ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 14 August 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180006199 APPLICANT REQUESTS: reconsideration of his earlier application to upgrade his Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) to the Legion of Merit (LM). He also requests a personal appearance before the Board. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Memorandum from Commandant of the Marine Corps * DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award) with Proposed Citation * Affidavit from Colonel (COL) (Retired (R)) X___ * General Order (GO) Number 5247 * MSM * Letter to Chief, Military Awards Branch * Witness Statements * Supporting News Article to Witness Statements * Translation to German Democratic Republic’s Security Service File * New York Times News Article FACTS: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number: * AC97-05924 on 11 July 1997 * AC97-05924A on 22 September 1998 * AR1999024376 on 21 December 1999 2. The applicant states from 1971 to 1974 he was assigned to the United States Military Liaison Mission to the Commander in Chief with the Navy as a Reconnaissance Officer. For his work there, he was awarded the MSM. However, the citation to that medal, by only referring to him as a "liaison," does not accurately reflect the true nature of the work he did in Germany. Due to this, the Chief of Mission during that time, COL X___, recognized this was an unfair reflection of his work and nominated him for a LM with a proposed citation that more accurately referenced the true nature of his work there. The award did not go through, although he was not given information as to why. He requests the ABCMR restore the LM request by COL X___. If the ABCMR decides not to restore the LM recommendation, he requests to amend the citation of his current MSM to the one suggested by COL X___ on the LM application. 3. The applicant provides: a. Memorandum from Commandant of the Marine Corps congratulating the applicant on being awarded the MSM for meritorious service as a Liaison Officer. b. A reconstructed DA Form 638 with proposed citation, dated 6 January 1997. COL F.T. submitted a recommended LM for the applicant. c. Affidavit from COL (R) X___ in which he recommends the applicant now be awarded the LM and provided detailed accounts of the events leading to his earlier recommendation. He describes three missions conducted by the applicant and adds it was “not possible to put these three highly classified special duties in the earlier recommendation for award.” d. GO Number 5247 is presumably the GO awarding the applicant his MSM. The applicant’s name is not listed. It is unclear if the document has subsequent pages and, if so, are unavailable for the Board to review. e. MSM awarded to the applicant in which he seeks an upgrade to an LM. f. Letter to the Chief, Military Awards Branch in which the applicant seeks an upgrade of his MSM to an LM. g. Witness statement of COL (R) T.S., a witness that attests to the applicant’s participation in “Operation Bucksaw”, a classified operation conducted at the U.S. Military Mission in East Germany in 1973. h. Witness statement of Sergeant (formerly) X___, a witness that attests to the applicant’s participation in a highly classified mission which included the daylight inspection of the main rail station in Neubrandenburg, Germany. The attached news articles support the statement. i. Translation to German Democratic Republic’s Security Service File, which the applicant states is a file on himself. It shows he was a member of a military USA secret service and was a main official member of the Reconnaissance Department of the staff of the USA Army in Europe. j. New York Times news article which describes the U.S. Military Liaison Mission in Potsdam Germany. 4. A review of the applicant’s service record shows: a. Between 1971 and 1974, he was a U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) officer assigned to the U.S. Military Liaison Mission to the Commander in Chief, Group of Soviet Forces in Germany. b. The applicant was recommended for award of an MSM as a result of his “meritorious service in the performance of extremely difficult and often hazardous duties as a Liaison Officer” during the period from January 1971 to February 1974. The award was approved on 16 July 1974 by the Commander in Chief, U.S. Army, Europe. c. On 31 January 1985, the applicant retired from the USMC. d. On 19 October 1987, COL (R) X___ was notified by the U.S. Army Military Personnel Center that there was no administrative basis whereby they could honor his request that the applicant be considered for an LM. Past award decisions will not be reconsidered except in rare cases where there is conclusive evidence that material error or impropriety occurred in the original decision process. e. On 6 June 1988, the applicant was notified by the Headquarters, 1st Personnel Command, who was responsible for the administration of the Awards and Decorations Program for the Commander in Chief, United States Army Europe, that no further action was contemplated based on the information contained in the response furnished to COL (R) X___ by the U.S. Army Military Personnel Center. f. On or about 6 January 1997, COL (R) X___ submitted an award recommendation to the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM), Military Awards Brand, on behalf of the applicant recommending he receive an LM for his service while assigned to the U.S. Military Liaison Mission to the Commander-in-Chief, Group of Soviet Forces in