IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 8 May 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130014626 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 award of the Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM). 2. The applicant states: * he was honorably discharged with no record of adverse behavior * he believes that it was an oversight to deny him good conduct recognition for his service * he also believes it was unjust because although there was no record found to show he was authorized the medal, there is no record in existence to deny it either * he had no disciplinary actions or Article 15s 3. The applicant provides: * letter, dated 9 July 2012, from him to the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) * letter, dated 10 September 2012, from the NPRC to him * DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) 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 5 January 1961 for a period of 3 years. He completed his training and was awarded military occupational specialty 140.00 (field artillery basic crewman). 3. Section 4 (Chronological Record of Military Service) of his DA Form 24 (Service Record) shows he received a "Good" conduct and efficiency rating for the period 31 March to 26 May 1961 while in advanced individual training (AIT). He received all "excellent" conduct and efficiency ratings for the remainder of his service (27 May 1961 to 14 December 1963). 4. On 14 December 1963, he was honorably released from active duty in the temporary rank of specialist four after completing 2 years, 11 months, and 10 days of creditable active service with no time lost. 5. His DD Form 214 does not show the AGCM as an authorized award. 6. There is no evidence to show the applicant received the first award of the AGCM. 7. There is no evidence of any disciplinary action or a commander's disqualification that would have precluded him from being awarded the AGCM. 8. Army Regulation 672-5-1 (Awards), in effect at the time, stated the AGCM was awarded for each 3 years of continuous enlisted active Federal military service completed on or after 27 August 1940; for the first award only, 1 year served entirely during the period 7 December 1941 to 2 March 1946; and, for the first award only, upon termination of service on or after 27 June 1950 of less than 3 years, but more than 1 year. The enlisted person must have had all "excellent" conduct and efficiency ratings. 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" render subsequent to 22 November 1955 were not disqualifying. There must have been no conviction by a court-martial. However, there was no right or entitlement to the medal until the intermediate commander made a positive recommendation for its award and until the awarding authority announced the award in general orders. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant's contentions were carefully considered. However, the governing regulation states the enlisted person must have had all "excellent" conduct and efficiency ratings for award of the AGCM. His military record shows he had a "Good" conduct rating during the period 31 March 1961 to 26 May 1961 while in AIT, which a disqualifying factor for award of the AGCM for his entire period of service. 2. However, the eligibility period for award of the AGCM starts over on 27 May 1961. Since he had no record of any disciplinary action or a commander's disqualification and no lost time, it appears he met the eligibility criteria for the first award of the AGCM for the period 27 May 1961 through 14 December 1963 based on completion of a period of qualifying service ending with the termination of a period of Federal military service. Therefore, he should be awarded the AGCM (1st Award) and his DD Form 214 should be corrected to show this award. BOARD VOTE: ___X____ ___X___ ___X____ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for 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 AGCM for the period 27 May 1961 through 14 December 1963; and b. adding the AGCM (1st Award) 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) AR20130014626 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130014626 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1