IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 31 March 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150006090 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____X____ ____X____ ____X____ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 31 March 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150006090 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20110011126, dated 22 November 2011, and Docket Number AR20120008437, dated 15 November 2012. ______________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. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 31 March 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150006090 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 reconsideration of his earlier request for award of the "V" device for heroism with his already-awarded Bronze Star Medal for achievement. 2. The applicant defers his argument and/or evidence to counsel. COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Counsel requests award of the "V" device to the applicant with his already-awarded Bronze Star Medal. He also requests a personal appearance before the Board. 2. Counsel states: a. The applicant enlisted in the U.S.  Army during the period of the Korean War and was honorably discharged on 12 July 1952. His records were presumably burned in the 1973 fire that destroyed 18 million service members' military records at the National Personnel Records Center. The facts presented here are gleaned from the Board's proceedings that in turn relied on his National Personnel Records Center file. It has been more than 3 years since he was separated, but based on the egregious failure of the Army to compensate the applicant for his service, counsel respectfully requests waiver of the 3-year time limit. b. The applicant is a decorated veteran of the Korean War who first began the award upgrade procedure in 2011. Since his first application, both this Board and the Awards and Decorations Branch have presented him an ever-changing set of criteria he must meet in order to obtain the "V" device. These actions demonstrate clear and undeniable material injustice which have acted to block and frustrate his efforts to obtain the recognition he deserves. As to the inconsistent and ever-changing criteria, the Board stated in the Discussion and Conclusions section of its first decision that it denied his request for the "V" device because, in part, "...[the record] fails to include any evidence to show [the BSM] was for heroism. The applicant must have participated in acts of heroism involving conflict with the enemy to satisfy the regulatory criteria for award of the "V" Device." c. However, this is patently untrue. As far back as 1999, he provided this Board with two letters from eyewitnesses who saw him engage with Chinese and North Korean soldiers while simultaneously taking command of the squad. The letters provided by fellow platoon members J____ H____ and W____ C____ stated the applicant covered squad members while they took "heavy artillery shelling along with small arms fire..." More importantly, when he requested reconsideration for the initial denial, the Board established additional requirements not set forth in the first decision. The Discussion and Conclusions section of the 21 November 2012 decision established these additional requirements: "All personal decorations and formal recommendations for a BSM [Bronze Star Medal] with a "V" Device require approval through the chain of command and announcement in orders..." This necessity was never mentioned in the initial denial; certainly had the applicant been notified that he needed to attempt to locate any potentially living members of his former chain of command, he could have undertaken the task at this early date. Further, the Discussion and Conclusions section advised him that he could pursue his "V" device "by submitting a request to HRC [U.S. Army Human Resources Command] through his Member of Congress under the provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1130 (10 USC 1130)." d. Following this Board's advice, he sought assistance from Representative J____ C____ who in turn contacted an official at the Army Boards Review Agency to determine how he/she could assist him in obtaining his "V" device. The official, however, declined to act on his behalf. Not surprisingly, the official's response contained completely new reasons for her inaction. In her 10 January 2013 letter to Representative C____, she stated the award recommendation form and supporting documents were being returned "without action or review by the ABCMR [Army Board for Correction of Military Records] because [Applicant] has not exhausted administrative relief available to him at a lower level. As the Board informed [Applicant] he must first apply to the Army Awards and Decorations Branch." Although her letter contended that he had been informed of the necessity of application to the Army Decorations Board, a review of both denial letters and related correspondence demonstrate that at no time was he told he must exhaust his administrative relief in this fashion. He then sought assistance from the Honorable D____ R____ who had become his new representative. In his letter to Representative D____ R____, he explained he was unable to locate any surviving members of his former chain