MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:.

	BOARD DATE:           04 November 1998                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-11204

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

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr. William Blakely		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. James E. Vick		Chairperson	
	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Member	
	Mr. Thomas N. Kuhn		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

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

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That he be awarded the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was assigned to Germany from September 1961 through December 1963 during the “Berlin Wall Crisis.”  He states that his service in Germany qualifies for the AFEM-Berlin 14 August 1961 to 1 June 1963. 

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

The applicant entered the Army on 11 January 1961 for a period of 3 years.  He was awarded military occupational specialty 551.10 (General Warehouseman).
His highest rank attained was private first class (E-3).

He was assigned to the 552nd Quartermaster Supply Depot Idar Oberstein, Germany from 10 September 1961 to 27 December 1963. 

On 28 December 1963 the applicant was honorably released from active duty and transferred to the USAR.  He had served 2 years, 11 months, and 18 days of total active service.

Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides, in pertinent part, for award of the AFEM for qualifying service after 1 July 1958 in U.S. military operations, U.S. operations in direct support of the United Nations, and U.S. operations of assistance for friendly foreign nations.  Qualifying service for this award includes the requirements to be a bona fide member in a unit and to be engaged in the operation or serve in the area of operations for 30 days, be engaged in direct support of the operation for 30 consecutive or 60 nonconsecutive days, provided support involves entering the area of operations, be engaged in combat, participate as a member of an aircraft flying in support of the operation, or be recommended or attached to a unit recommended for award of the medal if the above criteria have not been met.  The designated military operations and dates of eligibility for this award are specified in the regulation and include Berlin from 14 August 1961 to 1 June 1963.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  While the applicant did serve in Germany he was never assigned or attached to a unit serving in Berlin at any time during which the AFEM was awarded and, therefore, is not eligible for the award.

2.  The applicant’s assignment to the 552nd Quartermaster Supply Depot Idar Oberstein, Germany from 10 September 1961 to 10 December 1963 does not entitle him to the AFEM in accordance with regulatory guidance. 

3.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___JEV__  ___LLS__  __TNK___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director