MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           31 July 2001                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001056538

	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. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		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 he be awarded the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) with 4th oak leaf cluster (OLC).  He also requests award of the Soldier’s Medal or the Bronze Star Medal (BSM) for his actions on 15 January 1991.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, DD Form 214, shows that he has four awards of the ARCOM, which is correct.  However, the U. S. Total Army Personnel Command’s (PERSCOM’s)  29 March 2001 letter to his senator states that he was awarded the ARCOM 4th OLC for service 6 March – 19 May 1992.  He also desires to receive a higher award, such as the Soldier’s Medal or the BSM for his actions on 15 January 1991.  PERSCOM will not accept “Buddy Certificates” that are acceptable to the VA.  

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

After having had prior service, he reenlisted in the Regular Army on 13 June 1977.

Orders for the applicant’s first two awards of the ARCOM are not in his file.  Permanent Orders (PO) 114-05, Headquarters, Division Support Command, 4th Infantry Division dated 12 September 1989 awarded him the ARCOM 2d OLC for service from 8 July 1987 through 2 October 1989.  

The applicant provides the front page from a Recommendation for Award (for other than Valor) of Army Achievement Medal (AAM), Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM), and Meritorious Service Medal (MSM), DA Form 638, dated   20 May 1992, in which he was recommended for the ARCOM 4th OLC for the period 6 March - 19 May 1992.  The DA Form 638 indicates that his previous awards included the ARCOM 2d OLC.  The second page, which would indicate if the award was approved, is not available.

PO 77-2, 7th Corps Support Group dated 26 August 1993 awarded the applicant the ARCOM 3d OLC for service from 4 December 1989 - 1 March 1992.  The DA Form 638 for the ARCOM 3d OLC is dated 18 August 1993 and indicates that he was recommended for award of the ARCOM 3d OLC.  It also indicates that he had two (sic) previous awards of the ARCOM. 

The applicant provides the front page from a DA Form 638 dated 17 August 2000 in which he was recommended for the Soldier’s Medal for the period 4 December 1989 - 15 July 1992.  Achievement number 1 indicated he placed mission accomplishment ahead of his own personal safety during Operation Desert Shield/Storm after a collision of two vehicles.  He applied immediate first aid to a wounded soldier and directed the convoy finish the required supply delivery commitment in preparation for the ground war.  
The applicant retired on 1 July 1995.  His DD Form 214 shows he was awarded four awards of the ARCOM.

Apparently in relation to a VA claim, the applicant provided three “Buddy Certificates” corroborating the fact that he was involved in a motor vehicle accident on or about 15 January 1991 in Saudi Arabia.  The statements relate how the applicant, acting as convoy commander in the lead 5-ton tractor, and his driver were at a mandatory stop awaiting the removal of a previous wreck.  While stopped, the tractor was forcefully struck from behind by a second tractor/semi-trailer.  The applicant was forced into the flat metal dash.  After evaluating his driver, he switched positions with his driver so the lead tractor could be moved off the highway.  The other convoy drivers moved off road as well.  The applicant assisted in placing his driver’s arm into a rifle sling and directed another soldier to take the convoy into King Khalid Military City and take the driver to medical help. The applicant remained at the crash site for the arrival of the military police to investigate the accident.  His vehicle was determined to be “totaled.”

It appears the applicant contacted his senator in regards to award of the Soldier’s Medal.  In response to the senator, PERSCOM on 29 March 2001 wrote “We note that Mr. ___ has already received awards of the Army Commendation Medal (Third and Fourth Oak Leaf Clusters) for his service from December        4, 1989 to March 1, 1992 and March 6, 1992 to May 19, 1992.”  PERSCOM also noted that the Soldier’s Medal is awarded for heroism not involving conflict and requires substantive evidence to include an official report of the incident and eyewitness accounts of the actions performed by the applicant.  PERSCOM noted that anyone with first-hand knowledge of his actions may recommend him for an award under Title 10, U. S. Code, section 1130 and provided additional information for his use should he desire to exercise that option.  PERSCOM reiterated this information in a 23 May 2001 letter to the applicant’s senator.

On 7 July 2001, PERSCOM indicated to an analyst with the Board that it could not be determined where PERSCOM got the information that the applicant had been awarded the ARCOM 4th OLC but that it probably was taken from the DA Form 638 dated 20 May 1992.

The applicant was provided a copy of the record of phone conversation with PERSCOM and requested to provide the reverse side of the applicable DA Form 638.  He responded that he did not have it and provided an additional DA Form 638, front side only (the form dated 17 August 2000).

Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides that the Soldier’s Medal is awarded for distinguished heroism not involving conflict with the enemy. The action must have involved personal danger or hazard and the voluntary risk of life.  The same degree of heroism is required as for the award of the Distinguished Flying Cross. Awards are not to be based solely upon the saving of a life.  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.  

Title 10, U. S. Code, section 1130 provides that the Service concerned will review a proposal for the award of, or upgrading of, a decoration that would not otherwise be authorized to be awarded based upon time limitations previously established by law.  A separate DA Form 638 must be prepared.  The unit, the period of assignment, and the award being recommended must be clearly identified.  A narrative of the actions or period for which recognition is requested must accompany the DA Form 638.  Requests for consideration of awards should be supported by sworn affidavits, eyewitness statements, certificates and related documents.  Corroborating evidence is best provided by commanders, leaders and fellow comrades who had personal knowledge of the circumstances and events relative to the request.  The law also requires that a request for award not previously submitted in a timely fashion will only be considered under this provision if the request has been referred to the Service Secretary from a Member of Congress.  The burden and costs for researching and assembling documentation to support approval of requested awards and decorations rests with the requestor.

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 Board concludes that there is insufficient evidence to show that the applicant was awarded the ARCOM 4th OLC (i.e., five awards of the ARCOM). 

2.  The Board notes the wording of PERSCOM’s 29 March 2001 letter (which indicated that he had received awards of the ARCOM 3d and 4th OLCs for his service from 4 December 1989 to 1 March 1992 and 6 March 1992 to 19 May 1992).  However, the Board notes that although his DA Form 638 dated 20 May 1992 indicated it was for the 4th OLC, it also indicated that his previous awards included the ARCOM 2d OLC.  The fact that his next complete DA Form 638, dated 18 August 1993, showed that he was recommended for the ARCOM 3d OLC indicates to the Board that the DA Form 638 dated 20 May 1992 contained an error when it showed the recommended award as the ARCOM 4th OLC.

3.  PERSCOM’s letter is not substantiating evidence that the applicant was awarded the ARCOM 4th OLC.  Rather, it indicates to the Board that PERSCOM misread or failed to completely read the DA Forms 638 available.

4.  If the applicant desires the Soldier’s Medal or upgrade of one of his ARCOMs to the Bronze Star Medal, he should first take the actions provided for in Title 10, U. S. Code, section 1130 and as outlined in PERSCOM’s letter to his senator.  

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

__wtm___  __aao___  __jtm___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001056538	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010731	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	107.00	
2.	107.0010	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.