IN THE CASE OF:   

BOARD DATE:  30 April 2020 

DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20190015257 


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  an upgrade of his Silver Star to the Medal of Honor. 

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 







































•letter, U.S. Senate, dated 29 May 2019•Adjutant General's Office (AGO) Form 0365 (Battle Casualty Report), dated16 June 1952•AGO Form 241A-1 (Casualty or (Non-battle) Report), dated 16 June 1952•letter, Commanding Officer, Company K, 17th Infantry Regiment, dated 18 June 1952, subject:  Recommendation for Award of Silver Star•Headquarters, 7th Infantry Division, General Orders Number 240, dated 19 June 1952•Silver Star Medal Citation (Applicant), undated•DA AGO Form 639 (Recommendation for Award – Heroism), dated 15 July 1952•Statement, Captain S____, III, dated 13 July 1952•Statement, Private First Class S____, dated 13 July 1952•1st Indorsement, Headquarters, Third Battalion, 17th Infantry Regiment, dated 18 July 1952, subject: Recommendation for Award•2nd Indorsement, Headquarters, 17th Infantry Regiment, dated 18 July 1952, (no subject)•Standard Form 88 (Report of Medical Examination), dated 21 February 1953•DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from The Armed Forces of the United States)•Honorable Discharge Certificate, dated 21 January 1957•letter, Military Awards Branch, U.S. Total Army Personnel Command, dated28 June 1995•letter, T____, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) Hollywood Bureau, undated, with attachments•The General Assembly of the State of Ohio, Ohio Senate, 2002 Ohio Military Hall of Fame Certificate•letter, U.S. House of Representative, dated 3 September 2003•letter, Army Review Boards Agency, dated 3 October 2006•letter, Army Review Boards Agency, dated 27 November 2006 
















•letter, F____, Jr., dated 31 January 2018•letter, Awards and Decorations Branch, U.S. Army Human Resources Command, dated 4 September 2018•letter, National Archives and Records Administration, dated 15 October 2018•letter, F____, Jr., dated 1 February 2019•email thread, K____, dated 13 February 2019•letter, Adjutant Jefferson Veterans Association, dated 18 April 2019•letter, U.S. House of Representatives, dated 18 June 2019•email thread, H____, dated11 July 2019 



FACTS: 

1.The applicant did not file within the three year time frame provided in Title 10, U.S.Code, section 1552(b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records(ABCMR) conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in theinterest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file.

2.The applicant states through his member of Congress:

a.He served as a machine gunner and provided fire support to an infantry unit thatwas attacking a heavily fortified enemy position near Tag-Wan-Ni, Korea, with the 7th Infantry Division during the Korean Conflict.  He took command of the machinegun squad when his squad leader was wounded. 

b.Despite being under intense fire and wounded twice, he continued puttingeffective suppressive fire on the target.  He later ignored an order to withdraw to a safer position, and instead remained behind to evacuate his wounded and dead comrades. 

c.He was later awarded the Silver Star in recognition for his courageous actions.

d.It was later discovered there are several inconsistences with the awardsubmission that could potentially reflect a case of racial bias which was unfortunately still prevalent in the Armed Forces in 1952. 

e.The award submission states the applicant was wounded once, when in fact hewas wounded twice, as he tried to carry wounded comrades to safety. 

f.His race was entered as "Negroid" on the award submission form, even thoughthe form did not require the Soldier being recommended be characterized by race. 

g.His actions were later memorialized in the comic book "Heroic" where he wasportrayed not as an African American Soldier, but as a Caucasian. 
h.Considered in totality, there is sufficient concern in the consideration of theapplicant's case there may have been intended or possibly unintended racial bias. 

i.Both the Congress and Department of Defense have taken proactive steps toreview the award submissions for minority service members in order to correct past cases of racial bias that prevented these brave men from receiving the recognition their heroic actions warrant. 

j.Most recently, the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act directed areview of Medal of Honor submissions to qualifying Asian American and Native American/Pacific Island War veterans in order to determine if there were any who qualified for an upgrade award. 

