MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           19 October 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000047373

	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. W. W. Osborn, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser		Member	
	Ms. Tracey L. Pinson		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 his earlier appeal to correct his records by upgrading his Army Commendation Medal to the Bronze Star Medal. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that the two awards are essentially equal but that the Bronze Star Medal is more appropriate because he served in a combat environment.  He cites another case, AR1999023471,  to demonstrate that the Board has previously upgraded an Army Commendation Medal to a Bronze Star Medal.  He cites the 1996 National Defense Appropriations Act to show that individuals in the intelligence field often did not receive appropriate awards.  He contends that this happened in his case as evidenced that his radio intercept unit was called a radio research unit.  He believes that he has “proved that the Army Commendation Medal and the Bronze Star Medal were equal, as defined in the pertinent part by the governing Regulation and differed only as regards to meeting the operational requirement for ‘meritorious service performed in connection with military operations against an armed enemy in time of war.’” He concludes that his commander underestimated the hazards involved with combat situation in and around Bien Hoa Air Base.  He submits after action reports for the base wherein he has highlighted the numbers of incoming rounds, individuals killed and wounded and awards other than the Army Commendation Medal to show that “some commanders understood and correctly applied the pertinent documented provisions of AR 672-5-1.”

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's previous consideration of his case on 12 January 2000 (COPY ATTACHED).

The applicant’s submission constitutes new evidence and argument that requires Board consideration.

The applicant was awarded the Army Commendation Medal on 14 February 1970 for the period March 1969 to March 1970.  The citation consists of his identifying data and applicable dates typed on a preprinted form.

The case the applicant cited in which the Board upgraded a Army Commendation Medal to a Bronze Star Medal contains a highly individualized account of the individual’s exploits in combat.

The applicant’s military records contain an efficiency report for the period on October 1970 through December 1970 that rated him average in adaptability and duty performance and below average in attitude, initiative, leadership and responsibility.  He received nonjudicial punishment on 16 January 1970 for abandoning his guard post and on 20 January 1971 for absence from his appointed place of duty.

AR 672-5-1 (Military Awards), then in effect, provided that the Bronze Star Medal was awarded to a person serving with or in the Army who distinguished himself or herself by heroic or meritorious achievement or service, not involving participation in aerial flight, in connection with military operations against an armed enemy or while engaged in military operations involving an opposing armed force in a conflict in which the United States is not a belligerent.  

The regulation also provides that the Army Commendation Medal was awarded to any member of the Armed Forces of the United States who, while serving in any capacity with the Army, who distinguished himself or herself by heroic or 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 question at issue is not whether this Board can or will recommend actions on awards similar or identical to those the applicant seeks.   Rather, the question before this Board is whether the requested relief is warranted.

2.  The applicant’s rationale and his interpretations are noted.  However, the Board concludes that the awards are not the same.  The Bronze Star Medal is not more appropriate to the applicant’s situation simply because he monitored tactical radio circuits or served in an area that was subject to occasional incoming artillery.  There is no available evidence relating to the applicant’s actual contributions nor to show that his commander misinterpreted the regulatory guidance by recommending him for award of the Army Commendation Medal in a wartime environment.  

3.  Furthermore, given his record of performance and conduct the Board concludes that his service was, specifically, not so meritorious as to warrant an award of the Bronze Star Medal.  

4.  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.

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

__EWL__  __CJP__  ___TLP_ _  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000047373	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20001019	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	 	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.