PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            5 November 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002072563

	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. Deyon D. Battle		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Chairperson	
	Mr. Eric N. Andersen		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		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 the award of the United States Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM).

3.  The applicant states that while he was out-processing from active duty his company commander informed him that he was being recommended for the AGCM.  He states that 5 months after he was released from active duty he met with his former commander who assured him that the award had been submitted. He goes on to state that he has requested copies of his DD Form 214 and the AGCM was never included therein.  He states that he spent 3 years on active duty without any imposition of nonjudicial punishment or negative counseling statements.  He continues by stating that he fully meets the eligibility criteria set forth in Army Regulation 600-8-22 for the award of the AGCM and the lack of the award is an indication that his service was other than exemplary.  In support of his application he submits a copy of his Report of Separation; a copy of documents maintained in his Official Military Personnel File; a copy of a Letter of Appreciation from his former platoon leader; and portions of Army Regulation 600-8-22.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that on 31 August 1976, he enlisted in the Army for 3 years in the pay grade of E-1.  He successfully completed his training as a tank turret repairman and he was promoted to the pay grade of E-2 on 1 March 1977.

5.  Nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant on 2 September 1977, for willfully disobeying a lawful order and being disrespectful in language toward a senior non-commissioned officer.  His punishment consisted of 3 days of correctional custody.

6.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-3 on 1 October 1977 and to the pay grade of E-4 on 1 May 1998.  He was honorably released from active duty on 30 August 1979, after he completed 3 years of total active service.

7.  The Report of Separation (DD Form 214) that he was furnished at the time of his release from active duty shows that his awards include the Expert Marksmanship Badge (Hand Grenade) and the Sharpshooter Marksmanship Badge (Rifle M-16).

8.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides that the Good Conduct Medal (AGCM) 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.
CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Although the applicant’s records contain one record of NJP, there is no other evidence of disqualifying factors for award of the AGCM.

2.  The commander took no action to disqualify him for such an award and it must be presumed that the failure to award him the AGCM was the result of an administrative oversight on the part of the commander.

3.  Accordingly, given the supporting documents provided by the applicant and the lack of action by the commander to deny him the award, it would be in the interest of justice to award him the AGCM at this time.

4.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by issuing the individual concerned the AGCM in the pay grade of E-4 for the period covering 31 August 1976 to 30 August 1979.

BOARD VOTE:  

___jm  __  ___mm__  __ena___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		____Melvin H. Meyer____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002072563	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/11/05	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  46	107.0000	
2.  102	107.0056	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.