ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 13 August 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20190005808 APPLICANT REQUESTS: reconsideration of his earlier request for award of the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM). APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * Self-authored letter, dated 9 October 2018 * DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award), dated 19 September 2004 * Army Board for Corrections of Military Records (ABCMR) Record of Proceedings, Docket Number AR20090011450, dated 12 November 2009 * ABCMR Record of Proceedings, Docket Number AR2010003061, dated 2 May 2011 * ABCMR Record of Proceedings, Docket Number AR20160014845, dated 20 June 2018 * two photographs of the 324th Replacement Battalion signs * two photographs of Camp Wolf signs * 324th Unit Award Recipient listing at Camp Wolf, undated * Congressional correspondence * Army Review Boards Agency letter, dated 30 May 2019 * DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record – Part II) * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) FACTS: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records that were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the ABCMR in Docket Number AR20090011450 on 12 November 2009; ABCMR Docket Number AR2010003061 on 2 May 2011; and ABCMR Docket Number AR20160014845 on 20 June 2018. 2. The applicant stated in response to the previous denial of the ARCOM from the ABCMR, dated 22 June 2018, he does not know how the Board arrived at its decision. He presented physical evidence, which should have been more than enough to make a favorable decision. Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) X , his Battalion Commander, was in the meeting when he presented his idea to Brigadier General (BG) X , Camp Commander, for the camp entrance sign, which was seen by many Soldiers and dignitaries entering the camp as a backdrop. The sign was used in a scale model of the camp for people to view as they came through the Soldier processing tent. LTC X 's single statement covers all achievements listed on his DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award), dated 19 September 2004, so this makes her statement on the form false. He stated he previously provided letters from other Soldiers confirming his achievements and it should not matter their paygrade, because they were people he worked closest with. There were no awards given to White Soldiers at Camp Wolf. LTC X downgraded an award for a White Soldier that he had recommended for award of the ARCOM to an Army Achievement Medal. He further stated: a. Captain (CPT) X advised him that you cannot downgrade an Army Achievement Medal during wartime. b. LTC X did not know what she was doing. He wrote a recommendation for award of an ARCOM for a Black Soldier on his team and LTC X had no problem approving the award, but when it came to his award, she disapproved it. c. He took additional duties as a mail clerk and bus driver. His main duties were as the noncommissioned officer-in-charge of the processing areas that they achieved great proficiency within the camp, getting Soldiers to their destinations. d. He delivered mail to LTC X too, so this is another case regarding her false statement. Most commanders would have approved this award where Soldiers go above and beyond the call of duty. Most commanders would be happy to recognize their Soldiers. The integrity of LTC X was questionable at best. e. He spoke with LTC X after they returned and she replied sarcastically, she had did everything. He talked to other Soldiers about her and they agreed. He thought he had showed exceptional fortitude in accomplishing the achievements listed on his DA Form 638. He enclosed photographs to prove some of the things he did as well as provide a list of Soldiers at Camp Wolf who received awards and showing that they were all African Americans. He believes the entire process has been an injustice. 3. The applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve on 18 December 1982. He was subsequently ordered to active duty on 2 January 2003. 4. While assigned as the detachment sergeant of his unit, his Headquarters and Headquarters Detachment Commander submitted a recommendation for award of the ARCOM for him on 19 September 2004. 5. His DA Form 638, dated 19 September 2004 shows in Part IV – Recommendations/ Approval/Disapproval, his Headquarters and Headquarters Detachment Commander recommended approval of award of the ARCOM and his Battalion Commander recommended disapproval. His Battalion Commander stated, "Achievements as stated, were not an accurate representation of this Soldier’s service during this period." 6. On 8 February 2004, he was honorably released from active duty. 7. He submitted three previous request to the ABCMR: a. in ABCMR Docket Number AR20090011450, dated 12 November 2009, the applicant was advised he had failed to exhaust all his administrative remedies. No board action was taken and his case was administratively closed. b. in ABCMR Docket Number AR2010003061, dated 2 May 2011, the applicant was again advised he had failed to exhaust all his administrative remedies. No board action was taken and his case was administratively closed. c. in ABCMR Docket Number AR20160014845, dated 20 June 2018, the ABCMR determined that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of his case were insufficient as a basis for correction of his records. 