3.The applicant's complete military records are not available for review.  A firedestroyed approximately 18 million service members' records at the National PersonnelRecords Center in 1973.  It is believed that the applicant's records were lost ordestroyed in that fire.  However, there were sufficient documents remaining in areconstructed record to conduct a fair and impartial review of this case.  These recordsconsist of files provided from a partial reconstructed record by the National Archives andRecords Administration and/or National Personnel Records Center, and documentsprovided by the applicant.

4.On 22 May 1951, the applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States andentered active duty.  His DD Form 47 (Record of Induction), dated 23 May 1951, showshis place of birth as a city in Ohio and his race as Negroid.

5.He served in Korea from 9 January 1952 to 23 November 1952 and he was assignedto Company K, 17th Infantry Regiment, 7th Infantry Division.

6.His AGO Form 0365, dated 16 June 1952, shows he was wounded in action inKorea on the same date.

7.Item 14 (Circumstances, Diagnosis, Remarks) of his AGO Form AGO Form 241A-1,dated 16 June 1952, shows he was struck in face and left leg on the same date bymortar fragments while in combat against the enemy at approximately 0400 to0500 hours in the vicinity of Tang-Wan-Ni, Korea.

8.He provided copies of:

a.a memorandum from the Commanding Officer, 17th Infantry Regiment, dated18 June 1952, which recommended him for award of the Silver Star. 

b.Headquarters, 7th Infantry Division General Orders Number 240, dated 19 June1952, which awarded him the Silver Star for gallantry in action and states: 

[Applicant], Infantry, United States Army, a member of Company K, 17th Infantry, distinguished himself by gallantry in action near Tang-Wan-Ni, Korea, on 16 June 1952 in an assault on enemy fortified positions.  As gunner on a light machine gun in a weapons squad, [Applicant] delivered a heavy volume of supporting fire from an exposed position despite intense enemy machine-gun and mortar fire directly on his position.  Though forced to move his gun several times, he continued to-support the assault and give covering fire to the assault elements of his platoon.  When his squad leader was wounded together with several other members of his squad, he assumed command and moved the squad even farther forward to a more exposed position in order to deliver neutralizing fire on an enemy machine gun sweeping the other assault platoon with deadly flanking fire.  When his machine gunner was mortally wounded he again took over the gun.  On order, he ordered his squad to withdraw and [he] voluntarily remained behind to help evacuate the wounded and dead.  Though wounded in the face, he heroically exposed himself by standing straight up in intense enemy machine-gun and mortar fire and attempted to evacuate the body of the company runner.  Forced to abandon the body, he aided a wounded man to be moved to the rear and safety through a huge volume of enemy mortar and artillery fire.  The gallantry displayed by [Applicant] reflects great credit on himself and is in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service.  Entered the Federal service from Ohio. 

9.His DA Form 639, dated 15 July 1952, shows in:

a.item 2 (Recommended Award) – he was recommended for award of the SilverStar. 

b.item 18 (Other U.S. Decorations Awarded Recommended Person) – included thefollowing entries: 

.Awards – None

.Race – Neg (Negroid)

.Component – AUS (Army of the United States)

.DOB – [redacted]

.Entered Service – Ohio



c.item 23 (List Persons Who Were in Immediate Proximity at Time of Act IncludingThose Who Assisted in the Act of Shared in the Same Hazards as the Person Recommended) – Full Name, Service Number, Grade, Unit: 



(1)S____, [redacted], CPT, Company K, 17th Infantry Regiment(2)S____, [redacted], PFC, Company K, 17th Infantry Regiment 

d.item 27 (Character and Conditions of Terrain and Weather) – "The terrain waspredominated by large hill masses (Hill 528) and several narrow valleys.  The weather was very misty and foggy limiting visibility somewhat." 

