MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:            28 July 1999      
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999017644

	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	
	Ms. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Ms. Lana E. McGlynn		Member	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		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 to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	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:  That his military records be corrected to show award of the Combat Infantryman Badge, the first award of the Good Conduct Medal, the Humanitarian Service Medal and the Army Achievement Medal.  

APPLICANT STATES:  That the medals were omitted from his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) and should be listed in item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized).     

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

The applicant enlisted on 31 March 1988 for a period of 4 years.  He successfully completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11H (heavy antiarmor weapons infantryman) on 23 May 1988.  The applicant served in Southwest Asia from 29 August 1990 through 23 March 1991.  On 15 February 1996 he was discharged under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  

The applicant’s DD Form 214, which was authenticated in his own hand, does not show the Combat Infantryman Badge, the Good Conduct Medal, the Humanitarian Service Medal or the Army Achievement Medal as authorized awards.

Item 9 (Awards, Decorations & Campaigns) of the applicant’s DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record), which was authenticated in his own hand, does not show the Combat Infantryman Badge, the Good Conduct Medal, the Humanitarian Service Medal or the Army Achievement Medal.  

The applicant’s personnel records show he was assigned to Company E,
3d Battalion, 15th Infantry during his assignment in Southwest Asia.  The applicant’s DA Form 2-1 shows his duty MOS in Southwest Asia was 11H.  

There is no evidence in the applicant’s personnel records that he was recommended for or awarded the Good Conduct Medal.  However, his records show two nonjudicial punishments for marijuana use, one summary court-martial for marijuana distribution, and one three-year period of AWOL during his active duty.   

The applicant’s records do not indicate that he was eligible for or awarded the Humanitarian Service Medal.  

There are no orders in the applicant’s personnel records which show he was awarded the Army Achievement Medal.  There is no evidence that he was recommended for the Army Achievement Medal by his chain of command.
Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes Army policy and procedures concerning awards.  Paragraph 8-6 provides for award of the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB), and paragraph 8-6k specifies that for the Persian Gulf War (Operation Desert Storm) individuals must have met the criteria in paragraphs 8-6b and c to be awarded the CIB during the period 17 January 1991 to 11 April 1991.  These paragraphs state that there are basically three requirements for award of the CIB. The soldier must be an infantryman satisfactorily performing infantry duties, he must be assigned to an infantry unit during such time as the unit is engaged in active ground combat, and he must actively participate in such ground combat. Specific requirements state, in effect, that an Army enlisted soldier must have an infantry or special forces specialty, satisfactorily performed duty while assigned or attached as a member of an infantry, ranger or special forces unit of brigade, regimental, or smaller size during any period such unit was engaged in active ground combat.  A recipient must be personally present and under hostile fire while serving in an assigned infantry or special forces primary duty, in a unit actively engaged in ground combat with the enemy.

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.  

Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, that the Humanitarian Service Medal is awarded to members who distinguished themselves by meritorious direct participation in a Department of Defense approved significant military act or operation of a humanitarian nature.  A service member must be on active duty at the time of direct participation, must have directly participated in the humanitarian act or operation within the designated geographical area of operation and within specified time limits, and must provide evidence that substantiates direct participation.

Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, that the Army Achievement Medal is awarded to any member of the armed forces of the United States, who while serving in a noncombat area on or after 1 August 1981, distinguished themselves by meritorious service or achievement.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  Evidence of record shows the applicant served in an infantry MOS in an infantry company during his assignment in Southwest Asia.  However, there is no evidence of record which shows his unit engaged in active ground combat.  Therefore, he is not entitled to correction of his military records to show award of the Combat Infantryman Badge.   

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 first award of the Good Conduct Medal.  However, the Board determined that the applicant’s extensive AWOL period and disciplinary record disqualified him for award of the Good Conduct Medal.  Therefore, he is not entitled to correction of his military records to show award of the Good Conduct Medal. 

3.  There is no evidence of record available to the Board that the applicant participated in a Department of Defense approved significant military act or operation of a humanitarian nature.  Therefore, he is not entitled to award of the Humanitarian Service Medal.

4.  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 Army Achievement Medal.  Therefore, he is not entitled to this award. 

5.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

FNE____  LEM_____  MVT____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999017644	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990728	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19960215	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 Chapter 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	In lieu of trial by court-martial	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	107.0111	
2.	107.0056	
3.	107.0075	
4.	107.0025	
5.		
6.