assessment
* statement on indirect fire incident
* six email messages between himself and U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM)
* twelve photographs
* Army Regulation 600-8-22, paragraph 3-14 (BSM)
* four news articles on suicide and fire attacks in Afghanistan
* The Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers Annual Registration Statement
* Massachusetts VetsAdvisor information about the Bronze Star license plate
* Veteran Career Counseling Services Military Resume to Civilian Resume Guide

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the U.S. Army Reserve on 1 July 2002.  He was appointed as a first lieutenant in the Regular Army JAG Corps on 22 April 2005.  He was promoted to CPT on 18 June 2007.

2.  He provided copies of the following:

	a.  Headquarters, U.S. Army Garrison Command, Orders XX-213-0001, dated 1 August 2011, deploying him in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom-Afghanistan not to exceed 379 days with a proceed date of 31 September 2011;

	b.  a CJTF-1 and Regional Command-East Awards Staff Action Cover Sheet, dated 1 December 2011, showing an Awards Board Recommendation was requested for approval of the BSM for him for the period 1 October 2011 through 30 September 2012;

	c.  three DA Forms 67-9 for the periods 1 November 2011 through 23 June 2012, 24 June 2012 through 22 September 2012, and 23 September 2012 through 21 June 2013, showing he was assessed as "Outstanding Performance, Must Promote" and "Best Qualified."  The OER's ending 23 June and 22 September 2012 were change-of-rater OER's;

	d.  a DA Form 638, undated, recommending him for the MOVSM for exceptionally meritorious service for the period 15 November 2011 through 9 July 2012 and approved on 10 July 2012;


	e.  a DA Form 638, dated 7 August 2012, awarding him the MSM for exceptionally meritorious service for the period 1 October 2011 through 21 September 2012 in JAG Legal Center and School Permanent Order (PO) Number 223-1, dated 10 August 2012.  Achievement Number 3 stated:

…He often traveled through dangerous areas by helicopter and military fixed-wing aircraft to advise Soldiers, interview witnesses, and conduct case investigations in preparation for trial.  His actions allowed unit to save precious time and resources and focus on their combat operations;

	f.  a note from LTC S____ notifying him of the arrival of his award;

	g.  an MFR, dated 6 January 2013, subject:  Memorandum in Support of BSM for (Applicant), wherein CPT H____ stated his support for award of the BSM to the applicant.  The applicant was a member of the Army TDS and eventually assigned to Camp Phoenix, Kabul, Afghanistan, as the Senior Defense Counsel. 
He was the detailed military counsel on a high-profile homicide case and the lead counsel on a high-profile hazing case.  Preparation for these and other cases required frequent travel outside the wire to conduct investigations and interviews on behalf of his clients.  His overall performance in that very stressful environment was exceptionally meritorious.  During that period all departing TDS Counsel, including himself, were awarded the BSM.  The applicant was not recommended for award of a BSM; rather, he was recommended for award of an MSM which he ultimately received upon departing theater.  He stated the applicant met all the criteria to be awarded the BSM and it is inexplicable that he was never recommended for that award;

	h.  a memorandum for HRC, dated 1 November 2013, subject:  Request for Evaluation of Deployment MSM for Proper Handling, wherein the applicant requested an evaluation of the MSM's compliance with the 2011 Army Regulation 600-8-22.  He stated the award was not processed in accordance with regulatory and policy and reiterated his request to upgrade the MSM to the BSM;

	i.  a memorandum for the ABCMR, dated 8 November 2013, subject:  Reconsideration of Afghanistan Service Award for (Applicant), wherein COL G____ recommended the applicant's award for service in Afghanistan from September 2011 to September 2012 be upgraded to the BSM.  COL G____ stated it was his understanding that during that period all TDS officers assigned to Afghanistan received the BSM except the applicant.  He personally assisted in getting a BSM approved for one of the applicant's subordinate officers through the IJC/III Corps Commanding General because TDS did not have an established chain of command in the area of occupation.  The applicant traveled throughout Afghanistan providing legal defense to Soldiers and took the same substantial risks as his other fellow defense counsels;

