IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 2 July 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130017824 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, through his Member of Congress, requests award of the Army Good Conduct Medal and correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show this award. 2. The applicant states he served in the Army from May 1979 to May 1983. He never received any disciplinary actions, passed all required training and the Army Physical Fitness Tests, and received an honorable discharge. However, he never received an Army Good Conduct Medal. His understanding is with a good service record you are eligible for an Army Good Conduct Medal for every 3 years served. He recalls that other Soldiers he served with who had received Article 15s also received an Army Good Conduct Medal. He served proudly and he deserves this medal. 3. The applicant provides his DD Form 214, DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214), and a letter. 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 10 May 1979 for a period of 4 years and he held military occupational specialty 63H (Track Vehicle Repairman). On 2 October 1979, he was assigned to the 703rd Maintenance Battalion, Germany. 3. On 16 March 1981, a Bar to Reenlistment Certificate was placed against him. His immediate commander had recommended a Bar to Reenlistment be placed against him as he (the applicant) had been in the Army Weight Control Program for a period of 12 months and was still 24 pounds overweight. 4. On 3 November 1981, he was assigned to the 1st Maintenance Battalion, Fort Riley, KS. 5. On 15 February and 9 August 1982, his immediate commander reviewed the Bar to Reenlistment Certificate and determined it would stay in place as he was still in the weight control program and had not made satisfactory progress. 6. On 8 February and 24 March 1983, his immediate commander reviewed the Bar to Reenlistment Certificate and determined it would stay in place as he was still in the weight control program and had not made satisfactory progress. 7. He was honorably released from active duty on 9 May 1983 by reason of expiration of his term of service and he was transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve. He completed 4 years of creditable active service. 8. The DD Form 214 he was issued does not show the Army Good Conduct Medal (1st Award). 9. Item 27 (Remarks) of his DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) contains an entry that shows he was not recommended for the Army Good Conduct on 24 March 1983. 10. Army Regulation 600-31 (Suspension of Favorable Personnel Actions (Flag)), the version in effect at the time, prescribed policies and procedures to prevent favorable personnel actions from being initiated or completed when such actions would not serve the best interests of the Army. It stated, in part, such actions included promotion, awards and decorations, and attendance at service schools. Favorable actions would be suspended when administrative separation or court-martial had been initiated, nonjudicial punishment had been initiated, and when a member was entered in a weight control program under Army Regulation 600-9 (Army Weight Control Program). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The evidence of record confirms the applicant was in the Army Weight Control Program from on or about May 1980 until his release from active duty on 9 May 1983. In accordance with governing regulations, a flag would have been placed against him upon his enrollment in the weight control program and stayed in place while he was in the program. While the flag was in place, he was ineligible for any favorable actions to include award of the Army Good Conduct Medal. Therefore, he is not entitled to 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 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) AR20130017824 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130017824 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1