BOARD DATE: 17 May 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160007647 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: a. awarding him the Army Good Conduct Medal (1st Award) for the period 3 March 1966 through 17 February 1969 (Standard Name Line: SP5, Company D, 126th Maintenance Battalion, 4th Armored Division Support Command, 4th Armored Division, U.S. Army Europe), and b. issuing a DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214) to correct his – * 7 March 1966 DD Form 214 by deleting the current entry from item 26 and adding the entry, "National Defense Service Medal" * 17 February 1969 DD Form 214 by adding to item 24 the entry, "Army Good Conduct Medal (1st Award)" 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 the Army Commendation Medal and the Wisconsin Army National Guard Write Medal. 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. BOARD DATE: 17 May 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160007647 BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF :X :X :X GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration BOARD DATE: 17 May 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160007647 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 military service records to show award of the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) and the Wisconsin Army National Guard (ARNG) Write Medal. 2. The applicant states that he was selected as the Soldier of the Month for his company and his battalion in early 1968. He was then selected as the Soldier of the Quarter for the 4th Armored Division Support Command in April 1968. a. He states that his first sergeant told him he would be recommended for the ARCOM for his service and achievements that included his – * achieving honor graduate at advanced individual training * outstanding military occupational specialty (MOS) evaluation score * receipt of proficiency pay * selection as company guidon bearer for military ceremonies * performance as company clerk, mail clerk, and training noncommissioned officer (NCO) * accelerated promotion to specialist four (SP4)/pay grade E-4 * training and duty in audio-visual operations b. He also states that while serving in the Wisconsin ARNG (WIARNG) with Company C, 1st Battalion 128th Infantry, 32nd Infantry Brigade, he was recommended for the WIARNG Write Medal. He met all training and attendance requirements, completed many advanced NCO training courses, and (to the best of his knowledge) the award recommendation was forwarded through the chain of command. 3. The applicant provides copies of two letters, two newspaper articles with photographs, his MOS evaluation score, promotion recommendation, training certificate, and DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge). 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. A DD Form 214 shows the applicant was inducted into the U.S. Army on 3 March 1966 and honorably discharged on 7 March 1966 to enlist in the Regular Army (RA). He had completed 5 days of net active service this period. It also shows in item 26 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) the entry, "None." 3. The applicant enlisted in the RA on 8 March 1966 for a period of 3 years. 4. His DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record), in pertinent part, shows in – * item 27 (Military Education): Fuel and Electrical Systems Repair course MOS 63G2O, 12 Weeks, 1966 * item 29 (Qualification in Arms): Sharpshooter, Rifle (M-14), 8 October 1966 * item 31 (Foreign Service): Germany from 13 August 1966 to 16 February 1969 * item 22 (Appointments and Reductions), he was promoted to specialist five (SP5)/pay grade E-5 with a date of rank of 18 March 1968 * item 38 (Record of Assignments): Company D, 126th Maintenance Battalion, U.S. Army Europe, from 15 August 1966 through 15 February 1969 * item 41 (Awards and Decorations) – * Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle (M-14) Bar * National Defense Service Medal * Driver and Mechanic Badge with Bar 5. Headquarters, 4th Armored Division, Special Orders (SO) Number 142, dated 21 May 1968, and SO Number 327, dated 22 November 1968, awarded the applicant the Driver and Mechanic Badge with Wheeled Vehicle ("W") Bar. 6. A DD Form 214 shows the applicant entered active duty this period on 8 March 1966, was honorably released from active duty on 17 February 1969, and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve to complete his Reserve service obligation. He had completed 2 years, 11 months, and 10 days of net active service this period and 2 years, 11 months, and 15 days of total active service. It also shows in item 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) the – * National Defense Service Medal * Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle (M-14) Bar * Driver and Mechanic Badge 7. A review of the applicant's military personnel record failed to reveal evidence that he was recommended for or awarded the ARCOM, or any other individual award or decoration. a. This review also failed to reveal evidence of any disciplinary actions, adverse information or a commander's disqualification that would have precluded him from being recommended for or awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal (1st Award). b. This review further revealed that item 38 of his DA Form 20 shows he received all "excellent" conduct and efficiency ratings during the period of active duty service that is under review, except for one "unknown" period from 3 March through 13 March 1966. 8. Office of the Adjutant General, U.S. Army Reserve Components Personnel and Administration Center (RCPAC), St. Louis, MO, Letter Orders Number 02-1094847, dated 23 February 1972, honorably discharged the applicant from the U.S. Army effective 2 March 1972. 9. A Request Pertaining to Military Records, dated 15 December 1978, shows the applicant requested the Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM). He indicated that the award was not issued to him at the time of his separation, but he was told it would be sent to him. a. A DA Form 1577 (Authorization for Issuance of Awards), dated 5 April 1979, shows the Director, Personnel Services, RCPAC, St. Louis, MO, authorized issuance of the AGCM to the applicant. b. A review of the applicant's military personnel records failed to reveal a copy of award orders or a DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214) authorizing the applicant award of the AGCM. 10. In support of his application, he provides the following additional documents. a. U.S. Army Ordnance Center and School, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, Honor Graduate Award, presented to the applicant for successfully completing the Fuel and Electrical Systems Repair course on 12 August 1966. b. A copy of a DA Form 2496 (Disposition Form), dated 31 January 1967, that shows the first sergeant requested a waiver of the time in grade and time in service requirements pertaining to the applicant's promotion to SP4 (E-4). On 1 February 1967, the company commander recommended approval. (A review of the document fails to show the applicant was recommended for or awarded the ARCOM.) c. DA Form 87 (Certificate of Training) that shows the applicant completed the 40-hour Audio-Visual