MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            20 April 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999034401

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger Able		Member	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		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 he be awarded the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that it was common practice in his unit in Vietnam that good performers were awarded the ARCOM and he believes that the service he performed warrants award of that medal.  He further states that he was informed by his NCO in charge (NCOIC) that he had been recommended for nomination of the ARCOM and that the recommendation had been forwarded to the 9th Medical Laboratory headquarters in Long Binh for processing; however, he never received the award.  He also states that he believes that it was lost in processing and that the oversight should be corrected at this time.  He goes on to state that his outstanding work is evidenced by the fact that he was promoted to the pay grade of E-5, that he was the technician in charge of blood bank operations, and that he kept the blood bank replenished to the required level during the 10 plus months that he served in Phu Bai.  He continues by stating that he wants the Board to assist him in attaining the recognition he feels he was denied in error. 

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

He enlisted on 18 April 1969 for a period of 3 years and training as a medical laboratory technician.  He completed his training and was transferred to Fort Bliss, Texas where he remained until he was transferred to Vietnam on 17 July 1970.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-5 on 28 September 1970.

He departed Vietnam on 15 July 1971 and received a letter of appreciation from the deputy provost marshal of Long Bin/Bien Hoa Sector which commended him for his outstanding and meritorious performance of duty as a security guard with the 179th Military Police Detachment.  The applicant was also awarded the Vietnam Service Medal and the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal.

Upon departure from Vietnam he was transferred to Germany where he served until he was honorably released from active duty on 27 January 1972 and was transferred to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement).  He had served 2 years, 9 months, and 13 days of total active service and in addition to his awards for service in Vietnam he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, the Good Conduct Medal, two overseas bars, and the Expert Marksmanship Badge with M16 rifle bar.

A review of the available records failed to reveal that the applicant was ever recommended for any other awards.

Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning individual military awards.  Paragraph 1-14 (Time Limitations) states, in pertinent part, that each recommendation for an award of a military decoration must be entered administratively into military channels within 2 years of the act, achievement, or service to be honored.  It also states that no military decoration, except the Purple Heart, will be awarded more than 3 years after the act or period of service to be honored. 

Paragraph 1-15 (Lost Recommendations) indicates that if the Secretary of the Army determines that a statement setting forth the distinguished act, achievement, or service, and a recommendation for official recognition was made and supported by sufficient evidence within 2 years after the distinguished service, and that no award was made because the statement was lost, or through inadvertence the recommendation was not acted upon; he or she may, within 
2 years after the date of the determination, award any appropriate military decoration.  However, this requires conclusive evidence of the formal submission of the recommendation into military channels and conclusive evidence of the loss of the recommendation or the failure to act on the recommendation through inadvertence.

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.  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 the aforementioned requirement.

2.  The US Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically award the ARCOM for service to every member of a specific unit.  By regulation, a member must be recommended for the award, and each award is approved by the appropriate authority based on the merits of each individual recommendation. 

3.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant was not recommended for award of the ARCOM either by his command in Vietnam or his command in Germany.  Likewise, the passage of time (almost 30 years) makes it difficult at best to determine if in fact a recommendation was submitted and was lost.

4.  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

___ra___  __wtm___  __mvt___  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999034401	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/04/20	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  66 	107.0020/ARCOM	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.