ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 19 September 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170016480 APPLICANT REQUESTS: * his Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) award be upgraded to a Bronze Star Medal (BSM) * an personal appear before the Board APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Letter from the Applicant * Denial Email from HRC Awards Branch, dated 1 October 2014 * DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award) * Request for Award Reconsideration Memorandum to his command * DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award) signed by MG X____ * United States Army Central (USARCENT) Routing Slip * Denial memorandum from USARCENT leadership for BSM reconsideration * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * Human Resources Command (HRC) Memorandum dated 10 January 2018 FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the three year time frame provided in Title 10, United States Code (USC), section 1552 (b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 2. The applicant states he is submitting a follow-up request of his original request case AR20140013736 asking that his MSM award be changed to a BSM. All other administrative efforts are now exhausted. There is no further recourse available through Human Resource Command (HRC) as one year from the date of original award 2014 has passed per 600-8-22 (Military Awards) paragraph 1-16. On 6 January 2014, the Deputy Commanding General-Sustainment (DCG-S), MG Stein downgraded his recommended BSM to MSM. On 20 February 2014, a reconsideration request was provided to the successor DCG-S, MG X____. He signed/approved a new DA Form 638 . On 9 March 2014, a routing slip was submitted acknowledging the new DA Form 638 approval and recommending the DCG-S place his signature on a decision memo to complete the file. On 8 April 2014, the DCG-S disapproved his previously approved upgrade citing MG Stein's earlier decision rather than his own assessment acknowledging the BSM was warranted based on the reconsideration request. 3. The applicant provides: a. A statement refer case number AR20140013736 which states, he recently spoke with Ms. X___ from the Army Review Board Agency (ARBA) about case #AR20140013736 (see attached). Based on the facts as explained below, it appeared to Ms. X___ that this case should now be reviewed and that the facts seemed favorable to the request for BSM redetermination. ABCMR specifically directed that reconsideration to first be worked through HRC. Upon contacting HRC, they indicated via a 1 October 2014 email that the original request for reconsideration dated 20 February 2014 was filed inaccurately and should have been resubmitted through the same chain of command. In an effort to exhaust all administrative means and comply with ABCMR's guidance, inquiries were made between October 2014 and January 2015 trying to contact MG Stein (Retired) so as to resubmit the request for reconsideration to MG X___ (retired). Efforts were unsuccessful due primarily to MG X___'s retirement from the Army and for normal privacy considerations. Due to these facts, a reconsideration addressed to MG X____ was never submitted or provided to HRC due to MG X____ unavailability. Pursuant to AR 600-8-22 para 1-16 (a) & (b), as of January 2015 the 1 year time for normal reconsideration requests has now expired. Therefore, all administrative means have now been exhausted and he request that pursuant to AR 600-8-22, para 1-16(c) the ABCMR fully consider this request for a just determination. b. The HRC email dated 1 October 2014 states in reviewing the documents provided, the request for reconsideration was not submitted in accordance with paragraph 1-16. His request should have included the original recommendation with all endorsements, and any (citation must be attached) additional justification for the reconsideration/appeal in letter format, not to exceed two single-spaced typewritten pages. A new DA Form 638 should only be reconstructed in the event the original is lost. Once his packet is completed in accordance with paragraph 1-16 and submitted to MG X___, HRC will review your packet then. c. Original DA Form 638 without signature page. d. Memorandum for MG X____, date 20 February 2014 requesting for award reconsideration for MAJ X___ X___. e. Reconstructed DA Form 638 recommending a BSM award for applicant signed approval authority MG X____. f. A Decision Memorandum from USARCENT, G-1 to Deputy Commanding General recommending approval of the Bronze Medal. MG X___ disapproved the request, stating MG X____ had already downgraded the award to an MSM. His intent was not to override a decision made by the previous commander. 4. Review of the applicant’s service record shows: a. He was appointed as commissioned officer in the Army Reserve and executed an oath of office on 25 May 1996. b. He was mobilized and entered active duty on 10 May 2013 for 400 days. He served in Kuwait and Afghanistan during this time frame. c. His most recent period of service shows he was honorably released from active duty on 29 April 2014. His DD Form 214 shows he completed 11 months and 23 days of net active service this period. He served in Kuwait form 10 June 2013 to 6 December 2013. He also served in Afghanistan from 7 December 2013 to 9 February 2014. It also shows he was awarded or authorized: * Afghanistan Campaign Medal with Campaign Star * Bronze Star Medal * Defense Meritorious Service Medal * Meritorious Service Medal * Army Commendation Medal (6th Award) * Army Achievement Medal (4th Award) * Joint Meritorious Unit Award * Army Reserve Component Achievement Medal (7th Award) * National Defense Service Medal * Bronze Service Star * Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal * Global War on Terrorism Service Medal * Iraq Campaign Medal with Campaign Star * Army Service Ribbon (2nd Award) * Overseas Service Ribbon (2nd Award) * Army Reserve Component Overseas Training Ribbon (2nd Award) * Armed Forces Reserve Medal with "M" Device and 20 year Silver Hourglass * Military Outstanding Volunteer Service Medal (2nd Award) * NATO Medal * Combat Action Badge * Parachutist Badge d. On 1 August 2019, per email from the Awards and Decorations Branch at HRC disapproved his request for award of the BSM for service performed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. HRC stated taking his documentation at face value, he has exhausted his reconsideration options available to him under AR 600-8-22, which states one-time reconsideration by the award approval authority shall be conclusive. The former DCG-S of ARCENT disapproved the request for reconsideration. Accordingly, HRC cannot take action. 5. By regulation, an applicant is not entitled to a hearing before the ABCMR. Hearings may be authorized by a panel of the ABCMR or by the Director of the ABCMR. 6. By regulation, the Bronze Star Medal 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. 7. By regulation, the Meritorious Service Medal is awarded to members of the Armed Forces of the United States or of a friendly foreign nation who distinguish themselves by outstanding meritorious achievement or service. As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that it could make a fair and equitable decision in the case without a personal appearance by the applicant. The Board also found that relief was not warranted. Board agreed the MSM was appropriate (6 months Kuwait then 3 months OEF), delete the BSM from 214 and make the MSM show 2 (MSM (2nd Award)). Additionally, the Board found that commanders closer to the event are in a better position to evaluate events for awards and that the recommended award for the applicant did not appear to create an error or injustice which would warrant upgrading the award. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : 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 the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. 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. REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, USC, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within three 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 three-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. Army Regulation (AR) 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states the Bronze Star Medal 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. 3. AR 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 begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity, which is that what the Army did was correct. a. 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. b. The ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing or request additional evidence or opinions. Additionally, it states in paragraph 2-11 that 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. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20170016480 5 1