Training Aids Course on 12 May 1967. d. A copy of the 4th Armored Division shoulder patch. e. A newspaper article, dated 28 March 1968, and a photograph of a plaque that show the applicant was selected as the 126th Maintenance Battalion Soldier of the Month in February 1968. (A review of the newspaper article fails to show the applicant was recommended for or awarded the ARCOM.) f. Two Headquarters, 4th Armored Division Support Command letters, dated 5 April 1968, from the commander who commended the applicant for being selected as the 4th Armored Division Support Command Soldier of the Quarter and also conveyed this information to his parents. (A review of the two letters fails to show the applicant was recommended for or awarded the ARCOM.) g. A newspaper article and photograph that show the applicant was selected as the 4th Armored Division Support Command Soldier of the Quarter on 6 April 1968. (A review of the newspaper article and photograph fails to show the applicant was recommended for or awarded the ARCOM.) h. MOS Evaluation Data Report, dated 28 October 1968, that shows the applicant scored "Very High" in all subject matter areas and he achieved an MOS evaluation score of "141" [out of a maximum score of 160] in May 1968. i. DD Form 256A (Honorable Discharge Certificate) that shows the applicant was honorably discharged from the U.S. Army on 2 March 1970. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 672-5-1 (Military Awards), in effect at the time, provided that the AGCM was awarded to individuals who completed a qualifying period of active duty enlisted service. This period was 3 years except in those cases when the period for the first award ended with the termination of a period of Federal military service. The enlisted person must have had all "excellent" conduct and efficiency ratings. Ratings of "unknown" for portions of the period under consideration were not disqualifying. There must have been no convictions by a court-martial. 2. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning military awards and decorations. a. The National Defense Service Medal is awarded for honorable active service for any period between 27 June 1950 and 27 July 1954, 1 January 1961 and 14 August 1974, 2 August 1990 and 30 November 1995, and 11 September 2001 and a date to be determined. b. The ARCOM may be awarded to any member of the Armed Forces of the United States who, while serving in any capacity with the Army after 6 December 1941, distinguishes himself or herself by heroism, meritorious achievement, or meritorious service. As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required. 3. Title 10, United States Code, section 1130 (10 USC 1130) provides the legal authority for consideration of proposals for decorations not previously submitted or acted upon in a timely fashion. Upon the request of a Member of Congress, the Secretary concerned shall review a proposal for the award of or upgrading of a decoration. Based upon such review, the Secretary shall determine the merits of approving the award. a. The request, with a DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award), must be submitted through a Member of Congress to: Commander, U.S. Army Human Resources Command, Soldier Programs and Services Division, 1600 Spearhead Division Avenue, Fort Knox, Kentucky  40122. The unit must be clearly identified, along with the period of assignment and the recommended award. A narrative of the actions or period for which recognition is being requested must accompany the DA Form 638. b. Requests should be supported by sworn affidavits, eyewitness statements, certificates, and related documents. Supporting evidence is best provided by commanders, leaders, and fellow Soldiers who had personal knowledge of the facts relative to the request. The burden and costs for researching and assembling supporting documentation rest with the applicant. 4. Army Regulation 635-5 (Personnel Separations – Separation Documents), in effect at the time, prescribes policies and procedures regarding separation documents. It also established standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214. The purpose of a separation document is to provide the individual with documentary evidence of their military service at the time of separation. Therefore, it is important the information entered thereon is complete and accurate as of that date. a. Section III (Instructions for Preparation and Distribution of the Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) contains guidance on the preparation of the DD Form 214. It states, in pertinent part, that all available records will be used as a basis for the preparation of the DD Form 214, including the Enlisted Qualification Record, Officer Qualification Record, and orders. b. The instructions show, in pertinent part, for item 24/item 26, list all decorations, service medals, campaign medals, and badges awarded or authorized, omitting authorities cited therein. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant contends, in effect, that his 17 February 1969 DD Form 214 should be corrected to show his authorized awards because he was told he would be recommended for award of the ARCOM and the WIARNG Write Medal based on his active duty and reserve component service and achievements, respectively. 2. A thorough review of the applicant's military personnel records failed to reveal evidence that he was awarded the ARCOM or any evidence of a recommendation for award of the ARCOM. 3. The governing Army regulation shows award of a personal decoration requires approval through the chain of command and announcement of the award in orders. The available evidence does not confirm that these actions took place. 4. A recommendation to deny correction of his record to show he was awarded the ARCOM will in no way affect his right to pursue his claim for the award by submitting his request through his Member of Congress under the provisions of 10 USC 1130. 5. The applicant's claim to the WIARNG Write Medal is a matter he should pursue through the Office of the Adjutant General of the State of Wisconsin. The applicant is advised that ARNG State awards are not authorized to be entered on the DD Form 214. 6. The applicant served on active duty from 3 March 1966 through 7 March 1966; however, his DD Form 214 for that period of honorable active service fails to show the National Defense Service Medal. 7. The applicant served a period of continuous, honorable active duty enlisted service from 3 March 1966 through 17 February 1969. a. There is no evidence of any disciplinary actions, adverse information, or a commander's disqualification for the first award of the AGCM. b. He received all "excellent" conduct and efficiency ratings during the period of his active duty that is under review. c. On 5 April 1979, the Director, Personnel Services, authorized issuance of the AGCM to the applicant. d. Based on the available evidence of record and the regulatory guidance in effect at the time, the applicant's records may be corrected to show award of the AGCM (1st Award). //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160007062 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160007647 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2