IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 April 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100024673 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 correction of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) to show the National Defense Service Medal and Good Conduct Medal. 2. The applicant states the medals were not on his discharge at the time of his separation. 3. The applicant provides his DD Form 214 in support of his application. 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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 2 December 1974 for a period of 3 years. He served as a military police and was released from active duty in the rank of specialist four after completing 3 years of creditable active service with no time lost. 3. His DD Form 214 does not show the National Defense Service Medal or Good Conduct Medal as authorized awards. 4. He received nonjudicial punishment in March 1976 for violating a lawful general regulation (by being inside a privately owned vehicle while in the fatigue uniform parked at a McDonald's restaurant). 5. There are no orders for the Good Conduct Medal in the available records. 6. There is no evidence he received the first award of the Good Conduct Medal. There also is no evidence he was disqualified by his chain of command from receiving the Good Conduct Medal. 7. A DA Form 2496 (Disposition Form), dated 4 October 1977, shows he was recommended for the Good Conduct Medal for the period 2 December 1974 to 1 December 1977. This form also states, in pertinent part, "If the commander recommends disapproval for awarding the GCMDL [Good Conduct Medal], an entry will be made in item 27 DA Form 2-1, IAW AR [in accordance with Army Regulation] 640-2-1." 8. Item 27 (Remarks) of his DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows the entry "Character of Svc [service] Honorable." 9. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states the National Defense Service Medal is awarded for honorable active service for any period between 27 July 1950 and 27 July 1954, 1 January 1961 and 14 August 1974, 2 August 1990 and 30 November 1995, and 11 September 2001 and a date to be determined. Second and subsequent awards of the National Defense Service Medal are denoted by a bronze service star affixed to the National Defense Service Medal. 10. Army Regulation 600-8-22 states 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. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. He did not serve a period of qualifying service for award of the National Defense Service Medal. 2. He was released from active duty in the rank of specialist four after completing 3 years of honorable active service with no time lost. Since his character of service was honorable and the commander did not recommend disapproval for awarding the Good Conduct Medal (in item 27 of his DA Form 2-1), it appears he met the eligibility criteria for the first award of the Good Conduct Medal based on completion of a period of qualifying service of three years from 2 December 1974 to 1 December 1977. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ____X___ ____X____ ____X____ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. awarding him the first award of the Good Conduct Medal for the period 2 December 1974 through 1 December 1977; and b. adding the Good Conduct Medal to his DD Form 214. 2. The Board further determined that the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to award of the National Defense Service Medal. _______ _ _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) AR20100024673 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100024673 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1