IN THE CASE OF:	

		BOARD DATE:	  16 April 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20150002910 


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 recommendation for award of the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) with “V” Device.

2.  The applicant states that the final approval authority (Brigade Commander) was biased and unfair when considering his award recommendation.  He goes on to state that other Soldiers were approved for the ARCOM w/ “V” Device and even much higher valor awards for conducting the same actions (all within close proximity of his actions) throughout the same mission on a deployment in support of Operation Enduring Freedom 12-13.  He further states that proof arguing against the unjust action is demonstrated in attachments with his application.  Additionally, the final approval authority failed to provide any reasoning or comments regarding the award’s disapproval when questioned on it.  Additionally, his award was not properly processed by forwarding it to the Human Resources Command (HRC) for inclusion in his official records.

3.  The applicant provides the following documents in support of his application:

* Letter from the Human Resources Command (HRC) regarding a request from his platoon leader for reconsideration of his award of the ARCOM w/ “V” Device
* Initial DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award)
* Authorization for his platoon leader to act in his behalf
* A four-page letter from his platoon leader explaining his application
* A letter from his platoon leader to his congressional representative 
* Copies of emails
* An Army Times article of Special Forces Soldiers receiving valor awards
* Responses from his platoon leader’s congressional representative

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant was serving in Afghanistan in the rank of sergeant when an award of the ARCOM was approved on 20 April 2013 for meritorious service during the period of 15 November 2012 to 31 July 2013.

2.  It also appears that on 23 April 2013, the applicant’s platoon leader submitted a recommendation for award of the ARCOM w/ “V” Device to the applicant for valor on 9 March 2013 while conducting route clearing operations.  The company and battalion commanders recommended approval; however, the brigade commander disapproved the recommendation on 9 July 2013.  He provided no comments.

3.  Although undated, the recommendation for award of the ARCOM w/ “V” was resubmitted to the succeeding brigade commander and again the applicant’s chain of command recommended approval; however, the succeeding brigade commander also disapproved the recommendation and provided no comments.

4.  The Army Times article provided by the applicant contains descriptions of valorous acts by Special Forces Soldiers in Afghanistan. Only one is for the        9 March 2013 action and it does not indicate the award received by the Soldier cited.

5.  A review of the applicant’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) shows copies of both of the DA Form 638s (Recommendation for Award) filed in his records.

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.  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 the bronze “V” device indicates acts of heroism involving conflict with an armed enemy and authorizes the device in conjunction with awards of the Army Commendation Medal.

8.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 states it is the responsibility of any individual having personal knowledge of an act, achievement, or service believed to warrant the award of a decoration to submit a formal recommendation into military command channels for consideration within 2 years of the act, achievement, or service to be honored.  The Army does not condone self-recognition; therefore, a Soldier may not recommend himself/herself for award of a decoration.

9.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 also provides the procedures for processing the DA Form 638 and it does not provide that the awards approval authority must state their reasons for disapproving or downgrading an award recommendation.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contention that the denial of his award recommendation was unjust because the brigade commander (awards approval authority) was biased and unfair has been noted and appears to lack merit.

2.  The applicant contends that because other Soldiers received valor awards for the same type of actions serves to show that his brigade commander was biased and unfair appears to lack merit from the stand point that he has not provided specific evidence to show that his commander was not consistent in using his authority to approve or disapprove awards

3.  Additionally, he has not provided specific examples other than general newspaper articles related to Soldiers in other commands and has provided no evidence related to Soldiers cited for valorous acts in his command. 

4.  It is also noted that not only did the brigade commander who was on the ground at the time disapprove the initial recommendation, the succeeding commander also disapproved the re-written recommendation as well.

5.  While the applicant may disagree with the denial of his recommendation for award of the ARCOM w/ “V” Device and the fact that the brigade commander did not explain the reasons for his decision, the governing regulation does not require the awards approval authority to explain decisions that are inherent with their positions as commanders.

6.  Accordingly, there appears to be no basis to grant his request for reconsideration for award of the ARCOM w/ “V” Device.



BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ____X___  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____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 that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.

2.  The Board wants the applicant and all others concerned to know that this action in no way diminishes the sacrifices made by the applicant in service to the United States during the Global War on Terrorism.  The applicant and all Americans should be justifiably proud of his service in arms.



      ___________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)                                         AR20150002910





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20150002910



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1