PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           9 March 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999030980

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. June Hajjar		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas D. Howard, Jr.		Member	
	Ms. Carol Jo Suiter		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests that he be awarded the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM).

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that he believes the matter of awarding him the ARCOM was just overlooked.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he was inducted into the Army on 14 March 1967.  He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 91B (Medical Specialist).

5.  The applicant arrived in Vietnam on 17 August 1967 and was assigned to Company B, 4th Medical Battalion as a medical specialist.  He was awarded the Combat Medical Badge on 27 October 1967.  On 30 October 1967, he accepted non-judicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for possessing alcoholic beverages in violation of an order.  

6.  The applicant was reassigned to the 498th Medical Company, 55th Medical Group on 11 March 1968.  Upon his reassignment, the 4th Medical Battalion prepared a letter of recommendation and commendation.  The letter stated that, since it was Division policy not to present a service award prior to completion of an entire one-year tour of duty with the Division, the letter of recommendation was forwarded to the applicant’s new headquarters and strongly recommended he be presented an ARCOM upon completion of his tour.  His new battalion commander forwarded the letter on to the applicant, noting that it would be taken into consideration for an appropriate award upon his departure.

7.  The applicant departed Vietnam on 11 August 1968 and was reassigned to Fort Riley, KS.  There is no evidence to show he received a service award at that time.

8.  On 13 March 1969, the applicant was released from active duty upon completing his normal term of service of 2 years.  His conduct and efficiency had been rated as “excellent” throughout his term of service.

9.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides policy and criteria concerning individual military decorations.  It provides for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal for each 3 years of continuous enlisted active Federal military service completed on or after 27 August 1940 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.  At the time, a soldier’s conduct and efficiency ratings must have been rated as “excellent” for the entire period of qualifying service.

10.  Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 shows the 4th Medical Battalion was awarded the Meritorious Unit Citation for the period 1 October 1967 through 30 November 1968.  The Battalion (less Company D) was also awarded the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm for the period October 1966 through 28 July 1969 and the Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal, First Class for the period 1 October 1966 through 31 October 1969.  Company B, 4th Medical Battalion was awarded the Presidential Unit Citation for the period    29 October through 30 November 1967.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board finds no Government error in this case as there is no evidence to show that the applicant was formally recommended for award of the ARCOM upon his departure from Vietnam.  However, the Board concludes that there was no evidence in his records to preclude him from being recommended and awarded the ARCOM and that the failure to do so was an administrative oversight.  He did receive one Article 15; however, it was for a minor disciplinary infraction and was given by the unit that 5 months later recommended he be awarded the ARCOM.  His subsequent unit gave him conduct and efficiency ratings of “excellent.”

2.  The applicant also met the criteria for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal.

3.  The Board also notes that the applicant is entitled to award of the Meritorious Unit Citation, the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm, the Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal, First Class and the Presidential Unit Citation.

4.  In view of the foregoing, it would be in the interest of justice to correct the applicant’s records as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by:

     a.  awarding the applicant the Army Commendation Medal for meritorious service for the period 17 August 1967 through 10 August 1968;

     b.  awarding the applicant the Army Good Conduct Medal for the period       14 March 1967 through 13 March 1969;

     c.  amending the applicant’s DD Form 214 to add the Army Commendation Medal, the Army Good Conduct Medal, the Meritorious Unit Citation, the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm, the Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal, First Class and the Presidential Unit Citation; and

     d.  issuing to the applicant the aforementioned awards.

BOARD VOTE:  

__jh____  __tdh___  __cjs___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

			June Hajjar
		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999030980	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000309	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(GRANT)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	107.0020	
2.	107.0056	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.