8. The applicant provided copies of: a. two photographs of the 324th Replacement Battalion signs, undated, b. two photographs of Camp Wolf signs, undated, c. a listing of 324th Unit Award Recipients at Camp Wolf, undated, that provided the recipient's name, rank, award, and race, and d. Congressional correspondence that included a status on his present request to the ABCMR. 9. His records are void of orders awarding him the ARCOM. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. After review of the application and all evidence, the Board found insufficient evidence to grant relief and amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20160014845 on 20 June 2018. The Board agreed that regulatory guidelines stipulate that approval through the chain of command and announcement in orders are required for award of all personal decorations and formal recommendations. The Board found that the record is void of and the applicant provided no documentation to indicate that his chain of command approved or that the applicant was ever awarded the requested Army Commendation Medal. Furthermore, the Board found that the record lacks sufficient evidence that the applicant was denied an award due to racial discrimination. 2. Army policy indicates that award recommendations for the Army Commendation Medal are sent up through the Soldier's chain of command to company, battalion, and finally to brigade commanders for final approval. However, commanders with authority to approve awards also have the authority to downgrade or disapprove awards and can delegate disapproval or downgrade authority to lower level commanders. The board begins review of each case with an assumption of administrative regularity. Therefore, the assumption is that the applicant’s battalion commander had received downgrade authority from the brigade commander when considering recommendations for ARCOMs. The Board found that the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence that the battalion commander did not have this delegated authority. 3. The applicant's battalion commander reviewed the award recommendation and disapproved it, commenting that the applicant's listed achievements were not an accurate representation of his service (performance). In accordance with the assumption of administrative regularity, the battalion commander had the authority to assess the applicant’s performance as such and deny the award. 4. Regarding the applicants assertion that his battalion commander denied him the award due to racial bias, the board found insufficient evidence to support this. The board agreed that the list provided by the applicant titled, “324th Unit Award Recipients at Camp Wolf” is insufficient as it is neither signed, dated nor otherwise marked as an official document. 5. Therefore, the board denied the applicant’s request. 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 Board determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant amendment of the ABCMR's decision in Docket Number AR20160014845 on 20 June 2018. 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. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE(S): not applicable. 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 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 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes Department of the Army (DA) policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning individual and unit military awards. The goal of the total Army Awards Program is to foster mission accomplishment by recognizing excellence of both military and civilian members of the force and motivating them to higher levels of performance and service. a. The decision to award an individual a decoration and the decision as to which award is appropriate are both subjective decisions made by the commander or designated official having award approval authority. Recommendations for awards must be based on specific achievements. b. Awards for meritorious achievement or service will not be based upon the grade of the intended recipient. Rather, the award should reflect both the individual's level of responsibility and his or her manner of performance. The degree to which an individual's achievement or service enhanced the readiness or effectiveness of his or her organization will be the leading factor. c. No individual is automatically entitled to an award upon departure from an assignment [including deployment]. d. Commanders having authority to approve an award may delegate disapproval authority (to include downgrade) to their immediate subordinate commanders, provided those subordinate commanders have authority to approve the next lower award. Commanders may disapprove (to include downgrade) the next higher award normally associated with their rank, provided such authority has been delegated to them. [Normally, a battalion commander in the rank of lieutenant colonel has the authority to award the Army Achievement Medal and downgrade or disapprove the Army Commendation Medal.] e. Where appropriate, intermediate endorsing officials or commanders may recommend disapproval or comment on the propriety of lesser or higher awards if they do not favor the requested decoration. Normally, the award approval authority for the Army Commendation Medal is a brigade or regimental commander in the rank of colonel who can delegate award disapproval or downgrade authority to a subordinate battalion commander in the rank of lieutenant colonel. f. 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. //NOTHING FOLLOWS//