IN THE CASE OF:	

		BOARD DATE:	  30 December 2008

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080012911 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests that her separation award, the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM), be added to her separation document (DD Form 214).

2.  The applicant states her ARCOM was not approved until after she was separated.

3.  The applicant provides her DD Form 214 and a DA Form 638 
(Recommendation for Award) in support of her application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's military records show that she enlisted in the Regular Army on 10 July 1996, was awarded the military occupational specialty of patient administration specialist, and was promoted to sergeant (SGT)/pay grade E-5.

2.  The applicant was honorably discharged on 13 January 2008 by reason of completion of required active service.  The DD Form 214 she was issued shows, in pertinent part, that the applicant had been awarded the ARCOM (2nd Award).

3.  The DA Form 638 submitted by the applicant shows that she was recommended for award of the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM).  The two intermediate authorities recommended the MSM be downgraded to the 


ARCOM.  Block 26 (Approval Authority) of the DA Form 638 shows the signature block of a brigadier general as the approval authority.  However, the approval 
authority did not mark the block indicating whether the recommendation was approved or disapproved or for what type of award.  There is also neither an electronic signature nor an actual signature in Block 26h (Signature).  

4.  Part V (Orders Data) of the DA Form 638, it shows in Block 27b (Permanent Orders No.) the entry 073-001.  However, Block 29 (Approved Award) is blank, in effect, not showing what award was approved.  Additionally, the typed name in Block 28a (Name of Orders Approval Authority) differs from the signature that appears in Block 28d (Signature).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  While the applicant has submitted a DA Form 638 which shows that orders were published awarding her a decoration, that form is not approved by the approval authority and what specific decoration was awarded is not identified.  Since the applicant was recommended for the MSM and intermediate commanders recommended a downgrade to an ARCOM, these omissions are significant.  The missing information and discrepancies in the Orders Data section are equally significant.

2.  Without a complete DA Form 638 awarding the applicant the ARCOM, there is insufficient evidence in which to grant her request.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___X____  ___X____  ___X___  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.



      _________X_____________
       	   CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080012911



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080012911



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1