IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 30 June 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160007381 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: 30 June 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160007381 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: 30 June 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160007381 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 award of the Bronze Star Medal (BSM). 2. The applicant states: * the recommendation for award of the BSM is submitted for reconsideration/appeal based on new, substantive, and material information * the 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry) G-1 awards office incorrectly identified Colonel (COL) W____, U.S. Marine Corps, as his wartime supervisor * his officer evaluation report (OER) shows his wartime rating chain was COL K____ W____ and Brigadier General (BG) M____ O'N____ during the period 29 September 2013 through 6 April 2014 * his OER shows his wartime rating chain was COL C____ S____ and COL S____ M____ during the period 18 June 2012 through 28 September 2013 * the correct wartime supervisors should have been the intermediate authorities on his DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award) instead of COL W____ * COL W____'s extremely prejudicial comments unduly influenced and prejudiced the former wartime approval authority who implied he did not have direct knowledge of justification for the BSM and relied on those comments * the comments by and signature of his peacetime chain of command supervisor, COL F____ O'D____, were removed from the DA Form 638 at the direction of the 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry) G-1 awards office * additionally, the DA Form 638 was not sent to his peacetime commanding general, Major General (MG) J____ B____, for comments and signature – also at the direction of the 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry) G-1 awards office 3. The applicant provides: * DA Form 67-9 (OER) covering the period 18 June 2012 through 28 September 2013 * DA Form 67-10-2 (Field Grade Plate OER) covering the period 29 September 2013 through 6 April 2014 * incomplete DA Form 638, dated 3 March 2015 * memorandum for record, dated 17 March 2014 * Fort Drum Form 511-E (10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry) Previous Fort Drum Awards), dated 17 March 2015 * DA Form 4037 (Officer Record Brief), dated 17 March 2015 * note from the Commander, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry) to MG B____, dated 10 May 2015 * complete DA Form 638 containing disapproval, dated1 December 2015 * U.S. Army Human Resources Command (AHRC) memorandum, dated 10 December 2015, subject: Request for Award of the BSM * memorandum from applicant to AHRC, dated 31 March 2016, subject: Request for Reconsideration/Appeal of Award of the BSM CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant is currently serving as a major in the Regular Army. 2. The applicant provides two OERs. The first OER covers the period 18 June 2012 through 28 September 2013 when he was deployed to Afghanistan and served as the Senior Advisor for Ministerial Advisory Group, Disaster Response, a joint service, multi-national advisory group. His rater was COL C____ S____ and his senior rater was COL S____ M____. 3. The second OER covers the period 29 September 2013 through 6 April 2014, likewise while he was deployed to Afghanistan. During this period he had a change of duty and served as the J-1 (joint service personnel officer) of a joint service, multi-national coordination center. His rater was COL K____ W____ and his senior rater was BG M____ O'N____. 4. On 3 March 2015, a fellow staff officer in the rank of major retroactively recommended the applicant for award of the BSM for meritorious service during the period 19 June 2013 to 15 April 2014, after the applicant had returned from Afghanistan to Fort Drum, NY. 5. The intermediate authority on the DA Form 638 is listed as COL (U.S. Marine Corps) J____ W____. His title/position is listed as "Former Wartime Supervisor." COL J____ W____ recommended disapproval of the award on 31 March 2015, stating, "Member's performance of duty met standards but in no way rose to the level of meritorious achievement. Member did not seek additional responsibilities beyond his minimally demanding primary billet. Unit's award board considered all unit members for possible award, but recommended no award for this member. OIC [officer in charge] concurred." 6. The former wartime approval authority/commanding general was listed as Lieutenant General S____ T____. He recommended downgrading the award to the Army Commendation Medal on 20 July 2015, stating, "If a wartime supervisor had declined to recommend approval, it is unlikely I would have approved in theater." 7. An award narrative, proposed citation, Officer Record Brief, and letter of lateness were included with the DA Form 638 submission. 8. The Commanding General, AHRC, disapproved award of the BSM on 1 December 2015. A memorandum from the Deputy Chief, Awards and Decorations Branch, AHRC, to the 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry) G-1, dated 10 December 2015, advised that the recommendation for award of the BSM for the applicant was disapproved. The AHRC Commanding General and the Army Decorations Board determined the applicant's actions did not meet the criteria for the proposed award. 9. The applicant provided an alternate DA Form 638 in which his current peacetime brigade commander, COL F____ O'D____, provided his signature and comments on the document as the intermediate authority. He recommended approval of the BSM for meritorious service during the period 19 June 2013 to 15 April 2014 on 10 May 2015, stating, "I respectfully disagree with the wartime supervisor. Although I did not supervise [the applicant] during the deployment, I believe the 'disapproval' stems from different service cultures that view this award differently. [The applicant], by all peer accounts, performed at a high level and commensurate with other that [sic] earned the same award." 