PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:         16 December 1998                    
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-08470
			              AR1998012131

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Ms. Deborah L. Brantley		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Ernest M. Willcher		Chairperson	
	Ms. Lana E. McGlynn		Member	
	Ms. Carol J Suiter 		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests correction of his military records to reflect entitlement to the Humanitarian Service Medal, the Army Good Conduct Medal and an Army Achievement Medal.  He states he should have been awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal based on three years of honorable service between January 1980 and January 1983 and because his General Discharge was ultimately upgraded to Honorable.  He also notes that item 9 (awards and decorations) on his copy of his DA Form 2-1 (personnel qualification record) reflects the entry “HSM.”  He states, in effect, that the Army Achievement Medal was omitted from his separation document.

3.  Records available to the Board indicate the applicant entered active duty on 
21 January 1980.  He successfully completed basic and advanced individual training and was assigned to Fort Sill, Oklahoma prior to being reassigned to Germany in November 1982.  

4.  On 23 June 1983 the applicant was punished under Article 15 of the UCMJ for possession of an unauthorized “tin can smoking device.”  His punishment included reduction to pay grade E-4, extra duty and forfeiture.  As a result of the drug related incident the applicant was ultimately processed for administrative separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9 (drug abuse-rehabilitation failure).  He was issued a General Discharge on 
12 September 1983.

5.  Prior to the possession charge the applicant’s military personnel file indicated he was an outstanding soldier who had received numerous certificates of achievement/appreciation, that he had been promoted to pay grade E-5 and received a 124.5 evaluation score (out of a possible 125) on a December 1982 performance evaluation report.  He was awarded an Army Achievement Medal for the period 22 February through 24 February 1982 for his meritorious achievement during a technical validation inspection.  His award of the Army Achievement Medal was omitted from his DA Form 214.

6.  In December 1996 the Army Discharge Review Board upgraded the applicant’s discharge to honorable and changed the basis of his separation to Secretarial Authority.  The Discharge Review Board concluded there were some discrepancies in the applicant’s administrative separation process and that the discharge proceedings contained limited use information.

7.  The original copy of the applicant’s DA Form 2-1 (personnel qualification record), contained in his military personnel file, has the “HSM” entry in item 9 (awards and decoration) line out, although the entry was not lined out on the copy of the form submitted by the applicant with his application.  The applicant’s file contains no information that indicates he participated in any Department of Defense approved humanitarian service project during his period of active duty.

8.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides that the Good Conduct Medal is awarded to individuals who distinguish themselves by their conduct, efficiency and fidelity during a qualifying period of active duty enlisted service.  This period is 3 years except in those cases when the period for the first award ends with the termination of a period of Federal military service.  Although there is no automatic entitlement to the Good Conduct Medal, disqualification must be justified.  Current practice requires that the commander provide written notice of non-favorable consideration and permits the individual to respond.  There is no evidence in the applicant's official military personnel file that his commander ever disqualified him for award of the Good Conduct Medal.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence confirms the applicant was awarded an Army Achievement Medal for the period 22 through 24 February 1982, which was omitted from his separation document.

2.  There is no evidence, however, that the applicant participated in a Department of Defense approved humanitarian service project and as such there is no basis to award him the Humanitarian Service Medal.  It is likely that the “HSM” entry on his DA Form 2-1 was done in error and lined out after the applicant was provided a copy of the form.

3.  The applicant’s record contains no evidence that he was ever disqualified from award of the Army Good Conduct Medal.  In view of the fact that the applicant’s first 3 years of service (800121-830120) were without blemish and that his unit commander never took action, in accordance with established policies, to disqualify him from the award it would be appropriate to award the applicant the Army Good Conduct Medal for he period 21 January 1980 through 20 January 1983.  This is particularly appropriate considering the applicant’s character of service was ultimately upgraded to honorable.

4.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected:

	a.  by showing that the individual concerned was awarded the Army Achievement Medal for the period 22 through 24 February 1982; and

	b.  by awarding him the Army Good Conduct Medal for the period              21 January 1980 through 20 January 1983.
2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied 

BOARD VOTE:  

__emw__  __lem___  __cjs___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AC	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	YYYYMMDD	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.