e.item 28 (Describe Enemy Conditions (Morale, proximity, Fire, Observation,Casualties and Action) What the Enemy was Doing and What They Did As a Result of Act) – "Enemy morale seemed to be excellent.  The enemy was located in bunkers and communications trenches on Hill 528 and neighboring hills (568, 717, and 640).  The enemy fire was close, heavy in volume and accurate.  Enemy observation was excellent as they could look down on friendly assaulting troops.  Enemy was defending Hill 528 in bunkers and trenches with small arms, automatic weapons, hand grenades and both close and long range mortar fire.  Enemy casualties for the action were 10 KIA [killed in action], 22 EST [estimated] KIA, 3 WIA [wounded in action] and 23 EST WIA." 

f.item 29 (Morale, Casualties and Mission of Own Unit, and What the Unit wasDoing at Time of Act) – "Friendly morale was very high at all times.  The mission of Company K was to raid Hill 528, destroy enemy bunkers and trenches, kill and capture enemy on the Hill.  Friendly casualties sustained were 6 KIA and 23 WIA." 

g.item 30 (Describe What the Person Recommended Did) – "On 16 June 1952,near Tank Wan Ni, N. [North] Korea, [Applicant], a member of Company K, 17th Infantry, distinguished himself by gallantry in action during an assault on enemy fortified positions on Hill 528.  As gunner on a light machine gun in a weapons squad, [Applicant] delivered a heavy volume of supporting fire from an exposed position, despite intense enemy machine gun and mortar fire directly on his position.  Though forced to move his gun several times, he continued to support the attack and give covering fire to the assault elements.  When his squad leader was wounded, he assumed command of the squad and moved even further forward to a more exposed position in order to deliver neutralizing fire on an enemy machine gun sweeping the other assault platoon with deadly (cont'd)" [continuation page not included] 

h.item 32 (Was Act Voluntary) – "[Applicant] delivered accurate and heavy fire onthe enemy while exposed to direct fire from the enemy weapons.  Although wounded himself, he demonstrated outstanding, forceful leadership in taking command of the squad after his squad leader was wounded.  He further aided in the evacuation of the wounded to a point of safety." 

i.item 33 (Describe the Effect or Result of Act) – "As a result of [Applicant's] heroicaction, the company returned with fewer casualties and greater damage was inflicted on the enemy." 



10.He provided statements from:a.Private First Class S____, dated 13 July 1952, who stated he saw the 

applicant distinguish himself by heroic action against the enemy near Tang-Wan-Ni, North Korea, on 16 June 1952, in an assault on enemy fortified positions.  As gunner on a light machine gun, the applicant moved forward to an exposed position in order to deliver supporting fire to the assault unit.  By deliberately exposing himself and with complete disregard for his own personal safety, he continued delivering effective fire even after having been wounded.  When his squad leader was wounded and evacuated, the applicant took over the command of the squad and directed the assault. Later, when the applicant received an order to withdraw, he remained behind administering first aid and assisting in the evacuation of the dead and wounded. b. Captain S____ III, dated 13 July 1952, who stated, "As gunner on a light machine gun in a weapons squad, [Applicant] was located on a exposed ridge approximately 100 yards from one heavily manned and fortified enemy positon and 250 yards from another.  I was within talking range of [Applicant] throughout the action and observed many of his actions.  [Applicant] brought close and accurate fire on the enemy bunkers despite intense enemy machine gun and mortar fire on his position.  When his squad leader was wounded, [Applicant] assumed command of the squad and moved them even closer to the enemy to deliver fire on an enemy machine gun sweeping the other assault platoon with accurate and flanking fire.  When his machine gunner was killed he again took over the gun until ordered to withdraw.  He was wounded while on the gun.  When ordered to withdraw he voluntarily remained behind to aid in the evacuation of the dead and wounded.  He continually exposed himself to the intense enemy fire and finally withdrew with a wounded comrade." 

