PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:           

	BOARD DATE:                 7 December 2000             
	DOCKET NUMBER:        AR2000046012

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Ms. Beverly A. Young		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. John P. Infante		Member	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz, Jr.		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 correction of his records to show award of the Overseas Service Ribbon, the Kuwait Liberation Medal awarded by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Kuwait Liberation Medal awarded by the Government of Kuwait, the Good Conduct Medal and the Army Commendation Medal.  In addition, he requests correction of records to show his rank as specialist (SPC), that his Article 15 be expunged from his records and that his separation and Reentry Eligibility (RE) code be changed.

3.  The applicant states that his discharge document is missing some of the ribbons he received while he was on active duty.  He contends that his rank is incorrect and that his last rank was SPC.  He states that he received an Article 15 for making a false official statement and he would like it removed from his records because it is still affecting his life.  In support of his application, he submits six letters of recommendation and a memorandum from an installation commander, dated 12 August 1997.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he initially served in the Army National Guard from November 1983 to November 1985.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 19 November 1985 and completed training as a tank turret repairman.  He reenlisted on 26 August 1988 and was assigned to Germany from 3 February 1989 to 27 November 1991.  While assigned to Germany, the applicant served temporary duty in Southwest Asia (SWA) from 31 December 1990 to 2 May 1991.  The applicant was discharged from active duty on 29 November 1991.

5.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 does not show the Overseas Service Ribbon, the Kuwait Liberation Medal awarded by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Kuwait Liberation Medal awarded by the Government of Kuwait, the Good Conduct Medal or the Army Commendation Medal as authorized awards.

6.  The applicant’s DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows entitlement to award of the Overseas Service Ribbon in item 9 (Awards, Decorations and Campaigns).  This document also shows he was credited with normal overseas tour completion for an assignment in Germany.

7.  The Kuwait Liberation Medal awarded by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KLM-SA) was approved on 3 January 1992 and is awarded to members of the Armed Forces of the United States who participated in the Persian Gulf War between 17 January 1991 and 28 February 1991.

8.  The Kuwait Liberation Medal awarded by the Government of Kuwait (KLM-K) was approved on 9 November 1995 and is awarded to members of the Armed Forces of the United States who participated in the Persian Gulf War between 2 August 1990 and 31 August 1993.

9.  There is no evidence the applicant received the first award of the Good Conduct Medal.  There also is no evidence the applicant was disqualified by his chain of command from receiving the Good Conduct Medal.  There is no evidence in the applicant’s records which show that he received disciplinary actions during the period 19 November 1985 through 18 November 1988.  However, his records show that he received one nonjudicial punishment, a bar to reenlistment and six adverse counseling statements during his second three-year period of service. 

10.  There are no orders in the applicant’s records which show that he was awarded the Army Commendation Medal.  There is no indication in his personnel records that he was recommended for this award.  His DA Form 2-1 does not show any entry in item 9 for award of the Army Commendation Medal.  The applicant did not provide a copy of orders or an award certificate in support of his claim for this award. 

11.  The applicant’s DD Form 214, which is authenticated in his own hand, shows he was discharged in the rank of private E-1 with an effective date of pay grade of 18 November 1991.  Orders Number 333-086, dated 29 November 1991, in the applicant’s records, discharged him from active duty in the rank of private 
E-1.  Item 18 (Appointments and Reductions) of his DA Form 2-1 shows he was reduced to private E-1 with a date of rank of 18 November 1991.  Records also show that the applicant signed a DA Form 664 (Service Member’s Statement Concerning Compensation from the Veterans Administration), dated 29 November 1991 as an “E-1”.  There is no evidence available to the Board which shows he was discharged from active duty in the rank of SPC.

12.  The applicant’s records contain a DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ), dated 17 June 1991, which show he received disciplinary action under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  His records also contain a DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 19 June 1991, which reduced the applicant to the rank of SPC as a result of this disciplinary action.

13.  The applicant was barred from reenlistment on 14 May 1991 for five incidents of writing bad checks.  On 17 June 1991, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment for making a false official statement and for wrongfully leaving the scene of an accident without making his identity known which resulted in a reduction to SPC.  

14.  On 30 August 1991, the applicant was notified of pending separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14-12(c) for misconduct – commission of a serious offense.  He was advised of his rights, consulted with legal counsel, requested a hearing by a board of officers and did not submit a statement in his own behalf.  On 28 October 1991, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board and completed a waiver of his right to an administrative separation board contingent upon his receiving a general discharge.  On 19 November 1991, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative requirements, approved the recommendation for separation and directed that the applicant be issued a General Discharge Certificate.  He was discharged on 29 November 1991 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14-12(c) for misconduct – commission of a serious offense.  His separation code was “JKQ” (misconduct – commission of a serious offense).  He had 6 years, 0 months and 11 days of creditable service and issued a RE code of RE-3.

15.  On 17 May 1999, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) upgraded the applicant’s characterization of service to honorable and changed the reason for discharge to Secretarial Authority.  His separation code was changed to “JFF” (Secretarial Authority).

16.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 shows that the Overseas Service Ribbon was established by the Secretary of the Army on 10 April 1981.  The regulation states, in pertinent part, that effective 1 August 1981, all members of the Active Army, Army National Guard, and Army Reserve in an active Reserve status are eligible for the award for successful completion of overseas tours.  The award may be awarded retroactively to those personnel who were credited with a normal overseas tour completion before 1 August 1981 provided they had an Active Army status on or after 1 August 1981 and the overseas service is not recognized with another U.S. service medal. 

