PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           17 January 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001062381

	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	
	Mr. William Blakely		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Jennifer L. Prater		Chairperson	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser		Member	
	Mr. Kenneth W. Lapin		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 promoted to the rank and pay grade of sergeant/E-5 (SGT/E-5); that he be awarded a Cold War Medal; and that he be provided any other awards to which he is entitled for his service during the Vietnam era. 

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that during his service in the Army during the cold war and Vietnam era, he was nominated for soldier of the month for his performance of duty while assigned to Tripler Army Medical Center, Hawaii.  However, the soldier of the month award was given to a medical corpsman assigned to the Republic of Vietnam (RVN).  In addition, he indicates that he was recommended for promotion, but he was told the promotions had to go to those soldiers who were serving in the RVN and he claims this was wrong.  In support of his application, he provides a copy of his separation document (DD Form 214).

4.  The applicant’s military record shows that he was inducted into the Army of the United States on 6 May 1970 and that he continuously served on active duty for 1 year, 7 months, and 17 days, until being honorably separated on 
22 December 1971.

5.  The DD Form 214, issued to and signed by the applicant on the date of his separation, confirms that on the date of his release from active duty (REFRAD) he held the rank and pay grade of specialist/E-4 (SPC/E-4) and that he was serving in military occupational specialty (MOS) 91B (Medical Specialist).  This document also confirms that during his active duty tenure the only award he received was the National Defense Service Medal (NDSM). 

6.  The applicant’s Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) shows that the highest grade he attained while serving on active duty was SPC/E-4 and that the only award he received was the NDSM. 

7.  In addition, the applicant’s Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) contains no documents or orders that suggest he was ever selected for promotion to SGT/E-5 or that he was ever placed on a valid promotion standing list to that rank while serving on active duty.  

8.  The applicant’s record is also void of any derogatory information that would preclude him from receiving the Army Good Conduct Medal and there is no evidence that he was disqualified from receiving this award by any of the unit commanders for which he served during his active duty tenure. 

9.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) sets forth Department of the Army criteria, policy and instructions concerning individual military awards.  This regulation contains no reference to a Cold War Medal and it is not listed in the authorized Army individual or service medals contained in this regulation.  However, section 1084 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1998, approved the issuance of a Cold War Certificate to all members of the armed forces who faithfully and honorably served the United States anytime during the period 2 September 1945 to 26 December 1991.  The Cold War Certificate must be requested from the Total Army Personnel Command.  

10.  Chapter 4 of Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides guidance on awarding the AGCM.  It states, in pertinent part, that this award is authorized for individuals who distinguish themselves by their conduct, efficiency and fidelity during a qualifying period of active duty enlisted service.  For the first award only, a period of 1 or more years is a qualifying period for the AGCM at the termination of a period of Federal military service.   Although there is no automatic entitlement to the AGCM, a specific disqualification from a unit commander is required to deny the award. 

11.  Paragraph 2-13 provides guidance on awarding the VSM and it states, in pertinent part, that the award is authorized to members who served in units assigned or attached to the RVN or to units in direct support of military operations in the RVN during the period 3 July 1965 through 28 March 1973.  

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board notes the applicant’s contention that he should be promoted to SGT/E-5 based on his duty performance and honorable period of service; however, it finds an insufficient evidentiary basis to support this claim. 

2.  The evidence of record gives no indication that the applicant was ever selected for and placed on a valid promotion list for SGT/E-5 or that he was actually promoted to that rank and pay grade.  It further confirms that the highest rank he held while serving on active duty was SPC/E-4 and that this was the rank and pay grade he held on the date of his REFRAD.  Thus, the Board concludes this requested relief is not warranted.

3.  The evidence of record does not indicate that he ever served in the RVN or any other area that would have qualified him to receive the Vietnam Service Medal.  In addition, there is no evidence to show that he is entitled to any service awards other than the NDSM he received and which was properly entered in his record.

4.  However, a review of the applicant’s record does show he served a qualifying period of service that entitled him to award of the AGCM.  Lacking evidence of any derogatory information in the record that would have disqualified him from receiving this award and the absence of a formal disqualification by any of the unit commanders for which he served, the Board concludes it would be in the interest of justice to award him the AGCM for his honorable service from 6 May 1970 through 22 December 1971.  Further, the Board finds it would be appropriate to add this award to his record at this time. 

5.  The Board notes the applicant’s request for a Cold War Medal, but this is not an authorized Army medal.  However, based on his service, it appears the applicant is eligible to request a Cold War Recognition Certificate under the provisions of section 1084 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1998.  In order to receive this certificate, the applicant must submit a request to the following address:  Commander, PERSCOM, Cold War Recognition, 
Hoffman II, ATTN: TAPC-CWRS, 3N45, 200 Stovall Street, Alexandria, VA 22332-0473.

6.  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 showing the individual concerned was awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal for the period 6 May 1970 through 22 December 1971 and by providing him a corrected separation document that includes this award. 

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

BOARD VOTE:  

__JLP __   _ _CJP __  __KWL     GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		    __Jennifer L. Prater__
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001062381	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/01/17	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(Partial Relief)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.