11.The applicant also provided copies of the 1st Indorsement from the CommandingOfficer, Headquarters, Third Battalion, 17th Infantry, dated 18 July 1952, and the2d Indorsement, Commanding Officer, Headquarters, 17th Infantry Regiment, dated18 July 1952, wherein both commanding officers recommended approval for his awardof the Silver Star.

12.Headquarters, 17th Infantry Regiment, Command Report (declassified), datedJune 1952, contains a narrative of the tactical operations of the 17th Infantry Regimentduring the battle in June 1952 and describes troop actions of regimental elements onHill 528, including Company K on 16 June 1952.  This report shows, in part:

a.In the early morning hours of the 16 June 1952, Company K reinforced with oneplatoon of Company A, 73rd Tank Battalion, conducted a raid on Hill 528. 

b.Starting at 0435 hours, the friendly forces assaulted the bunkers and trenches onHill 528 under heavy small arms, automatic weapons, and mixed mortar and artillery fire, but were forced to withdraw slightly due to heavy casualties and murderous enemy automatic weapons fire.  All friendly elements reorganized and again assaulted their objective.   

c.At 0451 hours, because of the superior number of enemy encountered, estimatedto be three companies, and the depletion of their ammunition supply, the raiding force was ordered to withdraw.  The fire fight continued during the withdrawal, with the enemy pursuing with mortar and artillery fire. 

d.Extremely poor visibility due to fog and mist was a definite detriment to theoperation, in that it limited the fire of all support weapons.  The raiding party, company size, expected to encounter no more than 30 enemy, but on the approach brushed three listening posts which gave the alarm and alerted the enemy.  This accounts for the tremendous fire power and the increased strength of the enemy encountered. 

e.On 19 June 1952, seven Silver Stars were presented by Major General L____ tomembers of Company K for gallantry in action during the raid conducted on Hill 528 on 16 June 1952. 

f.The report also included a listing of the members of 5015th ASU (Army ServiceUnit), Camp Atterbury, Indiana, by race listed as "Other Than Negroid" and "Negroid."  The applicant's name is listed among others under the category "Negroid." 

13.His DD Form 230 (Service Record) – shows in:

a.Section 8 (Wounds Received Through Enemy Action) –"Mtr [mortar] frag[fragment] face and left leg" on 16 June 1952. 

b.Section 9 (Medals, Decorations, and Citations) – he was awarded or authorized:

.Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-1)

.Combat Infantryman Badge

.Purple Heart

.Silver Star

.Korean Service Medal with one bronze service star



c.Section 14 (Remarks) – he was awarded or authorized:

.United Nations Service Medal

.Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-1)

.Combat Infantryman Badge

.Purple Heart

.Silver Star

.Korean Service Medal with one bronze service star



d.Section 17 (Indorsements) – he was favorably considered for award of the ArmyGood Conduct Medal. 

14.His Standard Form 88, dated 21 February 1953, conducted for the purpose of hisseparation, shows in:

a.item 18 (Face, Neck and Scalp) and item 37 (Lower Extremities) – "Normal,"

b.Item 73 (Notes and Significant or Interval History) – "none,"

c.Item 74 (Summary of Defects and Diagnosis) – "none," and

d.Item 75 (Recommendations–Further Specialist Examination Indicated) – "none."

15.On 26 February 1953, the applicant was honorably released from active duty.  HisDD Form 214 shows he completed 1 year, 9 months, and 5 days of net service; he had11 months and 29 days of foreign and/or sea service; and he had no lost time.  HisDD Form 214 also shows he was awarded or authorized the following:

