IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 13 March 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130011531 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 award of the National Defense Service Medal (NDSM), two Presidential Unit Citations (PUC's), and two Army Achievement Medals (AAM's). 2. The applicant states: a. His DD Form 214 is missing two awards of the AAM, two awards of the PUC, and the NDSM. b. He served in the Army from February 1996 to February 1999. He has paperwork for the two awards of the AAM, but the paperwork for the two awards of the PUC and the NDSM were given to the unit and company. c. He is applying for Federal positions and was told he should qualify for 5 veterans' preference points, but he can't until his DD Form 214 is amended. 3. The applicant provides: * two DA Forms 638 (Recommendation for Award) for the AAM * two AAM Certificates * DD Form 214 * social security card * Washington, DC, driver's license 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 20 February 1996 and served as a fighting vehicle infantryman. 3. He was released from active duty on 19 February 1999. 4. His DD Form 214 shows he was awarded or authorized the: * Army Lapel Button * Army Service Ribbon 5. He provided Headquarters, 1st Battalion (Mechanized), 8th Infantry Regiment, Permanent Order Number 173-03, dated 22 June 1998, which awarded him the AAM for the period 4 May 1998 to 19 May 1998. 6. He provided Headquarters, 1st Battalion (Mechanized), 8th Infantry Regiment, Permanent Order Number 15-01, dated 15 January 1999, which awarded him the AAM for the period 8 July 1996 to 19 February 1999. This order shows he was assigned to Company D, 1st Battalion (Mechanized), 8th Infantry Regiment, during this time frame. 7. There are no orders for the PUC in the available records. A review of the unit history for the 8th Infantry Regiment on the Army Center of Military History website does not show the unit received any awards during his period of assignment. 8. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states the PUC is awarded for extraordinary heroism in action. A unit must display such gallantry, determination, and esprit de corps in accomplishing its mission as would warrant award of the Distinguished Service Cross to an individual. 9. Army Regulation 600-8-22 states the NDSM 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. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. Permanent orders show the applicant was awarded two AAM's. Therefore, his DD Form 214 should be corrected to show the AAM (2nd Award). 2. He claims his DD Form 214 is missing two awards of the PUC. There is no evidence of record and he provides no evidence which shows his unit was awarded the PUC or cited for extraordinary heroism in action during his period of assignment. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence on which to base adding two awards of the PUC to his DD Form 214. 3. Since he did not serve during a qualifying period for award of the NDSM, there is no basis for adding the NDSM to his DD Form 214. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ____X___ ____X___ ___X__ _ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Board determined the evidence presented is 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 adding the AAM (2nd Award) to his DD Form 214. 2. The Board further determined 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 adding the NDSM or two awards of the PUC to his DD Form 214. _______ _ 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) AR20130011531 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130011531 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1