IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 30 May 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160011054 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ____x____ ____x____ ___x___ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 30 May 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160011054 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: * awarding him the Army Good Conduct Medal (1st Award) for the period 17 February 1972 through 5 December 1974 * adding to his DD Form 214 the 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 award of the Army Commendation Medal. ___________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. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 30 May 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160011054 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 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) to show the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) and the Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM). 2. The applicant states it is an injustice he never received an ARCOM. He was told by his commanding officer and platoon leader that he was being recommended for award of the ARCOM. He believes the paperwork may have been lost in transit in 1974. He faithfully performed his duties to the best of his abilities and his Enlisted Efficiency Reports show his supervisors rated his performance as outstanding. 3. The applicant provides: * 2 letters of commendation * 2 letters of appreciation * 3 Enlisted Efficiency Reports * 2 memoranda * 2-page Summary of Promotions, Assignments, and Special Awards * 5 photographs * DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214) * 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 17 February 1972. 3. His DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) does not show award of the ARCOM or AGCM. 4. Item 38 (Record of Assignments) of his DA Form 20 shows he received all "excellent" conduct and efficiency ratings throughout his service. His records do not contain any derogatory information or a commander's disqualification that would have precluded him from receiving the first award of the AGCM. 5. He was honorably released from active duty on 5 December 1974 in the rank/grade of sergeant (SGT)/E-5. His DD Form 214 does not reflect the ARCOM or AGCM. He served 2 years, 9 months and 19 days of total active service with 1 year, 2 months and 11 days of foreign service in Korea. He was awarded or authorized the National Defense Service Medal, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, and the Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar. 6. On 18 July 2006, his DD Form 214 was corrected by a DD Form 215 that added the Korea Defense Service Medal. 7. The applicant's official military personnel file (OMPF) does not contain orders awarding him the ARCOM or AGCM. 8. The applicant provides letters of commendation and appreciation which congratulate him on a job well done and recognize him as an enthusiastic and dedicated young leader as well as thanking him for making the Spring Indian Head Carnival a huge success. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states 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. 2. Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents), then in effect, established the standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214. The regulation directed that the purpose of the separation document was to provide the individual with documentary evidence of his or her military service at the time of release from active duty, retirement, or discharge. It was important that information entered on the form be complete and accurate and reflected the conditions as they existed at the time of separation. 3. Army Regulation 672-5-1 (Awards), in effect at the time, stated the AGCM was awarded for each 3 years of continuous enlisted active Federal military service completed on or after 27 August 1940; for the 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. 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. 4. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1130 provides the legal authority for consideration of proposals for decorations not previously submitted in timely fashion. It allows, in effect, that upon the request of a Member of Congress, the Secretary concerned shall review a proposal for the award or presentation of a decoration (or the upgrading of a decoration), either for an individual or a unit, that is not otherwise authorized to be presented or awarded due to limitations established by law or policy for timely submission of a recommendation for such award or presentation. Based upon such review, the Secretary shall make a determination as to the merits of approving the award or presentation of the decoration. 5. The request, with a DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award), must be submitted through a Member of Congress to the Secretary of the Army at the following agency: Commander, U.S. Army Human Resources Command, ATTN: AHRC-PDP-A, 1600 Spearhead Division Avenue, Fort Knox, KY 40122. The applicant's unit must be clearly identified, along with the period of assignment and the award being recommended. A narrative of the actions or period for which recognition is being requested must accompany the DA Form 638. Requests for consideration of awards should be supported by sworn affidavits, eyewitness statements, certificates, and related documents. Corroborating evidence is best provided by commanders, leaders and fellow Soldiers who had personal knowledge of the circumstances and events relative to the request. The burden and costs for researching and assembling documentation to support approval of requested awards and decorations rest with the requestor. DISCUSSION: 1. The evidence of record confirms he served honorably during the period 17 February 1972 through 5 December 1974. His records do not contain a commander's disqualification that would have precluded him from being recommended for or awarded the AGCM (1st Award). It appears he meets the regulatory criteria for award of the AGCM (1st Award). 2. The applicant's honorable service and the sincerity of his request are not in question. However, the available records contain no evidence indicating he was recommended for or awarded the ARCOM. 3. A recommendation to deny award of the ARCOM will in no way affect the applicant's right to pursue his claim by submitting a request through his Member of Congress under the provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1130. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160011054 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160011054 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2