RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 February 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070018753 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano Director Mr. Michael L. Engle Analyst The following members, a quorum, were present: Ms. Kathleen A. Newman Chairperson Mr. Jose A. Martinez Member Ms. Susan A. Powers Member The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests correction of his military records to show that he was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal. 2. The applicant states that his Army Commendation Medal, awarded for the period from 1 September 2003 to 10 February 2005, should be changed to a Meritorious Service Medal. He further states, “An award was submitted for a Meritorious Service Medal which was signed and approved by MG B. When I received the award back, I received an Army Commendation Medal. MG B clearly approved the award as submitted; however, when the G1 [personnel officer] cut the order it was cut as an Army Commendation Medal. I went to the G1 to inquire about their mistake and the response I received was that MG B made a mistake and accidentally checked the wrong block. However, on the award recommendation if MG B wanted to downgrade the award he would have written it out in block 26d instead of approving the award as submitted.” 3. The applicant provides a copy of the DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award) CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. At the time of his application, the applicant was serving on active duty as a sergeant first class, pay grade E-7, in the United States Army Guard Reserve (AGR). 2. Further review of Army records shows another copy of the subject DA Form 638. This copy appears to be the same as the copy provided by the applicant except for the entries in Item 26d. This copy shows that the commanding general checked the approved block in Item 26d and entered the notation “ARCOM” after the words “Downgrade To”, indicating that he approved a downgrade of the recommendation, awarding the Army Commendation Medal. 3. The DA Form 638, as provided by the applicant, shows that his station commander recommended him for award of the Meritorious Service Medal for the period from 1 September 2003 to 10 February 2005. The chain of command recommended approval. On 30 September 2005, the commanding general checked the approved block in Item 26d and signed the form. On 30 September 2005, the G1 published orders awarding the applicant the Army Commendation Medal-2nd Oak Leaf Cluster. 4. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides, in pertinent part, that the Meritorious Service Medal is awarded to 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.  There are regulatory provisions for lost recommendations but not for late recommendations, reconsideration, nor for upgrading to a more prestigious award.  The regulation also provides that there is no automatic entitlement to an award upon departure either from an assignment or from the service.  DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The evidence of record clearly shows that it was the commanding general’s intent to downgrade the award recommendation to an Army Commendation Medal. 2. The evidence provided by the applicant is not sufficiently convincing to substantiate that an error was made regarding the award of this medal. 3. In view of the above, the applicant’s request should be denied. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING __SAP__ __JAM___ __KAN__ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. _ Kathleen A. Newman ___ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR 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.