MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            11 March 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AC98-10365
				    AR1998013621

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr. Hubert S. Shaw, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Chairperson	
	Mr. Van B. Cunningham		Member	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Award of the Soldier’s Medal.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was to receive a Soldier’s Medal for saving a fellow soldier from drowning on 5 October 1944.  In support of his application, the applicant submitted a 3 May 1948 affidavit by the soldier whom the applicant saved from drowning, a 13 May 1998 letter which describes the events in question, three letters of recommendation concerning the applicant’s entry into military service, four personal letters written during the October and December 1944) time frame; two articles from unit newspapers, a 28 September 1948 letter from the Adjutant General denying reconsideration of the disapproval of a recommendation for the Soldier’s Medal; a 6 February 1992 letter to a Member of Congress; a 31 March 1998 response from the Member of Congress; pictures of two unit commanders; an honorable discharge for a sentry dog; and a certificate of appreciation to the applicant for donating his dog for military purposes.  The widow of the of the fellow soldier who was saved by the applicant from drowning submitted a letter of support, dated 24 August 1998.

Analyst’s Note:  The applicant was a member of the Army Air Force during World War II.  This case is being considered by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records, instead of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records, because the applicant has requested award of the Soldier’s Medal which is an award unique to the Army and for which there was no equivalent Air Force award during World War II.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  That there was a recommendation accomplished even though it is absent.  Further the applicant told his wife in a letter that the Colonel had recommended him for the Soldier’s Medal.  The applicant was also told that the recommendation would have to go somewhere else which supports the conclusion that the initial recommendation was accomplished.  The Veterans of Foreign Wars, as the applicant’s counsel, also contends that the act by the applicant did involve personal hazard and the risk of life which clearly supports the award of the Soldier’s Medal.  Therefore, the recommendation must have gotten lost or through “inadvertence” the recommendation was not acted upon.  In accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-22, paragraph 1-15, the Secretary of the Army may award any appropriate military decoration when this is the case.  The Soldier’s Medal should be awarded to the applicant based on the above evidence. 

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant’s military records were lost or destroyed in the National Personnel Records Center fire of 1973.  Records available to the Board were obtained from alternate sources and show he was inducted on 30 June 1943.  The applicant served in the Army Air Force and was assigned to the Central Pacific Theater of Operations from 7 September 1944 to 5 November 1945.  He was honorably discharged on 24 November 1945.

The applicant contends that he “heard that commanding officer [name omitted] said [the applicant] was going to get the Soldiers Medal for [his] heroism.”  There is no evidence in the records available to the Board which shows that the applicant’s commanding officer submitted a formal recommendation for award of the Soldier’s Medal or that the applicant received the Soldier’s Medal.  

Documents in the applicant’s records show that the National Personnel Records Center and the National Archives and Records Administration conducted extensive searches for any evidence of award of the Soldier’s Medal to the applicant.  These searches failed to reveal evidence of such an award.

In the papers available to the Board, there is a 28 September 1948 letter from the Office of the Adjutant General of the Army.  This letter refers to a 21 May 1948 letter from the applicant requesting “information as to whether a review of a recommendation which has been disapproved pertaining to the Soldier’s Medal could be made.”  The Adjutant General’s representative advised that authority was delegated to certain commanders in the field during World War II to approve awards of the Soldier’s Medal and that “commanders in the field of combat were in a most favorable position to justly evaluate the heroic acts of individual soldiers.  Finally, the letter from the Adjutant General’s representative stated that the Department of the Army has consistently refrained from reconsidering recommendations that were disapproved in the field.

Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, that the Soldier's Medal is awarded for distinguished heroism not involving actual conflict with the enemy.  The same degree of heroism is required as for award of the Distinguished Flying Cross.  The performance must have involved personal hazard or danger and the voluntary risk of life under conditions not involving conflict with an armed enemy. Awards of the Soldier’s Medal will not be made solely on the basis of having saved a life.  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, nor for upgrading to a more prestigious award.

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 Board noted the letters of support and the affidavit which attest to the fact that the applicant rescued a fellow soldier on or about 7 September 1944 in the Pacific Theater and commends him for his actions.However, the Board also noted the governing regulation for award of the Soldier’s Medal states that award of the Soldier’s Medal will not be made solely on the basis of having saved a life. 

2. .  The Board agrees with counsel that there is a possibility an award recommendation was initiated for the applicant.  However, there is no evidence available to the Board, and the applicant has provided no evidence, which shows that he was ultimately recommended for the Soldier’s Medal or that any award was approved at the time of the event in question.

3.  Evidence of record shows that the applicant, on 21 May 1948, inquired into the procedures for review of disapproved recommendations for the Soldier’s Medal and was advised on 28 September 1948 that no orders for award of the Soldier’s Medal pertaining to the applicant had been received and that the Department of the Army has consistently refrained form reconsideration of awards disapproved by commanders in the field of combat.  This evidence indicates that the recommendation for award of the Soldier’s Medal for the applicant may have been disapproved by a member of his chain of command or by the award approval authority and that reconsideration by the Department of the Army in 1948 was denied.  Based on these facts, the Board determined that there is no basis for award of the Soldier’s Medal in this case without evidence showing that the Soldier’s Medal was approved by proper authority.

4.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

5.  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

CLA____  VBC_____  CLG____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-10365/AR1998013621	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990311	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19451121	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 615-365	
DISCHARGE REASON	DEMOBILIZATION	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	107.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.