PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           24 October 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002071043

	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. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor		Chairperson	
	Ms. Karen A. Heinz 		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 that a General Officer Letter of Reprimand (GOLOR), dated 19 January 1996, be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF); that the Memorandum for Disqualification for Award of the Good Conduct Medal, dated 5 June 1996, be removed from his OMPF; that he be awarded the fifth award of the Good Conduct Medal; that the Line of Duty (LOD) investigation, dated 28 February 1996, be removed from his OMPF and replaced with the LOD investigation, dated 24 June 1997.       

3.  The applicant states that his motorcycle accident on 8 July 1995 was not alcohol related and was in the line of duty.  He contends, in effect, that he received a GOLOR for drunk driving on 8 July 1995 and a LOD determination of “Not in the Line of Duty.”  He contends that he was disqualified for the fifth award of the Good Conduct Medal based on the GOLOR and that he received a Department of the Army Imposed Bar to Reenlistment based on the disqualification of the Good Conduct Medal.  However, a final LOD investigation initiated by the Secretary of the Army determined that his motorcycle accident was not alcohol related and was “In the Line of Duty.”  He appealed the Department of the Army Imposed Bar to Reenlistment, with command support, and his appeal was approved.  In support of his application, he submits a letter of explanation, dated 14 March 2002 with three enclosures; enclosure three also lists 14 enclosures; a Consent for Release of Information, dated 25 April 2002; and a letter to a Member of Congress, dated 24 April 2002 with 14 enclosures.      
4.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted on 28 July 1981 and has remained on active duty through continuous reenlistments.  He was promoted to sergeant first class/pay grade E-7 effective 1 January 1994.

5.  On 19 January 1996, the applicant received a GOLOR for drunk driving on 
8 July 1995.     

6.  On 28 February 1996, a LOD investigation determined that the applicant’s motorcycle accident was alcohol related and “Not in the Line of Duty.”    

7.  On 5 June 1996, the applicant was disqualified for award of the Good Conduct Medal based on the GOLOR.  

8.  On 1 April 1997, a subsequent LOD investigation determined that the applicant’s motorcycle accident was “In the Line of Duty.” 

9.  On 6 April 1998, the applicant received a Department of the Army Imposed Bar to Reenlistment under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP).  The reason cited for this bar to reenlistment was the applicant’s disqualification for award of the Good Conduct Medal.  The applicant appealed the bar to reenlistment and his appeal was granted on 6 August 1998.   

10.  A review of the applicant’s OMPF microfiche revealed the GOLOR, dated 
19 January 1998, in the disciplinary data section; the LOD investigation, dated 
28 February 1996, in the restricted portion and the Memorandum for Disqualification for Award of the Good Conduct Medal, dated 5 June 1996, in the disciplinary data section.  The LOD investigation, dated 1 April 1997, is not shown on his OMPF microfiche.   

11.  The applicant’s OMPF microfiche contains orders for the second award of the Good Conduct Medal for the period 28 July 1984 to 27 July 1987.  There are no orders for any subsequent awards of the Good Conduct Medal.  

12.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) 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.  

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant received a GOLOR for drunk driving on 8 July 1995.

2.  A LOD investigation, dated 28 February 1996, determined that the applicant’s motorcycle accident was alcohol related and “Not in the Line of Duty.”   

3.  The applicant was disqualified for award of the fifth award of the Good Conduct Medal based on the GOLOR.  

4.  The final LOD investigation, dated 1 April 1997, determined that the applicant’s motorcycle accident on 8 July 1995 was “In the Line of Duty.”  

5.  Based on the foregoing, the Board determined the continued existence of the GOLOR, dated 19 January 1996, created an injustice which should be corrected. 
Therefore, the Board determined that the GOLOR, dated 19 January 1996, and
filed in the disciplinary data section of the applicant’s OMPF microfiche should be expunged.

6.  Based on the foregoing, the Board determined the continued existence of the LOD investigation, dated 28 February 1996, created an injustice which should be corrected.  Therefore, the Board determined that the LOD investigation, dated 
28 February 1996, and filed in the restricted portion of the applicant’s OMPF microfiche should be expunged. 

7.  Based on the foregoing, the Board determined the continued existence of the Memorandum for Disqualification for award of the Good Conduct Medal, dated 
5 June 1996, created an injustice which should be corrected.  Therefore, the Board determined that the Memorandum for Disqualification for award of the Good Conduct Medal, dated 5 June 1996, and filed in the disciplinary data section of the applicant’s OMPF microfiche should be expunged.

8.  Based on removal of the memorandum disqualifying the applicant for award of the Good Conduct Medal, dated 5 June 1996, the applicant’s servicing personnel center should: 

a.  Review the applicant’s awards of the Good Conduct Medal, beginning with the second award;

b.  Determine the appropriate number of Good Conduct Medals to which the applicant is now entitled based on removal of the memorandum disqualifying him for award of the Good Conduct Medal; and

c.  Promulgate appropriate orders authorizing the applicant the number of awards of the Good Conduct Medal to which he is entitled subsequent to the second award of the Good Conduct Medal authorized by 2d Infantry Division Permanent Orders 41-11, dated 1 March 1988, for the period 28 July 1984 to 
27 July 1987.   

9.  Based on the foregoing, the Board also determined that the LOD investigation, dated 1 April 1997, the ABCMR Proceedings in Docket Number AR2002071043 and the applicant’s application with enclosures should be placed in the restricted portion of the applicant’s OMPF microfiche.   

10.  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:

a.  by expunging the 19 January 1996 General Officer Letter of Reprimand from the disciplinary data section of the OMPF microfiche of the individual concerned;

b.  by expunging the 28 February 1996 Line of Duty investigation from the restricted portion of his OMPF microfiche;

c.  by expunging the 5 June 1996  Memorandum for Award of the Good Conduct Medal from the disciplinary data section of his OMPF microfiche;

	d.  by adding the 1 April 1997 Line of Duty investigation to the restricted portion of his OMPF microfiche; 

	e.  by placing all of the records and the Board Proceedings in the restricted portion of the applicant’s OMPF; and  

	f.  by awarding the individual concerned the appropriate number of awards of the Good Conduct Medal to which he is entitled subsequent to his second award of the Good Conduct Medal.

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

BOARD VOTE:  

RVO___  KAH_____  BJE____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		__Raymond V. O’Connor__
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002071043	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20021024	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	 	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	126.0400	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.