RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           23 March 2004                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003091452

	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. G. E. Vandenberg		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Thomas D. Howard		Chairperson	
	Ms. Karen A. Heinz		Member	
	Mr. Lawrence Foster		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).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:  

1.  The applicant requests that he be awarded the Good Conduct Medal.

2.  The applicant states that he had never gotten in trouble during his entire period of service.  He requests that the failure to timely file be waived because he has “become more patriotic in my old age.” 

3.  The applicant provides no additional documentation.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error, which occurred on 13 June 1952.  The application submitted in this case is dated 19 May 2003.

2.  Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file within the 3-year statute of limitation if the ABCMR determines that it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  The applicant entered active duty on 20 September 1948 and completed training as a clerk typist.  He served in Guam with the 21st Quartermaster and General Support Depot from 26 September 1949 to 19 September 1951 and with the 524th Quartermaster Service Company from 20 September 1951 to 2 October 1951.

4.  His DA Form 20 (Soldier’s Qualification Record) shows he qualified as an expert with the M-1 carbine.  It also lists his conduct as excellent.

5.  His Service Record (WD AGO Form 24A) Sections 13 (Record of Trials by Court-Martial) and 15 (Time Lost) are blank.  There is no indication of any nonjudicial punishment.  He was promoted to corporal on 18 May 1951.

6.  His DD Form 214 (Report of Separation) shows that the applicant was discharged on 13 June 1952, at the expiration of his term of service.  He had 3 years, 8 months, and 14 days of creditable service with no time lost.  Item 27 (Awards) states “None” for awards and decorations authorized.  

7.  A DD Form 215 (Correction to the DD Form 214), changed his DD Form 214 to show he was authorized the National Defense Service Medal and the Expert Badge with Carbine Bar.

8.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 also 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.  A record of punishment is not automatically disqualifying.  However, at that time, a single efficiency rating of less than excellent was disqualifying.  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 unfavorable consideration and permits the individual to respond.  At that time, unfavorable consideration was normally noted on the DA Form 20.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  There is no indication that the applicant was disqualified for award of the Good Conduct Medal.  He distinguished himself by his conduct, efficiency and fidelity as demonstrated by his excellent conduct and efficiency ratings.

2.  Therefore, it is appropriate to award the applicant the Good Conduct Medal for the period 20 September 1948 through 19 September 1951.

BOARD VOTE:

_KAH___  ___TEH__  ___LF__  GRANT RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief and to excuse failure to timely file.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by awarding the applicant the Good Conduct Medal for the period 20 September 1948 through 19 September 1951.

		_  _Thomas D. Howard___
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003091452	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20040323	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION		
REVIEW AUTHORITY	107  GCM	
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.