MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           25 July 2000      
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999034159

	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.

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Ms. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Ted S. Kanamine		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member	
	Mr. John H. Kern		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:  That his Army Achievement Medal received on 
11 June 1999 be upgraded to the Meritorious Service Medal or a higher award.   

APPLICANT STATES:  That he believes the DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award), dated 4 March 1999, to be in error and unjust.  He contends that this award symbolizes his service and performance in the U.S. Army and fails to mention his major achievements such as the 1997 Corps of Engineers Noncommissioned Officer of the Year.  He also contends that the comment “Deserves recognition for service, but performance does not warrant ARCOM” in section 24(i) is grossly unjust.  He goes on to state that the fact is, as documented by the information provided with his application, he set the standard and outperformed every single soldier in the Corps of Engineers.  He requests that the Board overturn the unwarranted decision to downgrade the Army Commendation Medal to the Army Achievement Medal and upgrade this award based on the evidence.  In support of his application, he submits a letter of explanation, dated 28 November 1999; a photograph of himself; a letter from a Member of Congress; and 11 enclosures described on the Table of Contents page.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

The applicant entered active duty on 2 July 1992.  He trained as a power generator equipment operator and prime power production specialist and served in Somalia, Haiti and Japan.  On 25 June 1999 the applicant was honorably discharged in the rank of staff sergeant.  

DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award), dated 4 March 1999, shows the applicant was recommended for award of the Army Commendation Medal for the period 30 January 1996 to 30 March 1999.  The award approval authority for the Army Achievement Medal disapproved the recommendation for award of the Army Commendation Medal and downgraded the recommendation to an award of the Army Achievement Medal on 4 May 1999.  The Army Achievement Medal was announced in orders on 11 June 1999.   

Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides, in pertinent part, that the Army Achievement Medal is awarded to any member of the Armed Forces of the United States, who while serving in a noncombat area on or after 1 August 1981, distinguished themselves by meritorious service or achievement.

Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides, in pertinent part, that the Meritorious Service Medal is awarded to a members of the Armed Forces of the United States or of a friendly foreign nation who distinguish themselves by outstanding meritorious achievement or service in a noncombat area.  As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required.  Recommendations must be made within 2 years of the event or period of service and the award must be made within 3 years.

Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides that the Army Commendation Medal may be awarded to any member of the Armed Forces of the United States who, while serving in any capacity with the Army after 6 December 1941, distinguished himself or herself by heroism, meritorious achievement or meritorious service.  As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required.

Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides in paragraph 3-1c that the decision to award an individual a decoration and the decision as to which award is appropriate are both subjective decisions made by the commander having award approval authority.

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.  Records show the applicant received the Army Achievement Medal for the period 30 January 1996 to 30 March 1999.

2.  The applicant has not presented any evidence that the award process or the decision by the appropriate award approval authority for the Army Achievement Medal was flawed or otherwise unjust, improper or inequitable. 

3.  This Board considered all information submitted and all available evidence of record in this case and found no compelling evidence which warranted upgrading the applicant’s award of the Army Achievement Medal to the Meritorious Service Medal or a higher award.

4.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

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

TSK____  SK_____  JHK______  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999034159	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000725	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19990625	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	107.0017	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.