MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            18 January 2001   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000040137

	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	
	Ms. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		Member	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		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, award of the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM).

APPLICANT STATES:  He was awarded an Army Commendation Medal based “on [his] grade, not [his] job performance.”  He notes that the Army Commendation Medal was subsequently revoked based on a “General Letter of Reprimand, [he] did not receive.”  Included with his application to this Board was a copy of letter and memorandum he submitted to the Commanding General, Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) appealing the revocation of the award and asking that his former supervisor be allowed to recommend him “for a PCS award.”  In the letter to the Commanding General, PERSCOM, the applicant noted that his immediate supervisor told him that he was being recommended for a Meritorious Service Medal but when he talked to his senior rater, a Sergeant Major, he was informed that he was being recommended for an Army Commendation Medal because “E-6’s do not normally receive an MSM….”

The applicant contends that he performed the duties of a senior noncommissioned officer and was deserving of recognition by an award of the Meritorious Service Medal.

The applicant also notes that his Army Commendation Medal was approved on 15 May 1999 and that he was accused of having an improper relationship with a subordinate on 19 May 1999.  He states that his commander (the same individual who revoked his Army Commendation Medal) recommended that he receive a letter of reprimand but that the Commanding General of Fort Knox “returned her request without action on 24 Aug[ust] 1999.”

He states that according to Army Regulation 600-8-22 he “was to be informed and given an opportunity to make a statement and appeal the commander’s decision” to revoke his Army Commendation Medal but was never given that opportunity.  He states he did not find out that the award was revoked until September 1999 when he made an inquiry concerning the award.  At that point the applicant indicated that he spoke with his commander (the awards authority) who “stated that her reason for revoking the award was based solely on the letter [she] received from MG Bell [the Commanding General of Fort Knox].”

The applicant then goes on to explain why he should have been recommended for and awarded a Meritorious Service Medal.

Included with his application is a copy of the Army Commendation Medal recommendation, the revocation of the award, a copy of the letter from the Commanding General, Fort Knox declining to support a reprimand, and copies of the documents the applicant submitted to the Commanding General, PERSCOM appealing the award revocation, as well a copies of several performance evaluation reports.

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

He entered active duty on 19 June 1986 and was promoted to pay grade E-6 effective 1 January 1998.

On 5 May 1999, while assigned to the U.S. Army Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center (USAEREC) in Indianapolis, the applicant was recommended for an Army Commendation Medal for the period 30 September 1996 through May 1999 as a PCS (permanent change of station) award.  The award recognized the applicant’s “meritorious achievement while assigned as the Center Personnel Sergeant and then as NCOIC and Platoon Sergeant, Board Support Branch, DA Secretariat….”

The commander, USAEREC, approved the award on 14 May 1999 and the orders confirming the award were issued on 15 May.

On 19 July 1999 the applicant received his performance evaluation report for the period April 1999 through July 1999.  That report indicated the applicant needed improvement in the area of leadership.  His rater indicated in her comments that “failure to inform chain of potentially volatile situation resulted in investigation and detail during critical preparation of 99 SFC Board” and “Actions fostered the perception of an improper relationship with a subordinate.”  The applicant’s senior rater rated his overall performance as poor and his overall potential as fair. He noted in his comments “involved in a unauthorized social relationship with subordinate, cohesiveness of section was damaged by his actions [and] do not promote at this time.”

Orders issued on 21 July 1999 revoked the applicant’s 15 May 1999 Army Commendation Medal.

The 24 August 1999 memorandum from MG Bell indicated that he had “reviewed the reprimand imposed against [the applicant], his rebuttal, and the matters that 

you [the applicant’s commander] submitted with the reprimand file.”  General Bell noted that his staff judge advocate “believes that a commander could reasonably conclude that the evidence contained in the investigation supports a finding that [the applicant] had an improper relationship with one of his female subordinates” but that the SJA “also tells me that reasonable commanders could conclude otherwise.”  He noted that he was aware that the applicant had transferred to Fort Bragg and that his evaluation report had been completed “having concluded that many of the allegations of misconduct against him were true.”  General Bell concluded “upon these circumstances, I believe that it is inappropriate to forward such a file to [the applicant’s] new superiors.”

On 1 October 1999 the applicant submitted a petition to the PERSCOM appealing the revocation of the Army Commendation Medal and asking that his immediate supervisor be allowed to submit a recommendation for a Meritorious Service Medal.  In an 11 January 2001 memorandum for record officials at the PERSCOM, Military Awards Branch suggested the applicant submit an application to this Board if he felt an injustice had occurred.  The PERSCOM indicated 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.”

Army Regulation 600-8-22 states that recommendations for military decorations must be entered administratively into military channels within 2 years of the act, achievement, or service to be honored.  There are no restrictions on who may recommend an individual for an award.  It also notes that no individual is automatically entitled to an award upon departure from an assignment.  Awards presented in conjunction with a permanent change of station are limited to exceptional cases.  However, awards for meritorious achievement or service will not be based upon the grade of the intended recipient.  Rather, the award should reflect both the individual’s level of responsibility and his or her manner of performance.  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.

Army Regulation 600-8-200 also provides that once an award has been presented, it may be revoked by the awarding authority if facts subsequently determined would have prevented original approval of the award had they been 

known at the time.  In making the decision, the awarding authority may consider a statement of concurrence or nonoccurrence (with comments) from the individual concerned.  Upon revocation, the affected individual will be informed that he or she may appeal the revocation action through command channels to PERSCOM.

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.  As noted in Army Regulation 600-8-22 and the memorandum from the PERSCOM Awards Branch, 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.  The applicant’s contention that his Army Commendation Medal was based on his grade and that he really should have received a Meritorious Service Medal is not evidence of an error or an injustice.

2.  The Board notes that there is no requirement to provide an individual an opportunity to comment on a commander’s decision to revoke a previously approved award.  The governing regulation only states that the commander may consider such statements.  The applicant’s appeal to the PERSCOM indicates that he was aware of his entitlement to appeal the revocation.

3.  The Board notes that the applicant’s award was approved as a PCS award for the period 30 September 1996 through May 1999.  The applicant’s less than favorable performance evaluation report, completed in July 1999, covered the period April 1999 through July 1999.  Comments contained in that report tend to support a conclusion that information came to light after the award was approved that had the awards approval authority known earlier it would have resulted in denial of the proposed award.  It was well within the commander’s authority to revoke the previously approved award.  The fact that the applicant was not “accused of having an improper relationship with a subordinate” until 19 May, 4 days after orders approving the award were published, is not a basis to conclude that his commander erred in revoking the award.

4.  The applicant’s performance evaluation report indicates his performance was less than stellar just prior to his reassignment to Fort Bragg and the Board 

concludes the evaluation report provides sufficient evidence that his performance did not warrant recognition by an Army Commendation Medal or Meritorious Service Medal.  The fact that he may not have received a letter of reprimand is not a basis to conclude that he should have received an award.

5.  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 that requirement.

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

__jns___  ____jtm_  ____mhm_  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000040137	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010118	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	Deny	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	107.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.