PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            24 February 1999                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999014978

	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. Deborah L. Brantley		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Calvin M. Fowler		Chairperson	
	Mr. Mark D. Manning		Member	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		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, award of the Silver Star.

3.  The applicant states he was recommended for award of the Silver Star for his heroic actions on 25 September 1944 but the recommendation was not properly processed to conclusion.  He notes he received a letter of commendation for the action but states, in effect, that the letter was inappropriate because the recommendation did not reach the appropriate approval level and hence his actions were not given suitable consideration as required by regulation.  The applicant states that the Army Decoration Boards, which reviewed the recommendation in 1961, “failed to give proper weight to the events and deeds which occurred on 25 September 1944” and disapproved the award (and all lesser awards) because the recommendation was “not adequately substantiated.”  He notes that he has now secured additional statements from “three honorable persons who were at the scene of the action” and those statements provide “enhanced evidence” which justifies overturning the decoration board’s decision.  The applicant also submits an extract from the 376th Infantry Regiment’s unit history.

4.  The applicant’s military records show he initially entered active duty on 
15 March 1940 and arrived overseas on 11 August 1944 where he was assigned as an infantryman with Company L, 376th Infantry Regiment of the 94th Infantry Division.

5.  On 19 December 1944 his company commander recommended the applicant for award of the Silver Star.  The recommendation noted the applicant was the senior member of a six man patrol on 25 September 1944, which volunteered to retrieve two wounded men and unit equipment which had been abandoned following action with enemy forces in Le Pessuais, France.  The proposed citation notes the applicant “unhesitantly volunteered and took part in a six man patrol that returned to the scene of the recent battle under enemy small arms and artillery fire, and succeeded in bringing back two of the wounded comrades, one SCR 300 radio, and one 60 mm mortar.  His actions were an inspiration to all who witnessed it.”

6.  The recommendation was favorably endorsed by the applicant’s battalion commander on 23 December 1944 and forwarded to the regimental commander. On 26 December 1944 the regimental commander signed a letter of commendation recognizing the applicant’s heroic actions on 25 September 1944.

7.  In April 1945 the applicant was awarded a Silver Star for his heroic actions on 
23 March 1945.  The award indicates the applicant lead “his assault platoon in a determined marching attack upon enemy forces entrenched on the outer edge of a German town…employing brilliant tactics routed the enemy.  Forging ahead in the attack, he led his men in the successful capture of the town.  From a dangerously exposed observation point, he adjusted artillery and mortar fire to account for the complete destruction of two hostile artillery guns.  Quickly reorganizing his men and, using precisely the same tactics, he captured a sector of the next town.”

8.  He remained overseas until May 1945 when he returned to the United States and was separated on 16 June 1945 as a result of demobilization.

9.  In April 1946 the applicant re-enlisted and in 1951 was commissioned as an officer.  He then remained on continuous active duty until his retirement in 1961 with 20 years of active Federal service.

10.  In 1953, while the applicant was assigned overseas as an assistant adjutant, he petitioned to have the 1944 Silver Star recommendation reconsidered.  He noted in his request that the “recommendation was apparently disapproved; however, the basic recommendation was not properly indorsed back to the initiator to set forth reasons therefor.”  He stated that “it is felt that the apparent disapproval might possibly have been made by an officer who did not have authority to award that degree of decoration – at any rate it appears that consideration was not given for a lesser award.”

11.  His petition for reconsideration was denied by the Army’s Adjutant General who indicated that because of “established” time limits the recommendation was “ineligible for reconsideration.”

12.  In December 1958, while assigned to Fort Hood, Texas, the applicant again requested that the 1944 recommendation be reviewed.  He requested a “review of the circumstances which were beyond the control of the individual soldier” and cited the following as a basis for his request:

a. Recommendation was delayed three (3) months from date of act.
b. Regimental level failed to take prescribed action by not indorsing the recommendation to the CG, with a positive remark.
c. Regimental level did not have the authority to take final action for the award of the Silver Star Medal.
d. Recommendation was not processed to conclusion; final action by the CG is not indicated.
e. Lesser award was not considered.
f. 1st Ind, signed battalion commander, 23 Dec 44, indicates award was approved.
g. The recommendation was apparently taken out of military channels through error.

13.  On 8 January 1959 his request was denied “by Order of Wilber M. Brucker, Secretary of the Army.”  The denial cited “current laws and regulations governing the award of decorations for service and deeds performed during World War II” which required that all recommendations be acted on prior to 3 May 1952.

