PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           18 February 1999                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-11136
				   AR1998013124

	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	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Thomas N. Kuhn		Chairperson	
	Mr. John P. Infante		Member	
	Mr. James P. Steuve		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 that the two documents referring to his disqualification for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM) now on the performance fiche of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) be removed.

3.  The applicant states that after his commander considered his rebuttal to the disqualification letter, he was awarded the AGCM.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 16 November 1990.  On 15 November 1993, he would have been eligible for award of the AGCM.

5.  On 11 February 1994, the applicant’s commander notified him that it was his intention to disqualify him for award of the AGCM because he was suspected of committing a criminal act.  The applicant provided a rebuttal statement.

6.  For some reason, the applicant’s commander signed two different second endorsements to the initial notification – one that the disqualification stands and one that the disqualification was withdrawn and he should be awarded the AGCM.

7.  The applicant was awarded the AGCM on orders dated 14 April 1994.

8.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Military Awards Branch, U. S. Total Army Personnel Command.  The opinion noted that the AGCM is awarded on a selective basis to soldiers who distinguish themselves from among their fellow soldiers by their exemplary conduct, efficiency and fidelity throughout a specified period of continuous enlisted active military service.  The soldier’s immediate commander must evaluate the soldier’s character as above reproach.  When the commander determines a soldier is disqualified for award of the AGCM, he will prepare a statement of the rationale for his decision and refer it to the soldier for comment.  After considering the affected soldier’s statement, the commander may either award the AGCM or disqualify him for the award.  In cases of disqualification, the commander will forward his statement of rationale, the individual’s statement and his decision statement to the custodian of the soldier’s Military Personnel Records Jacket, who will in turn forward these documents for permanent filing in the soldier’s OMPF.  The opinion noted that there was no information of a derogatory nature filed on his OMPF which would have disqualified him for his first award of the AGCM.  The commander’s 11 February 1994 rationale statement and the applicant’s rebuttal statement are filed on his OMPF (frames E2 and E3, 

disciplinary section) but they are not authorized for filing since the commander’s 
decision statement (to disqualify the soldier for award of the AGCM) is not also filed.  The applicant was awarded the AGCM on orders published 14 February 1994.  The opinion recommended approval of the applicant’s request.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s commander initially notified him he was disqualified for award of the AGCM.  The applicant rebutted this notice of disqualification.  The commander had actually signed two different follow-up endorsements – one stating the disqualification stood and one stating it was withdrawn.  The withdrawal statement was the correct final action as the applicant was soon thereafter awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal.

2.  The commander’s initial notification of disqualification and the applicant’s rebuttal statement were erroneously filed on the performance fiche, disciplinary section, of the applicant’s OMPF.

3.  In view of the foregoing, it would be in the interest of justice to correct the applicant’s records as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

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

     a.  removing from the applicant’s performance fiche, disciplinary section, frames E2 and E3, the commander’s notice of disqualification for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal dated 11 February 1994 and the applicant’s rebuttal to that notice; 

     b.  in accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 21e, following completion of the administrative corrections directed herein, the proceedings of the Board and all documents related to this appeal will be returned to the Board for permanent filing; and 

    c.  providing the applicant a copy of his OMPF after the aforesaid corrections have been made.

BOARD VOTE:  

__TNK___  __JPI___  __JPS___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

			Thomas N. Kuhn
		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-11136/AR1998013124	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990218	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(GRANT)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	134.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.