17.  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.  

18.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides that the Army Commendation Medal may be awarded to any member of the Armed Forces of the United States who, while serving in any capacity with the Army after 6 December 1941, distinguished himself or herself by heroism, meritorious achievement or meritorious service.  As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required.

19.  Army Regulation 27-10 (Military Justice), in pertinent part, states the applicable policies for nonjudicial punishment.  The regulation states that nonjudicial punishment may be imposed to correct, educate, and reform offenders who the imposing commander determines cannot benefit from less stringent measures; preserve a soldier’s record of service from unnecessary stigma by record of court-martial conviction; or further military efficiency by disposing of minor offenses in a manner requiring less time and personnel than trial by court-martial.  All Article 15 actions, including notification, acknowledgment, imposition, filing determinations, appeal, action on appeal, or any other action taken prior to action being taken on an appeal, except summarized proceedings will be recorded on DA Form 2627.  The regulation also states that absent compelling evidence, a properly completed, valid DA Form 2627 will not be removed from a soldier’s record by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records.     

20.  Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes, based on their service records or the reason for discharge.  Army Regulation 601-210 covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the Regular Army and the US Army Reserve.  Chapter 3 of that regulation prescribes basic eligibility for prior service applicants for enlistment. That chapter includes a list of armed forces RE codes, including Regular Army RE codes.

21.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 prescribes the specific authorities (regulatory, statutory, or other directives), the reasons for the separation of members from active military service, and the separation program designators to be used for these stated reasons.  The regulation shows that the separation program designator “JFF”, as shown on the applicant’s DD Form 214, specifies the narrative reason for discharge as “Secretarial Authority” and that the authority for discharge under this separation program designator is “AR 635-200, para 5-3”.

22.  RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification is waivable. Certain persons who have received nonjudicial punishment are so disqualified, as are persons with bars to reenlistment, and those discharged under the provisions of chapters 9, 10, 13, and 14 of Army Regulation 635-200.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Evidence of record shows that the applicant completed a normal overseas tour in Germany; therefore, he is entitled to award of the Overseas Service Ribbon and correction of his records to show this award. 

2.  The applicant served in SWA from 31 December 1990 to 2 May 1991.  Therefore, he is entitled to award of the Kuwait Liberation Medal awarded by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KLM-SA) and the Kuwait Liberation Medal awarded by the Government of Kuwait (KLM-K) and correction of his DD Form 214 to show these awards.

3.  Evidence of record shows the applicant served two three-year periods of service.  During the first three-year period, there is no evidence the applicant was recommended by his chain of command for the Good Conduct Medal.  There also is no evidence of indiscipline and the applicant was advanced to sergeant during this enlistment.  Therefore, he is entitled to award of the Good Conduct Medal for the period 19 November 1985 through 18 November 1988.

4.  During the second three-year period of service, there is no evidence the applicant was recommended by his chain of command for the Good Conduct Medal.  However, there is evidence of nonjudicial punishment, a bar to reenlistment and adverse counseling statements which may have resulted in the applicant’s disqualification for award of the Good Conduct Medal for this period.  As a result, the Board has determined that there is no basis for awarding him the Good Conduct Medal for the period 19 November 1988 through 18 November 1991.

5.  There is no evidence of record, and the applicant has provided no evidence, which shows that he was recommended for or awarded the Army Commendation Medal.  Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to award of the Army Commendation Medal.

6.  The Board noted the applicant’s contention that his rank is incorrect and that his last rank was SPC; however, evidence of record shows that the applicant was discharged in the rank of private E-1.  There is no evidence, and the applicant has provided no evidence which shows he was discharged as SPC.  Therefore, the applicant’s DD Form 214 is correct as currently constituted.

7.  There is no evidence, and the applicant has provided no evidence, that his nonjudicial punishment was unjust or otherwise set aside.  Army Regulation
27-10 and Army Regulation 15-185 (Policy and Procedures for Applying to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records) specifically precludes the removal of a valid DA Form 2627 from a soldier’s record, by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records, without compelling evidence.  The Board finds no compelling evidence to support removal of the applicant’s nonjudicial punishment; therefore, this record will not be expunged.

8.  The ADRB upgraded the applicant’s character of service to honorable and changed the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority.  In accordance with regulation then in effect, the applicant’s DD Form 214 correctly reflects the appropriate separation code of “JFF”.  Therefore, there is no basis to correct the applicant’s separation code and his DD Form 214 is correct as currently constituted.

9.  The applicant was separated and assigned a reentry code in accordance with regulations then in effect.
10.  There is no basis for removal of the RE code from the applicant's record. However, the disqualification upon which the code was based, may be waived for reenlistment purposes. 

11.  In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s records, but only as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing the individual concerned was awarded the Overseas Service Ribbon, the Kuwait Liberation Medal awarded by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KLM-SA), the Kuwait Liberation Medal awarded by the Government of Kuwait (KLM-K) and the first award of the Good Conduct Medal for the period 19 November 1985 through 18 November 1988.

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

BOARD VOTE:  

RVO_____  EWL_____  JPI____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr._
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000046012	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20001207	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	107.0000	
2.	100.0300	
3.	100.0000	
4.		
5.		
6.