PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:            7 September 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000042811

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Ms. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Member	
	Mr. Thomas B. Redfern, III		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests that his two awards of the Army Commendation Medal received on 9 June 1998 and 6 July 1999 be upgraded to awards of the Meritorious Service Medal.  

3.  In a letter attached to his application, dated 7 March 2000, the applicant requests, in effect, correction of his Army DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) with an effective date of 21 May 1999 to show Naval schools/courses completed during his Naval service; rates and military occupational specialties (MOS) held during his Naval, Army National Guard and USAR service; and Honorable Service Lapel Buttons.  He also states that he was awarded an Army Commendation Medal after his discharge and it is not annotated on his discharge document.       

4.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was recommended for two awards of the Meritorious Service Medal, one for saving a life and one for ETS (expiration term of service).  However, he received two awards of the Army Commendation Medal instead.  He contends that these recommendations never reached the “General” for final approval.  In support of his application, he submits a copy of his DD Form 214 from the U.S. Navy, a copy of his DD Form 214 from the Army with an effective date of 21 May 1999, numerous DA Forms 638 and 638-1 (Recommendation for Award), copies of his service records, certificates of achievement, and letters of appreciation.  
 
5.  The applicant’s military records show that he served on active duty in the Naval Reserve from 17 February 1987 to 16 August 1991 and subsequently served in the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve.  On 3 November 1992 he enlisted in the Army, served as a food service specialist and was discharged by reason of physical disability on 21 May 1999.

6.  DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award), dated 30 April 1998, shows the applicant was recommended for award of the Meritorious Service Medal for actions on 9 March 1997.  The award approval authority for the Army Commendation Medal, the colonel in command of the 25th Infantry Division Artillery, disapproved the recommendation for award of the Meritorious Service Medal and downgraded the recommendation to an award of the Army Commendation Medal on 29 May 1998.  The Army Commendation Medal was announced in orders on 9 June 1998.

7.  DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award), dated 29 March 1999, shows the applicant was recommended for award of the Meritorious Service Medal for the period 30 September 1986 to 31 March 1999.  The award approval authority for the Army Commendation Medal, the colonel in command of the 10th Mountain Division Support Command, disapproved the recommendation for award of the Meritorious Service Medal and downgraded the recommendation to an award of the Army Commendation Medal on 6 July 1999.  The Army Commendation Medal was announced in orders on 6 July 1999.

8.  The applicant’s Army DD Form 214 does not show any Naval schools/courses in item 14 (Military Education).  Item 4a (Grade, Rate, or Rank) shows the entry “SSG” [staff sergeant], item 4b (Pay Grade) shows the entry “E6” and item 
11 (Primary Specialty) shows the entry “92G3H 00 FOOD SERVICE -
6 YRS - 1 MOS//NOTHING FOLLOWS”.  The DD Form 214 shows the Army Commendation Medal (3rd Award) as an authorized award. 
   
9.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) 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.

10.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, that the Meritorious Service Medal is awarded to a members of the Armed Forces of the United States or of a friendly foreign nation who distinguish themselves by outstanding meritorious achievement or service in a noncombat area.  As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required.  Recommendations must be made within 2 years of the event or period of service and the award must be made within 3 years.

11.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides in paragraph 3-4d that commanders having the authority to approve an award may delegate disapproval authority to their immediate subordinate commanders, provided those subordinate commanders have the authority to approve the next lower award.  The regulation provides that this delegation must be in writing and should be accomplished with each change of command.

12.  Army Regulation 635-5 establishes the policies and procedures for completion and distribution of the DD Form 214.  In pertinent part it states that item 14 (Military Education) will list formal in service training courses successfully completed during the period of service covered by title, length in weeks, and month and year completed.  This information is to assist the soldier after separation in job placement and counseling; therefore, training courses for combat skills are not listed.

13.  Army Regulation 635-5 states, in pertinent part, that item 4a (Grade, Rate or Rank) and 4b (Pay Grade) will be completed to show the active duty grade or rank and pay grade at the time of separation.
14.  Army Regulation 635-5 also states that the primary MOS and all additional MOS’ served for a period of one year or more, during soldier’s continuous active military service will be entered in item 11 (Primary Specialty). 

15.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) provides instructions for the preparation of the DD Form 214.  It states, in pertinent part, that item 
13 (Decorations and Awards) will be completed to show the decorations awarded or authorized during the period covered by the DD Form 214.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) shows in paragraph 6-15d that the Army Lapel Button is a gratuitous issue item and as such it is not a decoration or award which is annotated on the discharge document.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board noted the applicant’s contention that the two recommendations for award of the Meritorious Service Medal never reached the “General” for final approval.  

2.  The Board noted that the award approval authority for the Meritorious Service Medal in each case was the major general in command of a division.  The Board also noted that the award approval authority for the Army Commendation Medal in each case was a colonel who was immediately subordinate to the division commander. 

3.  Army Regulation governing awards processing provides that the award approval authority for the Meritorious Service Medal may delegate disapproval authority to his immediate subordinates who are approval authorities for award of the Army Commendation Medal.  In the applicant’s case, the award approval authorities for the Army Commendation Medal disapproved the recommendations for award of the Meritorious Service Medal and awarded the Army Commendation Medal instead.

4.  The applicant has not presented any evidence that the award processes or the decisions by the appropriate award approval authorities for the two awards of the Army Commendation Medal were flawed or otherwise unjust, improper or inequitable. 

5.  This Board considered all information submitted and all available evidence of record in this case and found no compelling evidence which warranted upgrading either of the applicant’s two awards of the Army Commendation Medal to awards of the Meritorious Service Medal.

6.  The Board noted the applicant’s request for correction of his Army DD Form 214 to show Naval schools/courses completed during his Naval service.  However, in accordance with the governing regulation, formal in service training courses successfully completed during the period of service covered by the DD Form 214 will be entered on the DD Form 214.  Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to correction of his Army DD Form 214 to show courses he completed during his Naval service.

7.  The applicant’s request for correction of his Army DD Form 214 to show rates and MOS’ held during his Naval, Army National Guard and USAR service was also noted by the Board.  However, in accordance with the governing regulation, the active duty grade of rank and pay grade at the time of separation will only be entered on the DD Form 214; and the primary MOS and all additional MOS’ served for a period of one year or more, during soldier’s continuous active military service will be entered on the DD Form 214.  Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to correction of his Army DD Form 214 to show rates and MOS’ held during his Naval service or his inactive service in the Army National Guard and USAR.      

8.  With regard to the applicant’s contention that his Honorable Service Lapel Buttons were not entered on his Army DD Form 214, lapel buttons are not listed on discharge documents in accordance with the governing regulation.    
  
9.  The applicant’s contention that he was awarded an Army Commendation Medal after his discharge from the Army and it is not annotated on his DD Form 214 is valid.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 with an effective date of 21 May 1999 shows the Army Commendation Medal (3rd Award) as an authorized award.  However, subsequent to his discharge on 21 May 1999, the applicant was awarded an Army Commendation Medal on 6 July 1999.  Therefore, he is entitled to correction of his Army DD Form 214 with an effective date of 21 May 1999 to show award of the Army Commendation Medal (4th Award).

10.  In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s records, but only as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was awarded the Army Commendation Medal (4th Award).

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

CLA____  WTM____  TBR_____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		Celia L. Adolphi_________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000042811	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000907	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19990521	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-40 Paragraph 4-24b(3)  	
DISCHARGE REASON	Disability, severance pay	
BOARD DECISION	(GRANT)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	107.0017	
2.	107.0020	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.