PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           17 DECEMBER 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002076412

	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:

	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member	
	Mr. William D. Powers		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 his 1964 separation document be updated to show that he was "called up" in June 1964 and that he was "activated" for about 2 years.  He notes that his service number was changed from "US" to "ER" and that he needs the updated separation document in order to receive additional money from the Social Security Administration.  The applicant also asked that his records be corrected to reflect award of the Army Good Conduct Medal.  In support of his request he submits copies of an order he notes indicates his "call up to Reserve" and a copy of his honorable discharge certificate from the "Army of the United States."

3.  Records available to the Board indicate the applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States on 25 April 1962.  As a result of his induction he was issued a service number beginning with the letter "US" indicating he was a member of the Army of the United States, to differentiate him from individuals who enlisted in the Regular Army and received service number beginning with the letters "RA."  Base on the applicant's induction he incurred a 6 year statutory service obligation.

4.  During the applicant's period of active military service he was promoted to pay grade E-4, received excellent conduct ratings, and served overseas in Hawaii.  He qualified as a sharpshooter with the rifle and as a marksman with the carbine and was awarded the associated badges and component bars.  Those badges, however, were omitted from the applicant's separation document.

5.  On 20 February 1964 the applicant was released from active duty, based on his request for a hardship discharge, and was transferred to the United States Army Reserve Control Group (Annual Training) XII United States Army Corps.  Upon his release from active duty and entry into the United States Army Reserve, the letters of his service number were converted from "US" to "ER" to denote he was an enlisted member of the Reserve.  His separation document noted that his statutory service obligation expired in 1968 and the document did not reflect entitlement to any awards or decorations.

6.  The orders submitted in support of the applicant's request indicate he was reassigned from the United States Army Reserve Control Group to the 558th Signal Company (Construction) in Frederick, Maryland effective 25 June 1964.  The orders specifically note that the action did not "constitute call to AD [Active Duty] unless otherwise indicated."  There is no indication on the order that the applicant was called to active duty as part of the reassignment.

7.  According to the discharge certificate submitted by the applicant, the applicant was honorably discharged from the "Army of the United States" in March 1968.  There is no indication in the applicant's file which indicates why his discharge occurred nearly a month prior to the scheduled termination date for his statutory service obligation.
8.  In 1920 Congress enacted a new National Defense Act which established the Army of the United States and divided it into three components; the Regular Army, the National Guard, and the Organized Reserve.  Service numbers were issued by the armed forces as a means of identifying individual members.  The two letters, which preceded the numbers, denoted whether the individual was a member of the Regular Army, the Army National Guard, the Army Reserve, or was an individual who had been appointed, enlisted, or drafted into the Army without component.  Once issued, only the letters preceding the number changed.  In July 1969 the Army discontinued the use of service numbers and adopted an individual's social security number as the means of identification.

9.  Army Regulation 635-5 establishes the standardized policy for preparing and distributing the Department of Defense Form 214.  It states, in effect, that the form will reflect information pertinent to an individual's military service which occurred during the period covered by the form.

10.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 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 his commander ever disqualified him for award of the Good Conduct Medal.

11.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 also provides for award of the National Defense Service Medal for honorable active service for any period between 27 June 1950 and 27 July 1954 and between 1 January 1961 and 14 August 1974.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Evidence available to the Board indicates that the applicant did not have any active duty military service after his release from active duty in 1964.  While he may have performed duties in a Reserve component, that information would not be incorporated into his 1964 separation document.

2.  Additionally, the Board notes that the first two characters of the applicant's service number was appropriately changed from "US" to "ER" following his release from active duty when he went from his "inducted" military service, into the United States Army Reserve Control Group.  The change was not an indication that he was called to "active duty."

3.  However, the evidence does indicate that the applicant completed a qualifying period of service for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal on 20 February 1964.  There is no evidence his commander ever disqualified him from receiving the award and no evidence of any misconduct which would justify denying him 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 him that decoration for the period 25 April 1962 through 20 February 1964.

4.  The Board also notes that the applicant qualified as a sharpshooter with the rifle and as a marksman with the carbine and was awarded the associated badges and component bars.  The evidence also confirms that the applicant is entitled to the National Defense Service Medal.  His record should be corrected accordingly.

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:

a.  by awarding the individual concerned the Army Good Conduct Medal for the period 25 April 1962 through 20 February 1964;

b.  by showing that he qualified as a sharpshooter with the rifle and as a marksman with the carbine and was awarded the associated badges and component bars; and

c.  by showing that he is entitled to the National Defense Service Medal.

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

BOARD VOTE:  

__LLS __  ___BJE__  ___WDP_  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		____Luther L. Santiful____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002076412	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20021217	
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.