of command. e. Representative R____ then directed a letter to the Awards and Decorations Branch per the Army Review Board Agency official's instructions. However, this attempt too was returned without action and with additional and new requirements. In its 12 February 2013 letter to Representative R_____, the Assistant Chief of the Awards and Decorations Branch explained why he would not forward the request to the Awards and Decorations Board. He stated, "We are unable to process your request at this time…[because] we require that Block 0 of the DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award) cite Bronze Star Medal with "V" device; Block 11 show a specific date of incident; Block 12a reason for award must cite valor, Part Il – Recommender Data must be signed by someone with first-hand knowledge of his actions." Here, the Army appears to have employed yet another means of confusing the process for him by detailing alleged errors in his DA Form 638, a form that he had apparently successfully completed several times before without complaint from the Army. In response to these new requirements, he continued his search for surviving members of his chain of command; however, the passage of 60 years made this nearly impossible. f. On 4 April 2013, Representative R____ again attempted to assist him; however, the Army Decorations Board again declined to process the request on 18 April 2013. Astonishingly, this letter from the Assistant Chief of the Awards and Decorations Branch added another new and heretofore unmentioned requirement. In this letter, the Assistant Chief of the Awards and Decorations Branch stated, "We are unable to process your request at this time...we still require an additional justification...[and the] additional justification must note any omissions or errors contained in the original award recommendation submitted on behalf of [Applicant] to the Army Decorations Board in 2000." The new requirement that "omissions or errors" be noted by the applicant had never appeared in any prior communications between the Army and either himself or the Representatives who assisted him. On 7 May 2014, the Army Decorations Board again sent correspondence to Representative R____ in response to his continued efforts to assist the applicant. In this letter, the Awards and Decorations Branch added yet another element to his growing list of hurdles when it suddenly took note of his earlier recommendation for award of a Silver Star. This letter stated, "[We] note that [Applicant] was recommended for the Silver Star, and that the recommended award was ultimately downgraded to the Bronze Star Medal by the former Commanding General of the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) (currently known as HRC). If [Applicant] feels his service and accomplishments were not properly recognized, he may submit a request for reconsideration." g. In the intervening 2 years since he began the process, this letter was the first and only to reference the downgrade and to suggest that he must first appeal that decision. On 10 July 2014, Representative R____ wrote to the Awards and Decorations Branch again. The Awards and Decorations Branch responded on 28 July 2014. In this letter, the Awards and Decorations Branch representative again focused on the "downgrade" from the Silver Star to the Bronze Star Medal. However, that representative now, after almost 3 years of the applicant's thwarted attempts to obtain his "V" device, advised Representative R____ that if the applicant cannot locate the living chain of command, that "[I]f these endorsements cannot be obtained the officers' names, as well as their inability to provide endorsements, must be annotated." h. Once again, this letter contained a requirement that had never been presented in any correspondence between this Board, the Awards and Decorations Branch, and the applicant or his Representatives. The manner in which the Army corresponded with the applicant and the Representatives clearly demonstrates an appalling and deplorable material injustice. The applicant served his country with distinction during the Korean War; he placed his life in danger in order to save the lives of his fellow Soldiers and suffered injuries during the course of that service. The few Soldiers who witnessed the incident and are still alive corroborated his statements about his service. Despite this, the Army, by way of this Board and the Awards and Decorations Branch, have acted in a manner that not only denied him his "V" device, but created conditions that were nearly impossible for him to meet. i. In summary, counsel requests approval of the applicant's appeal to have his "V" device awarded and, in the alternative, the applicant requests an in-person review. He was a hero of the Korean War who tried relentlessly to meet the requirements of the Army in pursuit of his "V" device. However, the Army failed him when it turned the application process into an ever-moving and impossible target. Even his Representatives, who assisted him at every tum, were unable to navigate the consistently changing system and requirements of this Board and the Awards and Decorations Board. Further, the actions, or inactions, of the Army demonstrated complete disregard for an aging veteran who had already been declared a Soldier of distinction. In light of this considerable material injustice, it is requested that his request be granted. 