PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           14 January 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-09329
				   AR1999016304

	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. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Shirley L. Powell		Member	
	Ms. Kathleen A. Newman		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 Army Good Conduct Medal based on his initial period of active duty.  He states that he never received his initial award of the Army Good Conduct Medal and attempts to have it awarded administratively have not been successful.  (Note:  The applicant initiated his request in April 1998, however he neglected to sign the application.  As such the application was returned to him for signature and then forwarded to the Army Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center (EREC) for an opinion.  EREC noted the applicant’s current commander has authority to retroactively award the Good Conduct Medal providing he/she receives authorization from that agency.  Based on the administrative remedy that is still available, the EREC recommended the application be returned.  In view of the fact that the applicant initiated his request nearly a year ago, and that his OMPF contains no documents associated with his initial period of active duty, it would be appropriate, and in the interest of time, for the Board to act on his request, rather than returning it, a second time, for additional administrative action.  Because his OMPF does not contain documents from his initial period of service it is likely he would ultimately end up having to resubmit his application to this Board anyway.)

3.  Records available to the Board indicate the applicant initially entered active duty on 25 October 1988 following several months in the delayed entry program. He was promoted to pay grade E-4 in January 1990 and successfully served in Southwest Asia during the Persian Gulf War.

4.  On 29 June 1991, after being retained in the service beyond his scheduled separation date as a result of the national security requirements associated with the Gulf War, the applicant was released from active duty with an honorable characterization of service.  His separation document notes that he was unavailable to sign his separation document and that he was given a reenlistment code of RE-1, indicating he was fully qualified for reenlistment with no evidence of any prior disciplinary action.

5.  On 2 December 1993 the applicant re-enlisted and has remained on continuous active duty.

6.  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.  There is no evidence in the applicant's official military personnel file that his commander ever disqualified him for award of the Good Conduct Medal.
CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant completed a qualifying period of service for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal on 29 June 1991 when he was released from his initial period of active duty.  The fact that he was promoted to pay grade E-4 within two years of his enlistment, that he was released from active duty with an honorable characterization of service, and that his reenlistment code was RE-1, tends to support a conclusion that the applicant met the standards for award of the Good Conduct Medal.  There is no evidence that would serve as a basis to deny him the award and as such it would be appropriate to award the applicant the Army Good Conduct Medal for the period 25 October 1988 through 29 June 1991.

2.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

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 25 October 1988 through 29 June 1991.

BOARD VOTE:  

__rvo___  _slp_____  ___kan__  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.