IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 17 May 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150009544 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___x____ ___x____ ___x____ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 17 May 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150009544 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. __________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. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 17 May 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150009544 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, in effect, correction of her DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award), dated 11 April 2012, to show she was awarded the Bronze Star Medal (BSM). 2. The applicant states: a. She was recommended for award of the BSM for an end-of-deployment award. Although the entire packet was approved for award of the BSM, she received an Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM). b. She is concerned that the recommended citation does not match her certificate in any way. She presented this issue to the S-1 she deployed with and he informed her that it was too late to correct it and he would reprint the certificate to display the correct position line. This was never done. c. She does not understand why her award was downgraded if the recommending and approving officers approved the recommendation for award of the BSM. She also doesn't understand how she can receive an ARCOM Certificate that does not match the recommended citation. d. When she presented the issue to the S-1 section, the officer in charge took it upon himself not to correct it as it was too late. Instead of doing what was right, he chose to do what was easier, which was to ignore the mistake. She contacted her supervisor who wrote the recommendation for award of the BSM and he told her the certificate would be corrected. e. Her performance and duties went beyond what some other staff members who received the BSM did, but she was still denied any opportunity to fix her award. 3. The applicant provides: * self-authored letter, dated 20 May 2015 * DA Form 638 * ARCOM Certificate CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. The applicant is currently serving in the U.S. Army Reserve in the rank of captain. 3. She provided a DA Form 638, dated 11 April 2012, for award of the BSM for meritorious service for the period 25 November 2011 to 13 September 2012. Item 21 (Proposed Citation) of this form states, " For exceptionally meritorious service, dedication to duty and outstanding performance assigned as a supply Support Activity Accountable officer for the 365th Combat Sustainment Support Battalion in support of Operation Enduring Freedom 11-12. Applicant's commitment to excellence and warrior focus contributed to the successful mission accomplishment in support of Regional Command-West Afghanistan. Her selfless service, maturity, technical and tactical competence reflects great credit upon herself, the 365th Combat Sustainment Support Battalion, the 45th Sustainment Brigade, Joint Sustainment Command-Afghanistan and the United States Army." 4. Part IV (Recommendations/Approval/Disapproval) of the DA Form 638 shows the intermediate authorities and approval authority (Colonel J____ W. D____, Commander, 45th Sustainment Brigade) approved the recommendation for award of the BSM. Headquarters, 45th Sustainment Brigade, Permanent Order Number 137-013, dated 16 May 2012, awarded her the ARCOM. The 45th Sustainment Brigade is a colonel-level command. 5. The citation shown on her ARCOM Certificate states, "For exceptionally meritorious service as the SASMO [Sustainment Automation Support Management Office] officer in charge in support of Operation Enduring Freedom 11-12. Your outstanding performance, dedication to duty and selfless service greatly contribute to the overall unit's mission success. Your professionalism and commitment to excellence reflect great credit upon you, the 45th Sustainment Brigade, and the United States Army." 6. She provided a self-authored letter, dated 20 May 2015, wherein she stated: a. She wants her end-of-tour award reviewed and corrected. She feels her award was handled with a lack of care/consideration, proven by the incorrect award certificate. b. The first reason she would like the award reviewed is because of the obvious administrative errors on the award certificate. The award certificate states her position overseas was a SASMO officer. Although she worked closely with the SASMO Soldiers in order to keep her Supply Support Activity running, she was not designated as the SASMO officer in charge and the DA Form 638 clearly says Supply Support Activity accountable officer. Not only is her position title inconsistent, but the entire write up on the certificate is significantly different than the citation on the DA Form 638. There was total disregard for what her support operations officer wrote as justification for her award of the BSM. c. The second reason she would like this award reviewed is because she was recommended for award of the BSM and all the approval authorities approved the award. There is no mention of a downgrade. She also noticed the form was not signed by the brigade commander, but by another person whom she can only assume was authorized to sign the form. Again, this is an example of no one showing enough care to make sure the Soldier is being given the award they deserve and/or that everything matches and is correct. d. She feels her award was rushed and no one took the time to review and discover the mistakes. Now a mistake that could have been fixed if the S-1 were truly looking out for his Soldiers may affect her board files for promotion if not corrected. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning individual and unit military awards. a. The BSM is awarded in time of war for heroism and for meritorious achievement or service not involving participation in aerial flight in connection with military operations against an armed enemy or while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party. As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required. b. The ARCOM 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. c. Paragraph 3-15e states a BSM recommendation that is downgraded will be approved as an ARCOM. d. Table 3-4 (Delegation of Award Approval Authority – Wartime Criteria) states approval authority for award of the BSM is a senior U.S. Army commander and commanders of a separate force serving in the rank of lieutenant general. For award of the BSM, the approval authority may be further delegated to U.S. Army commanders serving in the rank of brigadier general or colonel (promotable) serving in a brigadier general position and above. The approval authority for award of the ARCOM is a U.S. Army commander serving in the rank of colonel. 2. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1130, provides the legal authority for consideration of proposals for decorations not previously submitted in a timely fashion. Upon the request of a Member of Congress, the Secretary concerned shall review a proposal for the award of or upgrading of a decoration. Based upon such review, the Secretary shall determine the merits of approving the award. 3. The request, with a DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award), must be submitted through a Member of Congress to the Secretary of the Army at the following agency: Commander, U.S. Army Human Resources Command, Attention:  AHRC-PDP-A, 1600 Spearhead Division Avenue, Fort Knox, KY  40122. The applicant's unit must be clearly identified along with the period of assignment and the award being recommended. A narrative of the actions or period for which recognition is being requested must accompany the DA Form 638. 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 Soldiers who had personal knowledge of the circumstances and events relative to the request. The burden and costs for researching and assembling documentation to support approval of requested awards and decorations rest with the requestor. DISCUSSION: 1. The evidence confirms: * the applicant was recommended for award of the BSM for meritorious service during the period 25 November 2011 to 13 September 2012 * the brigade commander (a colonel) approved the recommendation * she was awarded the ARCOM for meritorious service during the period 25 November 2011 to 13 September 2012 2. She does not understand why the recommendation for award of the BSM was downgraded to an ARCOM since the approval authorities approved the recommendation for award of the BSM. 3. The governing regulation states the approval authority for award of the BSM is a senior U.S. Army commander serving in the rank of lieutenant general. The approval authority may be further delegated to U.S. Army commanders serving in the rank of brigadier general or colonel (promotable) serving in a brigadier general position and above. 4. Since the 45th Sustainment Brigade is not a brigadier general-level command, the brigade commander (a colonel) did not have the authority to award the BSM. 5. The governing regulation states a BSM recommendation that is downgraded will be approved as an ARCOM. 6. While the available evidence is insufficient for awarding her the BSM or upgrading the ARCOM, this in no way affects her right to pursue her claim for the BSM by submitting a request through her Member of Congress under the provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1130. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150009544 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150009544 6 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2