14.  As a result of the 1960 Public Law 86-582 (which provided for the consideration of award recommendations which were submitted into military channels within prescribed time limits but lost before final action could be taken) the applicant’s 1944 recommendation for award of the Silver Star was considered by the Army Decorations Board on 16 May 1961.  The Decorations Board, which evaluated the original award recommendation, including the 23 December 1944, favorable endorsement of the recommendation by the applicant’s battalion commander, “concluded that the evidence submitted did not meet the criteria for the proposed award, or a lesser award.”

15.  The three letters of support, which the applicant contends should serve as a basis to “change the ADB’s action to approval” were written in 1997, at the request of the applicant, by members of his World War II organization.  While the authors of those statements (which include the former battalion commander, one of the rescued soldiers, and an individual who identified himself as the unit’s communications sergeant) supported the applicant’s current request, none of them added any additional details beyond what was contained in the original 1944 recommendation.

16.  The 376th unit history, also provided by the applicant in support of his request, recounts the action of the unit as they initially engaged the enemy but makes no mention of the group of six men, including the applicant, who returned to the area to retrieve the two wounded soldiers and the unit’s equipment, following the initial engagement.

17.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (military awards and decorations) states that the Silver Star may be award “for gallantry in action.”  The required gallantry, while of a lesser degree than that required for the Distinguished Service Cross, must nevertheless have been performed with marked distinction.  “Gallantry in action” is described as “spirited and conspicuous acts of heroism and courage.”  Currently awards of the Silver Star require approval by a Commanding General of a U.S. Army force serving in the rank of general but may be delegated to the senior Army commander of a separate force in the rank of lieutenant general.  In September 1944 the 94th Infantry Division was part of Ninth Army and at the time the Silver Star recommendation was initiated the division was part of the 12th Army Group.  Award recommendations must be entered into channels within two years of the date or period of service to be recognized and must be acted on within three years of the date.  Award recommendations are to be forwarded through command channels to the commander authorized to approve or disapprove it.  Each intermediate commander/supervisor will recommend approval or disapproval, and cite specific reasons whenever disapproval is recommended.
18.  Army Regulation 600-8-22, paragraph 3-16, provides that any individual commended after 6 December 1941 and before 1 January 1946 in a letter, certificate, or order of commendation signed by an officer in the grade or position of a major general or higher may be awarded the Army Commendation Medal.  Awards of the Army Commendation Medal based on a letter, certificate, or order of commendation, are generally referred to as conversion awards.  Today awards of the Army Commendation medal for valor are awarded with a “V” device to denote the award was for heroism vice service or achievement.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant was recommended for award of the Silver Star in December 1944 based on his actions on 25 September 1945.  Although the original recommendation may not have been processed to proper conclusion that error was rectified in 1961 by the actions of the Army Decorations Board.

2.  While the applicant may disagree with the decision of the 1961 decorations board there is no evidence that the board’s decision was in error or unjust.  Although the 1997 statements submitted by the applicant may support his request for award of the Silver Star they do not add any additional details to the original recommendation which would serve as a basis to overturn the decoration board’s 1961 action.

3.  The Board notes that although the applicant’s regimental commander may not have followed established procedures for processing recommendations for award of the Silver Star that oversight, or error, is not a basis to justify, or require, that the decoration, or any lesser decoration, be awarded.  The fact that the regimental commander issued a letter of commendation tends to indicate that he did not believe the applicant’s actions warranted a valor award and would likely have recommended the recommendation be deny had he followed established procedures and forwarded the award recommendation to the next level.  Contrary to the applicant’s 1958 statement, there is no requirement that an intermediate commander indorse award recommendations “with a positive remark” only that each intermediate commander recommend approval or disapproval, and cite specific reasons whenever disapproval is recommended.

4.  The Board also notes the actions which resulted in the March 1945 award of the Silver Star to the applicant.  Those actions clearly met the “gallantry in action” standard for award of the Silver Star.  While the applicant’s actions on 
25 September 1944 may have been noteworthy they were not of the level required for award of the Silver Star.  The Board contends that the letter of commendation appropriately recognized the applicant’s actions.

5.  In view of the fact that the Board concludes that the letter of commendation was the appropriate form of recognition for the applicant’s action it also concludes that had the recommendation been processed to conclusion the final approval authority would have, at the very least, also issued a letter of commendation.  The final approval authority would have been, at a minimum, an officer serving in the grade of lieutenant general.  As such the applicant would have been authorized an Army Commendation Medal as a conversion award under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-22 paragraph 3-16f.  Under today’s standards an award of the Army Commendation Medal for heroism includes a “V” device denoting it was awarded for valor.

6.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by awarding the individual concerned the Army Commendation Medal with “V” device for his heroic actions on 25 September 1944.

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

BOARD VOTE:  

___cmf__  _mdm___  __bje___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999014978	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990224	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 107.00		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.