MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            15 August 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000038954

	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. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Thomas D. Howard, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Ms. Gail J. Wire		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:  In effect, that his retirement award, the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM), be upgraded to a Meritorious Service Medal (MSM).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his supervisor recommended him for the MSM but the award was downgraded to an ARCOM.  He believes that after 
20 years of honorable service and four overseas deployments that this downgrade in his retirement award was an injustice to him and that receiving an ARCOM as his career ending award was an insult.  He concludes that he was unable to find the justification for the award downgrade because of the numerous changes in his chain of command.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

On 31 August 1999, the applicant was released from active duty (REFRAD), in the rank of Staff Sergeant/E-6, under the provisions of chapter 12, 
Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of retirement.  At the time of his REFRAD he had completed a total of 20 years and 22 days of active military service.

The evidence of record includes a Department of Defense (DD) Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty) which was signed by the applicant.  This document verifies that the applicant earned the following awards and decorations during his tenure in service:  the ARCOM; four Army Achievement Medals (AAM); the Army Superior Unit Award; five Army Good Conduct Medals; the Army of Occupation Medal; the National Defense Service Medal; the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal; the Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon/with numeral 2; the Army Service Ribbon; the fourth award of the Overseas Service Ribbon; and the Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle and Pistol bars.  

The applicant’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) is void of any documentation pertaining to the recommendation and processing of the applicant’s retirement award.  In addition, the applicant provides no independent documentation in regard to the processing of this award. 

Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning individual military awards.  Paragraph 
3-1 outlines the intent of individual awards and states that U.S. Army military decorations are awarded in recognition of heroism, meritorious achievement, or meritorious service. 

Paragraph 3-1c of the awards regulation specifies, in pertinent part, that the decision to award an individual a decoration and the decision as to which award is appropriate are both subjective decisions made by the commander having award approval authority.  Further, the award should reflect both the individual's level of responsibility and his or her manner of performance.  The degree to which an individual's achievement or service enhanced the readiness or effectiveness of his or her organization will be the predominant factor.  In addition, paragraph 3-1e indicates that no preconditions for an award may be established such as, for example, when soldiers are informed in advance that attainment of specific goals will result in the automatic award of a given decoration.  

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.  While the Board is empathetic with the applicant’s feelings in regard to his retirement award and his belief that his over 20 years of service should have earned him the MSM upon his retirement, this is not a sufficient basis for relief in this case.  This Board is not empowered to substitute its judgement for that of the award approval authority unless it finds some proven error or injustice.  

2.  Army regulatory policy is clear in establishing that the decision to award an individual a decoration and the decision as to which award is appropriate are both subjective decisions made by the commander having award approval authority.  Given this established guiding principle and after reviewing the available evidence, the Board finds no rationale to question the subjective judgement of the award approval authority in this case.  Therefore, the Board concludes relief is not appropriate. 

3.  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 this requirement.

4.  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

__tdh ___  __gw____  ___ao___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000038954	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/08/15	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	N/A	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	N/A	
DISCHARGE REASON	N/A	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  63	107.0017	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.