IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 24 September 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080011545 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his separation document, DD Form 214, be corrected to add the Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM). He also requests that his DA Form 20, Enlisted Qualification Record, Item 38, Record of Assignments, have the entries for 21 July 1968 and 29 August 1968 be changed to show his proper unit of assignment. 2. The applicant states that his records do not reflect the correct information. The applicant adds that although he was issued the AGCM when he requested that award, his DD Form 214 was not updated with that award. 3. The applicant provides his DA Form 20, photocopies of unit shoulder patches, and his two DD Forms 214. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. 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 also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted in the Army National Guard (ARNG) on 19 December 1965. He entered active duty for his initial entry training on 25 January 1967 and was honorably released from active duty on 27 July 1967 and returned to his ARNG unit. He had completed 6 months and 3 days of active duty. 3. On 21 February 1968, the applicant was discharged from the ARNG and transferred to the US Army Reserve (USAR) so he could be called to active duty as a Reserve of the Army. 4. On 19 January 1968, orders were issued ordering the applicant to 17 months and 13 days of active duty (the remainder of his active duty service obligation). 5. The applicant served on active duty as a Reservist from 22 February 1968 to 5 August 1969, for a total of 1 year, 5 months, and 13 days of active duty during that period, and a total of 1 year, 11 months, and 15 days of active duty during his military career. 6. The applicant’s DA Form 20 shows that the applicant’s conduct and efficiency were rated as excellent except for the entry for 16 December 1968 when his conduct and efficiency were rated as “good.” 7. Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides that the AGCM 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 AGCM, disqualification must be justified. Current practice requires that the commander provide written notice of nonfavorable consideration and permits the individual to respond. At that time, nonfavorable consideration was normally noted on the DA Form 20. 8. A DA Form 20 is a document which is used by commanders to determine how best to utilize Soldiers assigned to their commands. Being a locally used document, it is not a document viewed by people outside of the Army. As such, the Board does not correct entries on DA Forms 20. Therefore, the applicant’s request to correct his DA Form 20 is not further discussed in these proceedings. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. Since the applicant’s conduct and efficiency were rated as good on 16 December 1968, he did not meet the criteria for award of the AGCM (he was disqualified because he had a single efficiency rating of less than excellent). 2. As such, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s request. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___X____ ___X____ ___X___ 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. __________X____________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080011545 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080011545 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1