.United Nations Service Medal

.Combat Infantryman Badge

.Purple Heart

.Korean Service Medal with one bronze service star

.Silver Star



16.He provided copies of:

a.a letter from the Military Awards Branch, U.S. Army Total Army Personnel

Command, dated 28 June 1995, to Ms. B____, which advised her of the requirements for upgrading the applicant's award of the Silver Star to the Medal of Honor.  She was advised the fact the applicant could not be considered at the time for award of the Medal of Honor in no way detracted from his courageous and meritorious service to the Army and our Nation during the Korean War and: (1) To qualify for an award of the Medal of Honor for actions during the Korean War, several requirements had to be met.  A Soldier had to distinguish himself 














conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States.  Even when those requirements were met, awards of the Medal of Honor were not automatically considered nor approved.  Someone having knowledge of the Soldier's deeds had to formally submit a fully-documented recommendation for the award into military channels by August 1956 and must have been approved by the President by August 1957. (2) The only exception to this time limit for which the law provides is when it can be conclusively established that a recommendation was submitted in a timely manner and when no award was made, either due to loss of the recommendation or through inadvertence.  Unfortunately, this exception did not apply to the applicant's case because he was properly considered for recognition by his commanders and he was awarded the Silver Star for heroism. (3) There was no evidence in official records indicating the applicant was recommended for the Medal of Honor or that such a recommendation was not processed to a conclusion.  Without such evidence there is no legal or administrative basis for which the applicant could now be considered for the Medal of Honor. (4) The Army took allegations of prejudice seriously.  The Department of the Army was not aware of any improprieties or wrongdoing during the Korean War concerning awards of the Medal of Honor to African American Soldiers. (5) Additionally, recommendations for awards are prepared by persons who have personal knowledge of a Soldier's performance and accomplishments.  The decision to recommend a Soldier for an award and the decision as to which award is appropriate are both subjective decisions made by Army field commanders.  Trust is placed in commanders to make these decisions because they have first-hand knowledge of the deeds that were performed on the battlefield. (6) Further, the Department of the Army does not reconsider approved awards which were based upon recommendations that were prepared, submitted, and processed to a conclusion by those legally empowered to act in finality. (7) If it was believed a formal injustice had occurred, an application on behalf of the applicant could be submitted to the ABCMR and this option did not mean that the applicant would be favorably considered as each application was evaluated on its own merit and the burden of proof of error or injustice rests with the applicant.   b. a letter, with attachments, from Mr. T____ to the NAACP Hollywood Bureau, undated, supporting the applicant's nomination for an NAACP Image Award for the Class of 2002.   

















c. an excerpt from an undated comic book "Heroic" depicting the story of a battle on Hill 528, wherein the applicant is mentioned by name. d. an honorary declaration by the General Assembly of the State of Ohio, dated 2002, wherein the applicant was inducted into the Ohio Military Hall of Fame. e. a letter, dated 3 September 2003, from the Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, in which two members of Congress congratulated him for being a recipient of the 2003 Congressional Black Caucus Veterans' Braintrust Award. f. a letter from Army Review Boards Agency, dated 27 November 2006, wherein he was advised of Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1130, and to submit a DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award) signed by someone with personal knowledge of the circumstances for his award of the Medal of Honor.  He was also advised to include a narrative of the actions or period for which he was requesting recognition with the DA Form 638 with supporting documents in the form of sworn affidavits, eyewitness statements, certificates, and related documents.  He was further advised the law required that a request for an award not previously submitted in a timely fashion would only be considered under this provision of law was with a referral from a member of Congress. g. a letter from the Awards and Decorations Branch, U.S. Army Human Resources Command, dated 4 September 2018, in response to a Congressional inquiry on behalf of the applicant for award of the Medal of Honor.  His member of Congress was advised:  (1) This office remained unable to forward the applicant's reconsideration request for an upgrade of his Silver Star to the Medal of Honor to the Army Decorations Board. (2) Per prior correspondence, dated 8 February 2012, a request for award reconsideration was contingent upon the presentation of new, substantive, and material information; such information had to be submitted in the form of a letter of justification. (3) In order to properly assess the merits of this case, this office still had to review the original award recommendation, declassified unit reports, and similar documents concerning the applicant's actions. h. a letter from F____, Jr., dated 1 February 2019, in which he requested the assistance of the President in the applicant's request for an upgrade of his Silver Star to the Medal of Honor. 







