PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           15 JANUARY 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001063668

	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.  

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Ms. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson	
	Mr. Hubert O. Fry, Jr.		Member	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr.		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, in effect, award of the Army Good Conduct Medal and that his rank of Private First Class be restored.  He states that he believes his commander overlooked awarding him the Good Conduct Medal and that he was reduced in grade as a result of "miscommunication as to when to report to Reserve duty and conflict with school and travel."  He submits no evidence in support of his request.

3.  Records available to the Board indicate the applicant was inducted and entered active duty on 7 May 1959.  He was trained as a supply clerk and in January 1960, while assigned to the 15th Evacuation Hospital in Europe, was promoted to the temporary rank of Private First Class.  His conduct and efficiency ratings while undergoing training and at his first duty assignment (Fort Lee, Virginia) were excellent.  

4.  In August 1960 the applicant appeared before a "Classification Board."  The board was convened as a result of the applicant's less than adequate duty performance.  His "section leader" noted that the applicant "had little knowledge of supply procedures" and that he made "many errors on supply forms, is negligent in safeguarding government property, and has been of little or no help to the unit supply section…."  The board recommended reclassification but there is no evidence in available records that the applicant was ever reclassified or that he was reassigned from his original duty position in the supply area of the 15th Evacuation Hospital.

5.  In January 1961 the applicant's servicing personnel office notified his detachment commander that the applicant was eligible for the Good Conduct Medal.  Although the applicant's "efficiency rating" was initially entered as "excellent" on the form, it was subsequently lined through and written as "unsatisfactory."  The detachment commander initialed the change.  The detachment commander then completed the form by recommending approval of the award and indicated the applicant's conduct rating was "excellent."  That portion of the form was also subsequently changed to indicate "disapproval" of the Good Conduct Medal.  The change was initialed by the serving personnel officer and contains the hand written note "CO notified concurred."

6.  In spite of the fact that the unit commander indicated on the Good Conduct Medal recommendation form that the applicant's efficiency was unsatisfactory, in April 1961, upon the applicant's departure from the unit, his efficiency was recorded as satisfactory in section four of his DA Form 24 (Service Record) after previous entries were lined through and initialed.

7.  On 20 April 1961 the applicant was released from active duty with an honorable characterization of service in the permanent rank of Private First Class.  His DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) does not reflect award of the Good Conduct Medal.

8.  Following the applicant's release from active duty he was initially assigned to the 21st Artillery, a USAR unit, for the purpose of completing his Reserve obligation.  However, in October 1961, because of the location of his residence, he was subsequently transferred to the 382nd Ordnance Company.

9.  On 10 September 1962 the applicant was reduced from pay grade E-3 to pay grade E-2 for "attendance."  Orders issued by the 382nd Ordnance Company confirmed the reduction.  There are no other documents associated with the reduction action in available records.  In December 1962 the applicant was transferred to the USAR Control Group (Annual Training).  His grade at the time of transfer was E-2.

10.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides that the Good Conduct Medal is awarded to individuals who distinguish themselves by their conduct, efficiency and fidelity during a qualifying period of active duty enlisted service.  This period is 3 years except in those cases when the period for the first award ends with the termination of a period of Federal military service.  Although there is no automatic entitlement to the Good Conduct Medal, disqualification must be justified.  Current practice requires that the commander provide written notice of nonfavorable consideration and permits the individual to respond.  

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant completed a qualifying period for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal on 20 April 1961 when he was released from active duty.

2.  While the evidence does appear to indicate that the applicant was not recommended for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal by his detachment commander in January 1961, the information contained in the applicant's records is confusing at best.  He received excellent conduct and efficiency ratings prior to being assigned to Europe and although the Good Conduct Medal document indicates an unsatisfactory efficiency rating, his official record reflects a satisfactory rating.  The Board also notes that in spite of board action recommending reclassification for inefficiency there is no evidence the applicant was ever reassigned from his supply duties or reclassified.

3.  There is no evidence in available records that the applicant had any disciplinary problems, he was promoted by the same unit which sought to reclassify him for inefficiency, there is no indication his commander followed through on the reclassification action, and his characterization of service upon separation was honorable.  In view of the foregoing, the Board concludes that the applicant met the basic qualifications for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal and it would be appropriate and in the interest of equity to award him that decoration for the period 7 May 1959 through 20 April 1961.
4.  There is no evidence, and the applicant has not provided any, that his reduction to pay grade E-2 while in the USAR was in error or unjust.  In absence of such evidence the Board presumes regularity and concludes that there is no basis to restore the applicant to the grade of E-3.

5.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by awarding the individual concerned the Army Good Conduct Medal for the period 7 May 1959 through 20 April 1961.

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

__INW __  __HOF__  __DPH __  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__        __  __        __  __        __  DENY APPLICATION

		___Irene N. Wheelwright___
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001063668	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20020115	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	107.00	
2.	110.00	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.