DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 7532-18 Ref: Signature date Dear This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Consequently, your application has been denied. Although your application was not filed in a timely manner, the Board found it in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations and consider your application on its merits. A three- member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 July 2019. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions of your naval record, applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, as well as the 11 March 2019 advisory opinion (AO). Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal appearance with or without counsel will not materially add to its understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. On 22 December 1966, while serving in as a squad leader with your squad came under intense automatic weapons and mortar fire. You were wounded twice during a battle against the After you were released from the hospital, you returned to your company. On 24 January 1967, you were wounded a third time and sent to for rehabilitation, did not return to and you were discharged from the Marine Corps shortly thereafter. Based on these actions, your platoon commander recommended you for the Silver Star, but the recommendation was never acted upon and possibly was lost. In 2004, your former platoon commander nominated you for the Silver Star, and recommended that a Navy Cross be considered as well. Three months later, the platoon commander rewrote the award recommendation, included information about an additional act of heroism, and again recommended a Navy Cross be awarded. Two years later, your representative wrote to Headquarters Marine Corps and recommended a Medal of Honor. Several months thereafter, Congresswoman introduced legislation into Congress to award you the Medal of Honor. The Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) ultimately awarded you the Silver Star. In 2007, Congresswoman appealed to SECNAV, asking that the Silver Star be upgraded to the Medal of Honor on the basis that certain details had not been included in the Silver Star citation and possibly were not known at the time of the nomination. SECNAV declined, stating that the citation was an output of the awards process, not the basis of the award. In January 2008, Representative forwarded a new Medal of Honor nomination to SECNAV containing additional witness statements. SECNAV determined that the new statements did not add substantively to the facts that had been known when the Silver Star was approved. SECNAV disapproved the new Medal of Honor nomination. Since 2009, the Department of Navy received numerous requests to reconsider the case. In every instance, the Department of Navy has determined the information submitted did not constitute new, substantive and relevant material evidence. In your petition to the Board, you request an upgrade of your Silver Star to the Medal of Honor. You contend that Headquarters Marine Corps did not review and empanel your request in good faith, and note that upgrade efforts have been ongoing for approximately 10 years. You also note that the Inspector General has investigated alleged inappropriate behavior by the head of the awards branch with allegations that Headquarters Marine Corps failed to provide an appropriate review of the upgrade recommendations. Your application notes that two previous Joint Chiefs of Staff have both opined that the Silver Star was not the appropriate level of recognition. Your post-service achievements and accomplishments were also provided with your application for the Board’s consideration. As part of the review process, the Counsel of Review Boards reviewed your assertions and the available records, and provided the Board with an AO on 11 March 2019. The AO concluded that you did not provide new, substantive and relevant material that was not available at the time of the original review, nor did you establish evidence of material error or impropriety in the award decision. The AO was mailed to you on 14 March 2019, and you were given 30 days in which to submit a response. When you did not provide a response within the 30-day timeframe, your case was submitted to the Board for consideration. The Board carefully reviewed your application and noted your contentions of improper review at the Headquarters Marine Corps level, the assertion that your actions merited a Medal of Honor, your impressive post-service achievements, and the considerable support for an upgrade to your award. Even taking into consideration the significant and valuable contributions you made, and your heroic actions, the Board concurred with the findings of the AO. The Board determined that, even taking into consideration the allegations of impropriety at the Headquarters Marine Corps level, that SECNAV’s award of the Silver Star, and the appeal and subsequent review of that award in 2007, were executed without error or injustice. The Board found that absent new, substantive and relevant material that was not available at the time of the original review, or without evidence of material error or injustice, the Board did not have a sufficient basis to change SECNAV’s decision to award the Silver Star. It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon the submission of new matters, which will require you to complete and submit a new DD Form 149. New matters are those not previously presented to or considered by the Board. In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official records. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.