	j.  a memorandum for the ABCMR, dated 3 December 2013, subject:  (Applicant) Deployment Award, wherein Major S____ G. W____ expressed his support for upgrading the applicant's MSM to the BSM for the applicant's combat tour in Afghanistan.  Due to the high level of attacks, Soldiers who worked outside the wire assumed great risk.  The applicant's duties required him to work outside the wire and travel to areas that placed him in harm's way.  He knew the applicant embraced the challenges and danger and performed all of his duties in an exceptional manner.  He believed service awards should accurately reflect the performance rendered and the thought that the applicant received a MSM when his records indicated that he performed and warranted a BSM should not be overlooked;

	k.  a DA Form 638, dated 7 December 2013, wherein COL G____ recommended the applicant for award of the BSM for the period 1 September 2011 through 7 September 2012;

	l.  a BSM Narration wherein COL G____ stated, in part:

[Applicant] distinguished himself by exceptionally meritorious service to the United States as the Senior Defense Counsel at the FOB Sharana and Camp Phoenix Field Offices of the United States Army Trial Defense Service, Central Command Area of Responsibility, from 30 September to 7 September 2012, during OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM.  [Applicant] provided gifted leadership to both field offices which serve over 90,000 Soldiers throughout Afghanistan.  [Applicant] also traveled extensively throughout Afghanistan including areas of high risk to provide legal representation to Soldiers and support good order and discipline through the combat theater.

…[Applicant] has repeatedly traveled through dangerous, hostile areas which regularly receive enemy fire by helicopter, military fixed-wing aircraft, and ground convoy to interview witnesses, gather evidence, and conduct case investigations.  [The applicant] has placed [sic] repeatedly placed his personal safety at risk by traveling to clients and witnesses rather than requiring them to put themselves in harm's way by coming to his location.  His actions allowed units to save precious time and resources and focus on combat operations.  His efforts not only reduced the number of convoys, but also enhanced individual and unit readiness by quickly and efficiently resolving legal issues at the Soldiers' place of duty;

	m.  a BSM Citation stating:

For exceptionally meritorious service while serving as a Senior Defense Counsel, United States Army Trial Defense Service, Central Command Area of Responsibility from 30 September 2011 to 7 September 2012, [Applicant's professionalism and dedication to duty significantly contributed to the success of the unit's mission.  [Applicant's] accomplishments are in keeping with the finest traditions of the military and reflect great credit upon himself, the Trial Defense Service, and the United States Army;

	n.  a BSM Narrative for CPT P____ G. J____ stating, in part:

CPT P____ G. J____ distinguished himself by exceptionally meritorious service to the United States as the Senior Defense Counsel (SDC) for the U.S. Army Trial Defense Service (TDS), Camp Phoenix Field Office, Kabul, Afghanistan, Central Command (CENTCOM) Region, Combined Joint Task Force-1 (CJTF-1), Afghanistan, from 19 June 2011 through 2 June 2012, during OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM.  Upon arrival, CPT J____ assumed responsibility for providing trial defense services to over 90,000 Soldiers throughout CENTCOM Area of Responsibility (AOR), particularly Afghanistan, Iraq, and Kuwait, as well as emergency defense services to all Servicemembers and civilians accompanying the force.

…Without hesitation, he traveled extensively by both rotary, fixed-wing aircraft, and convoys to numerous remove locations in the CENTCOM AOR including regular travel to RC [Regional Command]-North, FOB Shank, and within Kabul, in order to represent Soldiers at courts-martial, Article 32 hearings, and administrative boards, as well as to interview witness [sic] and secure needed evidence for his client's case.  His willingness to subject himself to the hazards of traveling in an unstable combat environment in order to prevent his Soldiers-clients and their comrades and superiors from having to do so not only reduced the number of convoys on the dangerous roads of Afghanistan, but enhanced individual and unit readiness by quickly and efficiently resolving issues at the Soldiers's [sic] respective places of duty;

	o.  a BSM Citation for CPT P____ G. J____ stating:

