MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:                              
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-12219

	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. Robert J. McGowan		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. 		Chairperson	
	Mr. 		Member	
	Mr. 		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 an Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) for his period of service at Letterman Army Medical Center (LAMC), San Francisco, California, in 1984.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was nominated for an assignment to Greece, but his company commander wrote a derogatory letter which caused him to be nonselected.  He filed an Inspector General (IG) complaint which resulted in a finding of improper conduct by his company commander.  The letter was removed from the applicant’s file and he was given his choice of assignments.  Upon his reassignment, he was recommended for an ARCOM, but the award was disapproved.  He contends that the disapproval was due to his previous IG complaint against his company commander.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years on 22 October 1971.  Trained as a clinical specialist (MOS 91C), he rose to the rank of staff sergeant and served continuously until his separation on 31 July 1985.  He then joined the US Army Reserve and continued his service until eligible for retirement.

In 1984, while he was assigned to LAMC, he was nominated for a position in Greece.  His company commander wrote a letter to the US Army Military Personnel Center (MILPERCEN) which caused his nonselection for the assignment in Greece.  Following an IG investigation, this letter was determined to contain opinion unsupported by fact and was ordered removed from the applicant’s file.  The applicant’s company commander was counseled about his actions in this matter, and the applicant was allowed to choose his next assignment and selected Fort Lewis, Washington.

Upon his departure for Fort Lewis, the applicant’s company recommended that he be awarded the ARCOM for his service at LAMC.  This recommendation was approved by his chain of command and forwarded to the Installation Awards and Decorations Committee for final approval.  On 4 September 1984, the committee disapproved the applicant’s award recommendation.  The record indicates that a second recommendation was also disapproved, a recommendation was downgraded, and a third recommendation was returned for revision of the justification.

Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides that 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.

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.  The applicant was the victim of unfair criticism by his company commander which resulted in his nonselection for a desirable assignment.  However, he has not shown, and there is no proof in the record, that this action prejudiced the awards process against him.  The facts are that the awards process ran its proper course.  He was recommended by his chain of command for an ARCOM; the recommendation was forwarded to the Installation Awards and Decorations Committee for consideration; and the committee disapproved same.  The committee’s actions were not solely directed at the applicant; a second recommendation was also disapproved and others were downgraded or returned without action.

3.  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

      TDH          LLS            MDM    DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1998012445	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990106	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	107.0020	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.