RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 1 NOVEMBER 2005 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050001832 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. Deborah L. Brantley Senior Analyst The following members, a quorum, were present: Mr. James Anderholm Chairperson Mr. Thomas O’Shaughnessy Member Ms. Carol Kornhoff Member 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 his records be corrected to reflect award of the Korea Defense Service Medal and the Army Service Ribbon, which he refers to as the Army Service Medal. 2. The applicant states he is entitled to both decorations and notes, in effect, that the Korea Defense Service Medal did not exist at the time he was discharged from active duty. He also states that the Michigan Army National Guard did not issue him the Army Service Ribbon. 3. The applicant provides copies of his 1975 active duty separation document and his 1985 National Guard Bureau separation document. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice which occurred on 23 April 1985. The application submitted in this case is dated 25 January 2005. 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 limitations 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. Records available to the Board indicate the applicant served an initial period of active duty between October 1969 and January 1972. In December 1972 he reenlisted and returned to active duty. 4. Following his December 1972 return to an Active Army status, the applicant was initially assigned to an Army medical facility in Colorado. He was reassigned to the 2nd Infantry Division in Korea In September 1974. At the time of his reassignment to Korea, the applicant was serving in pay grade E-4. 5. In October 1974 the applicant was punished under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for use of marihuana. His punishment included reduction to pay grade E-3, forfeiture of pay, and 45 days of extra duty and restriction. 6. The applicant's records indicate that he was counseled in November 1974 regarding illegal use of marihuana, needing a haircut, and twice for his uniform appearance. In December 1974 he was again counseled concerning his uniform and appearance. 7. On 5 January 1975 he failed to return from ordinary leave and was placed in an AWOL (absent without leave) status. He returned to military control on 9 January 1975 and was subsequently reduced to pay grade E-2. 8. Ultimately, the applicant's unit commander barred the applicant from reenlisting and initiated action to administratively separate him from active duty for unfitness. The recommendation was approved and on 7 March 1975 the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions. 9. On 24 April 1984 the applicant enlisted in the Michigan Army National Guard and was honorably discharged from the National Guard 1 year later on 23 April 1985 at the expiration of his enlistment period. 10. Army Regulation 600-8-22 states that service medals and service ribbons denote honorable performance of military duty within specified limited dates in specified geographical areas. 11. Army Human Resources Command Message (Date Time Group 9 February 2004) published implementing instructions for award of the Korea Defense Service Medal. This message specified criteria for the award of the Korea Defense Service Medal as follows: a) service members of the armed forces must have served in support of the defense of the Republic of Korea from 28 July 1954 through a future date to be determined by the Secretary of Defense; b) the area of eligibility encompasses all land area of the Republic of Korea, and the contiguous water out to 12 nautical miles, and all air spaces above the land and water areas; c) service members must have been mobilized with units or assigned or attached to units operating in the area of eligibility and have been physically deployed in the area of eligibility for 30 consecutive or 60 non-consecutive days. 12. Army Regulation 600-8-22 states that the Army Service Ribbon was established on 10 April 1981 and awarded for successful completion of initial entry training by members of the Active Army, Army National Guard, and United States Army Reserve in an active Reserve status. The ribbon may be awarded retroactively to those personnel who completed the required training before 1 August 1981 provided they had an Active Army status on or after 1 August 1981. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. Although the applicant may have served in Korea, the evidence in his record indicates that his performance during that overseas assignment was not entirely honorable as evidenced by his reduction in grade following punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice on two separate occasions. The record indicates the applicant's performance of his military duties was not honorable and as such, it would be inappropriate to recognize that service by an award of the Korea Defense Service Medal. 2. Although the applicant may have been a member of the Army National Guard after 1 August 1981 he did not hold an Active Army status after that date and as such, is not eligible for the Army Service Ribbon. 3. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy that requirement. 4. Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or injustice now under consideration on 23 April 1985; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 22 April 1988. The applicant did not file within the 3-year statute of limitations and has not provided a compelling explanation or evidence to show that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse failure to timely file in this case. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING __JA ___ __TO ___ __CK ___ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Board determined that the evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. 2. As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year statute of limitations prescribed by law. Therefore, there is insufficient basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for correction of the records of the individual concerned. ____ James Anderholm_____ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20050001832 SUFFIX RECON YYYYMMDD DATE BOARDED 20051001 TYPE OF DISCHARGE (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) DATE OF DISCHARGE YYYYMMDD DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR . . . . . DISCHARGE REASON BOARD DECISION DENY REVIEW AUTHORITY ISSUES 1. 107.00 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.