IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 23 October 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120006318 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests reconsideration of his previous request for correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show he was awarded the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM). 2. The applicant states: * the previous decision states that his record is void of any evidence for an ARCOM * the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) stated that his orders are for the Army Achievement Medal (AAM) for the period 1 May 1989 to 1 May 1991 * please look closely at the DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award of LOM and Below), the line is beside the ARCOM and it is checked * the first two awards of the DA Form 638 cannot be read due to the condition of the copy * if you look further down the DA Form 638 you will see another check mark by the word achievement * there is also a Permanent Order Number 05-04 * there are three different dates on the second page of the DA Form 638 * the DA Form 638 does show he was awarded the ARCOM 3. The applicant provides: * self-authored letter to the Army Review Boards Agency (undated) * the first page of the DA Form 638 (three copies) * the reverse side of a DA Form 638 (one copy) CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the ABCMR in Docket Number AR20110012437, on 22 February 2012. 2. During the original review of the applicant's case there was no evidence available to show he was awarded the ARCOM. Therefore, the Board denied that portion of his request. The self-authored letter to the Army Review Boards Agency is the new documentary argument requiring Board consideration. 3. The applicant enlisted in the Army on 31 January 1989. He completed training as an infantryman. He was honorably released from active duty on 30 January 1992. His DD Form 214 shows the following awards: * Army Service Ribbon * Army Lapel Button * National Defense Service Medal * Southwest Asia Service Medal with two bronze service stars * Parachutist Badge * Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge (Rifle M-16) * Combat Infantryman Badge * Parachutist Badge with one bronze service star * Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal 4. The applicant provides copies of DA Form 638 showing he was awarded the AAM for the period 1 May 1989 to 1 March 1991 in Permanent Orders 05-04, dated 15 May 1991. In his self-authored letter, he argues that the DA Form 638 shows he was awarded the AAM and the ARCOM. However, a thorough review of the DA Form 638 shows he was awarded the AAM for the period 1 May 1989 to 1 March 1991. The three dates on the reverse side of the DA Form 638 to which the applicant refers are the dates his intermediate commander requested approval of the award, the date of approval, and the date that the permanent orders were issued. 5. The applicant's Army Military Human Resources Record contains a copy of an AAM Certificate which states he was awarded the AAM for outstanding service during the period 1 May 1989 to 1 May 1991. He also provided this certificate with his original case. 6. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states 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, distinguishes 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. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant's contentions have been noted. His supporting evidence has been considered. 2. There is no evidence in the available record that shows he was awarded both the AAM and the ARCOM. The DA Form 638 the applicant provided shows he was awarded the AAM in Permanent Orders Number 05-04 dated 15 May 1991. It was for the very same dates as shown in the AAM Certificate he provided with his previous case to the ABCMR. 3. In view of the foregoing, the applicant's request should be denied. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___X____ ____X __ ____X___ 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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20110012437, dated 22 February 2010. _______ _ X______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20120006318 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20120006318 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1