MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

IN THE CASE OF:       

BOARD DATE:           7 June 2000                  
DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000037390

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Gerald E. Vandenberg		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Edwin S. Castle		Member	
	Mr. James P. Stueve		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 the application to upgrade the former service member’s (FSM) Distinguished Service Cross to the Medal of Honor. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, through her representative, that the FSM’s citation should be compared to the citation for the Medal of Honor of Lieutenant Audie Murphy.  It is contended that taking the similarity in these documents and events into consideration, along with the previously submitted statement from the FSM’s former battalion commander who indicated that he had considered the Medal of Honor but submitted the recommendation for the Distinguished Service Cross as a matter of expediency, it is in the interest of justice to make this correction. 

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of FSM’s case on 4 November 1999 (COPY ATTACHED).

On behalf of the applicant, the argument is set forth that the actions depicted in the FSM’s citation and those of Audie Murphy are so similar as to warrant equal resolution.  It is contended that it is an injustice to continue to deny the upgrade of the award in light of the similarity in the action that resulted in the two citations.  Further, it is again noted that the FSM’s commander now indicates that he did originally consider the Medal of Honor but chose as a matter of expediency, to submit only the request for the Distinguished Service Cross.

This argument was not addressed to the Board previously and constitutes new evidence that requires Board review.

Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides, in pertinent part, that the Distinguished Service Cross is awarded to a person, who while serving in any capacity with the Army, distinguished himself or herself by extraordinary heroism while engaged in action against an enemy of the United States not justifying award of the Medal of Honor.  The act or acts of heroism must have been so notable and have involved risk of life so extraordinary as to set the individual apart from his or her comrades.

Army Regulation 600-8-22, and the awards regulation in affect at the time, both provide that to insure that a deserving act, achievement or service receives recognition, the appropriate authority may promptly award a suitable lesser decoration, as an interim award, pending final action on the higher 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.  Regulations in effect at that time allowed for the award of a lesser decoration while awaiting a final decision on the award of the higher decoration.  If the battalion commander or the award authority felt that this heroic act warranted the Medal of Honor, then that recommendation would have been submitted and the FSM would have been awarded the Distinguished Service Cross as an interim decoration.

2.  Many acts of heroism when taken out of context or reviewed in hindsight appear to warrant different recognition than was given at the time.  Many service members did not receive a higher award because as Admiral Nimitz put it, in certain circumstances “uncommon valor was a common virtue.”  Without knowing the entire situation in perspective with events that were happening in the immediate vicinity and elsewhere, it is impossible to determine if this was the case in this instance. 

3.  Notwithstanding the battalion commander’s current opinion, that the FSM warrants the higher decoration, he chose to recommend only the lesser award even though procedures were in place to allow for the granting an interim award pending final results on the higher decoration.  

4.  In the absence of extraordinary circumstances the Board is reluctant to substitute its judgment for that expressed by the commander who, at the time of the event, made that decision based upon all of the facts, feeling and attitudes when the incident was fresh not 50 years later.  Furthermore, since high level decorations reflect credit upon the unit as well as the individual, it is appropriate to conclude that this would have taken place had the award authority believed the Medal of Honor was appropriate.

5.  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.

6.  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

__MKP__  ___ESC_  ___JPS__  DENY APPLICATION

   Carl W. S. Chun
    Director, Army Board for Correction 
      of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000037390	
SUFFIX		
RECON	 	
DATE BOARDED	20000607 	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	107.0001	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.