RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 31 January 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080000803 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. Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano Director Mr. Michael L. Engle Analyst The following members, a quorum, were present: Mr. John Infante Chairperson Mr. Eric N. Andersen Member Mr. David K. Haasenritter 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 removal of a memorandum, subject: Disqualification for Award of the Good Conduct Medal, dated 24 August 1993, from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). 2. The applicant states, in effect, that the subject memorandum is detrimental to his career and should be removed from both the performance section and the military personnel records jacket section of his OMPF. He further contends that he received a summarized nonjudicial punishment (NJP) at the time which is referred to in the subject memorandum as the reason for his commander’s denial of the Good Conduct Medal. He states that his summarized NJP was to be destroyed after he left the unit and should not have been made a part of his OMPF. He also states that the subject memorandum was only meant to be used as an administrative action to inform him of the commander’s decision not to award him the Good Conduct Medal. As such, it serves no critical or practical purpose in his records. The presence of the document makes his record look as if he actually committed a terrible offense that granted grounds for a harder, more serious NJP. That was not the case. 3. The applicant provides no additional documentation. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. At the time of his application, the applicant was serving in the Regular Army as a staff sergeant, pay grade E-6. 2. On 6 November 1991, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army as a private, pay grade E-2. He completed his initial training and the Basic Airborne Course and was awarded military occupational specialty 73C1P (Finance Specialist with airborne special qualification). 3. On 6 January 1993, the applicant was promoted to specialist, pay grade E-4. 4. On 24 August 1993, the applicant’s commander notified him via the subject memorandum that he was considering disqualifying him for award of the Good Conduct Medal because of an NJP. The memorandum does not provide any detailed information regarding this NJP. The commander offered the applicant an opportunity to submit matters in rebuttal. On 15 September 1993, the applicant acknowledged the memorandum and indicated that he would submit a written rebuttal [not available in the file for review]. On 17 September 1993, the commander disqualified the applicant for this award and forwarded the memorandum to the personnel service company for filing. 5. On 1 May 1997, the applicant was promoted to sergeant, pay grade E-5. 6. On 26 September 2000, the applicant accepted NJP under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for violation of Article 128, UCMJ (assault consummated by battery) by unlawfully grabbing a woman’s neck and pulling her hair. The punishment included 14 days of extra duty. 7. On 1 July 2004, the applicant was promoted to staff sergeant, pay grade E-6. 8. Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides 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 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 Army 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. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. Regulation requires a commander to provide written notice of nonfavorable consideration for award of the Good Conduct Medal. He must permit the individual an opportunity to respond. This having been accomplished, the commander properly notified the servicing personnel company for them to take action. The filing of the memorandum in the applicant’s OMPF was necessary for maintaining a record of this event. 2. For historical purposes the Army has an interest in maintaining the accuracy of its records. The information contained in those records must reflect the conditions and circumstances that existed at the time the records were created. 3. While the Board understands the applicant’s concerns, the Army has an interest in maintaining such documents, and the applicant has not shown sufficient reasons why it should not remain a matter of record, 4. In view of the above, the applicant’s request should be denied. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING __DKH__ __JI_____ __ENA__ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 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. __ John Infante _______ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED 20080131 TYPE OF DISCHARGE DATE OF DISCHARGE DISCHARGE AUTHORITY . . . . DISCHARGE REASON BOARD DECISION DENY REVIEW AUTHORITY ISSUES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.