IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 19 September 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170000624 BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 :x :x :x GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 19 September 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170000624 APPLICANT'S REQUEST AND STATEMENT: 1. The applicant requests his Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) be upgraded to the ARCOM with "V" Device. 2. The applicant states he has exhausted his administrative relief through the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), Awards and Decorations Branch and now seeks relief through this Board. * his chain of command submitted an award recommendation for the ARCOM with "V" Device for his actions in Iraq in 2005, but it was downgraded * HRC denied him relief because the "original" narrative could not be located * he has exhausted all means available to him to locate the "original" narrative * his former wartime chain of command including the commanding general supports upgrading his ARCOM * he has sworn statements to support his request * his Member of Congress supports his request * he deployed six times to Iraq and Afghanistan * from those deployments, he received valorous awards including the Bronze Star Medal with "V" Device * if approved, this would be his fourth ARCOM with "V" Device * the burden of proof rests with him, but it is difficult due to his numerous deployments THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records with supporting documents: * DA Form 2823 (Sworn Statement) from Sergeant (SGT) Pearl A., dated 1 September 2005 * DA Form 2823 from SGT Luke P., dated 1 September 2005 * DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award) dated 8 November 2005 * Narrative to Accompany DA Form 638 * Draft Citation to Accompany DA Form 638 * Permanent Order (PO) 318-008 dated 14 November 2005 * Enlisted Record Brief * HRC letter to his senator dated 3 November 2014 * letter from The Adjutant General of Mississippi dated 2 September 2015 * HRC letter to his senator dated 7 October 2015 * excerpts from Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) 2. Evidence from the applicant’s service record and Department of the Army and Department of Defense records and systems: * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty) for the period ending on 20 March 2007 * DD Form 214 for the period ending on 16 May 2016 REFERENCES: 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. 2. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning individual and unit military awards. a. 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. b. A request for reconsideration or the appeal of a disapproved or downgraded award, or a request for an upgrade of a previously approved recommendation must be placed in official channels within 1 year from the date of the awarding authority’s decision. A one-time reconsideration by the award approval authority will be conclusive. However, pursuant to Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1130, a Member of Congress may request a review of a proposal for the award or the upgrading of a decoration that is not authorized to be presented or awarded due to time limitations established by law or policy for timely submission of a recommendation b. Recommendations are submitted for reconsideration or appeal only if new, substantive, and material information is furnished. Requests for reconsideration or appeal must be forwarded through the same official channels as the original recommendation. The additional justification for reconsideration or appeal must be in letter format, not to exceed two single-spaced typewritten pages. A copy of the original recommendation, with all endorsements, and the citation must be attached. If the original recommendation is not available, a reconstructed recommendation should be submitted. c. All requests that are not processed within time limitations and/or theater are considered retroactive, and must be processed through the former peacetime and/or wartime chain of command. Chain of command is defined as the sequence of commanders in an organization who have direct authority and primary responsibility for accomplishing the assigned unit mission while caring for personnel and property in their charge. Commanders in the former chain of command, 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. Every attempt will be made by the recommender to obtain the original 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. DISCUSSION: 1. While 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 an active member of the State of Massachusetts Army National Guard of the United States. 3. On 20 May 2005, the applicant entered active duty to support of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. 4. On 30 June 2005 he deployed to Iraq as an Infantryman. 5. The first witness statement provided by SGT Luke P., dated 1 September 2005, describes combat actions that occurred near Forward Operating Base (FOB) Iskandiriyah on 31 August 2005. a. He was a military working dog handler and a member of a military police battalion supporting the II Marine Expeditionary Force. A combined team of United States Soldiers and Iraqi Army soldiers were on a combat mission to investigate a home thought to have been infiltrated by insurgents. There were unknown persons in a field by the house who were firing a machine gun on the friendly combat patrol. Friendly forces sought cover in the house to protect them from the machine gun fire. b. An officer on the roof of the house was hit by enemy fire. He and another Soldier ran to the roof of the house, assessed the situation, saw the seriously wounded Soldier and immediately started to carry him to the lower level of the house. Once outside he hollered for help and the applicant quickly stepped forward to help. Together they put the seriously wounded Soldier into the bed of a pick-up truck. The applicant also started combat lifesaving steps, assessed the seriousness of the wounds, and shouted for the driver of the truck to immediately drive to the FOB. c. He followed the truck in his military vehicle performing escort duties. The road conditions were hazardous and road blocks were set up by friendly forces. They maneuvered around these hazards almost going off the road. He could see the applicant in the bed of the truck being thrown about. Throughout the journey he could see the applicant and SGT Pearl A. performing first aid to the wounded Soldier. Upon arrival at the FOB, he helped move the Soldier from the bed of the truck to the medical tent. Shortly thereafter they received word the Soldier did not survive. The applicant and SGT Pearl A. returned to their combat patrol. 