PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:            9 December 1998
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-12006

	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. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. June Hajjar		Chairperson	
	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Member	
	Mr. Thomas B. Redfern, III		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 DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show award of the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (AFEM), the Army Achievement Medal (AAM) and the Driver Badge for wheeled vehicles (Driver-W Badge).  He also requests award of the Good Conduct Medal and that item 28 (Narrative Reason For Separation) of his DD Form 214 be changed to “Unsatisfactory Performance APFT” [Army Physical Fitness Test].

3.  The applicant states that, in effect, he got out of the Army while his commander was in Croatia and he was unable to get a memorandum for the Good Conduct Medal.     

4.  The applicant’s military records show he entered active duty on 12 October 1994, trained as a man portable air defense crewmember and served in Southwest Asia.  On 22 January 1997, he was separated with an honorable discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.

5.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 does not show the AFEM, the AAM, the
Driver-W Badge or the Good Conduct Medal as authorized awards.

6.  The applicant provided a copy of a memorandum from TF 6-52D Air Defense Artillery, dated 30 June 1996, which shows he is authorized to wear the AFEM for service in Southwest Asia from 25 February 1996 to 25 June 1996.

7.  The applicant provided a copy of an award certificate, dated 15 June 1996, which awards him the AAM for meritorious achievement while deployed to Southwest Asia.

8.  The applicant provided a copy of 6th Battalion, 52D Air Defense Artillery Permanent Orders 8-1, dated 22 June 1996, which awards him the Driver-W Badge for the period 1 March 1995 to 1 March 1996.

9.  There is no evidence in the applicant’s personnel record that he was recommended for or awarded the Good Conduct Medal.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 shows he was released from active duty for unsatisfactory performance. 

10.  Evidence of record shows the applicant was released from active duty prior to completion of his enlistment.  However, there is no evidence of discharge processing documents in the applicant’s personnel records which specify the specific reason for his unsatisfactory performance.   Item 26 (Separation Code) of the applicant’s DD Form 214 shows “LHJ”.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator Codes) states the reason for discharge based on separation code “LHJ” is “Unsatisfactory Performance” and the regulatory authority is “Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13”.

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.  Although there is no automatic entitlement to the Good Conduct Medal, disqualification must be justified.  

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 of this regulation, in effect at the time, provides for separation due to unsatisfactory performance including failure of the APFT, when in the commander’s judgment the individual will not become a satisfactory soldier; retention will have an adverse impact on military discipline, good order and morale; the service member will be a disruptive influence in the future; the basis for separation will continue or recur; and/or the ability of the service member to perform effectively in the future, including potential for advancement or leadership, is unlikely.  Service of soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance under this regulation will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions.

13.  Army Regulation 635-5 establishes the standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214.  In pertinent part, it directs that the regulatory authority authorizing the separation will be entered in item number 
25 of the DD Form 214.  Item number 28 will contain the narrative reason for separation, as shown in Army Regulation 635-5-1 based on the regulatory authority.

14.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator Codes) prescribes the specific authorities (regulatory, statutory, or other directives), the reasons for the separation of members from active military service, and the separation program designators to be used for these stated reasons.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant was awarded the AFEM, the AAM and the Driver-W Badge; therefore, he is entitled to correction of his DD Form 214 to show these awards. 

2.  There is no evidence of record available to the Board, and the applicant has provided no evidence, which shows he was recommended for or awarded the Good Conduct Medal.  Evidence of record does show he was separated for unsatisfactory performance.  Therefore, the Board concludes the applicant does not meet the qualifications for award of the Good Conduct Medal.      

3.  There is no evidence of record, and the applicant has provided no evidence, which shows the specific nature of his unsatisfactory performance leading to his discharge.  Additionally, Army Regulation 635-5-1 does not provide for the entry “Unsatisfactory Performance APFT” requested by the applicant.  Based on the foregoing, there are no bases for changing the narrative reason for discharge on the applicant’s discharge document.

4.  In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s records, but only 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 AFEM, the AAM and the Driver-W Badge.

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

BOARD VOTE:  

JH______  FNE_____  TBR____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-12006/AR1998012207	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19981209	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(GRANT)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	107.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.