10. A personal note from the Commander (COL F____ O'D____), 1st Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry), to MG B____, dated 10 May 2015, stated he supported and endorsed approval of award of the BSM despite nonconcurrence from the wartime supervisor based on his assessment of the applicant's duties and responsibilities and in light of how his peers were recognized at the time. 11. In a memorandum to AHRC, dated 31 March 2016, subject: Request for Reconsideration/Appeal of Award of the BSM, the applicant requested reconsideration for award of the BSM based on new, substantive, and material information. He stated the wartime supervisor identified by the 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry) was not his wartime rater or senior rater during the period covered by the award. The wartime supervisor's comments were extremely prejudicial and unduly influenced the wartime approval authority's decision. The comments entered on the DA Form 638 by his peacetime supervisor were removed prior to the document's submission and were never sent through his peacetime commanding general for comments and signature. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes 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. A BSM that is downgraded will be approved as an Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM). c. The intermediate authority is a person who is occupying a positon of command that is between the award recommender and the award approval authority. 2. Military Personnel Message 11-113 (Retroactive Wartime Awards and Decorations Processing Procedures (Updated), issued 12 April 2011, clarifies the processing procedures for retroactive wartime awards and decorations. a. All requests for wartime awards that are not processed within the wartime theater are considered retroactive and must be processed through the former wartime chain of command and then through the peacetime chain of command to AHRC. b. The recommender will initiate all retroactive requests through the former wartime chain of command for consideration. c. Commanders in the former wartime chain of command (battalion, brigade, division, corps, etc.) to include the awards approval authority for the request must endorse the recommendation for approval, downgrade, or disapproval as appropriate in the intermediate authority blocks on the award form. d. Every attempt will be made by the recommender to obtain the original wartime chain of command's endorsement for all award recommendations. In the event that an individual is not available, a memorandum for record will address the reason as to why, and what steps were taken to locate the individual. e. Upon the endorsement of the wartime awards approval authority, the recommendation will be forwarded through the peacetime chain of command to the G-1/S-1 with all supporting documentation. The G-1/S-1 will review the recommendation for completeness (no endorsements are required by the peacetime chain of command) and forward to Commander, AHRC for processing and determination. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant's request for award of the BSM was carefully considered. 2. The evidence of record shows he was not recommended for an end of tour award by his wartime chain of command for his service in Afghanistan from 19 June 2013 to 15 April 2014. 3. In June 2015, a fellow officer retroactively recommended him for award of the BSM for the above-referenced period of service in Afghanistan, after which it was sent through the applicant's prior wartime chain of command for endorsement as required by regulatory guidance. 4. The DA Form 638 shows his former wartime supervisor recommended disapproval of retroactive award of the BSM based on his assessment of the applicant's duties and how he performed them. He additionally commented that at the time of his service in Afghanistan, the unit's award board considered all service members for possible award but recommended no award for the applicant at the time. An end of tour award for the applicant was not overlooked or misplaced, but rather considered and not recommended. 5. The applicant contends his former wartime supervisor should not have been considered the intermediate authority, but rather his OER rater or senior rater at the time. While it is unclear that any of the three individuals were truly in a position to be considered an intermediate award authority as opposed to more a fitting individual to have been the recommender, there is nonetheless no reason for the applicant to assume either his OER rater or senior rater to be synonymous with the intermediate award authority. 6. It is clear, however, that the individuals he claims should have been entered in the intermediate authority block of the DA Form 638, as they more directly rated and senior rated his performance in Afghanistan, did not recommend him for an end of tour award. 7. The former wartime commanding general who was the award approval authority at the time of the applicant's service reviewed the DA Form 638 and he did not recommend approval of the BSM, stating it was unlikely that he would have approved it had he received the recommendation while in theater with the wartime supervisor's recommendation for disapproval. While he could have recommend disapproval, he instead recommended downgrading to an ARCOM in July 2015. 8. AHRC Awards and Decorations Branch disapproved the retroactive request for award of the BSM. It appears that AHRC did not consider award of the ARCOM as recommended by the applicant's former wartime commanding general who was the award approval authority at the time. 9. It does not sway the outcome of his request that members of his current peacetime chain of command retroactively recommended approval of the BSM. Their endorsement is not required for processing a retroactive wartime award, precisely because they did not have first-hand knowledge of the wartime acts or service worthy of the recommendation. Retroactive wartime awards are processed through the peacetime chain of command only after wartime chain of command endorsements have been secured and only as a means of assuring the normal administrative completeness of any personnel action being processed from lower Army echelons through to AHRC for action. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160007381 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160007381 7 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2