For exceptionally meritorious service while serving as a Senior Defense Counsel for Camp Phoenix, Afghanistan, Trial Defense Service Field Office, Central Command Region, in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, from 19 June 2011 to 2 June 2012, CPT J____'s personal courage and contributions in a combat zone are in keeping with the finest traditions of military service.  CPT J____'s performance reflects great credit upon himself, the U.S. Army Trial Defense Service, Task Force Maverick, Regional Command-East, Combined Joint Task Force-1, the U.S. Army, and the U.S. Department of Defense.

	p.  a BSM Narration for CPT D____ H____ stating:

CPT D____ H____ distinguished himself by exceptionally meritorious service to the United States as a Defense Counsel at Camp Phoenix Field Office of the United States Army Trial Defense Service, Central Command Area of Responsibility, from 28 January 2012 through 15 September 2012, during OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM.  CPT H____ provided exceptional legal services to multiple commands with RC-Central, RC-East, and RC-South AOR which serve over 90,000 Soldiers throughout Afghanistan.  CPT H____ traveled extensively throughout Afghanistan, including areas of high risk, to provide legal services to Soldiers.  His service directly benefited hundreds of Soldiers and was instrumental in multiple commands maintaining good order and discipline and combat effectiveness;

	q.  a BSM Citation for CPT D____ H____ stating:

For exceptionally meritorious service while serving as a Defense Counsel, United States Army Trial Defense Service, Central Command Area of Responsibility from 28 January 2012 to 15 September 2012, CPT H____'s professionalism and dedication to duty significantly contributed to the success of the mission.  CPT H____'s accomplishments are in keeping with the finest traditions of the military and reflects [sic] great credit upon himself, the Trial Defense Service, Task Force Hydra, and the United States Army;

	r.  Headquarters, IJC SOP 071 – Awards and Decorations, updated 16 September 2011, showing:

		(1)  paragraphs 6a and b granted wartime Army awards authority and approval for certain Army Service Component awards by the Department of the Army to the IJC Commander.  The CENTCOM Commander was granted approval authority for IJC joint awards up to and including the Defense MSM;

		(2)  paragraph 6d provided that requests for reconsideration of a disapproved or downgraded award must be placed in official channels within 1 year from the date of the awarding authority's decision.  Requests for reconsideration must be forwarded through the same official channels as the original recommendation;

		(3)  Table 1 (IJC Awards Approval Authority Matrix) specified the Commander, Headquarters, IJC, was the approval authority for award of the BSM and MSM; and

		(4)  paragraph 9b provided that IJC would not conduct an awards board.  It was incumbent upon subordinate commanders/directors to ensure that each award submitted to the IJC Commander met the criteria for the recommended level of award and the administrative standards or submission.  Awards outside of this guidance would require specific justification;

	s.  a self-authored travel and attack log showing his travels in Afghanistan and attacks between October 2011 and September 2012;

	t.  CENTCOM TDS Travel Risk Assessments documenting his travel locations and purposes for December 2011, January 2012, June 2012, and September 2012;

	u.  a self-authored statement pertaining to an indirect fire incident at Kandahar Airbase, Afghanistan, stating he was in a temporary office and heard an explosion not too far away on his last night there.  Then there was a much closer explosion that shook the earth.  He jumped on the ground and climbed under the desk.  He decided to run for a bunker.  Several more explosions followed and he heard ambulances race by.  As he was lying in the office and later in the bunker thinking about the possibility of a mortar round coming too close and ending his life, he prayed for the Lord's protection;

	v.  six email messages between himself and CENTCOM pertaining to the current proceeding of his award, the IJC SOP, and guidance about the MSM not being downgraded for the BSM;\

	w.  12 photographs taken of various locations in Afghanistan during his travels for case interviews;

	x.  an email message from an HRC staff member, dated 19 February 2014, advising him that her office would not compose a memorandum as he requested because the regulation was clear in specifying who could or couldn't handle that type of situation.  The fact that the applicant's prior chain of command was not willing to take action was the reason HRC's hands were tied.  Just because the applicant's chain of command was not in the same place did not mean he couldn't obtain an endorsement.  HRC has had individuals from the Vietnam War who obtained signatures from their chains of command and those individuals were either retired or deceased;