Germany. g. On 11 February 1997, a Congressional Representative was notified by PERSCOM, Military Awards Branch, that they forwarded the award recommendation to the Army Decorations Board that was convened on 6 February 1997. The award recommendation was provided to that Board for their review and consideration. On behalf of the Secretary of the Army, the Board determined that the previously approved award of the MSM was the appropriate form for recognition for applicant’s service, and subsequently, the Commanding General, PERSCOM, disapproved award of the LM. h. On 19 March 1997, an advisory opinion was provided by PERSCOM. It was concluded that there was no administrative basis to warrant a reconsideration of the MSM and recommended his request for an upgrade be denied. i. On 11 July 1997, 22 September 1998, and 21 December 1999, the ABCMR denied his application to upgrade his MSM to an LM. j. On 12 March 2002, ABCMR administratively closed his application without action as the regulatory allotted time for reconsideration had not be met. On 29 June 2004, Case Management Division, ABCMR, administratively closed his application as he had not exhausted all administrative remedies to correct the alleged error or injustice. 5. By regulation, U.S. Army military decorations are awarded in recognition of qualifying acts of valor, non-combat heroism, or meritorious service or achievement. Such awards should recognize the specific act(s) of valor or non-combat heroism. The decision to award an individual a decoration and the decision as to which award is appropriate are both command decisions. a. 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 one year from the date of the awarding authority’s decision. Recommendations are submitted for reconsideration or appeal only if new, substantive, and material information is furnished. b. The LM is awarded to any Servicemember of the Armed Forces of the U. S. who has distinguished himself or herself by exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding services and achievements. c. The MSM is awarded to any Servicemember of the Armed Forces of the U. S. who has distinguished himself or herself by outstanding meritorious achievement or service. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found the relief was not warranted. The applicant’s contentions were carefully considered. The Board acknowledges the applicant’s exceptional meritorious service during the period in question; however, based upon the preponderance of evidence, the Board agreed there was no error or injustice in this case. 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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in the following Docket Numbers: * AC97-05924 on 11 July 1997 * AC97-05924A on 22 September 1998 * AR1999024376 on 21 December 1999 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. REFERENCE: Army Regulation (AR) 600-8-22 (Military Awards), chapter 3 (U.S. Army Individual Decorations) currently in effect, states U.S. Army military decorations are awarded in recognition of qualifying acts of valor, non-combat heroism, or meritorious service or achievement. Such awards should recognize the specific act(s) of valor or non-combat heroism. Recommendations for awards must be justified by specific achievements, contributions or other notable impacts. Exceptional command or leadership at any level, in and of itself, may be considered meritorious achievement or service. The decision to award an individual a decoration and the decision as to which award is appropriate are both command decisions. The Army entrusts commanders to exercise awards approval authority based on the merits of each individual recommendation. a. Paragraph 1-6 (Reconsideration or Appeal of Previous Award Recommendations) states 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 one 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 10 USC 1130, a Member of Congress may request a review of a proposal for the award or presentation of a decoration (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. Recommendations are submitted for reconsideration or appeal only if new, substantive, and material information is furnished. b. Paragraph 3-13 (Legion of Merit (LM)) states the LM is awarded to any Servicemember of the Armed Forces of the U. S. who has distinguished himself or herself by exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding services and achievements. Criteria for members of the Armed Forces of the United States are as follows: * The performance must have been such as to merit recognition of key individuals for service rendered in a clearly exceptional manner. Performance of duties normal to the grade, branch, specialty, assignment, or experience of an individual is not an adequate basis for this award. * For service not related to actual war, the term "key individuals" applies to a narrower range of positions than in time of war, which requires evidence of significant achievement. In peacetime, service should be in the nature of a special requirement or of an extremely difficult duty performed in an unprecedented and clearly exceptional manner. However, justification of the award may accrue by virtue of exceptionally meritorious service in a succession of important positions. c. Paragraph 3-17 (Meritorious Service Medal (MSM)) states the MSM is awarded to any Servicemember of the Armed Forces of the U. S. who has distinguished himself or herself by outstanding meritorious achievement or service. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20180006199 5 1