MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           16 November 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000048282

	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	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Chairperson	
	Mr. James E. Anderholm		Member	
	Ms. Martha E. Schuler		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: That his Army Achievement Medal (AAM) be upgraded to an Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM).

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was recommended for an ARCOM.  He was officially informed by his company commander that the reason for the downgrade was "The Battalion has been giving out too many awards, the Battalion Commander wants it to be hard to get an award in this Battalion, so your Civic Action Team will not get all the awards as submitted.”  He believes it is not in keeping with the spirit or letter of Army regulations to pre-determine how many awards a mission will receive.  Merit should be the only determining factor.  Also, the recommendation was not even allowed to go before the appropriate O-6 colonel approval authority.  He provides a copy of his Recommendation for Award, DA Form 638, and his Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER), DA Form 2166-7, for the period ending November 1997 as supporting evidence.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records are not available.

The applicant was promoted to Staff Sergeant, E-6 on 1 June 1995.  His NCOER for the period ending November 1997 shows that he performed duties as a platoon sergeant in military occupational specialty 62N40, Construction Equipment Supervisor.

On 8 September 1997, the applicant was recommended for award of the ARCOM for achievement for the period 19 May – 11 November 1997.  His company commander was the recommending official.  The intermediate authority, the battalion commander, disapproved the ARCOM and downgraded it to an AAM.  The ARCOM approval authority had been the group commander.

Army Regulation 600-8-22 prescribes Army policy and criteria concerning individual military awards.  In pertinent part, it states that in peacetime Army military decorations recognize achievements which have significantly contributed to the readiness or effectiveness of a unit or organization or have made notable contributions to the morale or esprit de corps of units or organizations.  Exceptional command or leadership of a crew, team, section, squad or similar unit may be considered meritorious achievement or service.  Recommendations for awards must be based on specific achievement.  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.  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 degree to which an individual’s achievement or service enhanced the readiness or effectiveness of his or her organization will be the predominant factor.

Army Regulation 600-8-22 states that a commander in a colonel, O-6 position is the approval authority for award of the ARCOM.  However, commanders having authority to approve an award may delegate disapproval authority to their immediate subordinate commanders provided those subordinate commanders have authority to approve the next lower award.  This delegation must be in writing.  A commander in a lieutenant colonel, O-5 position is the approval authority for award of the AAM.  The ARCOM is awarded to any member who distinguishes himself or herself by meritorious achievement or meritorious service (or heroism).  The AAM is awarded to any member who distinguished himself or herself by meritorious service or achievement of a lesser degree than required for award of the ARCOM. 

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.  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.

2.  The group commander was the approval authority when the applicant was recommended for award of the ARCOM.  However, in the absence of evidence to the contrary the battalion commander presumably had disapproval authority.  In the absence of evidence to show that it was the battalion commander’s policy to restrict awards based solely on numbers or quotas without considering the merit of the recommendation, the Board concludes that the approval authority made a proper, subjective decision in downgrading the recommended award to an AAM. That the applicant’s company commander “officially informed” him of these circumstances without corroborating evidence from knowledgeable sources, such as the battalion commander, executive officer or personnel staff officer, is insufficient evidence to grant the relief requested.

3.  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

__wtm___  __jea___  __mes___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000048282	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20001116	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	107.0020	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.