IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 8 December 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150003703 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 correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show award of the Valorous Unit Award (VUA). 2. The applicant states: * his DD Form 214 is missing the VUA * he participated in Operations Desert Shield/Desert Storm * he was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 3d Field Artillery Regiment, 2d Armored Division, from Fort Hood, TX * his brigade (Tiger Brigade) provided heavy armor support for the 2d Marine Division when taking the Kuwait airport in Kuwait City * he had no knowledge of this award until recently * the award was granted after his expiration term of service 3. The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214. 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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 7 April 1987 and trained as a cannon crewmember. He served in Southwest Asia (SWA) from 12 October 1990 to 20 April 1991. 3. His DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record – Part II) shows he was assigned to Battery B, 1st Battalion, 3d Field Artillery Regiment, 2d Armored Division, at Fort Hood, TX, from 18 June 1990 to 6 August 1991. 4. On 6 August 1991, he was honorably released from active duty. 5. His DD Form 214 as amended by a DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214), dated 26 February 2014, shows he was awarded or authorized the: * Army Commendation Medal * Army Achievement Medal with 2nd Oak Leaf Cluster * Army Good Conduct Medal * National Defense Service Medal * Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon * Army Service Ribbon * Overseas Service Ribbon * Driver and Mechanic Badge with Driver-W Bar * Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle and Grenade Bars * Army Lapel Button * SWA Service Medal with three bronze service stars * Kuwait Liberation Medal-Kuwait * Kuwait Liberation Medal-Saudi Arabia 6. The U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) previously-approved unit awards database does not show the 1st Battalion, 3d Field Artillery Regiment, 2d Armored Division, was awarded the VUA while the applicant was assigned to the unit in SWA. 7. This database does show the 1st Battalion, 3d Field Artillery Regiment, and 1st Tiger Brigade, 2d Armored Division (-), 2d Marine Division, were awarded the Navy Unit Commendation (NUC) for the period 14 August 1990 to 16 April 1991 by Department of the Army General Orders 34, dated 30 December 1992. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. Although the applicant contends his unit was awarded the VUA, there is no evidence of record and he provided no evidence to support this contention. HRC's database does not show the 1st Battalion, 3d Field Artillery, 2d Armored Division, was awarded the VUA while he was assigned to the unit in SWA. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence on which to base adding the VUA to his DD Form 214. 2. The evidence shows his unit was awarded the NUC while he was assigned to it in SWA. His DD Form 214 does not show this unit award. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ____X___ ____X___ ____X___ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Board determined the evidence presented is 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 adding award of the NUC to his DD Form 214. 2. The Board further determined 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 adding award of the VUA to 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) AR20150003703 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150003703 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1