MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

IN THE CASE OF:  

BOARD DATE:            9 December 1999
DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999014611

	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. Gerald E. Vandenberg		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. JoAnn H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas D. Howard, Jr.		Member	
	Mr. James P. Steuve		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: Reconsideration of his application to correct his records by upgrading his Silver Star to the Medal of Honor.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his actions that resulted in the award of the Silver Star were so heroic as to warrant the Medal of Honor

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  The applicant’s case is reopened in accordance with the Army Board for Correction of Military Records Reconsideration Project (ABCMR-RP) criteria.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's considerations of his case on 14 August 1996 and 5 August 1998 (COPIES ATTACHED).

The applicant’s request is for all intents identical to his prior requests.  He does submit additional personal statements from fellow service members that were not available to the Board previously, this constitutes new evidence that requires Board review.

Army Regulation 600-8-22 states, in pertinent part, that the Medal of Honor is extraordinary heroism above and beyond the call of duty.  The act or acts of heroism must be so notable and have involved such risk of life so as to set the individual apart from his comrades.  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.  Although the additional letters of support have been submitted, the description of the events that lead to the award of the Silver Star are, if anything, less descriptive than the citation for the Silver Star.

2.  The Board does not wish to give the impression that the actions of the applicant were not heroic or not warranting of significant recognition, however, the evidence does not describe an event of such extraordinary heroism as to warrant award the nation’s highest honor.  The award of the Silver Star was and is appropriate.

3.  The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.

4.  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

___jhl___  ___tdh___  ___jps__  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999014611	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19991209	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	107.01	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.