PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:             26 August 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR1999018853

	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	
	Mr. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Shirley L. Powell		Chairperson	
	Mr. Samuel Calderon		Member	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		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 he be awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCMDL), the Army Service Ribbon (ASR), the Overseas Service Ribbon (OSR), and either the Vietnam Service Medal (VSM) or the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (AFEM).

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that he served in the Army honorably for three years; that he completed an overseas tour of 1 year and 6 months; and that this service was in the United States Army Pacific (USARPAC). 

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he entered the regular Army on 
16 April 1968 for 3 years.  He successfully completed basic training at Fort Dix, New Jersey and advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Gordon, Georgia.  Upon completion of AIT the applicant was awarded military occupational specialty 95B (Military Policeman) and was assigned to overseas duty in Okinawa for his first permanent duty station.  

5.  Upon completion of his tour in Okinawa the applicant was reassigned to White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico where he served until his expiration of term of service (ETS) on 15 April 1971.  The highest rank the applicant attained while on active duty was specialist/E-4, and there are no documented acts of valor, significant achievement or service warranting special recognition contained in his service record.  However, the applicant did receive excellent conduct ratings from every unit to which he was assigned during his tenure in service; and there is no indication in the service record that he was ever administered nonjudicial punishment (NJP) or that he was ever tried by court-martial.

6.  On 15 April 1968, the applicant was issued a DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) which documented that he was released from active duty honorably, by reason of ETS, after completing 
3 years of active duty.  The only award listed in block 24 of DD Form 214 is the National Defense Service Medal.  

7.  There is no indication in the evidence of record that the applicant had committed any infractions that would have disqualified him from receiving the AGCMDL.  Paragraph 4-4, AR 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides the basis for approval of the AGCMDL.  It states, in pertinent part, that it is the immediate commander’s decision to award the AGCMDL based on his personal knowledge of the individual and on the individual’s official records.  It further states that the lack of official disqualifying comment by previous commanders qualifies the use of the period of service for granting the award.  Paragraph 4-5, AR 600-8-22 defines periods of service which qualify for award of the AGCMDL.  It states, in pertinent part, that each 3 years completed on or after 27 August 1940 qualifies a soldier for the award.  There is no indication that the applicant was disqualified for award of the AGCMDL by his immediate commander. 
8.  Paragraph 2-12, AR 600-8-22 outlines the qualifications and the areas in which a soldier must have served to earn the AFEM.  The medal is authorized for U.S. military operations; U.S. operations in direct support of the United Nations, and U.S. operations of assistance for friendly foreign nations.  Specific operations, areas of operation, and direct support and the applicable timeframe which qualify for award of the AFEM are defined in the regulation.  The only operation listed in the regulation for the timeframe during which the applicant served is Korea from 1 October 1966 to 30 June 1974.  Okinawa, the country in which the applicant served, was not an operation or area listed which authorized award of the AFEM.

9.  Paragraph 2-13, AR 600-8-22 outlines the qualifications for award of the  VSM.  It states, in pertinent part, that the VSM is awarded to all members of the Armed Forces of the United States who served in Vietnam and contiguous waters or airspace thereover, after 3 July 1965 through 28 March 1973; and also states that members who served in Thailand, Laos, or Cambodia during the same period and were serving in direct support of operations in Vietnam are also eligible for the VSM.  USARPAC service in and of itself nor service in Okinawa specifically did not qualify a member for award of the VSM.

10.  Paragraphs 5-4 and 5-5, AR 600-8-22 outlines the qualifications for award of he OSR and ASR respectively.  Neither award was established or authorized for use until 10 April 1981.  The applicant completed his service well before the date these awards were established.  There are no provisions of law or regulation for retroactive qualification for either ribbon based on service prior to the date they were established.  

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  After carefully reviewing the applicant’s record of service and the evidence of record, the Board concluded that the applicant qualified for and should have been awarded the AGCMDL upon his ETS on 15 April 1971.  There is no indication of derogatory information which would have prevented the award, and no evidence that the applicant was denied the award for cause by his unit commander.

2.  The Board noted the applicant’s contentions that he should have been awarded either the AFEM or the VSM for his service in USARPAC, specifically Okinawa.  However, Okinawa service did not qualify for either award; thus, the applicant is not authorized to receive either medal.  In addition, the applicant requested award of the ASR and the OSR; however; these ribbons were not established until 10 April 1981, well after the applicant completed his service.  Further, there are no provisions for retroactive award of these ribbons for service which took place prior to the date they were established.  
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:

	a.  by publishing and issuing the individual concerned an order awarding the Army Good Conduct Medal effective 15 April 1971; and 

b.  by issuing the applicant a corrected DD Form 214 which includes the Army Good Conduct Medal in block 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized).

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

BOARD VOTE:  

___sc ___  ___be___  __slp ___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		____Shirley L. Powell____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999018853	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	1999/08/26	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT PARTIAL	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  102	107.0056	
2.  		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.