IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  27 October 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140017283 


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 reconsideration of his request to correct his to show he was awarded the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) with ?V? Device.

2.  The applicant states his award of the ARCOM should be recorded as the ARCOM with “V” Device based on the supporting statement from the brigade commander who "downgraded" it.

3.  The applicant provides a statement from a retired general officer who was the brigade commander who initially approved the award, statements from two former members of his unit who were eyewitnesses to the events that led to award of the ARCOM, and a copy of the original award recommendation.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20130000559 on 12 September 2013.

2.  The applicant's records show he enlisted in the New York Army National Guard (NYARNG) on 24 April 1999 and he held military occupational specialty 11B (Infantryman).  He was promoted to the rank/grade of sergeant (SGT)/E-5 on 30 September 2003.  He entered active duty on 1 October 2003 as a member of his NYARNG unit in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

3.  He served in Kuwait/Iraq from 26 February to 31 December 2004 while assigned to TF, 2nd Battalion, 108th Infantry, 2nd Brigade Combat Team (BCT), 1st Infantry Division.

4.  On 22 September 2004, the applicant's company commander (CO) submitted a DA Form 638 to the battalion commander recommending the applicant for award of the ARCOM with “V” Device for his actions on 18 September 2004.  In Part II (Justification and Citation Data) of the DA Form 638 the CO listed the following achievements:

	a.  "Recognizing the gravity of the situation [the applicant], while under fire, maneuvered across the canal road to rescue the patrol leader who had fallen into a canal where the water was approximately seven feet deep.  Although exposed to enemy fire [the applicant] remained with the patrol leader maintaining communications with higher [command] throughout the ordeal."

	b.  "Upon rejoining the ambush team [the applicant] called in successive illumination missions enabling the platoon to sweep the vineyards and mudflats north of the ambush site."

	c.  "Acting as the ambush team [radio telephone operator (RTO)] engaged the enemy and coordinated for the [Quick Reaction Force (QRF)] to respond.  Acting on his own initiative, he vectored in the gun trucks to support the follow-on sweep."

	d.  "[The applicant’s] attention to detail and stringent enforcement of [pre-combat inspections] insured [sic] availability of all equipment.  He personally assumed control of zeroing all PAQ-4's and PAQ-2 lasers prior to the mission which proved to be vital to mission success."

5.  In the proposed citation the CO stated:

For valor and extraordinary achievement during ground combat operations against enemy forces in Salah Ad Din Province [Iraq] on 18 September 2004.  Recognizing the gravity of the situation, [the applicant], while under fire maneuvered across the canal road to rescue the patrol leader who had fallen into a canal.  Although exposed to enemy fire [the applicant] remained with the patrol leader maintaining communications with higher [command] throughout the ordeal.  Upon rejoining the ambush team [the applicant] called in successive illumination missions enabling the platoon to sweep the vineyards and mudflats north of the ambush site.  Acting as the team RTO engaged the enemy and coordinated for the QRF to respond.  Acting on his own initiative, he vectored in the gun trucks to support the follow on sweep.  [The applicant] upholds the finest traditions of military service and reflects great credit upon himself, Dagger Brigade Combat Team, and the United States Army.

6.  The DA Form 638 shows that, on 1 October 2004, the intermediate authority and battalion commander, Lieutenant Colonel MRW, recommended approval of the award.

7.  The DA Form 638 also shows that, on 29 December 2004, the approving authority and Commander, 2nd BCT, 1st Infantry Division, Colonel (COL) RAD, "downgraded" the award to an ARCOM.

8.  Part V (Orders Data) of the DA Form 638, shows the orders approving authority and brigade adjutant entered the orders number as PO Number 346-06 and the approved award as an Army Commendation Medal.  However, he did not sign or date the form.

9.  The applicant provides and his records contain the Army Commendation Medal Certificate.  This certificate shows it was signed by the Commander, Headquarters (HQ), 2nd Brigade, 1st Infantry Division, COL JBB, on 11 December 2004 and was authorized by PO 346-06, dated 11 December 2004, for actions on 18 September 2004.  The citation reads as follows:

For meritorious achievement during ground combat operations against enemy forces in the Salah Ad Din Province, Iraq.  While under enemy fire, [applicant] maneuvered across a canal road to rescue the patrol leader who had fallen into the canal.  His dedication to duty reflects great credit upon himself, the 2nd Dagger Brigade Combat Team, and the United States Army.

10.  He was honorably released from active duty on 27 April 2005 by reason of completion of required active service.  He completed 1 year, 6 months, and 27 days of net active service during this period of service.  The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) documenting this period of service shows the ARCOM among his awards.  This DD Form 214 has twice been amended by issuance of a DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214).  

11.  On 23 April 2006, he was honorably discharged from the NYARNG.  His National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) also shows the ARCOM among his awards.

12.  The applicant provides a notarized statement from a retired brigadier general who was the brigade commander at the time who "downgraded" the applicant’s award recommendation.  He states, in effect, that after reviewing the eyewitness accounts and the evidence submitted by the applicant, he believes that the applicant’s ARCOM should be corrected to show the ?V? Device. 

13.  The applicant also provides statements from two eyewitnesses who state the applicant's actions warranted a valor award.

14.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 states the ARCOM 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. The bronze "V" Device indicates acts of heroism involving conflict with an armed enemy and authorizes the device in conjunction with awards of the ARCOM, the Air Medal, and the Bronze Star Medal.

15.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents), then in effect, stated a new DD Form 214 would be issued in cases where a DD Form 214 had been amended twice by issuance of a DD Form 215 and further correction was required.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contentions and supporting documents have been carefully considered and appear to have merit.

2.  The original approval authority who directed that the award be downgraded has reviewed the evidence submitted by the applicant and has now determined that he did not have all of the facts of the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s act of valor at the time he "downgraded" the award and now recommends that the applicant's record be corrected to show the ARCOM with ?V? Device.

3.  It is apparent that the applicant acted selflessly without regard for his own life and did so in order to preserve the life of a fellow Soldier, which were valorous acts. 

4.  Accordingly, it would be in the interest of equity to correct his record to show he was awarded the ARCOM with ?V? Device and to issue him a new citation.

5.  It is noted that his NGB Form 22 shows the ARCOM without a "V" Device.  He is advised to contact the NYARNG to request amendment of his NGB Form 22 based on these proceedings.

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 amendment of the ABCMR’s decision in Docket Number AR20130000559, dated 12 September 2013.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: 
       
* issuing him a new DD Form 214 for the period ending 27 April 2005 showing, among his authorized awards, the ARCOM with "V" Device instead of the ARCOM
* issuing him a new ARCOM Certificate showing the ARCOM was awarded with a "V" Device and bearing the original proposed citation



      _______ _   _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)                                         AR20140017283





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140017283



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1