3. Counsel provides previous Board decisions and letters from HRC. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20110011126, dated 22 November 2011, and Docket Number AR20120008437, dated 15 November 2012. 2. The applicant does not meet the two-tiered criteria for a request for reconsideration in that his current request had already been previously reconsidered, was not submitted within 1 year of the last decision, and does not contain new substantive evidence. However, counsel presents an argument that was not previously considered and warrants consideration by the Board at this time. 3. The applicant's complete military records are not available for review. A fire destroyed approximately 18 million service members' records at the National Personnel Records Center in 1973. It is believed his records were lost or destroyed in that fire. However, there were sufficient documents remaining in a reconstructed record for the Board to conduct a fair and impartial review of this case. 4. The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he entered active duty in Santa Ana, CA, on 1 September 1950. This form also shows he held military occupational specialty 1745 (Light Weapons Infantryman) at the time of his separation and his most significant duty assignment (i.e., his last duty assignment) was with Company L, 224th Infantry. 5. He was honorably separated on 12 July 1952. His DD Form 214 shows he completed 1 year, 10 months, and 12 days of active service during this period, of which 1 year, 1 month, and 2 days were foreign service. His DD Form 214 also shows he was awarded or authorized the: * Army of Occupation Medal (Japan) * Korea Service Medal with bronze service stars * Combat Infantryman Badge * Purple Heart * United Nations Service Medal 6. In 1998, he petitioned this Board to award him the Distinguished Service Cross (ABCMR Docket Number AC98-05375A). He stated, "He had taken charge of a squad when the squad leader was seriously wounded during an intense fire fight with North Korean and Chinese communists. He quickly assessed that continuing the advance was not possible due to the heavy enemy resistance and ordered his men to stop advancing, to get low to the ground, and to withdraw to a secure area. During that engagement he was also wounded with shrapnel." On 23 June 1999, the Board denied his request due to lack of evidence to corroborate his statement and because his alleged actions did not rise to the level required for award of the Distinguished Service Cross. 7. In 2000, he petitioned this Board (ABCMR Docket Number AR19990032446) for reconsideration of his earlier request to award him the Distinguished Service Cross. On 16 March 2000, the Board again denied his request due to lack of evidence to corroborate his statement and because his alleged actions did not rise to the level required for award of the Distinguished Service Cross. 8. His National Personnel Records Center file includes a memorandum from the Chief, Military Awards Branch, PERSCOM, dated 25 September 2000, showing he was awarded the Bronze Star Medal. 9. HRC Permanent Orders Number 266-01, dated 25 September 2000, awarded him the Bronze Star Medal for meritorious achievement on 18 February 1952. The certificate issued shows this award was authorized for meritorious achievement. The certificate reads: For meritorious achievement while serving as the Weapons Squad Leader, Company L, 3rd Platoon, 224th Infantry Regiment, 40th Infantry Division during military operations against an armed enemy of the United States during the Korean War. [Applicant] distinguished himself by outstanding courage and devotion to duty after his Platoon Leader was mortally wounded. [Applicant] immediately established a protective position while his unit was being subjected to a heavy barrage of enemy artillery fire. [Applicant’s] action’s enabled the safe evacuation of casualties to the rear. [Applicant’s] exemplary performance of duty, leadership and determination displayed on this occasion was in keeping with the finest traditions of military service and reflects great credit upon himself, the 224th Infantry Regiment and the United States Army. 10. In May 2011, he petitioned this Board (ABCMR Docket Number  AR20110011126) to award him the "V" device with his already-awarded Bronze Star Medal. He stated he was awarded the Bronze Star Medal and the Purple Heart for his service in combat while serving as a weapons squad commander in Korea on 18 February 1952 and his award of the Bronze Star Medal was awarded for heroism in combat. He believed the "V" device should have accompanied the award. However, on 22 November 2011, the Board denied his request due to lack of evidence to corroborate what he described as heroic actions. With his request, he submitted two statements as follows: a. In his March 1999 statement, Mr. W____ C____ stated he was the first sergeant of Company L of which the applicant was the weapons squad leader. On 18 February 1952 under heavy artillery shelling along with small arms fire, the unit advanced on the left side of Hill 378. During heavy grenade and shelling by Chinese and North Korean forces, the sergeant for the 3rd squad was seriously wounded and taken by him (Mr. C____) in extreme danger