PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:           15 July 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003084288

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		Member	
	Mr. Eric N. Anderson		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 (DD Form 214) be corrected to reflect his correct last duty assignment and that he be awarded the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (AFEM).

3.  The applicant states that his DD Form 214 incorrectly reflects that he was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company (HHC), 3rd Brigade,       4th  United States Army, when in fact he was assigned to HHC, 3rd Brigade,       1st Armored Division.  He further states that he served with that unit during the Cuban Missile Crisis and is also entitled to be awarded the AFEM.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he was inducted in New York on 7 December 1961 and was transferred to Fort Dix, New Jersey, to undergo his basic combat training (BCT).  He successfully completed his training and was transferred to Fort Hood, Texas, where he was assigned to HHC, 3rd Brigade,   1st Armored Division, 4th United States Army, for duty as a radio teletype operator.  He was advanced to the pay grade of E-4 on 6 July 1963.

5.  He remained at Fort Hood until he was transferred to Fort Hamilton, New York for his honorable release from active duty (REFRAD) on 6 December 1963, due to the expiration of his term of service (ETS).  He had served 2 years of total active service and had excellent conduct and efficiency ratings throughout his service.  His records contain no derogatory information.

6.  A review of the history of the 1st Armored Division contained on internet site http://www.1ad.army.mil/HISTORY.htm indicates that in 1962, the 1st Armored Division was brought back to full strength and was declared combat ready in October 1962.  The Division deployed from Fort Hood to Fort Stewart, Georgia, during the Cuban Missile Crisis and underwent a series of live-fire and amphibious exercises on the Georgia and Florida coasts.  Shortly thereafter, the tensions eased and the Division returned back to Fort Hood.

7.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides the criteria for award of the AFEM.  It states, in pertinent part, that the AFEM was authorized for United States military operations, operations of assistance for friendly foreign nations and operations in support of the United Nations.  The AFEM was awarded for operations in Cuba during the period of 24 October 1962 to 1 June 1963.  In order to be eligible for the AFEM, the individual must have been a bona fide member of a unit engaged in the operation for no less than 30 days in the area of operations or have been engaged in the direct support of the operation for 30 days, or 60 nonconsecutive days, or engaged in actual combat or duty equally as hazardous during the operation with armed opposition or participate on a regular basis as an assigned crewmember of an aircraft flying into, out of, or within the area of operations.     

8.  Army Regulation 672-5-1, in effect at the time, prescribed Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning award of the Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM).  It states, in pertinent part, that the AGCM was established by Executive Order 8809, 28 June 1941 and was amended by Executive Order 9323, 1943 and by Executive Order 10444, 10 April 1953 and is awarded for exemplary behavior, efficiency, and fidelity in active Federal military service.  The regulation also states, in pertinent part, that for first award only, upon termination of service on or after 27 June 1950, a period of service of less than 3 years, but more than 1 year, qualifies for award of the AGCM.  Disqualification for award of the AGCM requires specific action by the commander in writing, to disqualify a member and it must be referred to the individual for comment.

9.  Army Regulation 635-5 serves as the authority for the preparation of the DD Form 214.  The regulation in effect at the time provided, in pertinent part, that item 12 of the DD Form 214 would be prepared to reflect the individual's unit of assignment and major command.  

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's unit of assignment as depicted on his DD Form 214 meets the guidelines prescribed by the applicable regulation governing its preparation.  At the time of his separation, Fort Hood came under the jurisdiction of 4th Army and as such, was the major command.  Accordingly, there is no basis to change that item.

2.  The Board has been unable to ascertain that the applicant or his unit ever engaged in operations in Cuba or that direct support of those operations were in fact conducted.  Therefore, absent evidence to the contrary, the Board must presume that he is not entitled to award of the AFEM.

3.  However, after carefully examining the applicant’s record of service, the Board has determined that the applicant should have received the AGCM for his service from 7 December 1961 through 6 December 1963.  This conclusion is based on the fact that the record is void of any derogatory information, which would preclude the applicant from being awarded the AGCM, and the lack of any specific action by the applicant’s unit commander to disqualify him from receiving the award.  

4.  The Board found that the applicant not receiving the AGCM was likely the result of an administrative error as opposed to it being the result of a conscious disqualification by any of the unit commanders for which he served.  Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Board determined that this error should be corrected and the applicant should receive the AGCM at this time.
5.  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 individual concerned the AGCM for the period of 7 December 1961 through 6 December 1963.

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

BOARD VOTE:  

__ena___  ___fe ___  ___mvt__  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		_____Fred N. Eichorn______
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003084288	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2003/07/15	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT PARTIAL	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  102	107.0056/AGCM	
2.  118	107.0072/AFEM	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.