MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:        14 October 1998       
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-10584

	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. Kenneth Aucock		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ernest M. Willcher		Member	
	Mr. Robert W. Garrett		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 the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file.

	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:  In effect, the applicant requests award of the Army Service Ribbon; the Overseas Service Ribbon; the Good Conduct Medal; the Expert Qualification Badges with machine gun bar, rifle bar, and grenade launcher bar; the Aircraft Crewman Badge, and the Bronze Star Medal.

He states that he was not issued these awards [which he earned].  A lieutenant was supposed to have recommended him from the Bronze Star Medal in late 1968.  The Army Service Ribbon is issued after basic training.  He didn’t receive one.  The Overseas Service Ribbon is issued after overseas duty, and he didn’t receive one.  He did not receive the Good Conduct Medal, even after three years of service.   

PURPOSE:  To determine whether the application was submitted within the time limit established by law, and if not, whether it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

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

The applicant enlisted in the Army for three years on 30 September 1966.  On 
28 November 1966 he received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, for stealing a locket from a fellow soldier.  On 21 February 1967 he received nonjudicial punishment for disobeying orders from two NCOs.  On 4 August 1967 he received nonjudicial punishment for being absent from his place of duty.

The applicant was discharged on 22 April 1969 in the rank of Specialist Four E-4 at Fort Benning, Georgia, for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.  He had 
2 years, 6 months, and 23 days of service, and one year of service in Vietnam.  His DD Form 214 shows award of the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal, the Vietnam Campaign Medal, and two awards of the Air Medal.  His specialty on his DD Form 214 is shown as 71B30, clerk typist.  The applicant reenlisted for six years on 23 April 1969.

The applicant had four AWOL periods after his reenlistment, beginning in 
August 1969 and ending in February 1972 totaling 824 days.

On 29 March 1972 the applicant consulted with counsel and requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He stated that he understood the nature and consequences of the under other than honorable discharge that he might receive.  On 5 April 1972 the separation authority approved his request and directed that the applicant be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  He was discharged at Fort Knox, Kentucky on 
11 April 1972.  He had 3 years, 8 months, and 10 days of service, and 824 days of lost time.

On 19 April 1974 the Army Discharge Review Board notified the applicant that his request to upgrade his discharge had been denied.

On 6 January 1978 the Army Discharge Review Board under the provisions of the Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP), upgraded his discharge to “under honorable conditions” (general).  On 5 September 1978 the ADRB, in an unanimous opinion, did not affirm his SDRP upgraded discharge. 

On 16 May 1979 the Army Board for Correction of Military Records directed that the applicant’s records be corrected to show that he was eligible for a complete and unconditional separation from the military service at the time of his honorable discharge on 22 April 1969.

The applicant’s records fail to show orders, documents, or other papers showing weapons qualification.  Nor does his records contain evidence that he was awarded the Aircraft Crewman Badge (the “aviation wings with clusters” he cites in his application), or the Bronze Star Medal, or that he was recommended for those awards.  The record fails to show award of the Good Conduct Medal or a recommendation for that award. 

Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, that the Bronze Star Medal is awarded for heroism and for meritorious achievement or service in military
operations against an armed enemy.  The primary requirement for award of this, or any decoration, is that a formal recommendation must be prepared and administratively entered into official military channels by someone having witnessed or with knowledge of the act, achievement, or service to be honored.

The Aircraft Crew Member Badge is awarded to an individual on flying status and who has performed as, or is school trained for, a principal duty as a crew chief, observer, aircraft maintenance supervisor, gunner, etc. for not less than 12 months; or who has participated in at least 15 combat missions while serving in one of those duties. 

Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides for the award of the Good Conduct Medal, and states, in pertinent part, that the Good Conduct Medal is awarded for exemplary behavior, efficiency, and fidelity in active Federal military service.
Throughout a qualifying period, each enlisted soldier must meet all of the following criteria for an award: (1) the immediate commander evaluates the soldier’s character as above reproach, and (2) the record of service indicates that the soldier has willingly complied with the demands of the military environment, been loyal and obedient to their superiors, faithfully supported the goals of their organization and the Army, and conducted themselves in such an exemplary manner as to distinguish them from fellow soldiers.  There is no right or entitlement to the medal until the immediate commander has approved the award and the award has been announced in permanent orders.

The Army Service Ribbon was established on 10 April 1981 and is awarded to members for successful completion of initial entry training and may be awarded retroactively to those personnel who completed the required training before 
1 August 1981 provided they had an Active Army status on or after 
1 August 1981. 

The Overseas Service Ribbon was established on 10 April 1981 and may be awarded retroactively to soldiers who were credited with a normal overseas tour completion provided they were on active duty on or after 1 August 1981.

Marksmanship qualification badges are awarded to indicate the degree in which an individual has qualified in a prescribed record course and an appropriate bar is furnished to denote each weapon with which he qualified.  Marksmanship badges do not require the issue of orders to announce their approval.   Approval of marksmanship badges may be announced via memorandum, letter, roster, or other locally devised form.

Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  Failure to file within 3 years may be excused by a correction board if it finds it would be in the interest of justice to do so.

DISCUSSION:  The alleged error or injustice was, or with reasonable diligence should have been discovered on 11 April 1972, the date of his discharge.  The time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 11 April 1975.

The application is dated 18 September 1997 and the applicant has not explained or otherwise satisfactorily demonstrated by competent evidence that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to apply within the time allotted.

DETERMINATION:  The subject application was not submitted within the time required.  The applicant has not presented and the records do not contain sufficient justification to conclude that it would be in the interest of justice to grant the relief requested or to excuse the failure to file within the time prescribed by law.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  EXCUSE FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__JNS__  __EMW__  ___RWG_  CONCUR WITH DETERMINATION

		Loren G. Harrell
		Director