MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  3 June 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2002080328

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

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Joann Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. Paul M. Smith		Member	
	Ms. Jennifer L. Prater		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

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

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Reconsideration of his earlier appeal to correct his military records by showing that he was awarded the Vietnam Service Medal with five bronze service stars, the Good Conduct Medal, the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation, the Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal, two awards of the Valorous Unit Award and Meritorious Unit Commendation. 

APPLICANT STATES:  That a completed and thorough review of regulation should be conducted to show that he was awarded all awards and decorations to which he is entitled while serving with the 9th and 1st Infantry Divisions in Vietnam.

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's previous consideration of the case AC98-12078 on 19 November 1998.

The applicant’s contentions are new arguments that require Board consideration.

The Board originally concluded that the applicant was entitled and awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge, the Valorous Unit Award, the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation, and the Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation.  

A DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) was issued on 23 June 1999 amending the applicant’s         DD Form 214 to add the Valorous Unit Award, the Combat Infantryman Badge, the Vietnam Service Medal with one silver service star, the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation, and the Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation.

The applicant was inducted on 9 August 1967, as a light weapons infantryman.  He served in Vietnam from 15 January 1968 to 10 January 1969 and was honorably discharged on 13 June 1969.  He completed 1 year, 10 months, and  4 days of creditable service and had 2 days of lost time due to AWOL.

The applicant provided a letter in support of his request.  He stated that he was entitled to five bronze service stars to be worn on his Vietnam Service Medal for each campaign that he served.  This action was corrected as shown on his      DD Form 215, dated 13 June 1969.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 provided, in pertinent part, that a silver service star is authorized in lieu of five bronze service stars. 

The applicant also stated in his letter that as a draftee, his period of Federal military service was terminated before the period of his first award for the Good Conduct Medal.  Therefore, he is entitled to be awarded the Good Conduct Medal.  

His DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) item 38 Conduct/Efficiency/
Reason) shows the entry "Unsat Unsat (Unsatisfactory) AWOL" and item 44 (Time Lost) shows that he was AWOL from 8 to 9 April 1969 (2 days).

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.

He further indicated that he was entitled to two awards of the Valorous Unit Award for his service with the 9th Infantry Division; however, he was awarded only one.  He concluded by stating that he was entitled to two awards of the Meritorious Unit Commendation for his service with the 9th and 1st Infantry Divisions. 

Army Regulation 600-8-22, in pertinent part, states that effective 1 March 1961 the Meritorious Unit Commendation was authorized for units and/or detachments of the Armed Forces of the United States for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding services for at least six continuous months in support of military operations.  Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register) indicates that the applicant’s units (Company C, 5th Battalion, 60th Infantry, 9th Infantry Division and Company C, 1st Battalion, 16th Infantry, 1st Infantry Division) were not cited for award of the Meritorious Unit Commendation during the period September 1967 through October 1968.

Army Regulation 15-185 sets forth the policy and procedures for the ABCMR.  It provides that, if a request for a reconsideration is received within one year of the prior consideration and the case has not been previously reconsidered, it will be resubmitted to the Board if there is evidence (including but not limited to any facts or arguments as to why relief should be granted) that was not in the record at the time of the Board’s prior consideration.  The staff of the Board is authorized to determine whether or not such evidence has been submitted.

The regulation provides further guidance for reconsideration requests that are received more than 1 year after the Board’s original consideration or after the Board has already reconsidered the case.  In such cases, the staff of the Board will review the request to determine if substantial relevant evidence has been submitted that shows fraud, mistake in law, mathematical miscalculation, manifest error, or if there exists substantial relevant new evidence discovered contemporaneously with or within a short time after the Board’s original decision.  If the staff finds such evidence, the case will be resubmitted to the Board.  If no such evidence is found, the application will be returned without action.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The Board notes the applicant's contentions pertaining to the Vietnam Service Medal with five bronze service stars; however, this action was completed in the previous board proceedings dated 19 November 1998 and by issuance of a      DD Form 215, dated 23 June 1999.

2.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant's period of service was terminated after completing 1 year, 10 months, and 4 days of creditable service, where he received an unsatisfactory conduct and efficiency rating, and had        2 days of lost time which was a disqualifying factor for award of the Good Conduct Medal.  Therefore, he is not eligible for award of the Good Conduct Medal and is not entitled to correction of his records to show this award.

3.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant's unit, the 9th Infantry Division, was cited once for the award of the Valorous Unit Award as indicated in his board proceeding dated 19 November 1998.  Therefore, he is not entitled to two awards of the Valorous Unit Award.

4.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant's units were not cited for award of the Meritorious Unit Commendation during the period September 1967 through October 1968.  Therefore, he is not entitled to two awards of the Meritorious Unit Commendation.  

5.  The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__jl___  ___ps____  __jp___  DENY APPLICATION

	Carl W. S. Chun
    Director, Army Board for Correction 
	of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002080328	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20030603	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19690613	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	 	
DISCHARGE REASON	AR 635-200	
BOARD DECISION		
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	46	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.