MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:              16 February 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:     AR1999028399

	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.

	Ms. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Ms. Meta Waller		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 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 applicant did (not) appear before the Board and was (not) represented by counsel.

	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:  Award of the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he be awarded the Army Commendation Medal to which he is entitled.  He also states that he was informed that he would be recommended for the award of the Army Commendation Medal for outstanding service; however, he never received it.  He further states that he was recently informed that the award was never processed for some unknown reason.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show he was appointed as a second lieutenant in the US Army Reserve on 8 June 1962 in the Signal Corps and was ordered to active duty (AD) on 16 June 1962.  He served in Germany from 23 October 1962 to 18 May 1964 and continued to serve until he was honorably released from AD on 20 May 1964.

The applicant’s DD Form 214, which was authenticated in his own hand, does not show the ARCOM as an authorized award.

There is no evidence in the applicant’s personnel records, which shows that the applicant was recommended for or awarded the ARCOM.

Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides that the Army Commendation Medal may be awarded to any member of the Armed Forces of the United States who, while serving in any capacity with the Army after 6 December 1941, distinguished himself or herself by heroism, meritorious achievement or meritorious service.  As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required.

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.  There is no evidence of record available to the Board, and the applicant has provided no evidence, which shows he was considered for or awarded the ARCOM.  Therefore, he is not entitled to correction of his records to show this award.

2.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

3.  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

AAO____  CLG_____  MW_____  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999028399	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000216	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19640520	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 135-173	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  66		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.