MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:            20 March 2001                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000046191

	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. Kenneth H. Aucock		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner  		Member	
	Mr. William D. Powers 		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:  Award of the Soldier’s Medal.  

APPLICANT STATES:  That detailed information was not included with the initial submission.  He requests the Board to review a statement that he attaches to his application.

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

On 12 January 1999 an individual, a safety program manager with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, requested the assistance of a Member of Congress (MC) in obtaining the Soldier’s Medal for the applicant.  On               5 February 1999 the Chief of the Military Awards Branch at the Total Army Personnel Command informed that same MC that the award recommendation was received and would be forwarded to the Army Decorations Board for their review and determination.

The recommendation for the award of the Soldier’s Medal shows that the applicant appeared on the scene of an accident in which a van had flipped over trapping a woman inside.  The woman had a compound fracture of the leg.  The vehicle had ongoing discharge of fuel from the tank and the back of the vehicle was crushed in.  That recommendation shows that the applicant opened the back door with a crowbar and applied first aid to the woman, preventing her from going into shock.  Before entering the vehicle he instructed people to get away from the vehicle because of the release of fuel.  The woman was trapped inside and could not move.  The applicant stayed with the woman until the paramedics arrived some 20 minutes later.  The applicant was informed that he risked his life in doing what he did. 

Attached to the recommendation was a statement from a witness who in describing the actions of the applicant stated that the applicant and another gentleman arrived at the scene in front of his vehicle, and that the applicant did what he did knowing the whole time that a spark from the crowbar could set the gas on fire.  He stated that he helped the other gentleman keep people away from the van.

The other gentleman, a Chief Warrant Officer Three (CW3) with the Florida Army National Guard, also provided a statement to the recommendation.  He expanded somewhat on the applicant’s actions, stating that the applicant stayed with the woman speaking with her in what little Spanish he knew, wrapping a shirt around her leg and applying pressure to stop the bleeding.  He stated that the applicant controlled the bleeding and kept the woman from going into shock; and once the ambulance arrived the woman would not let go of the applicant’s hand.  He stated that the fire department personnel said he was crazy because the tank or the fuel could have caught on fire at any moment.  He stated that the next day a doctor called and said that if it was not for the applicant’s quick reaction, the woman would have gone into shock and lost her leg. 

Information obtained from the Awards Branch of the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) is that the applicant was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal on 9 March 1999 for his actions.

On 6 April 2000, in response to the same MC concerning the desire of the CW3’s (the other gentleman), desire to have the Meritorious Service Medal awarded to the applicant upgraded to an award of the Soldier’s Medal, PERSCOM stated that person, the CW3, had not provided any new and substantive evidence that was not previously considered by the Army Decorations Board.  The PERSCOM informed the MC that the CW3 could appeal to this Board.

On 18 May 2000 the MC forwarded to this Board a letter from the applicant concerning his actions.  The applicant recounted much of the same information as indicated above, expounding somewhat, for instance, stating that the first thing that he noticed was that the gas tank was ruptured and that gas was spraying all over the back of the van and out toward the interstate.  He stated that he asked the CW3 to have all the people standing around to get away from the van because it might explode.  He stated that he saw that the woman’s leg bone was protruding and she was losing blood at a fast rate.  He said that he acted quickly, found a crowbar and pried open the door, and by that time he was covered from his waist down with gasoline, and he was sprayed in the face with gas several times while trying to open the back door.  He entered the van.  The woman spoke very little English.  Due to her leg and the way she was sitting, he was unable to move her.  He stopped the bleeding, and spoke to calm her down. He continued to watch the gasoline spray across the back door and onto the tail pipe of the van.  He tried to move her, but she was trapped.  If he left her, he knew that she could go into shock and die.  The temperature was about            90 degrees and the gas continued to spray until the fire department arrived about 20 minutes later.  Once the fire department arrived, they sprayed the van down, removed the woman, and sprayed him.  The fire chief told him that he did a very brave thing and that he was lucky to be alive, in that the van gas tank was extremely hot even after being sprayed down, and the exhaust pipe could have started a fire very easily.  He stated that he told the fire chief that was his second time that he was at a flipped van site that year, and was the fifteenth time he had saved someone’s life in the past five years.  In 24 years of military service he had been recommended for the Soldier’s Medal on two other occasions, but the recommendations were lost in the system.  He stated that he recently read an article in the Army Times about a cadet getting a Soldier’s Medal for going into a blown up building.  He stated that his actions were no different from those of that cadet.       

The statement, dated 18 August 2000, that the applicant attaches with his application is that from the CW3 that was at the accident site with the applicant, and who kept people away from the van.  That person stated that when he submitted his first explanation of the applicant’s heroic actions, he left out a small part of the situation.  He described the situation and the actions of the applicant as heretofore related, expounding somewhat.  He did say that the applicant’s main concern was for the injured woman and not his own safety; and that the doctor from the hospital said that if it were not for the applicant’s actions the woman would have lost her leg and might have died.  He compared the applicant’s actions with those of a soldier in an article in Soldiers Magazine, and those of a cadet in an Army Times article, stating that he believed the applicant’s actions were more heroic.  He stated that both of those soldiers were on active duty, whereas the applicant was in the Florida National Guard, and questions whether the requirements or standards for those on active duty were different from those in the Guard.   

The Soldier’s Medal is awarded to any person of the Armed Forces of the United States who distinguished himself by heroism not involving actual conflict with an enemy.  The same degree of heroism is required as for the award of the Distinguished Flying Cross.  The performance must have involved personal hazard or danger and the voluntary risk of life under conditions not involving conflict with an armed enemy.  Awards will not be made solely on the basis of having saved a life.

The Distinguished Flying Cross is awarded to any person of the Army who distinguished himself by heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in aerial flight.  The performance of the act of heroism must be evidenced by voluntary action above and beyond the call of duty.  The extraordinary achievement must have resulted in an accomplishment so exceptional and outstanding as to clearly set the individual apart from his comrades or from other persons in similar circumstances.  Awards will be made only to recognize single acts of heroism or extraordinary achievement and will not be made in recognition of sustained operational activities against an armed enemy.  

The Meritorious Service Medal is awarded to any member of the Army Forces of the United States who, while serving in a noncombat area after 16 January 1969, has distinguished himself by outstanding meritorious achievement or service. 

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.  The soldier’s actions were indeed noteworthy as evidenced by the award of the Meritorious Service Medal for meritorious achievement.  Whereas the Board does not question the account of the incident for which the soldier received the Meritorious Service Medal, the Board believes that the soldier’s actions do not meet the criteria for award of the Soldier’s Medal.  He has provided no evidence nor a convincing argument to warrant this Board to upgrade his award of the Meritorious Service Medal to the Soldier’s Medal.  There is no reason for this board to question the subjective decision made at that time to award the soldier the Meritorious Service Medal for his actions during that incident.

2.  The Army discourages self-aggrandizement and precludes individuals from recommending themselves for awards.  The Board notes that the applicant himself requested via a MC sometime in May of last year that he be awarded the Soldier’s Medal.  The applicant’s belief that he should have received the Soldier’s Medal is not a basis for awarding the decoration and is tantamount to recommending himself for this award. 

3.  The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request.   

4.  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.

5.  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

___fne___  ___rjw___  ___wdp_  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000046191	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010320	
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.  56	107.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.