APPLICANT REQUESTS: Award of the Southwest Asia Service Medal (SWASM) or the equivalent for his civilian service the Desert Shield/Desert Storm Medal. APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that although a member of the USAR in the grade of LTC, he served from 24 July 1992 through 27 September 1992 as a civilian on a Naval Ship the Harkness in support of military operations in the Gulf. A message sent by Naval authorities to ARPERCEN on 8 September 1992, suggested that he be activated for one day and considered for the SWASM. He submits documents in support of his contentions that because ARPERCEN did not activate him, an error or injustice occurred and he did not receive the SWASM. He mentions that he could not receive the awards for his civilian service because he missed the cutoff dates for both the civilian Merchant Marine Expeditionary Medal and the civilian equivalent to the SWASM, the Desert Shield/Desert Storm Medal. COUNSEL CONTENDS: Counsel concurs in the applicant’s presentation and requests that all reasonable doubt be resolved in the applicant’s favor. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: He is a Lieutenant Colonel in the USAR and that he took a leave of absence from his civilian job to serve on the US Naval Ship (USNS) the Harkness. He provided official record and voice communications in support of US military operations in the Gulf from 24 July 1992 through 27 September 1992. The applicant’s military records accordingly, do not show he was recommended for an award for his civilian service on the USNS Harkness nor does the record reflect he served on active duty during the period of eligibility of service members to receive the Southwest Asia Service Medal. Message changes to Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides that service in the Persian Gulf War is to be recognized by award of the Southwest Asia Service Medal (SWASM) to Army members who participated in Operations Desert Shield/Desert Storm in the designated area on or after 2 August 1990. A member serving outside the area in Israel, Egypt, Turkey, and Jordan is eligible if the unit was under the command and control of the Central Command or was serving in direct support of military operations. A Department of Defense memorandum dated 15 October 1991 announced the establishment of a civilian Desert Shield/Desert Storm award to honor civilian employees who served in the Persian Gulf War after 2 August 1990. On 6 March 1992 DOD terminated eligibility for the civilian medal. (COPY ATTACHED) Army Regulation 600-8-22 also states that an individual is not automatically entitled to an award and 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. The Army does not condone self-recognition; therefore, a soldier may not recommend himself/herself for award of a decoration. DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations it is concluded: 1. The applicant served as a civilian on a Navy Ship and did not meet the criteria for the civilian Desert Shield/Desert Storm award nor is there any evidence he was recommended for the medal prior to the cutoff of 2 March 1992. 2. The applicant was not activated as a reservist for operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm and was not eligible for the Southwest Asia Service Medal. 3. Based on the award regulations and criteria for the SWASM, the applicant was not eligible and has not shown than an error or an injustice exits based on the fact that he was not activated for one day from a recommendation from Naval Personnel. 4. Based on DOD criteria for the civilian Desert Shield/Desert Storm award the applicant’s service was after the cutoff date of 2 March 1992 and he has not shown that an error or an injustice exists. 5. The applicant’s belief that he should have received the SWASM or the civilian Desert Shield/Desert Storm Medal is not a basis for awarding the decoration and is tantamount to recommending himself for an award. 6. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s request. DETERMINATION: The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice. BOARD VOTE: GRANT GRANT FORMAL HEARING DENY APPLICATION Karl F. Schneider Acting Director