ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 14 November 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20190010940 APPLICANT REQUESTS: the Meritorious Service Medal in lieu of the Army Commendation Medal and removal of the Army Commendation Medal Certificate, dated 13 February 2019, from her record. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Applicant’s Letter to Member of Congress, dated 27 February 2019 * Orders 290-0015, Retirement Orders * DA Form 638 (Recommendation of Award), dated 16 January 2019 * Permanent Order 044-002 (Army Commendation Medal Certificate), dated 13 February 2019 * Enlisted Record Brief * Member of Congress Letter to Applicant, dated 12 March 2019 * Member of Congress Casework Authorization Form, dated 13 March 2019 * Email communications, miscellaneous dates * Letter to Member of Congress, dated 12 April 2019 * Member of Congress Letter to Applicant, dated 24 April 2019 * Member of Congress Casework Authorization Form, dated 22 May 2019 * Headquarters, Department of the Army, Office of Chief of Legislative Liaison Letter to Member of Congress, dated 7 June 2019 * Member of Congress Letter to Applicant, dated 10 June 2019 FACTS: 1. The applicant states her retirement award should be amended to show she received the Meritorious Service Medal and the Army Commendation Medal and its associated permanent order should be voided and removed from her records. She states she deserves better than an Army Commendation Medal for serving 20 years of active federal service. She was recommended for the Meritorious Service Medal by her supervisor. However, it was downgraded to an Army Commendation Medal based solely on personal grievances and not based on her professionalism. Her brigade’s response (to a Congressional inquiry) did not address the discrimination she encountered nor did it address the fact a retirement award covers a 10-year span of a Soldier’s career. In a separate letter to her Member of Congress she highlighted some of her duties and responsibilities throughout her military career. She served honorably without any negative or derogatory notation in her record. The response to her Congressional inquiry by her brigade commander is a clear reflection of the poor leadership and bias she endured within his command. From his response, she was not given credit for her level of responsibilities or performance. She states, "… one of the former supervisor’s received his 'just do' even though she played a pivotal role in the mission success along with him." For her the real question is it about race, gender, physical limitation(s), personal conflict or all of them together? She knows of no real reason why her retirement award was downgraded. Her brigade commander should have focused on her professional contributions to the unit and the Army as a whole. She asserts he downgraded her retirement award based on personal grievances. 2. At the time of her application to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), the applicant served in the Regular Army as a master sergeant in the logistics career field at Fort Stewart, Georgia. 3. On 17 October 2018, Headquarters, 3rd Infantry Division and Fort Stewart, Fort Steward, Georgia published Orders 290-0015 releasing her from active duty effective 30 September 2019 and placing her on the retirement list effective 1 October 2019. These orders show she completed 20 years and 10 days of active service. Further, she voluntarily submitted her request for retirement. 4. The applicant’s personnel record does not contain a DD Form 638, dated on or about 16 January 2019, showing she was recommended for a retirement award. Neither does her record contain permanent orders showing she received the Army Commendation Medal on or about 13 February 2019 for her retirement due to length of service. 5. On 30 September 2019 she was honorably released from active duty due to sufficient service for retirement. She was issued a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) documenting she served for 20 years and 10 days of active service with service in Afghanistan from 23 March 2012 to 3 March 2013. Item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) shows among her awards the – * Defense Meritorious Service Medal * Meritorious Service Medal (Fifth Award) * Army Commendation Medal (Second Award) * Army Achievement Medal (Eleventh Award) 6. The applicant provided the following evidence in support of her application: a. On 16 January 2019 the brigade logistics officer, a major/pay grade O-4, initiated an award recommendation utilizing DA Form 638. Item 10 (Recommended Award) shows she was recommended for the Meritorious Service Medal fifth oak leaf cluster for her pending retirement. She had previously received the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, five Meritorious Service Medals, two Army Commendation Medals, and 11 Army Achievement Medals. The recommending official cites: * Achievement 1 * her honorable 20 years of service in increasing leadership roles * she implemented a Field Artillery brigade property accountability strategy * she coordinated equipment accountability inventories achieving 100 percent accountability for 15 geographically dispersed subordinate units * she maintained 100 percent accountability of sensitive items * Achievement 2 * she served as a brigade victim advocate establishing and providing crisis intervention referral and non-clinical support to sexual assault victims * she enhanced understanding of sexual violence awareness and prevention for the brigade and corps * she handled 12 sexual harassment complaints and 11 sexual assault cases * Achievement 3 * she served as Eighth Army Support Operations Noncommission Office in Charge (NCOIC) * her leadership and technical expertise helped her develop a plan to return 383 containers of excess supplies to the Army supply system * through her leadership, she enforced the utilization of unit identification for audit readiness procedures * she published an operations order resulting in the labeling of 80,000 pieces of equipment * Achievement 4 * her culminating assignment was the brigade combat team logistics NCOIC * she planned and coordinated maintenance and logistical