PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:        24 November 1998      
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-11928

	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	
	Mr. Kenneth Aucock		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Member	
	Mr. Robert W. Garrett		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 award of the Good Conduct Medal and the Legion of Merit. 

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that he received the Good Conduct Medal but it is not listed on his separation document.  He states that while in North Africa he had occasion to read his files and noted that he was recommended for award of the Legion of Merit at the battle of Gafsa in North Africa; however, because of the preparations for the invasion of Sicily, all the moves required, and the changes in officer personnel the recommendation was never completed.  At the time of this recommendation his unit was known as Company D, 51st Medical Battalion and attached to the 1st Infantry Division.  The applicant attaches a letter to him from a former comrade, in which that individual states that he recalled reading a news bulletin that the applicant had been recommended for the Legion of Merit for exemplary conduct and meritorious achievement under combat conditions.  The applicant also provides a copy of an organizational history of the 51st Medical Battalion, in which he notes that the battalion received two letters of commendation from the II Corps commanding general, which supports his claim of the Legion of Merit recommendation.  That organizational history does show that the battalion was reorganized in May 1944 and Company D was redesignated the 890th Clearing Company.

4.  The applicant states that neither the fire at St. Louis nor the error made by the clerk at Fort Dix [at the time of his discharge] was his fault, and he should not suffer the injustice.

5.  The applicant’s military records may have been lost or destroyed in the National Personnel Records Center fire of 1973.  Information herein was obtained from alternate sources.

6.  The applicant entered the Army on 15 March 1941, served in the European Theater of Operations during World War II, arriving in Europe on 18 August 1942 and departing on 18 June 1945.  On 31 May 1945 an order was published transferring the applicant from his unit, the 890th Clearing Company, to the 
27th Replacement Depot for transshipment to the United States with a reporting date of 2 June 1945. 

7.   The applicant was discharged on 1 July 1945 at Fort Dix, New Jersey with the rank of Sergeant.  His Honorable Discharge form (WD AGO Form 53-55) shows that he served in seven campaigns, in North Africa, Sicily, and Italy, and that he was awarded the European African Middle Eastern Campaign Medal with one silver service star and two bronze service stars; and the American Defense Service Medal.

8.  On 6 June 1984 the Reserve Center at St. Louis requested that the support activity in Philadelphia issue the applicant the aforementioned awards and also issue him the American Campaign Medal and the World War II Victory Medal, in addition to the Honorable Service Lapel Button which was noted on his discharge document.

9.  The applicant’s records fail to show that he was awarded the American Campaign Medal or the World War II Victory Medal.  It also fails to show award of the Good Conduct Medal.  The available records do not indicate an award nor a recommendation for an award of the Legion of Merit.

10.  DA Pamphlet 672-1 is a register of unit citation and campaign participation credit.  That pamphlet shows that the 51st Medical Battalion participated in an assault landing in Gela and Scoglitti, Sicily from 9-11 July 1943.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides for the award of the bronze arrowhead to units of the Army who, in the combat zone of a battle participates in the assault waves of an amphibious landing on enemy-held territory.   Paragraph 6-8 of that regulation states that the arrowhead denotes participation in an assault landing while assigned or attached as a member of an organized forces carrying out an assigned tactical mission.  Individual assault credit is tied directly to the combat assault credit decision for the unit to which the soldier is attached or assigned at the time of the assault.  It is worn on the service and suspension ribbons of the European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal, among others.

11.  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. 

12.  The Legion of Merit is awarded to a soldier who has distinguished himself by exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding services and achievements.  The performance must have been such as to merit recognition of key individuals for service rendered in a clearly exceptional manner.  

13.  Paragraph 1-14 of the aforementioned regulation states that, except for lost recommendations, each recommendation for an award of a military decoration must be entered administratively into military channels within 2 years of the act, achievement, or service to be honored.  Paragraph 1-15 states, in effect, that the Secretary of the Army may determine that a statement setting forth the distinguished act, achievement, or service and that a recommendation was made and supported by sufficient evidence within 2 years after the distinguished service, and that no award was made because the statement was lost, or through inadvertence the recommendation was not acted upon.  There must be conclusive evidence of the formal submission of the recommendation into military channels, conclusive evidence of the loss of the recommendation or the failure to act on the recommendation through inadvertence, and there must be a copy of the original recommendation or its equivalent.          

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Notwithstanding the applicant’s contentions and that of his former comrade, there is no evidence that he was awarded the Legion of Merit, nor any evidence that he was recommended for that award.  The Board recognizes that the fire in St. Louis may have destroyed his records; however, without conclusive evidence of the existence of a recommendation, and its submission through channels, there is no justification for granting the award of the Legion of Merit.   

2.  The applicant participated in an assault landing with his unit in Sicily.  He should be awarded the bronze arrowhead.

3.  The applicant had over 4 years of honorable and faithful service during a perilous time in our country’s history.  He should be awarded the Good Conduct Medal and that award should be reflected on his separation document.

4.  The applicant was awarded the American Campaign Medal and the World War II Victory Medal.  Those awards should be shown on his separation document.

5.  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 by showing that the individual concerned was awarded the Good Conduct Medal for the period 15 March 1941 to 1 July 1945, the bronze arrowhead for his participation in an assault landing in Sicily, the American Campaign Medal, and the World War II Victory Medal.

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied. 

BOARD VOTE:  

__gdp___  __cla___  ____rwg_  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.