MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            8 December 1999                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999024376

	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. W. W. Osborn, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. James P. Huber		Member	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		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 earlier application to correct his records by awarding him the Legion of Merit.

APPLICANT STATES:   In effect, that he has yet to receive proper recognition for his accomplishments and the risks he took.  He continues to aver that he would have received the Legion of Merit if the content of his intelligence work had been know to the commander. 

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in memoranda prepared to reflect the Board's previous considerations of the case on 25 June 1997 and 19 August 1998 (COPIES ATTACHED).

The applicant, a retired USMC lieutenant colonel, submits an affidavit from a retired USAF colonel who served with the applicant at the time in question.  This document is new evidence that requires Board consideration.

The USAF colonel reports that the applicant took physical risks in order to complete his intelligence gathering missions and that he displayed skill, daring, personal valor, courage devotion to duty, professional knowledge and a complete disregard for his own safety.  He believes that the applicant would have received the Legion of Merit had it not been for the emphasis placed on Vietnam awards.

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.  

The regulation further provides that any officer in the rank of general may award the Legion of Merit to a member of another service, with the concurrence proper authority of the individual’s service. 

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.  This Board considers that, notwithstanding the reported risks involved and the applicant’s soldierly qualities award of the Legion of Merit is not warranted.  There has been no showing that the applicant distinguished himself from his peers by exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding services and achievements, that his duties were anything other than that normal to the grade, branch, specialty or assignment or that it was unprecedented and clearly exceptional manner.   

2.	There is no evidence that the Vietnam War affected Army awards policy 
in Europe.  There is also neither evidence that nor reason to believe the appropriate USMC award authority would have concurred in the award of the Legion of Merit to a major serving in a unified command. 

3.	Indeed, the applicant and his supporters tend to give the impression that the
applicant simply did his job by performing outstanding service in a demanding assignment.  However, in the Board’s estimation, that does not warrant an award of the Legion of Merit.  Especially, in the absence of support from both the leadership of the intelligence community and of the operational commander.

4.	The Board notes that those in intelligence assignments frequently report
feeling as if they have been cheated of the recognition due them.  However, this ignores the fact that the intelligence commanders have unquestioned award authority within their specific areas of responsibility and the operational commanders whom they serve allow significant latitude in excluding classified details from awards recommendations.

5.	Intelligence personnel derive significant intangible rewards from
performing classified assignments yet seem to devalue these factors when seeking more conventional recognition.  Spies ought not to expect to enjoy the secret satisfaction, the clandestine camaraderie, and the feelings of special personal power in the present; yet, still believe that, someday, their true stories will be told and they will receive public recognition for the same acts.  In the final analysis, those who undertake secret assignments do so with the certain knowledge that they will ultimately have to forgo public recognition.   
 
6.  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.

7.  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

__RVO__  __JPH___  __AAO__  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999024376	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19991208	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	107.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.