6. The witness statement provided by SGT Pearl A., dated 1 September 2005, describes the actions of the applicant during combat patrol operations in Iraq on 31 August 2005. He was assigned to the patrol when it received information an American Soldier was wounded in action and needed immediate assistance. The patrol traveled to the location and found the injured Soldier in the back of a white pick-up truck suffering from a serious gunshot wound to his chest under his arm pit. There were hostile persons in the area who were firing upon them. He immediately started combat lifesaving steps to stop the bleeding. The applicant assessed the situation under direct enemy fire and determined the wounded Soldier must immediately be transported to FOB Iskandiriyah for medical treatment. He and the applicant continued lifesaving treatment including cardiopulmonary resuscitation all the while the truck sped to the FOB on hazardous roads and under indirect small arms fire. Upon reaching the FOB, the medical unit assumed treatment for the wounded Soldier. He did not survive. He and the applicant returned to their combat patrol and eventually detained 15 personnel who were taken to the FOB Detention Center for questioning. 7. A member of the II Marine Expeditionary Force prepared an award recommendation recommending the applicant receive the ARCOM with "V" Device for his heroic actions on 31 August 2005. The narrative summary provided by the applicant states, in pertinent part, there was a suspected high value target at a compound and United States Forces were conducting a raid when they were ambushed. A call went out for assistance and the applicant responded. Upon arrival, he witnessed several United States personnel pinned down by enemy fire who were attempting to carry a wound Soldier out of a house. The applicant dismounted and immediately assisted in moving the wounded Soldier all the while engaging enemy forces. He showed disregard for his personal safety. He assisted in putting the wounded Soldier in the back of a pickup truck, jumped in and immediately started first aid. He directed the interpreter to get into the truck and drive it to the FOB. The road conditions were very hazardous with the truck driving off the road several times. Upon arrival at the FOB, he assisted the medical team in transferring him into the medical tent. He then returned to his combat patrol and assisted in the detention of 15 personnel who were thought to be involved in the ambush. 8. On 9 November 2005, the applicant’s company and battalion commanders recommended approval of the award recommendation as written. 9. On or about 14 November 2005, the commanding general downgraded the award to the ARCOM. PO 318-008 was issued awarding him the ARCOM. 10. On 30 March 2007, the applicant was released from active duty upon the completion of his required service. He was issued a DD Form 214 showing among his awards the Bronze Star Medal, the Purple Heart, and the ARCOM (2nd Award). During this period he served in Egypt, Iraq and Afghanistan. 11. A review of his Enlisted Record Brief dated 14 April 2015 shows he had five combat deployments to Iraq or Afghanistan and one tour in Egypt. 12. On 3 November 2014, the Chief of the Awards and Decorations Branch at HRC informed the applicant’s Member of Congress that the applicant’s award recommendation and its supporting evidence would not be forwarded to the Awards and Decorations Board because the award packet did not contain new substantive evidence that had not been previously considered by the award approval authority. The official stated, “The original recommendation for award with the original proposed citation, narrative and original signed witness affidavits must be attached.” In addition, new endorsements from the applicant’s former wartime chain of command and award approval authority must be submitted with the new award recommendation showing new substantive information not previously considered. 13. On 2 September 2015, The Adjutant General of Mississippi wrote the applicant’s senator stating he had received PO 318-008 (ARCOM) and the supporting evidence provided by the applicant. He fully supports upgrading the applicant’s ARCOM awarded by PO 318-008 to an ARCOM with "V" Device. 14. On 7 October 2015, HRC informed the applicant’s Member of Congress it would not process the award recommendation due to lack of new substantive evidence. 15. On 27 April 2015, the applicant entered active duty. He was subsequently released from active duty on 16 May 2016. For this period of active service he was issued a DD Form 214, showing in pertinent part his awards, decorations, badges and campaign ribbons. Among his authorized awards are the – * Bronze Star Medal with "V" Device * Bronze Star Medal (4th Award) * Purple Heart (2nd Award) * Army Commendation Medal with "V" Device (4th Award) * Army Commendation Medal (3rd Award) 16. To reconsider or upgrade an award, the individual concerned should provide new substantive evidence in support of his award request from his former chain of command. This is a regulatory requirement that new substantive evidence be presented to the original chain of command that was not previously considered. In 2015, his former commanding general did review the initial award recommendation prepared in November 2005. He now recommends the applicant’s award of the ARCOM by PO 318-008 should be upgraded to the ARCOM with "V" Device for his heroic actions on 31 August 2005 in Iraq. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160005706 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20170000624 6 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2