PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:                12 August 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:        AR1999013953

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

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Ms. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. James M. Alward		Member	
	Mr. Meta Waller		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

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

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests, in effect, that his Army Commendation Medal be
upgraded to the Legion of Merit.

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that his Public Relations Officer, who was the 
Chief of the European Theater of Operations Ordnance Department, informed him that he would receive the Legion of Merit if the Ordnance history project was satisfactorily completed.  He also stated that from late 1944 to May 1945, he was assigned to the Ordnance Headquarters, European Theater of Operations in Paris, with the responsibility of preparing a history of the Ordnance General Supply.  He further states that the Deputy Chief of Ordnance described his completed history (200 pages) as a model for other unit histories.  He goes on to state that the responsibility was much beyond his rank and involved long workdays and workweeks during this time.  He goes on to state that his former immediate supervisor and Public Relations Officer were unaware in 1982 that the recommendation for the Legion of Merit had not been forwarded through the proper channels.  The Army Commendation Medal, which did not match the extensive scope of his work, was awarded in 1982.  In support of his application he submits several documents which consist of (award certificate, letter of recommendation/commendations, appointment/travel orders, and discharge certificates).  All these documents were provided to the Board.

4.  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 12 November 1942 as a senior clerk.  He served in European-African-Middle Eastern Theater of Operations from 29  December 1943 to 30 August 1944 and was honorably discharged on 20 June 1945 to accept a temporary appointment in the Warrant Officer Junior Grade, Army of the United States.

5.  The applicant’s WD AGO Form 55 (Enlisted Record) shows he was awarded the Good Conduct Medal, the European-African-Middle Eastern Ribbon with one bronze service star, the Marksmanship Qualification (Rifle M1) and the 
Sharpshooter Qualification (Carbine).

6.  On 21 June 1945, he was appointed as a Warrant Officer Junior Grade in the Army of the United States.  He continued to serve until he was honorably released from active duty on 3 August 1946.

7.  The applicant’s WD AGO Form 53-98 (Military Record and Report of Separation) shows he was awarded the Bronze Star Medal, the American Theater Ribbon, the Army of Occupation Medal with Germany Clasp and the World War II Victory Medal.  The applicant’s WD AGO Form 53-98 does not show the Legion of Merit as an authorized award.

8.  The available records do not show that a recommendation was submitted for
award of the Legion of Merit.  There also is no evidence the applicant was awarded the Legion of Merit.

9.  The applicant submitted a copy of a letter dated, 19 January 1981, written by the former Chief of the European Theater of Operations Ordnance Department.  The letter was addressed to the Director, Personnel Services Division, Office of the Adjutant General, US Army Reserve Personnel Component and Personnel Administration, St. Louis, Missouri regarding the applicant’s entitlement to the Legion of Merit for his work in the Chief of the European Theater of Operations Ordnance Department.  The letter indicated that the applicant was a highly dedicated and motivated officer who later became a professor in journalism and
was well deserving of the Legion of Merit.  The letter also indicated that the applicant’s work in the Public Relations Office, during 1945 to 1946 was “exemplary and extraordinary meritorious” and was deserving of the highest consideration.  The applicant completed a history of a sub-unit of the Ordnance Headquarters in Paris during the spring of 1945.  On the basis of his excellent work, he was assigned as the historical editor and chief writer of the official field history of the Ordnance Services in the European Theater of Operations.  The letter further indicated that if he successfully completed this responsibility, he would be entitled to the Legion of Merit.  He completed the official history and delivered the project to the Chief of Ordnance in the Pentagon in April 1946.  In conclusion, the former chief stated that, after 36 years later, he still feels that the Legion of Merit would be a fitting award, indeed for someone who gave so much to the Ordnance Department and the Army in particular.

10.  The applicant submitted a copy of a letter, dated 30 April 1982, written by his former immediate commanding officer.  The former commander stated that he hoped that a longtime inequity concerning the applicant’s recommendation for an award might be remedied, perhaps on the basis of Public Law 86-582.  He also stated that he was the applicant’s superior officer in the Office of the Chief, Ordnance Headquarters, Theater Service Forces, (Paris, and Frankfurt-Am-Main).  He further indicated that he was aware of the project that the applicant was working on and upon completion of the project, that he was slated to receive the Legion of Merit for his “extraordinary meritorious” service from May 1945 to April 1946.  He goes on to state that he was unaware until recent that the applicant had not received the merited decoration that he was promised.  
Ironically, through error or inadvertence somewhere along military channels, a letter authoring the Army Commendation Medal was issued instead of the Legion of Merit.  In conclusion, he states that his intimate knowledge of the applicant’s work, he would give him an even higher evaluation of his work.  The applicant’s responsibility for the Theater History of Ordnance was commensurate with a rank much above the one he held, and his performance and accomplishments were more than worthy of the Legion of Merit, which was the assessment of the Chief Public Relation Officer and he concurred with that assessment.
11.  The applicant provides a copy of an award certificate, which shows that he was awarded the Army Commendation Medal on 18 May 1982 for meritorious service, while assigned as the Historical Editor, Ordnance Service, European Theater of Operations, from May 1945 to April 1946. 

12.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 states, in pertinent part, that the Legion of Merit is awarded to individuals who distinguish themselves by exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding services and achievements.  The performance must merit recognition of key individuals for service rendered in a clearly exceptional manner.  Performance of duties normal to the grade, branch, specialty or assignment and experience of an individual is not an adequate basis for this award.  In peacetime, service should be in the nature of a special requirement or an extremely difficult duty performed in an unprecedented and clearly exceptional manner.  However, justification may accrue by virtue of exceptionally meritorious service in a succession of important positions.  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 a more prestigious award.

13.  Paragraph 3-1c of Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states that 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 authority.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board notes that the applicant was informed that he would receive the 
Legion of Merit by his immediate supervisor and Public Relations Officer.
However, the officers who promised the applicant the LOM were not the award
approval authority.  There also was no evidence of a recommendation submitted on the applicant at the time of his act. 

2.  The Board also noted that the approval authority for award of the LOM was present in the European-African-Middle Eastern Theater of Operations at the time of the event and had first hand access to facts surrounding any recommendation for award of the LOM.

3.  The Board notes that the applicant’s efforts in 1946 were recognized with the award of the Army Commendation in 1982.  

4.  Contrary to the applicant’s contention that his ARCOM does not
properly recognize the “extensive scope of his work”, there is no evidence the decision to award the ARCOM was improper or otherwise flawed or that the applicant was improperly denied award of the LOM.

5.  There is no evidence of any new compelling information upon which to base an upgrade of the applicant’s award of the ARCOM to LOM.

6.  In view of the foregoing conclusions, the Board has determined that the applicant was properly awarded the Army Commendation Medal for his “extraordinary meritorious service” from May 1945 to April 1946 and that there is no basis for upgrading his Army Commendation Medal to the Legion of Merit.

7.  The applicant was awarded the Army Commendation Medal on 18 May 1982; therefore, he is entitled to the correction of his military records to show this award.

8.  In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s records, but only as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing in item 29 of his WD AGO Form 53-98 that he was awarded the Army Commendation Medal.

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied 

BOARD VOTE:  

RVO____  JMA____  MW_____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. 
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999013953	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990812	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19460803	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT
	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  55		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.