IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  9 January 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130010967 


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 reconsideration of his previous request for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM).

2.  The applicant states:

* his commanders made an administrative error by not presenting the AGCM to him while he was stationed in Germany and/or Fort Dix, NJ
* he was a team player for his entire 23 months and 21 days of service
* he is providing pictures of his commanding officer and a master sergeant
* he had a rating of "good" while training to be a medical specialist, but the balance of his military service was "excellent" or "exceptional"

3.  The applicant provides copies of pictures of two individuals in military uniforms.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20120003323 on 23 August 2012.

2.  The applicant provides copies of pictures of two individuals in military uniforms which were not discussed in the previous ABCMR Record of Proceedings.  Therefore, these documents are considered new evidence that warrants consideration by the Board.

3.  The previous ABCMR Record of Proceedings noted:

	a.  He was inducted into the Army of the United States on 4 November 1958.

	b.  His DA Form 24 (Service Record) shows he was assigned to Company B, 3rd Battalion, U.S. Army Medical Training Center, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, for training during the period 6 February to 2 April 1959.  During this period of training, he received conduct and efficiency ratings of "good."

	c.  He was subsequently assigned for duty in the Federal Republic of Germany as a medical specialist with the 2nd Reconnaissance Squadron, 15th Cavalry Regiment.

	d.  He was advanced to the rank of specialist four/pay grade E-4 on 1 June 1960.

	e.  He was honorably released from active duty and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve on 24 October 1960.  He completed 1 year, 11 months, and 21 days of active duty service.

4.  There is no evidence in his available military records indicating he was awarded or recommended for the AGCM.

5.  He provided copies of pictures of two individuals in military uniforms.  He contends the individuals are his commander and first sergeant.

6.  Army Regulation 672-5-1 (Awards), in effect at the time, provided that the AGCM was awarded to enlisted Soldiers who completed a qualified period of active duty enlisted service.  This period was 3 years except in those cases when the period for the first award ended with the termination of a period of Federal military service.  The enlisted person must have had all "excellent" conduct and efficiency ratings and no convictions by a court-martial.  Ratings of "unknown" for portions of the period under consideration were not disqualifying.  Service school efficiency ratings based upon academic proficiency of at least "good" rendered subsequent to 22 November 1955 were not disqualifying.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request for reconsideration of his previous request for award of the AGCM has been carefully considered.

2.  There is no evidence in his available military records indicating he was awarded or recommended for the AGCM.

3.  The evidence of record shows he received conduct and efficiency ratings of "good" during the period 6 February to 2 April 1959.  The regulation in effect at the time of the applicant's active duty service provided that the enlisted person must have had all "excellent" conduct and efficiency ratings to be eligible for award of the AGCM.

4.  The new evidence provided was considered; however, this evidence failed to show that the entry in his DA Form 24 showing he received conduct and efficiency ratings of "good" was recorded in error.

5.  Based on the foregoing, there is no basis to grant the 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 the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20120003323, dated 23 August 2012.



      _______ _  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)                                         AR20130010967



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130010967



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1