to a rear emergency hospital. At that point, the applicant took command of the 3rd squad along with the weapons squad and, as the bombardment intensified, it became clear that any attempt to continue the advance would only result in more heavy causalities. Without any concern for his own well-being, he instructed everyone to get on the ground while covering each member of the 3rd squad and members of the weapons squad. During this operation he received shrapnel wounds under the left eye and was awarded the Purple Heart. As a result, all remaining men of both squads were spared of any fatalities or wounds. He should be recognized for his bravery and the assistance he gave beyond the call of duty. b. In his March 1999 statement, Mr. J____ H____ stated he was a machine gunner in Company L, 3rd Platoon, of which the applicant was the weapons squad leader. On 18 February 1952, their platoon came under heavy artillery shelling along with small arms fire as they advanced on the left side of Hill 378. During heavy grenade and shelling by Chinese and North Korean forces, the sergeant for the 3rd squad was seriously wounded and taken to a rear emergency hospital. At that point, the applicant took command of the 3rd squad along with the weapons squad and, as the bombardment intensified, it became clear that any attempt to continue the advance would only result in more heavy casualties. Without any concern for his well-being, he instructed everyone to get on the ground while covering each member of the 3rd squad and members of the weapons squad. During this operation he received shrapnel wounds under the left eye and was awarded the Purple Heart. As a result, all remaining men of both squads were spared of any fatalities or wounds. The applicant should be recognized for his bravery and assistance that he gave beyond the call of duty. 11. In April 2012, he petitioned this Board (ABCMR Docket Number  AR20120008437) to reconsider his previous request to award him the "V" device with his already-awarded Bronze Star Medal. He stated the Bronze Star Medal was awarded for heroism and he believed the "V" device should have accompanied the award. However, on 15 November 2012, the Board denied his request due to lack of evidence to corroborate what he described as heroic actions or show he was recommended and/or awarded the "V" device. The Board also advised him that its denial did not affect his rights to pursue his claim for the "V" device by submitting a request to HRC under the provisions of 10 USC 1130. 12. On 12 February 2013, HRC responded to his Member of Congress by letter concerning the applicant's desire to be awarded the Bronze Star Medal with "V" Device in lieu of the Bronze Star Medal. HRC stated: a. HRC was unable to process his request at this time. HRC acknowledged receipt of DA Form 638, proposed narrative, and eyewitness statements. However, HRC required that Block J of the DA Form 638 cite Bronze Star Medal with "V" Device; Block 1 show a specific date of incident; Block 12a must cite valor; and Part II-Recommender Data must be signed by someone with firsthand knowledge of his actions. HRC also required a separately-written proposed citation and narrative, endorsements from [Applicant's] former wartime chain of command through the rank of major general, and a copy of his DD Form 214. A declassified official unit report and additional signed eyewitness statements regarding the incident, while not required for consideration, may also be included with the recommendation. b. Additionally, a request for reconsideration to upgrade a previously-approved award can be submitted only if new, substantive, and material information directly pertaining to his actions is furnished. The additional justification for reconsideration must be in letter format and cannot exceed two single-spaced typewritten pages. The additional justification must note any omissions or errors contained in the original recommendation for award or supporting documents. A copy of the original recommendation for award with original chain of command endorsements, proposed citation, and narrative and original signed eyewitness affidavits must be attached. Completed documentation and award recommendations must be referred by a Congressional member and forwarded to HRC. The burden and costs for researching and assembling documentation to support award recommendations rest with the requester. Should HRC receive the recommendation with required supporting documentation, it would be forwarded to the Army Decorations Board. One time reconsideration by the award approval authority shall be conclusive. 