DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

		                         OARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
            			 2 NAVY ANNEX
		                                                       WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
	CRS
Docket No: 7262-05
8 March 2006

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 March 2006. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps dated 4 November 2005, a copy of which is attached.

After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. In this connection the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion. Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and material evidence or other matter not previously considered by the Board. In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official records. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

			W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
					         3280 RUSSELL ROAD
					                         QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103 

		

									IN REPLY REFER TO:

									1650
									MMMA-4
4 NOV 2005

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

FROM:	Commandant of the Marine Corps
	Prepared 
Head Military Awards Branch

SUBJ:	BCNR APPLIC ION IN THE CASE OF FORMER 

PURPOSS:	To provide comments and recommendation on petition by to upgrade his Air Medal (with Bronze Star for the
(First Award) to a higher award for his actions from 21 June 1969 in the former Republic of Vietnam. Additional request for consideration for extraordinary heroism benefits

DISCUSSION: Navy and Marine Corps Award regulations stipulate that once an award recommendation has been considered by the various boards and approved by the awarding authority, the decision becomes final. Subsequent reviews are warranted only when new and relevant information can be provided by the officer who originated the award recommendation or another officer who has personal knowledge of the Marine’s actions which was not available when the award recommendation was originally considered.

Each commanding officer is responsible for recommending the appropriate award based on the evidence available. disagreement with not receiving a higher award than the other crewmembers has no bearing in this case, except to show that his former unit had an effective awards policy in place. This does not diminish the fact that his actions on that day were heroic. Nonetheless, a Marine does not get to choose the level of award he believes he deserves. It is a function of the delegated authority awards boards to adjudicate the degree of heroism or meritorious service in each instance, and their recommendation for approval of a specific award is based upon the service described in the award recommendation.

Many recommendations for various decorations when studied are found to warrant a higher or lower award than recommended. From comparison of recommendations, the final awarding authority is in a position to determine the degree of heroism or meritorious service performed in each instance.

Based on the information provided, no basis has been furnished which would warrant reconsideration of the Air Medal (with Bronze Star for the First Award) that was previously awarded to 

RECOMMENDATION:	No further action be taken.

							By direction