i. a letter from B____, dated 18 April 2019, to a member of the U.S. House of Representatives requesting a further review the applicant's request for the Medal of Honor.  He stated a careful examination of the declassified battle reports of the 17th Infantry Regiment show that verbiage from this report was omitted from the citation of the action description and resulted in award of the Silver Star. j. a letter, dated 18 June 2019, from a member of the U.S. House of Representatives requesting the Acting Secretary of Defense to reconsider and review the applicant's request for an upgrade of his Silver Star to the Medal of Honor. 17. His records are void of a commander's disqualification for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal (First Award) for the period 22 May 1951 to 26 February 1953.BOARD DISCUSSION: 



1.After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found thatpartial relief is warranted.2.The Board found the evidence inconclusive with regard to any role racial bias mayhave played in the applicant being recommended for a Silver Star instead of a higheraward such as the Distinguished Service Cross or the Medal of Honor.  The Board didagree, however, that the heroic actions described in the record warrant consideration foran upgrade of the applicant's Silver Star to a higher award.  The Board concluded thatthe applicant risked his life to an extraordinary degree when, after being woundedmanning a machine gun in place of his deceased gunner, instead of withdrawing with hismen, he remained behind to aid in evacuating the dead and wounded while continuallyexposing himself to intense enemy fire.  The Board determined that the applicant'srecord supports a recommendation to forward the applicant's records to the appropriaterepresentative of the Office of the Secretary of the Army for review by the Senior ArmyDecorations Board to determine if the evidence supports an upgrade to theDistinguished Service Cross or the Medal of Honor.

2.The Board agreed that the applicant's service met the criteria for award of the ArmyGood Conduct Medal and determined he should be issued this award and that it shouldbe added to his DD Form 214.  The Board concurred with the correction noted inAdministrative Note(s) below.








BOARD VOTE: 

Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 

: : : GRANT FULL RELIEF 

:XXX :XXX :XX GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

: : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING 

: : : DENY APPLICATION 


BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 







The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that, in addition to the correction described in Administrative Note(s) below, all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a.awarding him the Army Good Conduct Medal for the period 22 May 1951 to26 February 1953 and adding this award to his DD Form 214. b.referring his record to the appropriate representative ofthe Office of the Secretaryof the Army for review by the Senior Army Decorations Board to determine if the evidencesupports an upgrade of his award of the Silver Starto the Distinguished Service Cross or the Medal of Honor.   2.The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant aportion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much ofthe application that pertains to any relief in excess of that described above.

X 

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):  He was awarded or authorized the Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-1) which is not listed on his DD Form 214. 


REFERENCES: 

1.Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction ofmilitary records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error orinjustice.  This provision of law also allows the ABCMR to excuse an applicant's failureto timely file within the 3 year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would bein the interest of justice to do so.

2.Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes Department of the Armypolicy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning individual and unit militaryawards.

a.The Medal of Honor is awarded by the President in the name of Congress to aperson who while a member of the Army distinguishes himself or herself conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his or her life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States.  The regulation provides that the deed performed must have been one of personal bravery or self-sacrifice so conspicuous as to clearly distinguish the individual above his comrades and must have involved the risk of life.  Further, the regulation requires that “incontestable proof” of the performance of the service will be exacted and each recommendation for this decoration will be considered on the standard of extraordinary merit. 

b.The Distinguished Service Cross is awarded to a person, who while serving inany capacity with the Army, distinguishes himself or herself by extraordinary heroism while engaged in action against an enemy of the United States not justifying award of the Medal of Honor.  The act or acts of heroism must have been so notable and have involved risk of life so extraordinary as to set the individual apart from his or her comrades.   

