MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:            10 February 2000      
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999031400

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

	Ms. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Van B. Cunningham		Chairperson	
	Mr. James P. Steuve		Member	
	Mr. Kenneth L. Wright		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	     advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Reconsideration of his request for award of the Soldier’s Medal.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he continues to believe he deserves an award of the Soldier’s Medal and submits two new statements which recount the applicant’s action which they (the authors) believe supports the award.  Also included with the request for reconsideration was a letter authored by the applicant indicating that he learned to swim when he was 14 years old and that “by the end of the swimming season [he] was the best and fastest swimmer.”

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 11 March 1999 (COPY ATTACHED).

Army Regulation 600-8-22 states that an award of the Soldier’s Medal required the same degree of heroism as is required for an award of the Distinguished Flying Cross.  The degree of heroism required for an award of the Distinguished Flying Cross is described as being so extraordinary that it results in an accomplishment so exceptional and outstanding as to clearly set the individual apart from his or her comrades or from other persons in similar circumstances.  Additionally, Army Regulation 600-8-22 states that awards of the Soldier’s Medal will not be made solely on the basis of having saved a life.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The two new statements, submitted by the applicant merely relate, once again, his actions while rescuing a fellow soldier from the surf in 1944.

2.  The Board notes that based on the 1948 letter from the Office of the Adjutant General’s Office it appears that the applicant was aware that an original recommendation for the award had been disapproved.  That letter refers to a 
21 May 1948 letter from the applicant requesting “information as to whether a review of a recommendation which has been disapproved pertaining to the Soldier’s Medal could be made.”  The information contained in that 1948 letter tends to support a conclusion that the original award recommendation was disapproved.

3.  Notwithstanding the fact that the evidence appears to indicate that the original award recommendation was disapproved the Board contends that while the applicant’s action are certainly noteworthy they were not “so exceptional and outstanding as to clearly set [him] apart from his or her comrades or from other persons in similar circumstances.”  The Board notes that the applicant himself described his swimming ability as being the “best and fastest.”  While the applicant may have saved another soldier’s life, that action, in and of itself is not a basis for an award of the Soldier’s Medal.  As such the Board concludes that the applicant’s actions do not warrant an award of the Soldier’s Medal.

4.  The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____klw_  __vbc____  _jps_____  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AC	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	YYYYMMDD	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.