MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            5 August 2003                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003085590

	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	
	Mrs. Nancy L. Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Mr. Ronald J. Weaver		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 he be awarded two Army Achievement Medals (AAMs) and the Army Good Conduct Medal.

APPLICANT STATES:  That, while he was at Fort Irwin, CA, he was on the overweight program.  He was only 5 pounds over his allowable maximum weight. He was not allowed to get two AAMs.  Even though his name was called in formation for them he could not go up to receive them.  Also, he was not awarded his Army Good Conduct Medal.  He never failed a physical fitness test.  He never had an Article 15 or any type of disciplinary actions for any misconduct. He was an instructor on the Expert Infantryman Badge course.  Every instructor received an AAM except him.  He received many certificates of achievement from his unit in Germany and a certificate of appreciation from the commanding general of Fort Irwin, CA.  He does not see how being 5 pounds overweight can stop his being awarded the medals he deserved.  He provides no supporting evidence.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 28 September 1981.  He was assigned to Germany on or about 19 January 1982.  He was awarded the Expert Infantryman Badge on orders dated 28 July 1982.  He was promoted to Specialist Four,       E-4 on 1 December 1982.  He was reassigned to Fort Irwin, CA on or about        9 January 1984.

On 3 March 1984, the applicant was entered into the Army weight control program.  At that time he was age 22, 71 inches in height, weighed 219 pounds, and had a body fat percentage of 25.5 percent.  (The weight for height table in Army Regulation 600-9 allowed a 22 year old male 71 inches in height to weigh a maximum of 186 pounds.  The body fat percentage allowed a male soldier the applicant's age and weight was 22 percent.)

An undated letter from the applicant's commander notified him he was ineligible for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal due to overweight for the period        3 March 1984 to the present.  The applicant elected not to make a statement.

Apparently, the applicant was removed from the Army weight control program on an unknown date, then reentered into the program on 14 February 1985.  He  was again removed from the Army weight control program on 18 June 1985 when his weight was found to be 210 pounds and his body fat percentage to be 22 percent.

The applicant was honorably released from active duty on 27 September 1985.

Army Regulation 600-9 (The Army Weight Control Program) defined "overweight" as when a soldier's body fat percentage exceeded the standard specified in paragraph 20c of this regulation (i.e., 22 percent for a male in age group           21 through 27).

Army Regulation 600-31 (Suspension of Favorable Personnel Actions for Military Personnel in National Security Cases and Other Investigations or Proceedings), dated 15 July 1984, provided that soldiers would be flagged (favorable personnel actions would be suspended) when, among other reasons, he or she was entered in a weight control program under Army Regulation 600-9.  Four exceptions to not granting favorable personnel actions for flagged soldiers were allowed:  (1) reassignment; (2) leave, rest, and recuperation; (3) request for unqualified resignation, discharge, release from active duty, or retirement; and (4) soldiers already enrolled and participating in a professional school and who subsequently entered into a weight control program.

Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides, in pertinent part, that the Army Achievement Medal is awarded to any member of the armed forces of the United States, who while serving in a noncombat area on or after 1 August 1981, distinguished themselves by meritorious service or achievement.  As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required.

Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, that the Army 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 normally 3 years.  Although there is no automatic entitlement to the Army Good Conduct Medal, disqualification must be justified.  Disqualification for an award of the Army Good Conduct Medal can occur at any time during a qualifying period, requiring a new "beginning date" to be established.

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.  The evidence of record verifies the applicant's contention that he had no record of Article 15s or other disciplinary actions.  However, the applicant was  (or should have been) flagged for being overweight and entered into the Army overweight control program on 3 March 1984 and finally removed from the program on 18 June 1985.  

2.  Army Regulation 600-31 required a soldier who was enrolled in an overweight program to be flagged.  Army Regulation 600-31 also prohibited a soldier being granted most favorable personnel actions, to include awards and decorations, while flagged.  Despite his otherwise good record, it appears the applicant was properly denied the opportunity to be awarded an AAM or the Army Good Conduct Medal.

3.  Regrettably, 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

__lls___  __clg___  __rjw___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003085590	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20030805	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Mr. Chun	
ISSUES         1.	107.0025	
2.	107.0056	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.