PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            10 DECEMBER 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002075320

	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. Gale J. Thomas		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ted S. Kanamine		Member	
	Mr. Conrad V. Meyer		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, that her records be corrected to reflect entitlement to any awards and decorations which she would have earned during her period of military service.  She states that her separation document does not reflect any awards or decorations but she recalls wearing several on her dress uniform.  She specifically notes, in effect, that one of the awards resulted from her qualification as an expert with the rifle.  She submits no evidence in support of her request.

3.  Records available to the Board indicate that the applicant entered active duty on 23 September 1974 for a period of 2 years as part of 2-year enlistment option, which included assignment to Europe.  The applicant completed training at Fort McClellan, Alabama and in February 1975 was assigned as a clerk typist with the 7th Signal Brigade in Germany.

4.  The applicant remained in Europe until September 1976 when she returned to the United States and was separated under an Army program which permitted the early separation of soldiers returning from overseas who had insufficient remaining service to warrant reassignment.  The applicant was released from active duty in pay grade E-4 with an honorable characterization of service.  Neither her separation document, nor her military personnel file reflects entitlement to any awards.

5.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 states that United States Army Basic Marksmanship Qualification Badges are awarded to indicate the degree in which an individual has qualified in a prescribed record course.  The badges are awarded in three classes; expert, sharpshooter, and marksman.  Between 1963 and 1974 military women did not undergo any weapons training.  Commencing on 12 July 1974 enlisted women attending basic training began a sixteen-hour course to familiarize them with the M16 rifle; firing the weapon was voluntary.  It was not until after 1 July 1975 that women's basic training contained a forty-hour course that included familiarization with and qualification on the M16 and other hand-held weapons.  There is no indication in the applicant's file that she ever completed a prescribed record course or any information which indicates she was awarded any United States Army Basic Marksmanship Qualification Badges.

6.  Historical files maintained by the 7th Signal Brigade indicate that the brigade was activated in 1970.  A review of Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 does not indicate that the brigade was awarded any unit decorations during the applicant's period of assignment with the organization.  Additionally, individuals serving on active duty between 15 August 1974 and 1 August 1990 were not awarded the National Defense Service Medal.  Personnel decorations, like the Army Commendation Medal, required a recommendation, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders.

7.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 also provides that the Army 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 Army 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.  There is no evidence in the applicant's official military personnel file that her commander ever disqualified her for award of the Good Conduct Medal and no evidence of any misconduct or disciplinary action.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Based on the dates of the applicant's military service and the institution of weapons qualification for military women in 1975 during basic training, it is unlikely that she was ever awarded a qualification badge.  The Board notes that there is no evidence, and the applicant has not provided any which supports her contention that she qualified with a military weapon and was awarded an associated badge.  In the absence of such evidence, there is no basis to correct her records.

2.  Additionally, the Board notes that the applicant would not have been eligible for award of the National Defense Service Medal and there is no evidence that her unit of assignment was awarded any unit awards during her tenure with the organization.  As such, there is no evidence that the applicant was entitled to any of the usual awards one would associate with military service.  The Board also notes that there is no evidence the applicant was ever recommended for, or awarded a personal decoration.

3.  However, the applicant completed a qualifying period of service for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal on 15 September 1976.  There is no evidence her commander ever disqualified her from receiving the award and no evidence of any misconduct which would justify denying her the award.  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 her that decoration for the period 23 September 1974 through 15 September 1976.

4.  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 23 September 1974 through 15 September 1976.

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

BOARD VOTE:  

__CLA __  __TSK __  __CVM__  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		____Celia L. Adolphi______
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002075320	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20021210	
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.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.