	y.  Army Regulation 600-8-22, paragraph 3-14, citing the criteria for award of the BSM;

	z.  four articles pertaining to suicide and fire attacks in Afghanistan;

	aa.  The Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers Annual Registration Statement;

	bb.  Massachusetts VetsAdvisor information about the Bronze Star license plate stating BSM license places are issued to veterans who have been awarded the BSM; and

	cc.  a Veteran Career Counseling Services Military Resume to Civilian Resume Guide for writing an effective resume.

3.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 prescribes Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning individual and unit military awards.

	a.  Paragraph 3-6 (Wartime Conditions Award Approval Authority) provides that the Medal of Honor is awarded only by the President.  Other decorations are awarded by the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of the Army.  When wartime conditions erupt, authority to further delegate decorations approval authority will be requested from the Secretary of the Army.  Initial delegation will be requested consistent with the award approval authority outlined in Table 3-6.  Initial delegation authority is not absolute but is provided for contingency planning purposes only.  Delegation of awards approval authority will be reviewed at 30-day intervals after combat commences to determine if further delegation would be expedient and justified.  Award authority is gradually increased as the length and intensity of conflict increases, and the number of Soldiers committed to the combat theater increases.

	b.  Paragraph 3-6b provides that combat and wartime conditions present opportunities and events which lead to award of decorations, service medals, and badges to Soldiers.  Most of these awards and decorations are inactive until the commencement of hostilities.  The immediate requirement by commanders to recognize deserving personnel generates heavy administrative requirements throughout all echelons.

		(1)  To help meet the demand and to expedite recognition of combat deeds, delegation of wartime awards approval authority commences and is delegated to commanders based on the level of command.

		(2)  As larger elements or armies are committed, authority to approve higher-level awards is granted based on the seniority level of the Army commanders.

		(3)  Delegated awards authority creates the requirement for additional reporting of approved awards.

	c.  Paragraph 3-15 provides that the BSM is awarded to any person who, while serving in any capacity in or with the Army of the United States after 6 December 1941, distinguished himself or herself by heroic or meritorious achievement or service not involving participation in aerial flight in connection with military operations against an armed enemy or while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.

	d.  Paragraph 3-16 provides that the MSM is awarded to any member of the Armed Forces of the United States or to any member of the Armed Forces of a friendly foreign nation who distinguished himself or herself by outstanding meritorious achievement or service.

	e.  Orders publication authority for awards may be delegated by MSM-approval authorities (brigadier general (BG) and above) to commanders exercising lower award approval authority.  

	f.  Table 3-6 (Delegation of Award Approval Authority – Wartime Criteria) shows the approval authority for the BSM will be a senior Army commander and commanders of a separate force serving in the rank of lieutenant general (LTG).  Authority may be further delegated to major generals (MG's) or BG's serving in MG positions and commanders of separate units.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contentions and the documentation he submitted were carefully considered and found to have merit.  While serving as a senior trial defense he often traveled throughout dangerous areas by helicopter and military fixed-wing aircraft to advise Soldiers, interview witnesses, and conduct case investigations.  He believes he was not properly recognized for his heroism and meritorious service.  Twenty-one of his peer CPT's were awarded the BSM and he should also have been awarded the BSM for his service.  Had his award recommendation been routed through the proper channels in-country it appears he would have been awarded the BSM.

2.  It appears he met the criteria for award of a BSM during his period of service in Afghanistan.  Therefore, as a matter of equity in this case, his MSM should be changed to a BSM.

BOARD VOTE:

___X____  ___X___  ___X____    GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by:

* revoking PO Number 223-1, dated 10 August 2012, awarding the applicant the MSM
* issuing orders awarding the applicant the BSM for exceptionally meritorious service for the period 1 October 2011 through 21 September 2012



      _______ _   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)                                         AR20140005450



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140005450


2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1