PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:        3 February 1999       
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999015382

	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. Deborah L. Brantley		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson	
	Mr. Fred K. McCoy		Member	
	Mr. Mark D. Manning		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, in effect, that his military records be corrected to reflect award of the Army Good Conduct Medal and a Humanitarian Service Medal.  He states he received both awards while in the military but neither one was reflected on his separation document.  The applicant indicates he was awarded the Humanitarian Service Medal for being part of a film crew for the “Enewetak Atoll” nuclear bomb clean-up and received his Good Conduct Medal in 1981.  He states he needs the awards to be confirmed because he is “being considered for employment with the Federal Government.”

3.  Records available to the Board indicate the applicant enlisted for a period of 4 years and entered active duty on 10 April 1978.  Following completion of his basic and advanced individual training he was assigned to the Audio Visual Center at the Pentagon as a motion picture specialist in October 1978.  His records contain numerous letters of commendation and appreciation concerning his skills as a motion picture specialist.

4.  In May 1979 the applicant was punished under Article 15 of the UCMJ for having an unauthorized guest in his room.  His punishment included a suspended reduction to pay grade E-2, a verbal reprimand, forfeiture of $125.00 and extra duty.  There is, however, no indication that he was denied award of the Army Good Conduct Medal as a result of this infraction.

5.  The applicant was released from active duty on 9 April 1982 with an honorable characterization of service.  He was serving in pay grade E-4 at the time of his release.  His separation document does not reflect entitlement to the Army Good Conduct Medal or the Humanitarian Service Medal.

6.  The Humanitarian Service Medal was established in 1977 and awarded to members of the Armed Forces who distinguished themselves by meritorious direct participation in a Department of Defense approved significant military act or operation of a humanitarian nature.  To be eligible, a service member must have directly participated in the humanitarian act or operation within the designated geographical area of operations and within specified time limits.  “Direct participation” is defined as “hands on” activity at the site or sites of the military act or operation.  Participants must provide evidence which substantiated direct participation in a DOD approved humanitarian act or operation.  Such evidence may be in the form of certificates, letters of commendation or appreciation, officer or enlisted evaluation reports, copies of TDY or special duty orders reflecting participation within the specified timeframe 

and geographical location or statements from commanders, supervisors, or other officials who were in a position to substantiate the service members direct participation in the area of operation.  A Humanitarian Service Medal was awarded to participants of the Majuro Atoll Disaster Relief in the Marshall Islands between 27 November 1979 and 8 January 1980.

7.  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.  Current practice requires that the commander provide written notice of nonfavorable consideration and permits the individual to respond.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant completed a qualifying period of service for award of the Good Conduct Medal on 9 April 1981 when he had completed 3 years of his 4 year enlistment contract.  While the applicant had been punished under Article 15 of the UCMJ in 1979 there is no evidence in available records that he was ever disqualified from award of the Good Conduct Medal.  As such the applicant should be awarded the Good Conduct Medal for the period 10 April 1978 through 9 April 1981.

2.  The Board notes, however, that there is no evidence, and the applicant has not provided any, which substantiates his participation in the Majuro Atoll Disaster Relief effort between November 1979 and January 1980.  As such there is no basis to award him that decoration.

3.  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 awarding the individual concerned the Army Good Conduct Medal for the period 10 April 1978 through 9 April 1981.

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

BOARD VOTE:  

__sac___  ___fkm__  __mdm__  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999015382	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990203	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT 	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 110.00		
2. 107.00		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.