IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 April 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150009735 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ___x____ ___x____ ___x____ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 April 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150009735 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: * deleting award of the Army Achievement Medal from his DD Form 214 * adding award of the Army Achievement Medal (2nd Award) to his DD Form 214 2. The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to award of the Army Commendation Medal. ___________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: 12 April 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150009735 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 correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to reflect award of the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) and Army Achievement Medal (AAM) with one oak leaf cluster. 2. The applicant states he received the awards after his separation from active duty. 3. The applicant provides: * DD Form 214 * DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award), dated 1 May 2014 * DA Form 638, dated 7 August 2014 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 8 November 2010. 3. He was honorably released from active duty on 3 July 2014 due to completion of required active service. His DD Form 214 shows he was awarded an AAM; it does not show award of an ARCOM. 4. Section VIII (Awards and Decorations) of his Enlisted Record Brief (ERB), dated 4 July 2014, lists one AAM and no ARCOM. 5. He provided two DA Forms 638 which are not filed in his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). a. The DA Form 638, dated 1 May 2014, shows: * he was previously awarded the AAM * the recommended award as the ARCOM * the period of award as 22 March 2013 through 29 May 2014 * the reason for award as expiration term of service * achievement number 1 cited his performance of quality checks of more than 750 intelligence reports resulting in no spillage of classified information in the dissemination of those reports in support of Operation Enduring Freedom * achievement number 2 cited his creation of a source tracker for Reachback (the process of obtaining products, services, and applications, or forces, equipment, and material from organizations that are not forward deployed) G2X (Human Intelligence and Counterintelligence) * achievement number 3 cited his comprehensive review of sources being utilized by human intelligence and counterintelligence collection teams * achievement number 4 cited his participation in an operational exercise * the intermediate authority recommended downgrade to AAM * the approval authority (battalion commander, lieutenant colonel/O-5) approved award of the AAM with 1st Oak Leaf Cluster * the orders data show the approved award as the AAM with 1st Oak Leaf Cluster by authority of Headquarters and Headquarters Battalion, 4th Infantry Division, Permanent Order Number 251-003, dated 17 September 2014 b. The DA Form 638, dated 7 August 2014, shows: * he was previously awarded the AAM * the recommended award as the AAM with 1st Oak Leaf Cluster * the period of award as 1 July 2013 through 28 May 2014 * the reason for award as service * achievement number 1 cited his performance of quality checks of more than 750 intelligence reports, the dissemination of those reports in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, and review and validation of 11 sources of information * achievement number 2 cited his contribution to the Reachback G2X mission and creation of reports * achievement number 3 cited his creation of a source tracker which played a vital role in mission success * the approval authority (brigade commander, colonel/O-6) approved award of the AAM with 1st Oak Leaf Cluster * the orders data show the orders-issuing authority as Headquarters, 3d Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Permanent Order Number 154-001 * the orders data do not identify the approved award or date of approval 6. The applicant's OMPF contains an AAM Certificate showing he was awarded the AAM for outstanding service and performance from 1 July 2013 through 28 May 2014 by Headquarters and Headquarters Battalion, 4th Infantry Division, Permanent Order Number 251-003, dated 21 August 2014. 7. His OMPF does not contain a DA Form 638 or an AAM Certificate that pre-dates the above-referenced AAM Certificate covering the period 1 July 2013 through 28 May 2014. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning individual and unit military awards. a. Only one decoration will be awarded to an individual or unit for the same act, achievement, or period of meritorious service. Continuation of the same or similar type service already recognized by an award for meritorious service or achievement will not be the basis for a second award. b. For each succeeding act or period of meritorious service or achievement that justifies the award of a decoration, an oak leaf cluster or numeral device will be awarded. c. Approval authority for award of the ARCOM is a commander in the rank/grade of colonel/O-6. Approval authority for award of the AAM is a commander in the rank/grade of lieutenant colonel/O-5. Commanders having authority to approve an award may delegate disapproval authority, to include downgrade, to their immediate subordinate commanders, provided those subordinate commanders have authority to approve the next lower award. d. As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required. 2. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army acting through the ABCMR. The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant's request for correction of his DD Form 214 to reflect award of the ARCOM and the AAM with 1st Oak Leaf Cluster was carefully considered. 2. Records indicate that as of 28 May 2014, the date the applicant was issued his DD Form 214, he had previously been awarded one AAM and no ARCOMs. 3. The AAM Certificate and DA Form 638 which pre-date his release from active duty are not in his available records, but the AAM is listed on multiple records, to include his DD Form 214, ERB, and both DA Forms 638 provided by the applicant. Therefore, administrative regularity is presumed with regard to the award of one AAM prior to his release from active duty. 4. A DA Form 638, dated 1 May 2014, shows he was awarded the AAM with 1st Oak Leaf Cluster after the issuance of his DD Form 214. Although the recommended award on the DA Form 638 was an ARCOM, the form shows his battalion commander recommended downgrade of the ARCOM to an AAM and signed the form as the approval authority for award of the AAM with 1st Oak Leaf Cluster. The orders approval authority signed and dated the form, annotated a permanent order number, and indicated the approved award as the AAM 1st Oak Leaf Cluster. 5. His OMPF contains an AAM Certificate which bears the signature of his battalion commander and reflects the same period of service and permanent order number as the above-referenced DA Form 638, corroborating that award of the AAM with 1st Oak Leaf Cluster was approved and filed in his permanent records. 6. The sole reason this award is not listed on his DD Form 214 is due to its approval after the issuance of the DD Form 214. 7. The DA Form 638, dated 7 August 2014, wherein the applicant was recommended for a second AAM with 1st Oak Leaf Cluster is incomplete. Although the form is signed by each echelon of the applicant's chain of command, each recommending approval, the orders data do not reflect the date of the approved award or the approved award itself. These facts paired with the fact that no AAM Certificate was filed in the applicant's OMPF mirroring the second DA Form 638 suggest the recommendation was ultimately not finalized or intended to be finalized using that DA Form 638. 8. Regulatory guidance does not allow for awarding more than one decoration to an individual for the same act, achievement, or period of meritorious service. Both DA Forms 638 were recommended for the same or overlapping periods of service and the same achievements. Both award recommendations could not have been approved under these circumstances. 9. It is presumed that successive DA Forms 638 were either inadvertently submitted through the chain of command or intentionally submitted in an attempt to correct errors or bolster the written submission, without the intent of both recommendations being approved. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150009735 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150009735 5 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2