MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            23 December 1998
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-11850
                                              AR1998009389

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Karol A. Kennedy		Member	
	Mr. Lester Echols		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:  That he be awarded the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that prior to his departure from Germany to the Brooklyn Army Terminal, in Brooklyn, New York for the purpose of retirement, he was informed by his supervisor that he had been recommended for award of the ARCOM.  However, for reasons he cannot explain, he never saw the recommendation or the award.  He further states that at the time of his retirement he received a Certificate of Appreciation for his service and was disappointed that he did not receive the ARCOM in recognition for his service as others before him had received. 

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  That persons who retire usually receive some type of award and based on a review of his records it appears that the applicant was deserving of an award recognizing him for his service.  He further contends that a recommendation was accomplished and that the Board should take steps to locate the recommendation.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

The applicant enlisted on 16 January 1948 for a period of 3 years.  He continued to serve through a series of continuous reenlistments and was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on 1 December 1960.

On 17 June 1970, while performing duties as a commissary store manager in Heilbronn, Germany, orders were published transferring him to Fort Hamilton, New York for the purpose of retirement on the expiration of his term of service on 31 July 1970.

Accordingly, on 31 July 1970, he was honorably released from active duty in the pay grade of E-6 and was transferred to the USAR Control Group (Retired) effective 1 August 1970.  He had served 22 years. 3 months, and 8 days of active Federal service.

A review of the applicant’s records fails to reveal a recommendation for award of the ARCOM.  His records do reveal that in 1983 he made inquiries to the Army Reserve Personnel Center (ARPERCEN) regarding his award of the ARCOM at retirement and was then informed that no such recommendation or award was present in the available records.

Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, that the primary requirement for award of a decoration is that a formal recommendation be prepared and introduced into official military channels within 2 years of the act, achievement, or service to be recognized.  The sole exception to the 2-year time limit occurs when there is conclusive evidence that a formal recommendation was submitted but was lost, or through inadvertence was never acted on by proper authority.

As a matter of policy, there is no automatic entitlement on the part of any soldier to any Army decoration.  In this regard, the Army and the other military services have never supported attempts by individuals to gain self recognition.  As a matter of longstanding policy, a recommendation which has been formally entered into channels, properly processed and correctly acted upon by a commander or other official vested with the legal authority to act in finality is not subject to challenge or reconsideration. 

Army Regulation 600-8-22 also provides that an individual approaching retirement may be considered for an appropriate decoration based on his or her grade, years of service, degree of responsibility, and manner of performance.  Such awards are for meritorious service and require that a formal recommendation be submitted through appropriate channels for approval or disapproval.

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.  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.

2.  There is no evidence in the available records to show that the applicant was recommended for award of the ARCOM and there is no automatic entitlement to such an award.

3.  Inasmuch as the Board is not an investigative agency, the burden of proof rests with the applicant to demonstrate error or injustice in his case.

4.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board.  However, they are not supported by the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record.

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:

__le  ____  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ___ro ___  ___kak__  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-11850/AR1998009389	
SUFFIX		
RECON	 	
DATE BOARDED	1998/12/23	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	 	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	 	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	 	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  107.00		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.