IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 13 August 2013 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130001409 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 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show the Army Achievement Medal (AAM) with two oak leaf clusters (3rd award). 2. The applicant states he received the AAM with two oak leaf clusters but his DD Form 214 shows the AAM with one oak leaf cluster. 3. The applicant provides: * AAM Certificate for meritorious achievement during the period 13-28 June 1986, dated 23 July 1986 * AAM Certificate for outstanding duty performance during the period 25 February to 29 April 1988, dated 1 July 1988 * AAM Certificate for meritorious performance during the period 4-24 May 1988, dated 1 July 1988 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 31 July 1979. Upon completion of training he was awarded military occupational specialty 63D (Self-Propelled Field Artillery System Mechanic). 3. The applicant record contains: a. Permanent Orders 63-9, issued by Headquarters, 8th Infantry Division (Mechanized) Artillery, dated 21 July 1986, awarding him the AAM for meritorious service during the period 13-28 June 1986. b. Permanent Orders 19-6, issued by the same headquarters, dated 25 February 1987, awarding him the AAM (1st oak leaf cluster) (2nd award) for the preparation and performance of duty during the period 1 December to 23 January 1987. 4. Item 9 (Awards, Decorations and Campaigns) of his DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows he was awarded two awards of the AAM. 5. On 14 November 1990, the applicant was honorably released from active duty at the expiration of his term of service. The DD Form 214 he was issued at the time shows, among other awards, the AAM with first oak leaf cluster. 6. There are no additional orders in his record awarding more than two AAM's and the applicant did not provide any AAM orders to support his application. In fact, he did not provide a certificate for award of the AAM published by Permanent Orders 19-6, dated 25 February 1987. Additionally, the applicant provided two AAM certificates, dated 1 July 1988, that are unsupported by valid orders. 7. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states the AAM is awarded to members who while serving in a noncombat area on or after 1 August 1981, distinguished themselves by meritorious service or achievement. As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant's contention that his DD Form 214 should be corrected to show the AAM with second oak leaf cluster has been carefully considered. 2. There are no orders or any other evidence, such as DA Forms 638 (Recommendation for Award), that show he was recommended for or awarded the two AAM's for which he provided two AAM certificates, dated 1 July 1988. In the absence of such evidence, the AAM certificates alone are an insufficient basis for adding these AAM's to his DD Form 214. 3. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's requested relief. 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) AR20130001409 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130001409 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1