PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           5 April 2001                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000049899

	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	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. June Hajjar		Chairperson	
	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Member	
	Mr. Harry B. Oberg		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 that his Report of Separation from Active Duty,        DD Form 214, be corrected to show the authority and reason for separation and to show his reenlistment code; to show that he did serve in Indochina; to add the Army Good Conduct Medal 2d award, Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM)    1st and 2d award, the Vietnam Service Medal, and the Expert Badge (Pistol); to add the Military Police Investigation (MPI) School and the Drug College for Noncommissioned Officers (NCOs) Course; and to show his complete secondary military occupational specialty (MOS) of 95B30V5.

3.  The applicant states that the authority, reason for discharge, and reenlistment code should have been listed on his DD Form 214.  He served in Vietnam for    15 days prior to his assignment to Okinawa.  He received the medal and documents for the ARCOM 1st and 2d awards.  He did not receive the National Defense Service Medal, the Army Good Conduct Medal 1st and 2d awards, or the Vietnam Service Medal.  All his awards should be on his DD Form 214.  He attended the MPI School and the Drug College for Noncommissioned Officers Course and so they should be on his DD Form 214.  His graduation from the MPI school and service as an MPI entitle him to the V5 additional skill identifier (ASI).

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 27 February 1971, completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded MOS 95B (Military Policeman).

5.  The applicant’s Personnel Qualification Record, DA Form 2-1, shows that on or about 4 July 1972 he was assigned to Okinawa.

6.  The applicant attended the MPI Course from 18 August 1974 – 15 October 1974.  He was awarded ASI V5 on an unknown date.  On 20 October 1970, primary MOS 95B30V5 was withdrawn and he was awarded primary MOS 17K30 and secondary MOS 95B30V5.

7.  The applicant’s DA Form 2-1 shows that he completed a 2-day “DCforOFF&SNCO’S” course at Fort Hood (presumably the claimed Drug College for NCOs course) in 1978.

8.  The applicant was awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal 1st award for the period 27 February 1971 – 26 February 1974 on General Orders 16, Headquarters, U. S. Army Training Center, Fort Ord, CA dated 1 March 1974.  He was awarded the ARCOM 1st award for service for the period 8 May          1974 – 23 September 1977 on Permanent Orders 92-5, Headquarters, 7th Infantry Division and Fort Ord, Fort Ord, CA dated 6 December 1977.  There are no orders for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal 2d award or for the ARCOM 2d award in the applicant’s files.

9.  The applicant was honorably discharged upon completing his required service on 13 December 1978 after completing a total of 7 years, 9 months, and 17 days of creditable active service with no lost time.  The record copy of his DD Form 214 for this period does show the authority and reason for his discharge and his reenlistment code of 1A.  It shows that he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, the Expert Badge (Rifle), and the Army Good Conduct Medal.  There is no record of disciplinary actions in the applicant’s records.  His DA Form 2-1 does not indicate that he was considered for but disqualified for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal 2d award.  His DA Form 2-1 does not show that he was awarded the Expert Badge (Pistol).

10.  Army Regulation 635-5 prescribes the separation documents prepared for soldiers upon retirement, discharge, or release from active military service or control of the Army.  It establishes standardized policy for the preparation of the DD Form 214.  Guidance at the time prescribed that the authority and reason for separation and the reenlistment code would not be entered on the member’s copy of the DD Form 214.  It also stated that formal in-service training courses successfully completed during the period of service would be entered in item   27.  No time limit (i. e., of one week’s duration of longer) was indicated.

11.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 prescribes Army policy and criteria concerning individual military awards.  It provides that the Vietnam Service Medal was awarded to all members attached to or regularly serving for 1 or more days with an organization participating in or directly supporting military operations in Vietnam between 3 July 1965 through 28 March 1973.  The Army 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 normally 3 years.  Although there is no automatic entitlement to the Army Good Conduct Medal, disqualification must be justified.  In instances of disqualification as determined by the unit commander, the commander will prepare a statement of the rationale for his or her decision.  This statement will include the period of disqualification and will be referred to the individual concerned for response.  The unit commander will consider the affected individual’s statement.  If the commander’s decision remains the same, the commander will forward his or her statement, the individual’s statement, and his or her consideration for filing in the individual’s Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ), DA Form 201.  The custodian of the MPRJ will forward these documents for permanent filing in the individual’s Official Military Personnel File.

12.  On 20 February 2001, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service informed the Board that it could not verify the applicant’s service in Vietnam.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  There is no error on the applicant’s DD Form 214 with regard to the authority and reason for discharge and the reenlistment code.  At the time, those entries were not entered on the member’s copy of the DD Form 214.  A copy of the record DD Form 214, which has that information listed in the appropriate items, is provided for the applicant’s information.

2.  There is no evidence of record to show that the applicant served in Vietnam nor has the applicant provided any such evidence.

3.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant was awarded the ARCOM 1st award.  There is no evidence to show he was awarded the ARCOM 2d award and he has not provided any such evidence.

4.  There is no evidence of record to show that the applicant was considered for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal 2d award and subsequently determined to be disqualified for the award.  Given the lack of any evidence of disciplinary problems, the lack of a disqualifying statement or entry on his DA Form 2-1, and the applicant’s honorable discharge, the Board concludes that it would be appropriate to award him the Army Good Conduct Medal 2d award for the period 27 February 1974 – 26 February 1977.

5.  The Board acknowledges that, considering the MOS of Military Policeman the applicant held, he presumably did qualify for a marksmanship badge (pistol).  However, there is no evidence in his records to show which badge (expert, sharpshooter, or marksman) he may have been awarded and so the Board concludes it would not be appropriate to show he was awarded the Expert Badge (Pistol).

6.  The applicant attended and completed the 8-week MPI School and it should have been entered on his DD Form 214.  The “DCforOFF&SNCO’S” course also appears to have been a formal training course and it also should have been entered on his DD Form 214. 

7.  The applicant held secondary MOS 95B30V5 at the time of his separation and item 17a should have reflected his complete MOS.

8.  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 applicant the Army Good Conduct Medal 2d award for the period 27 February 1974 – 26 February 1977.

2.  That the applicant’s DD Form 214 for the period ending 13 December 1978, item 17a be amended to show his secondary MOS as 95B30V5; item 26 to delete the Army Good Conduct Medal, adding the Army Good Conduct Medal 2d award, and adding the Army Commendation Medal; and item 27 to add “Fort Gordon, GA – Military Police Investigation Course” and “Fort Hood, TX – Drug College for Officers and Senior Noncommissioned Officers.”

3.  That the applicant be issued the Army Good Conduct Medal 2d award and the National Defense Service Medal.

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

BOARD VOTE:  

__jh____  __cla___  __hbo___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

			June Hajjar
		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000049899	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010405	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(GRANT)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	107.0056	
2.	107.0073	
3.	110.04	
4.	100.00	
5.		
6.