MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           5 August 2003                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003084692

	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. Edmund P. Mercanti		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Mr. Ronald J. Weaver		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 given a military decoration for “my dedication and desire to perform to the fullest of my abilities as a Cavalry Soldier.”

APPLICANT STATES:  His Enlisted Evaluation Reports and Enlisted Efficiency Reports (EER’s) clearly show his attitude and desire to excel in everything he did.  One EER shows that he single handedly ran the troop tactical operations center and provided the crucial liaison between the commander and the platoons.  He also points out that he was rated as being amongst the very best and his evaluators stated that they would promote him.  His rater also commented that the applicant should be highly recommended for his efforts.  The applicant concludes that he realizes that while there is a degree of expectation of everyone in uniform, some deserving soldiers do not receive awards because time isn’t found to recommend them.

In support of his request he submits three extremely laudatory EER’s.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 24 August 1973, was awarded the military occupational specialty of field communication specialist, and was promoted to pay grade E-4.

He was assigned to a cavalry troop in Germany on 11 April 1975, where he was assigned to the position of senior field radio mechanic, which was authorized a sergeant, pay grade E-5.

On 16 August 1976, the applicant was honorably released from active duty.  He had served 2 years, 11 months and 23 days on active duty, and had been awarded the National Defense Service Medal and the Good Conduct Medal.

Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides that with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required.  Recommendations must be made within 2 years of the event or period of service and the award must be made within 3 years.  There are regulatory provisions for lost recommendations but not for late recommendations, reconsideration, nor for upgrading to a more prestigious award.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  As acknowledged by the applicant, a soldier must be recommended for an award.  
2.  While the applicant’s EER’s show that he performed his duties to a high degree of proficiency and professionalism, he was not recommended for any award.

3.  While the applicant may theorize that the sole reason for him not being recommended for an award was that his superiors didn’t have the time to write such a recommendation, this is speculative at best.

4.  A commander is in the best position to evaluate whether a soldier is worthy of an award, since the commander has an overview of the performance and accomplishments of everyone in his or her command.  For example, did certain junior enlisted members receive awards because they worked 14 days in a row, with little to no sleep?  Did that effort result in the accomplishment of a task which was thought to be impossible to accomplish?  As a result of that task being accomplished, was the squadron able to function at a higher level of efficiency than ever before recorded?  Because of the comparative nature of awards, it would be inappropriate for the Board to impose its authority over that of the commander on the ground during the time in question.

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

___lls ___  ____rjw__  ____clg__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003084692	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20030805	
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.	107.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.