RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           18 December 2003                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR2003089776

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor		Chairperson	
	Mr. James E. Anderholm		Member	
	Ms. Yolanda Maldonado		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:  

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, that an Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) she received for the period 29 May 1997 through 26 March 2000 be upgraded to a Meritorious Service Medal (MSM).  

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that when she received the ARCOM in question on 14 April 2000, she immediately requested that the orders be revoked and implicitly requested that it be upgraded to a MSM.  On 17 April 2000, this request was disapproved.  She claims that on 22 March 2000, she found the  original award recommendation, which was for the MSM and immediately requested that her ARCOM be upgraded.  Her chain of command refused to process her request and the commander of the 98th Area Support Group (ASG) disapproved her request and indicated that no procedural error had been made.  She states that she appealed this decision to the 1st Infantry Division commander and made an equal opportunity (EO) complaint.  Both her appeal and the complaint were referred to the 98th ASG commander to answer.  Again, the ASG commander stood by the battalion commander and refused to investigate her substantive appeal.  

3.  The applicant further states that her effort to resolve her case and have her complaint that the downgrade of her award was unjust and procedurally incorrect addressed and resolved at division level was thwarted contrary to the governing regulation.  She claims that she then complained to both the United States Army Europe (USAREUR) Inspector General (IG) and the Department of the Army (DA) IG.  She claims that both IG’s found that there had been a procedural error and that she had been denied due process.  However, neither of these offices granted any relief and she now appeals to this Board by requesting that the ARCOM she received in April 2000 be revoked and that it be replaced with an MSM as originally recommended by her rater, a field grade officer, and her detachment commander.  

4.  In support of her application, the applicant provides the following documents:  Recommendation for Award (DA Form 638), prepared on 21 September 1999; a 
17 April 2000 memorandum in which she requested revocation of the ARCOM; her 12 June 2000 memorandum requesting an upgrade of her ARCOM to an MSM with supporting documents; her 28 August 2000 memorandum requesting revocation and upgrade of the ARCOM, an undated memorandum from the 
98th ASG commander responding to the applicant’s EO complaint; and the USAREUR IG and DA IG letters responding to her complaints. 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 

1.  The applicant’s military records show that on 31 March 2003, she was released from active duty for the purpose of retirement after completing a total of 21 years, 3 months, and 3 days of active military service.  At the time of her separation, she held the rank and pay grade of sergeant first class/E-7 
(SFC/E-7).  

2.  Permanent Orders Number 20-1, dated 20 January 2000, issued by the 
98th ASG, authorized the award of the ARCOM 4th Oak Leaf Cluster (OLC) to the applicant, for her meritorious service for the period 29 May 1997 through 
26 March 2000, as a member of the 235th Base Support Battalion (BSB).  The commander of the 98th ASG approved the award on 19 January 2000.  

3.  On 17 April 2000, the applicant requested the immediate revocation of Permanent Orders Number 20-01 and of the ARCOM 4th OLC it authorized.  She included a memorandum with her explanation of why she was requesting revocation of the award.  It indicted that the award did not accurately reflect her selfless service while assigned to the 235th BSB, which included her service in two very prestigious positions that included detachment first sergeant (1SG) and Noncommissioned Officer In Charge (NCOIC) of a training in-processing center.  

4.  On 12 June 2000, the applicant requested that the ARCOM 4th OLC authorized in Permanent Orders 20-01 be upgraded to a MSM.  She claimed that the MSM originally recommended was more befitting and reflective of her performance.  

5.  On 20 June 2000, the applicant submitted a memorandum to the 1st Infantry Division requesting revocation and upgrade of the ARCOM 4th OLC in question.  She indicated that she made this request given the command sergeant major’s refusal to maintain an open line of communication and based on the many requests she made that were previously disapproved.  

6.  The commander of the 98th ASG responded to an EO complaint that had been submitted by the applicant.  In this response, he indicated that he found no basis to conclude that she had been targeted for unfair treatment based on either her race or gender.  The ASG commander pointed out, as a matter of information, that of the individuals cited in her complaint, one was a white female, two were black males, and three were white males.  He further stated that no formal EO complaints had been filed within the 235th BSB for at least the last three years, and it seemed suspect to him that all of these leaders would focus only on the applicant to create a hostile environment.  

7.  On 1 March 2001, the USAREUR IG responded to an inquiry from the applicant.  This response indicated that the original recommendation for the MSM was disapproved by the BSB commander, who directed that another DA Form 638 be submitted for an ARCOM.  The IG indicated that this was a procedural error and that the appropriate action for the BSB commander to take would have been to recommend a downgrade to the recommended award on the original 
DA Form 638 and not to have a new DA Form 638 submitted.  The IG further indicated that the location of the applicant’s original requests for revocation of the ARCOM and upgrade to an MSM were on file at the 235th BSB S-1 office and each request did in fact receive due process.  

8.  On 8 June 2001, the DA IG responded to an inquiry from the applicant.  In this response, the DA IG indicated that it found that her grievance that her end of tour award was not afforded due process in accordance with the awards regulation was valid.  However, it also stated that the BSB commander after considering her position at the time, the incident involving her and her ex-husband, and her overall performance of duty determined that the ARCOM was the appropriate award for her to receive.  The DA IG further pointed out that under the governing regulation there was no entitlement to an award and that awards for meritorious service are not based solely upon the grade of the individual.  Finally, it was determined that further action in regard to the end of tour award was not necessary or appropriate.  

9.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 contains the Army’s awards policy.  Chapter 3 contains guidance on awarding Army individual decorations.  It states that 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.  It further states that awards for meritorious achievement or service will not be based upon the grade of the intended recipient and no preconditions for an award may be established.  It further provides that commanders may disapprove the next higher award normally associated with their grade.  A commander in the grade of colonel may approve award of the ARCOM.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s claim that the ARCOM she received for meritorious service, for the period 29 May 1997 through 16 March 2000, should be upgraded to a MSM was carefully considered.  However, the available evidence does not support granting this requested relief.  

2.  The evidence of record confirms that the 98th ASG commander determined the appropriate award for the applicant to receive was the ARCOM.  By regulation, the 98th ASG commander had the authority to disapprove the MSM, the next higher award, and to approve the ARCOM on the applicant.  

3.  In view of the facts of this case, although administrative errors made in the processing of the applicant’s award recommendation, these errors did not impact the final award received by the applicant, as confirmed in the DA IG letter to the applicant.  Thus, there does not appear to be any injustice related to the award in question that would warrant upgrading the award at this time.  

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  _____  GRANT RELIEF 

________  ________  _____  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__RA__  ___YM_  __RO___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.

		Raymond V. O’Connor
		   CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003089776	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2003/12/18	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	N/A	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	N/A	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	N/A	
DISCHARGE REASON	N/A	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  46	107.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.