MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           16 April 2002      
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001066252

	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:

	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson	
	Ms. Melinda M. Darby		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		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:  In effect, that the Army Commendation Medal awarded by the Army Decorations Board be upgraded to the Soldier’s Medal.  He also requests award of the Legion of Merit.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he submitted requests under the provisions of Section 1130 for award of the Soldier’s Medal for his heroic actions on 
18 July 1968 and award of the Legion of Merit for his duties as the Provost Marshal of the 9th Infantry Division.  He contends that the Army Decorations Board combined both of his requests and awarded him the Army Commendation Medal instead of the Soldier’s Medal and the Legion of Merit.  He also contends  that the two award recommendations were never processed correctly and that he was sent the wrong award.  In support of his application, he submits a letter, dated 31 July 2001, to a Member of Congress.  

The applicant’s request for award of the Legion of Merit was addressed by separate correspondence to the applicant.  Therefore, this portion of the applicant’s request will not be discussed further in the Memorandum of Consideration. 

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

The applicant served as an enlisted member in the Marine Corps from 10 August 1944 to 16 August 1946.  On 31 May 1949, he was appointed a second lieutenant in the Officer Reserve Corps of the Army of the United States.  He was ordered to active duty on 5 April 1952.  On 9 March 1954, the applicant accepted an appointment in the Regular Army.  He served as a Provost Marshal in Vietnam from 3 November 1967 through 7 November 1968.  On 28 February 1970, after completing over 20 years of active service, the applicant retired in the rank of lieutenant colonel. 

The applicant’s retirement DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge), which was authenticated in his own hand, does not show the Soldier’s Medal as an authorized award.

There are no orders in the applicant’s service personnel records which show that he was awarded the Soldier’s Medal.  He provided no statements from his chain of command at the time in question to support award of the Soldier’s Medal.

The applicant’s service personnel records contain DA Form 2627-1(Record of Proceedings under Article 15, UCMJ), dated 31 October 1968.  This form shows that nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for two specifications of conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman by writing recommendations for valor or merit recommending that he be awarded the Soldier’s Medal and the Bronze Star Medal for achievement.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and a reprimand.  The applicant also received a referred Officer Evaluation Report which described these instances of writing award recommendations on himself.

A recommendation for award of the Soldier’s Medal was submitted under the provisions of Section 1130, Title 10, United States Code, by a Member of Congress to the Secretary of the Army for consideration.

On 11 April 2001, the Army Decorations Board determined that the degree of action and service rendered by the applicant did not meet the criteria for an award of the Soldier’s Medal.  As a result, the Commanding General, United States Army Personnel Command, on behalf of the Secretary of the Army, approved an award of the Army Commendation Medal for meritorious achievement on 18 July 1968.

Section 1130, Title 10, United States Code provides that the Service concerned will review a proposal for the award of, or upgrading of, a decoration that would not otherwise be authorized to be awarded based upon time limitations previously established by law.  Requests for consideration of awards should be supported by sworn affidavits, eyewitness statements, certificates and related documents.  Corroborating evidence is best provided by commanders, leaders and fellow comrades who had personal knowledge of the circumstances and events relative to the request.  A request for award not previously submitted in a timely fashion will only be considered under this provision if the request has been referred to the Service Secretary from a Member of Congress.  The burden and costs for researching and assembling documentation to support approval of requested awards and decorations rests with the requester.

Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides, in pertinent part, that the Soldier's Medal is awarded for distinguished heroism not involving actual conflict with the enemy.  The same degree of heroism is required as for award of the Distinguished Flying Cross.  The performance must have involved personal hazard or danger and the voluntary risk of life under conditions not involving conflict with an armed enemy.  Awards of the Soldier’s Medal will not be made solely on the basis of having saved a life.  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.  There are regulatory provisions for lost recommendations but not for late recommendations or reconsideration.

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.  There is no evidence of record, and the applicant has provided no evidence, which shows that he was recommended for award of the Soldier’s Medal by his chain of command at the time of his actions on 18 July 1968 in Vietnam. 

2.  Under the provisions of Section 1130, Title 10, United States Code, an award recommendation for the Soldier’s Medal was considered by the Army Decorations Board on 11 April 2001.  The Army Decorations Board determined that the degree of action and service rendered by the applicant did not meet the criteria for an award of the Soldier’s Medal.  The Army Decorations Board did approve an award of the Army Commendation Medal for meritorious achievement on 18 July 1968.

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 Commendation Medal to the Soldier’s Medal.  

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

INW____  MMD_____  JTM_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001066252	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020416	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	107.0010	
2.	107.0009	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.