MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           18 DECEMBER 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001057590

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Ms. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas Lanyi		Member	
	Mr. Jose A. Martinez		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:  In effect, that his records be corrected to reflect award of a second Army Good Conduct Medal and an Army Commendation Medal.  

APPLICANT STATES:  That his “discharge” failed to list those decorations.  He did not submit any evidence in support of his request, but asks that his military records be reviewed.  Note: The applicant also requested that his records be corrected to reflect award of a Humanitarian Service Medal and a “unit award for Albania service.”  His records already reflect entitlement to those two decorations and as such the Board need not address those issues.

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

He entered active duty on 5 June 1992 and was trained as an infantryman.  His records indicate that he was awarded a Good Conduct Medal on 4 June 1995.

On 1 May 1997 he was promoted to pay grade E-5.  Although his records indicate he was awarded an Army Achievement Medal, there is no indication he was ever awarded an Army Commendation Medal.

His records indicate he received two performance evaluation reports during his military service.  The report for the period 9705 through 9711 indicates he was “fully qualified” and his senior rater placed him in the second block for both overall performance and potential.  His second report, for the period 9712 through 9811 indicated he needed improvement in the areas of competence, responsibility, and accountability.  His rater noted that he “has yet to master all skill level one tasks, displays a moderate level of technical and tactical competence, does not have the respect of his peers and subordinates, lost accountability of a soldier during JRTC rotation 99-2, damaged numerous pieces of equipment in past training exercises, [and] does not assume responsibility for own actions.”  His overall potential for promotion was rated marginal by his rater and his senior rater rated his overall performance and potential for promotion as fair.

On 29 June 1999, at the completion of his enlistment contract, the applicant was honorably discharged.

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 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.

Army Regulation 600-8-22 also 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.

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.  There is no evidence, and the applicant has not provided any, that he was ever recommended for, or awarded, the Army Commendation Medal.  The Board notes that there is no evidence that would justify awarding him the decoration as an exception to policy, or in the interest of equity.

2.  The applicant completed a qualifying period of service for an award of a second Army Good Conduct Medal on 4 June 1998.  The Board notes that the applicant’s last performance evaluation was less than favorable and contains some less than distinguished conduct and efficiency comments.  Although there is no evidence in available records that his commander ever disqualified him from receiving the award, the evidence does indicate that the applicant served more than 1 year beyond the date he completed qualifying service for the second Good Conduct Medal, with no indication the award was ever made.  Such evidence tends to support a conclusion that the applicant’s commander may not have considered him qualified for the second award.  The Board contends, based on the comments in the applicant’s last performance evaluation, that his conduct does not warrant a second award of the Good Conduct Medal.

3.  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 that requirement.

4.  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

__INW __  __TL____  __JAM __  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001057590	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20011218	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	107.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.