MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            2 October 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001057767

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Ms. Karol A. Kennedy		Member	
	Mr. Richard T. Dunbar		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:  In effect, that his records be corrected to show that he was awarded the Legion of Merit (LOM) upon his retirement.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was presented the LOM on 9 November 2000, in connection with his 31 December 2000 retirement for length of service.  He also states that he was presented the medal by the officer who recommended him for the award.  He further states that his wife was in attendance along with some 50 co-workers, friends and family.  He goes on to state that on 5 December 2000, he reported to the out-processing facility to arrange for his final pay and to receive his report of separation (DD Form 214).  At the time the clerk was preparing the DD Form 214 he (the applicant) mentioned that he had received an award of the LOM, but did not yet have the paperwork.  The clerk immediately called for a copy of the award and was informed that the award had been downgraded to a Meritorious Service Medal (MSM).  He goes on to state that at the time he was especially proud to receive the award because of the many sacrifices his wife had made and believed that it was as much hers as it was his. He was very embarrassed to find out that the award was presented prematurely and believes that there was a disconnect between the recommending and approving officials that caused his award to be downgraded.  He also believes that he should be entitled to the award of the LOM as presented.

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

On 6 July 2000, while the applicant was serving on active duty as a National Guard lieutenant colonel in the National Guard Bureau (NGB), a recommendation for award of the LOM was submitted through channels to the Chief of the NGB (a lieutenant general).  The award was submitted in recognition of the applicant’s retirement from 29 years of service (of which 20 years was active duty) and was submitted by the Chief, Army Information Systems Division (a colonel).  

On 1 November 2000, the Chief of the NGB downgraded the recommendation to an award of the MSM.  The award was not administratively completed until 20 November 2000.

Meanwhile, on 9 November 2000, the applicant was presented with an award of the LOM (without orders).

On 31 December 2000, the applicant was honorably released from active duty and was transferred to the United States Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group (Retired).  He had served 20 years, 1 month and 9 days of active service and 29 years, 1 month and 7 days of total service for pay.  His DD Form 214 indicates that his highest award was the Defense Meritorious Service Medal and that he received three awards of the MSM. 

On 9 April 2001, officials at the NGB responded to a Congressional Inquiry on behalf of the applicant, regarding his entitlement to the award of the LOM.  Officials at the NGB informed the Congressional Representative that the award had been presented prematurely and without proper approval of the Chief, NGB. The official also apologized for the embarrassment caused by the premature presentation and advised the applicant that he could apply to this Board.

Army Regulation 600-8-22 prescribes Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning military awards.  It provides, in pertinent part, that the Chief, NGB is the approval authority for all awards to National Guard personnel.  Once awards are approved, orders will be published and certificates will be prepared for presentation.  Each individual approaching retirement may be considered for an appropriate decoration based on his or her grade, years of service, degree of responsibility and manner of performance.  The authority taking final action may award the decoration recommended, award a lesser decoration or consider the interim award (if given) as adequate recognition or disapprove award of any decoration.

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.  While it is apparent that an administrative error occurred when the applicant was prematurely presented the LOM by the recommending official, the award had already been officially downgraded by the approving authority.  Accordingly, the LOM presented to the applicant at the time was never an official award.

2.  The Board is sympathetic to the embarrassment caused by the actions of the presenting official to the applicant and his family; however, the Chief of the NGB was within his authority to downgrade the recommendation and the Board finds no basis to dispute his judgment in this matter, especially given the fact that the applicant worked in the NGB and the Chief of the NGB was in a position to best make such a decision.  

3.  It appears that an officer subordinate to the Chief of the NGB presumed (without checking first) that the recommendation had been approved and prematurely presented the medal without authority to do so.  While it is not the intent of the Department for mistakes like this to be allowed to occur, it is also not appropriate to grant awards that are not approved by the appropriate authorities simply because someone made a mistake and presented the wrong medal.

4.  The Board commends the applicant for his many years of service to his country and encourages him to understand that the mistake made in his case was not made intentionally to embarrass him or his family.  Unfortunately, the approving authority did not believe that the recommendation warranted an award of the LOM and the Board finds no basis to overturn that decision.  The decision by the Chief of the NGB to award him the MSM does not diminish the quality of his service but simply implies that in the judgment of the approving authority, it did not warrant an award of the LOM. 

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

__mkp___  ___kak__  ___rtd___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001057767	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2001/10/02	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  55	131.0900/LOM	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.