IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 24 May 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110022578 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 award of the Army Good Conduct Medal and that other awards be added to his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty). 2. The applicant states he was a good Soldier. He notes that the photograph of himself in uniform as a private first class (PFC) shows unit citations and marksmanship badges that were not listed on his DD 214. 3. The applicant provides copies of a photograph and his DD Form 214 to support he application., 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. He enlisted on 12 December 1972 and completed training as an infantryman at Fort Carson, CO. 3. His DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows in: * Item 18 (Appointments and Reductions) – he was advanced to specialist four (E-4) on 1 April 1974 and promoted to sergeant (E-5) on 30 June 1975 * Item 9 (Awards, Decorations, and Campaigns) – lists only the National Defense Service Medal 4. The DA Form 20 lists neither marksmanship qualifications nor weapon firing scores. 5. On 3 December 1975, the applicant was released from active duty and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve. His DD Form 214 shows his awards as the National Defense Service Medal. 6. Army Regulation 672-5-1 (Awards), in effect at the time, stated the Army Good Conduct Medal was awarded for each 3 years of continuous enlisted active Federal military service completed on or after 27 August 1940; for first award only, 1 year served entirely during the period 7 December 1941 to 2 March 1946; and, for the first award only, upon termination of service on or after 27 June 1950 of less than 3 years but more than 1 year. However, there was no right or entitlement to the medal until the immediate commander made a positive recommendation for its award and until the awarding authority announced the award in general orders. 7. Army Regulation 670-1 (Wear and Appearance of Army Uniforms and Insignia) states unit awards are authorized for permanent wear by individuals who were assigned and present for duty at any time during the period cited or who was attached to and present for duty with the unit for at least 30 consecutive days of the period cited. Individuals who were not present during the period cited may be authorized temporary wear only during assignment to the unit. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. There is no commander's recommendation for the Army Good Conduct Medal. However, the fact that he completed a 3-year tour of stateside, peacetime duty (The Vietnam Ceasefire Campaign ended 28 January 1973) as a sergeant (E-5) and the complete absence of evidence of any disqualifying factor suggest that his not receiving the Army Good Conduct Medal was an administrative oversight. He should be awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal and it should be added to his DD Form 214. 2. Unfortunately, there is no record of the applicant's weapons qualifications 3. Given the place and circumstance of the applicant's service it is probable that he was authorized temporary wear of unit awards while assigned to the unit. 4. In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, it would be appropriate to rectify this injustice by correcting the applicant’s records as recommended below. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ____x___ ___x____ ____x___ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by awarding him the Army Good Conduct Medal for the period 22 December 1972 through 3 December 1975 and it should be added to his DD Form 214. 2. The Board further determined that the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to listing any other awards on his DD Form 214. _______ _ _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) AR20110022578 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110022578 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1