13. On 20 March 2013, the applicant wrote to his Member of Congress. He stated: a. He had spent the intervening time attempting to locate a former wartime chain of command endorsement as well as a signatory for the recommender data to no avail. While witnesses and officers existed before, the passage of time has made those requirements unreachable. He was unable to comply with the 12 February 2013 letter from the Awards Branch of HRC on those particular points and he is asking that the documents supplied herewith suffice in this instance so the "V" device can be received as it should have been. b. Accordingly, he has enclosed the DA Form 638 without Part II and Part IV completed. He hoped with some guidance, the DA Form 638 can be processed and the mistake made previously of not including the "V" device be rectified. He also provided a separately-proposed citation and narrative, copies of the previously provided eyewitness statements, and a copy of his DD Form 214. He asked his Member of Congress to submit the packet to HRC. 14. On 18 April 2013 in a letter to his Member of Congress, an HRC official again responded to the 4 April 2013 letter concerning the applicant's desire to be awarded the Bronze Star Medal with "V" Device in lieu of the Bronze Star Medal. HRC stated they were unable to process his request at this time. a. As stated in previous correspondence, dated 12 February 2013, HRC still requires an additional justification presenting new, substantive, and material information directly pertaining to the applicant's actions. This document, which must be in letter format not exceeding two single-spaced typewritten pages, must be written by an individual with firsthand knowledge of the incident in question. The additional justification must note any omissions or errors contained in the original award recommendation submitted on behalf of the applicant to the Army Decorations Board in 2000. b. In this regard, a copy of the original recommendation for award with original chain of command endorsements, proposed citation, and narrative must be attached to the justification letter. Additionally, the DA Form 638 must be signed by an individual with firsthand knowledge of his actions. He must also obtain endorsements from his former wartime chain of command through the rank of major general, effective February 1952. If these endorsements cannot be obtained, information regarding the steps taken to locate them must be provided. A proposed citation and narrative must also be submitted as an addendum to the DA Form 638. The proposed citation must be lengthened to include a brief descriptive narrative of the applicant's actions, not exceeding six lines. The burden and costs for researching and assembling documentation to support award recommendations rest with the requester. One time reconsideration by the award approval authority shall be conclusive. 15. On 28 July 2014 in a letter to his Member of Congress, an HRC official wrote in response to his July 2014 concerning his desire to be awarded the Bronze Star Medal with "V" Device in lieu of the Bronze Star Medal. HRC stated: a. As stated in our previous correspondence, dated 7 May 2014, HRC is unable to forward this recommendation to the Army Decorations Board at this time. HRC acknowledged receipt of the DA Form 638 but requested this document be amended as follows: Block 3 must be dated; Blocks 20 (Achievements) and 21 (Proposed Citation) must be left intentionally blank; Blocks 22a and 22b must be completed by the recommender or another individual who can certify that the information in Part l (Soldier Data) is correct; and Blocks 23-25 (Intermediate Authority) must include endorsements from the applicant's former wartime chain of command through the rank of major general. If these endorsements cannot be obtained, the officers' names, as well as their inability to provide endorsement, must be annotated. A request for reconsideration to upgrade a previously-downgraded award can be submitted only if new, substantive, and material information directly pertaining to his actions is furnished. The additional justification for reconsideration should be composed in letter format not exceeding two single-spaced typewritten pages; this document must note any omissions or errors contained in the original recommendation for award or supporting documents. b. Additionally, a proposed citation and narrative must be submitted as an addendum to the DA Form 638. These documents must reference the new, substantive, and material information as outlined above. Completed documentation and award recommendations must be referred by a Congressional member and forwarded to HRC. One time reconsideration by the award approval authority shall be conclusive. For specific guidance on properly completing a DA Form 638, HRC recommended the applicant review Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards), chapter 3, paragraphs 3-20, and 3-21. Additionally, a sample DA Form 638 was enclosed to provide him with general guidance on the proper formatting. Further, HRC included members of the applicant's former wartime chain of command and have included their dates of death if readily available. He must either obtain the endorsements of the remainder of his chain of command or provide proof of their death before the recommendation can be forwarded to the Board. 