IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 22 August 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160009521 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: 22 August 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160009521 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: 22 August 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160009521 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 the award of the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM). The applicant also request's a personal appearance hearing before the Board. 2. The applicant states, in effect, he believes a clerical error prevented inclusion of the award of his DD Form 214. 3. The applicant provides: * DA Form 4980-14 (ARCOM certificate) * DD Form 214 * 3 letters COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Counsel requests reconsideration of the applicant's previous request for correction of his DD Form 214 to show the award of the ARCOM. 2. Counsel states, in effect, the applicant's recollection is that he received the ARCOM when he was discharged from the Army on 20 September 1983. The paperwork of the awarded medal is dated 14 October 1983, after he was discharged. The applicant is unsure how or why the official award orders were not with his records. 3. Counsel provides no additional evidence. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records that were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20110009675 on 20 October 2011. 2. The applicant provides evidence or argument, which warrants consideration by the Board. 3. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 18 September 1980. He completed training and he was awarded military occupational specialty 95B (Military Police). 4. Item 5 (Overseas Service) of his DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows he served in Germany, United States Army Europe (USAREUR) for the period 27 May 1981 to 19 September 1983. Item 9 (Awards, Decorations & Campaigns) does not show award of the ARCOM. Item 18 (Appointments and Reductions) shows he was reduced in grade from specialist five to private first class on 10 March 1981. He was subsequently promoted to the grade of specialist four (SP4) on 20 March 1982. 5. On 20 September 1983, he was honorably released from active duty in the rank/grade of SP4/E-4. He completed 3 years and 3 days of net active service during this period. The DD Form 214 he was issued upon her release from active duty does not show award of the ARCOM. His DD Form 214 shows he was awarded or authorized: * Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16) * Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Pistol Bar (.45 caliber) * Army Service Ribbon * Overseas Service Ribbon 6. On 20 October 2011, the ABCMR denied the applicant's request for correction of his DD Form 214 to show the award of the ARCOM. 7. On 6 April 2016, the applicant was informed by a United States Senator that the Awards and Decorations Branch, U.S. Army Human Resources Command could not act upon cases that had a formal determination previously rendered by the ABCMR. 8. The applicant provides DA Form 4980-14, which shows he was awarded the ARCOM on 14 October 1983, for exceptionally meritorious service in the performance of his duties while assigned to Battery D, 3rd Battalion, 71st Air Defense Artillery, USAREUR, during the period 28 May through 17 September 1983. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. The ABCMR will decide cases on the evidence of record. It is not an investigative body. Applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR. The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires. Additionally, applicants may be represented by counsel at their own expense. 2. Paragraph 2-9 contains guidance on the burden of proof. It states that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity, which is that what the Army did was correct. The ABCMR is not an investigative body and decides cases based on the evidence that is presented in the military records provided and the independent evidence submitted with the application. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. 3. 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: 1. The applicant's request for a personal appearance hearing was carefully considered. However, by regulation, an applicant is not entitled to a hearing before the Board. Hearings may be authorized by a panel of the Board or by the Director of the ABCMR. In this case, the evidence of record and independent evidence provided by the applicant and his counsel is sufficient to render a fair and equitable decision at this time. As a result, a personal appearance hearing is not necessary to serve the interest of equity and justice in this case. 2. There is no evidence in the available records that shows the applicant was awarded the ARCOM. The ARCOM certificate he submitted is insufficient by itself to confirm this award. The governing Army regulation states that formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required for personal decorations (which include the ARCOM). 3. The applicant's record is void of orders or other corroborating documents showing he was awarded the ARCOM. However, he did provide an ARCOM certificate that shows he was awarded the ARCOM on 14 October 1983, for exceptionally meritorious service in the performance of his duties while assigned to Battery D, 3rd Battalion, 71st Air Defense Artillery, USAREUR, during the period 28 May through 17 September 1983. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160009521 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160009521 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2