c.The Silver Star is awarded for gallantry in action against the enemy.  Therequired gallantry (spirited and conspicuous acts of heroism and courage) must have been performed with marked distinction.  As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required. 

d.The Army Good Conduct Medal was awarded for each 3 years of continuousenlisted active Federal military service completed on or after 27 August 1940; for the first award only, 1 year served entirely during the period 7 December 1941 to 2 March 
1946; and, for the first award only, upon termination of service on or after 27 June 1950 of less than 3 years but more than 1 year.  However, there was no right or entitlement to the medal until the immediate commander made a positive recommendation for its award and until the awarding authority announced the award in general orders. 
 
 e.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1130, Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1130, provides the legal authority for consideration of proposals for decorations not previously submitted in a timely fashion.  Upon the request of a Member of Congress, the Secretary concerned shall review a proposal for the award of or upgrading of a decoration.  Based upon such review, the Secretary shall determine the merits of approving the award. 
 
  (1)  All requests that are not processed within time limitations and/or theater are considered retroactive, and must be processed through the chain of command which was in effect at the time of the service or achievement to be recognized.  All 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 an individual is not available, the recommender must provide documentation, such as a memorandum of record, emails, or letters verifying they have taken all reasonable steps to locate the individual. 
 
  (2)  Award recommendations submitted under the provisions outlined in this appendix are governed by this regulation in the same fashion as any timely submission. In particular, the requirements in paragraph 3-5 must be met for consideration under Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1130. 
 
 f.  Paragraph 3-5 (Who May Recommend) states: 
 
  (1)  The Army does not allow self-recognition (including spouses or other family members); therefore, a Soldier may not recommend himself or herself for award of a decoration. 
 
  (2)  The recommending official must have first-hand personal knowledge of the event, or have been senior in grade at the time of the action(s) or service, to the individual being recommended for an award.  Additionally, the recommending official must have knowledge of all the action(s) or service cited.  That is, the recommending official must have either observed the actions or been provided information by an individual who observed the actions. 
 
  (3)  Recommending officials who did not personally witness the action must have been associated, by virtue of their position in the command, with the incident and/or the 
individual being recommended for the award.  If the recommending official is not the commanding officer, the commander, if available, must endorse the recommendation.  If it is no longer possible to route the recommendation through the commander (for example, the commander is deceased), a signed statement to the effect must be included.  In this case, another officer who has knowledge of the action(s), and who was senior in the chain of command of the individual being recommended during the period for which recognition is desired, may endorse the recommendation. 
 
  (4)  Recommendations for the award of Army decorations to members of another Service branch will be submitted by Army personnel only. 
 
3.  The National Defense Authorization Act of 2017, section 586, referenced Title 10, U.S. Code, section 3741 (Review Regarding Award of the Medal of Honor to Certain Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander War Veterans) and directed the Secretary of each military department to review the service records of each Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander war veteran who were awarded the Distinguished-Service Cross, the Navy Cross, or the Air Force Cross during the Korean War or the Vietnam War.   
 
 a.  If the Secretary concerned determined, based upon the review of the service records of any Asian American or Native American Pacific Islander war veteran, that the award of the Medal of Honor to that veteran was warranted, the Secretary was to submit to the President a recommendation that the President award the Medal of Honor to that veteran.   
 
 b.  No Medal of Honor could be awarded until the Secretary of Defense submitted to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives notice of the recommendations, including the name of each Asian American or Native American Pacific Islander war veteran recommended to be awarded a Medal of Honor and the rationale for such recommendation.   
 
 c.  A waiver of time limitations was granted under this provision of law for an award of the Medal of Honor for which a Distinguished-Service Cross, Navy Cross, or Air Force Cross had been awarded.  
 
 d.  The term "Native American Pacific Islander'' means a Native Hawaiian or Native American Pacific Islander, as those terms are defined in section 815 of the Native American Programs Act of 1974 (Title 42, U.S. Code, section 2992c). 
 
//NOTHING FOLLOWS//