16. On 7 May 2014 in a letter to his Member of Congress, HRC again wrote in response concerning the applicant's desire to have his Bronze Star Medal upgraded to the Bronze Star Medal with "V" Device. HRC stated: a. The long-standing objective of the Army's Military Awards Program is to provide tangible recognition to Soldiers for acts of valor, exceptional service, or achievement. Soldiers who distinguish themselves from among their comrades by heroism, meritorious service, or meritorious achievement may be nominated on an individual basis to receive any of several military decorations for heroism or meritorious performance of duty. Awards are not automatic, nor can preconditions for an award be established. However, any individual having personal knowledge of a Soldier's actions and the belief that the Soldier's actions warrant the award of a decoration may submit a formal recommendation into military channels for consideration. Once a recommendation is submitted into military channels, it is reviewed and endorsed by the Soldier's chain of command. The final decision to approve an award and which award is appropriate are both subjective decisions made by the commander having award approval authority. The Army places trust in our field commanders to make these decisions because they have firsthand knowledge of the deeds performed by Soldiers in their units. b. In this regard, HRC noted the applicant was recommended for award of the Silver Star and the recommended award was ultimately downgraded to the Bronze Star Medal by the former Commanding General of PERSCOM. If he feels that his service and accomplishments were not properly recognized, he may submit a request for reconsideration under the provisions of 10 USC 1130 which allows for referral of an award recommendation by a Member of Congress. Per Department of Defense and Army policy, a request for reconsideration of a previously-downgraded award recommendation can be submitted for reconsideration only if new, substantive, and material information is furnished, as well as a written statement justifying the request for reconsideration. A one-time reconsideration by the award approval authority shall be conclusive. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes the Army's awards policy. a. Paragraph 3-1 states the decision to award an individual a decoration and as to which award is appropriate are both subjective decisions made by the commander having award approval authority. b. Paragraph 3-14 states the Bronze Star Medal is awarded in time of war for heroism and for meritorious achievement or service not involving participation in aerial flight in connection with military operations against an armed enemy or while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party. As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required. c. Paragraph 6-5 states the bronze "V" device indicates acts of heroism involving conflict with an armed enemy and authorizes the device in conjunction with award of the Bronze Star Medal. The "V" device must be approved by the proper authority and announced in official orders. 4. Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides the following definitions as a guideline when recommending awards: a. Bravery is a quality or state showing courage; level of conduct which is expected of professional Army Soldiers. b. Chain of command is the sequence of commanders in an organization who have direct authority and primary responsibility for accomplishing the assigned unit mission while caring for personnel and property in their charge. c. Combat heroism is an act or acts of heroism by an individual engaged in actual conflict with an armed enemy, or in military operations which involve exposure to personal hazards due to direct enemy action or the imminence of such action. d. Heroism is extreme courage demonstrated in attaining a noble end. Varying levels of documented heroic actions are necessary to substantiate recommendations for the Bronze Star Medal with "V" Device, Air Medal with "V" Device, and the Army Commendation Medal with "V" Device in connection with military operations against an armed enemy. This phrase covers all military operations including combat, support, and supply which have a direct bearing on the outcome of an engagement or engagements against armed opposition. To perform duty, or to accomplish an act or achievement in connection with military operations against an armed enemy, the individual must have been subjected to either personal hazard as a result of direct enemy action, or the imminence of such action, or must have had the conditions under which his or her duty or accomplishment took place complicated by enemy action or the imminence of enemy action. 5. 10 USC 1130 provides the legal authority for consideration of proposals for decorations not previously submitted in a timely fashion. Upon the request of a Member of Congress, the Secretary concerned shall review a proposal for the award of or upgrading of a decoration. Based upon such review, the Secretary shall determine the merits of approving the award. The request, with a DA Form 638, must be submitted through a Member of Congress to the Commander, HRC. The unit must be clearly identified, along with the period of assignment and the recommended award. A narrative of the actions or period for which recognition is being requested must accompany the DA Form 638. Requests should be supported by sworn affidavits, eyewitness statements, certificates, and related documents. Supporting evidence is best provided by commanders, leaders, and fellow Soldiers who had personal knowledge of the facts relative to the request. The burden and costs for researching and assembling supporting documentation rest with the applicant. 6. Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR) states ABCMR members will review all applications that are properly before them to determine the existence of an error or injustice; direct or recommend changes in military records to correct the error or injustice, if persuaded that material error or injustice exists and that sufficient evidence exists on the record. The ABCMR will decide cases on the evidence of record. It is not an investigative body. The ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing. Applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR. The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires. DISCUSSION: 1. With respect to his request for a personal appearance, his request was carefully considered. However, by regulation, an applicant is not entitled to a hearing before the ABCMR. Hearings may be authorized by a panel of the ABCMR or by the Director of the ABCMR. In this case, the evidence of record and independent evidence provided by the applicant is sufficient to render a fair and equitable decision at this time. As a result, a personal appearance hearing is not necessary to serve the interest of equity and justice in this case. 2. The objective of the Army's awards program is to provide tangible recognition to Soldiers for acts of valor, exceptional service, or achievement. Soldiers who distinguish themselves from others by heroism, meritorious service, or meritorious achievement may be individually recommended to receive any of several military decorations for heroism or meritorious performance of duty. 3. Awards are not automatic. However, any individual having personal knowledge of a Soldier's actions, and the belief that the Soldier's actions warrant the award of a decoration, may submit a formal recommendation into military channels for consideration. Once a recommendation is submitted into military channels, it is reviewed and endorsed by the Soldier's chain of command. The final decision to approve an award and which award is appropriate are both subjective decisions made by the commander having award approval authority. The Army places trust in field commanders to make these decisions because they have firsthand knowledge of the deeds performed by Soldiers in their units. 4. In this case, the applicant served in Korea during the Korean War. Although his service records are not available for review, the statements provided by the applicant throughout the years essentially describe a situation where the applicant had taken charge of a squad when the squad leader was seriously wounded during an intense fire fight with North Korean and Chinese communists. During that encounter, it is believed he quickly assessed that continuing the advance was not possible due to the heavy enemy resistance and ordered his men to stop advancing, to get low to the ground, and to withdraw to a secure area. During that engagement he was also wounded with shrapnel. 5. He petitioned this Board in 1998 to acknowledge his actions and award him the Distinguished Service Cross. However, in June 1999, this Board denied his request due to lack of evidence to corroborate his statement and because his alleged actions did not rise to the level required for award of the Distinguished Service Cross. He requested reconsideration but was again denied. He appears to have then gone to HRC (then known as PERSCOM) and was successful in securing award of the Bronze Star Medal. HRC issued him orders awarding him the Bronze Star Medal for meritorious achievement. 6. The Bronze Star Medal is awarded for heroic or meritorious achievement or service against an armed enemy. The decision whether to award an individual a decoration and which decoration to award is a judgment call made by the commander having award approval authority. Here, the award approval authority judged his actions warranted award of the Bronze Star Medal for meritorious achievement. There is no indication or evidence that any one intended to award him a Bronze Star Medal for heroism. 7. The applicant's request to be awarded the "V" device has since been reviewed and re-reviewed multiple times. Contrary to counsels' assertion that either HRC or this Board adds a new requirement to this request, the fact of the matter is that the applicant: * has not been misguided or misdirected – on the contrary, he was given specific guidance with references (awards regulation) and examples (sample DA Form 638), on several occasions * has been provided multiple opportunities by HRC and this Board to comply with the statute (10 USC 1130) * has not complied with the HRC's requirement to submit an award packet in accordance with 10 USC 1130 as outlined in various letters * has not shown by the existing evidence that he was recommended for a valorous award * has not brought forward any new, material evidence that would change the outcome of his case 8. There is no change in the account of the applicant's actions in February 1952 or new evidence presented that would suggest an error or an injustice was committed by all echelons of the Army. After a comprehensive review of all available documents, previous submissions, and current argument, it appears the Bronze Star Medal for meritorious achievement is the appropriate recognition for his actions and the Board affirms the decision that this award for meritorious achievement remains the appropriate award and there is no reason to change it. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150006090 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150006090 15 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2