PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:          14 January 1999     
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-09298
				    AR1999015141

	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. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Shirley L. Powell		Member	
	Ms. Kathleen A. Newman		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 that orders (94-1) revoking award of an Army Achievement Medal be expunged from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).  The applicant states that he never received the original order awarding the AAM and believes that the revocation document may “keep [him] from getting future promotions.”

3.  Records available to the Board indicates the applicant entered active duty on 
1 March 1988 and has served on continuous active duty.  In August 1991 the applicant was awarded an Army Achievement Medal for the period 5 May 1990 through 30 August 1991.  Orders number 162-011, published at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, confirmed the award.

4.  The applicant was awarded a second Army Achievement Medal on 14 April 1993.  This award recognized his meritorious achievement during the period 
1 March 1993 through 1 April 1993.  Orders number 042-2, also published at Fort Leonard Wood, confirmed the award.  Certificates/orders confirming both the 1991 and 1993 Army Achievement Medals are reflected in the applicant’s OMPF.

5.  On 14 October 1993 the 2nd Training Brigade at Fort Leonard Wood published orders (94-1) revoking orders number 66-3, published by that headquarters, pertaining to an “award of the Army Achievement Medal” to the applicant.  The following day another order (95-1) was published amending the orders, which awarded the applicant his Army Achievement Medal for the period 1 March 1993 through 1 April 1993 (orders number 042-2).

6.  While the applicant’s OMPF contains a copy of the orders (94-1) revoking orders number 66-3 it does not contain the original 66-3 order.

7.  Army Regulation 600-8-104 establishes the policies and procedures for establishing and maintaining an individual’s OMPF.  It notes that orders associated with awards will be filed in the performance portion of an individual’s OMPF.  It also notes that once placed in the OMPF, the document becomes a permanent part of that file and will not be removed from a fiche or moved to another part of the fiche unless directed by one of several specific agencies, including the Army Board for Correction of Military Records.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence indicates that there may have been some confusion concerning the number of Army Achievement Medals the applicant was awarded.  This conclusion is supported by the fact that an order was issued amending a previously published Army Achievement Medal the day following the publication of an order revoking an Army Achievement Medal.  It is likely that in an attempt to correct the errors another award order (66-3) was published, determined to be incorrect and was subsequently revoked by orders number 94-1 when it was decided to simply amend an earlier published award order.

2.  The fact that the original order (66-3) is not in the applicant’s file although the revocation orders (94-1) is, is inconsistent with the procedures established for the filing and disposition of award documents.  The filing of the revocation orders without the basic order creates the appearance that the applicant was awarded an Army Achievement Medal which was subsequently revoked, which does not appear to be the case, and as such could be misinterpreted by individuals reviewing the applicant’s file.

3.  In view of the fact that the original order is not on file in the applicant’s OMPF it is inappropriate to retain the revocation orders and it would be in the interest of justice to expunge the revocation orders.

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

RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by expunging orders number 94-1, issued by Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri on 
14 October 1993, from the OMPF of the individual concerned.

BOARD VOTE:  

___rvo__  ___slp__  ___kan__  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AC	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	YYYYMMDD	
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.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.