support for 37 companies within seven battalions * she procured goods and services in excess of $2.2 million * she managed the inventory of over 10,000 pieces of excess equipment in the operational cycle b. On 11 February 2019 her company commander recommended her for the Meritorious Service Medal. c. On 13 February 2019 her brigade commander, a commissioned officer in the rank of colonel/pay grade O-6 serving as the intermediate authority, initially recommended approval of the Meritorious Service Medal, then he also checked the box on the DA Form 638 showing her award recommendation was downgraded to an Army Commendation Medal. He commented, "[The applicant], thank you for your services to our Nation!" d. On 19 February 2019 the division awards approval authority assigned Permanent Order Number 044-002 to the DA Form 638. Further, he indicated the approved award was the Army Commendation Medal with second oak leaf cluster. Concurrently her award certificate was prepared showing she was recognized for her professionalism, high initiative, technical expertise, total dedication and superb leadership for the period from 1 October 2009 to 30 September 2019. The certificate was signed by her brigade commander. The permanent order number is also shown on the certificate. e. On 27 February 2019 she wrote to her Congressman concerning her retirement award and the impact her brigade commander had on its downgrading from a Meritorious Service Medal to the Army Commendation Medal. She states she placed the Army and its mission at the forefront serving honorably with no derogatory information in her record for 20 years. She served two tours in South Korea and deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. (1) In August 2016, she made the personal decision to postpone major surgery due to mission task requirements. Her expectation was she would have the surgery later in her career. She arrived at Fort Stewart in July 2017 and was assigned to a brigade combat team. (2) The brigade was scheduled for a field training exercise and she immediately engulfed herself into mission analysis. By 1 October 2017, she left Fort Stewart, Georgia for the National Training Center on Fort Irwin, California for her unit’s training. In California, her medical condition worsened. However, she continued to push through it and completed all tasks with no criticism from her brigade leadership. By November 2017 and still at Fort Irwin, she sought medical treatment for her condition. (3) In early February 2018 she had surgery and was immediately a "Code Red" in the Army medical system and unable to deploy. Her brigade was preparing for an international rotation to support operations in South Korea. When she informed her command sergeant major of her health issues that prevented her from deploying, his attitude changed towards her. She had been considered part of the unit’s family until her illness. (4) On 20 February 2018, she discovered her command sergeant major and brigade commander had downgraded her retirement award. She asserts they downgraded the award based on personal grievances they felt towards her and their decision was not based on professionalism. She states, "I strongly believe due to the fact I was non-deployable and physically unable to attend the unit’s 2018… rotational deployment is the reason my award was downgraded." (5) From the moment her senior leaders learned of her health which prevented her participation in unit training, she feels she was no longer a valued member of the team. She realized she could not change their perception of her. She states, "I wholeheartedly believe I am being discriminated against due to the fact I am an African American female with physical limitations. I am being treated unfair and unjust which is not in keeping with Army policies and procedures for fair and impartial treatment." (6) She did not file a complaint concerning her retirement award with her senior leaders out of fear of reprisal from them. She never received the professional courtesy for the rationale as to why her award was downgraded. She feels she was professionally degraded, belittled and disgraced as a master sergeant with 20 years of honorable service. She feels it is a personal vendetta from her leaders for it is not the status quo to receive an Army Commendation Medal as a senior master sergeant upon retirement. With her award she feels her career was discredited by her brigade commander. (7) She concludes by stating the senior leaders of the brigade are toxic. She also expresses her concerns regarding the brigade’s daily business operations including its processing of awards. She knows of senior noncommissioned officers who had physical limitations who received the Meritorious Service Medal. She surmises the brigade commander’s standard is to only reward the performance of his preferred Soldiers within his organization. f. On 12 March 2019 her Congressman sent her a letter asking her to complete a privacy act waiver form so his office could assist her. On 13 March 2019 she complied with his request and resubmitted her inquiry to his office with the privacy act waiver form. g. On 4 April 2019 she communicated via emails with her Congressman’s office requesting a status update concerning her inquiry. h. On 12 April 2019 by letter her brigade commander responded to her Congressman’s inquiry. He stated, in effect, his brigade award policies were aligned with the division’s guidance on awards which are processed uniformly across the division. As the brigade commander he sets out four key considerations when determining an award: performance, contribution, responsibility, and adversity. He states, "Rank is specifically not to be considered in deciding upon an appropriate individual award." He states the Army Commendation Medal is a prestigious and meaningful award. It is awarded to any Servicemember of the Armed Forces of the United States who distinguishes herself or himself by heroism, meritorious achievement, or meritorious service. He concludes by stating he based his decision on the division guidance. i. On 24 April 2019 by letter her Congressman forwarded her brigade commander’s written response to her inquiry saying the letter was self-explanatory. j. On 22 May 2019 she filed a second congressional inquiry stating she deserves better than an Army Commendation Medal for her 20 years of honorable service. She states her brigade commander’s response did not address the discrimination she encountered nor the fact that a retirement award should span a 10 year period of service. She asserts the response she received from her brigade commander is a reflection of his poor leadership and the bias she endured within his command. k. On 7 June 2019 Department of the Army, Office of the Chief of Legislative Liaison responded to the applicant’s second inquiry informing her Congressman she had the right to appeal to the ABCMR. l. On 10 June 2019 her Congressman informed her by letter she had the right to appeal to the ABCMR. He included instructions on applying to the Board with his letter to her. