IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 January 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110010905 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) to show: * he was qualified as an Expert Marksman in all weapons * two awards of the Presidential Unit Citation (PUC) 2. The applicant states he had the citations for the PUC at the time of discharge but they are not listed on his DD Form 214. 3. The applicant provides no additional evidence. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. The applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States on 8 February 1966. He completed training as a light weapons infantryman. 3. On 16 May 1966, Special Orders Number 98 were published qualifying him as an Expert Marksman with the M-60 Machine Gun. 4. The applicant arrived in Vietnam on 13 December 1966 and was assigned to the 3rd Brigade, 25th Infantry Division. He was assigned to Company C, 1st Battalion, 35th Infantry, on 16 December 1966. He departed Vietnam on 9 December 1967. 5. On 11 December 1967, the applicant was honorably released from active duty and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve as an overseas returnee. The DD Form 214 he received shows the following awards: * National Defense Service Medal * Vietnam Service Medal * Combat Infantryman Badge * Vietnam Campaign Medal * Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge (Rifle M-14) * Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge (Machine Gun M-60) * Two Overseas Service Bars 6. The available records do not show the applicant qualified as an expert with any weapon other than the M-60 Machine Gun or that the unit to which he was assigned was awarded two PUCs. 7. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) sets forth requirements for award of basic marksmanship qualification badges. It states: a. The qualification badge is awarded to indicate the degree – Expert, Sharpshooter, and Marksman -- in which an individual has qualified in a prescribed record course. An appropriate bar is furnished to denote each weapon with which the individual has qualified. b. Award of marksmanship badges is not permanent. Paragraph 1-31c(11) states an award for previous marksmanship weapons qualification is revoked automatically whenever an individual, upon completion of firing a record course for which the previous award was made, has not attained the same qualification. In the event a badge is authorized for firing a limited or sub-caliber course, it is automatically revoked if a record service course is subsequently fired. c. The PUC is awarded for extraordinary heroism in action. A unit must display such gallantry, determination, and esprit de corps in accomplishing its mission as would warrant award of the Distinguished Service Cross to an individual. 8. Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register) lists the unit awards received by units serving in Vietnam. This pamphlet does not show the unit to which the applicant was assigned was cited in orders for award of the PUC. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant's contentions have been noted. 2. His records show he qualified as an Expert Marksman with the M-60 Machine Gun and this information is currently shown on the DD Form 214 he received. There are no orders in his record showing he qualified as an expert with any other weapons. 3. There are also no orders in his record showing the unit to which he was assigned was cited for award of the PUC. 4. In view of the foregoing, the applicant's requests should be denied. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___X_____ ___X_____ __X______ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. _______ _ _X______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110010905 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110010905 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1