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. The Board carefully considered the applicant’s request, supporting documents and evidence in the records. The Board considered the applicant’s statement to include her statement regarding her medical condition, her record of service, duty position at the time of retirement and previous awards, the award recommended for retirement, the decision of the Commander (intermediate authority) authorized to award an Army Commendation Medal (checking both approval and downgrade blocks in the recommendation) and the Commander’s response to a Congressional inquiry regarding his issue. The Board did not find available the Division policy regarding awards as cited by the Commander. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determine that an injustice occurred and that the applicant should be awarded a Meritorious Service Medal for her accomplishments during the last 10 years of her service prior to retirement. 2. After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that relief was warranted. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 :X :X :X GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: - revoking the Army Commendation Medal, PO number 044-002 from the applicant’s records; - award the applicant a Meritorious Service Medal for the period 20091001 to 20190930 as a retirement award, and; - amend the applicant’s DD Form 214 for the period of service ending 30 September 2019, item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations and Campaign Ribbons…) as follows – “Meritorious Service Medal (6th Award)” vice Meritorious Service Medal (5th Award)” and “Army Commendation Medal” vice “Army Commendation Medal (2nd Award.” 11/29/2019 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. REFERENCES: Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards), dated 3 March 2019, prescribes policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning individual and unit military awards. The goal of the Army Awards Program is to foster mission accomplishment by recognizing excellence of both military and civilian member of the force and motivating them to higher levels of performance and service. There is no automatic entitlement to an award upon departure either from an assignment or from the service. Rank and grade will not be a factor in determining the type or level of recognition. The decision to award an individual a decoration and the decisions 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. For peacetime award approval authority, commanding generals may delegate peacetime awards authority in writing to their deputy commanding generals commensurate with their rank. Deputy commanding generals are further defined as an Army officer serving in the rank of brigadier general/pay grade O-7. Commanders having authority to approve an award, may delegate disapproval authority to include downgrading an award to their immediate subordinate commanders, provided those subordinate commanders have the authority to approve the next lower award. b. For recognition upon retirement it states each individual approaching retirement may be considered for an appropriate decoration based on his or her years of service, degree of responsibility, and manner of performance. Meritorious service awards will be awarded upon retirement which may include periods of service longer than that served in the recommending command. An extended period will only be considered in those cases where the length or nature of the individual’s terminal assignment would not qualify him or her for an appropriate award. An extended period of service will not exceed the last 10 years of service. c. 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. After 16 January 1969 but prior to 11 September 2001, the Meritorious Service Medal was authorized to be awarded only for meritorious service or achievement while serving in a non-combat area. As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required. If downgraded, a Meritorious Service Medal will be downgraded to an Army Commendation Medal. The award approval authority is a brigadier general/pay grade O-7. d. 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. The award approval authority is a commissioned officer serving in a command position, normally a brigade commander in the rank of colonel/pay grade O-6. e. In the processing of the DA Form 638, the commander or supervisor, intermediate authority and award approval authority are required to complete their respective items on the form. Only one block must be checked approving, disapproving, upgrading, or downgrading an award recommendation. f. 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. g. 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. h. If the reconsideration or appeal is approved and when a lesser decoration has already been approved, action is taken by the awarding authority or AHRC to revoke the lesser awarded decoration. i. Once AHRC or the award approval authority has made a decision on the award reconsideration or appeal, other options for reconsideration or appeal include the ABMCR and the Inspector General. Amendments, rescissions, or revocation of permanent award orders will be prepared by separate order. Award orders issued and/or announced on the DA Form 638 will be amended or revoked using a separate permanent order. NOTHING FOLLOWS