ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD DATE: 2 April 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160015711 APPLICANT REQUESTS: the Army Good Conduct Medal. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record). FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the three year time frame provided in Title 10, United States Code (USC), section 1552 (b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 2. The applicant states he would like his Good Conduct Medal awarded to him. He was unjustly denied the medal. He believed a sergeant who he served under at Yuma Test Station in Yuma, Arizona, did not accept his explanation that on the way to the test station, about 5:30 A.M. he stopped to help three Soldiers that were in a rollover accident on US Highway 95. He drove them to the station and dropped them off at the post hospital. He does not think he was more than an hour late reporting to duty. All his sergeant had to do was to go to the hospital and see the injured Soldiers for himself. His sergeant was upset because he brought his wife to live with him in . He was never written up, reprimanded, or told he was going to hold up his medal. In basic training at Fort Ord, he was never reprimanded. He was never reprimanded at Fort Gordon Georgia while attending the Military Police school. He served 2 years and 3 months in Germany with the 24th Infantry Division, 19th Infantry Regiment, and was never written up or reprimanded. When he brought his wife to Germany, no one got upset. He believes that he deserves a Good Conduct Medal. At the age of 76, he guesses it means more to him now than it did 54 years ago. One other reason he wants the medal is that his daughter wants to mount his awards in a shadow box. 3. On 1 July 1959, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army. He was trained as an infantryman. 4. Section 4 (Chronological Record of Military Service) of his Service Record (Chronological Record of Military Service) show he received "excellent" conduct and efficiency ratings except for one period of "good" ratings during the period 14 December 1959 to 3 February 1960 while assigned to the Military Police Detachment, Yuma Test Station. 4. The available records do not contain any comments regarding to his eligibility for the Army Good Conduct Medal. There is no evidence of any convictions by court-martial 5. On 18 June 1962, he was honorably released from active duty in pay grade E-4 after completing 2 years, 11 months, and 18 days of active duty service. He had served in U.S. Army Europe for 2 years, 2 months, and 26 days 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. 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. Service school efficiency ratings based upon academic proficiency of at least “Good” rendered subsequent to 22 November 1955 were not disqualifying. There must have been no convictions by a court-martial. 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. BOARD DISCUSSION: After review of the application and all evidence, the Board determined there is sufficient evidence to grant relief. The applicant’s contentions were carefully considered. The applicant met regulatory guidance to receive the AGCM (1st Award); there is no evidence his commander denied him the award. The Board agreed he should receive the AGCM and have it placed on his separation document. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : X :X :X GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for 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 exemplary service 1 July 1959 through 18 June 1962, and adding the award to his DD Form 214 for the period ending 18 June 1962. 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. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE(S): Not applicable. REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, USC, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within three 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 three-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. Army Regulation 672-5-1 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. 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. Service school efficiency ratings based upon academic proficiency of at least “Good” rendered subsequent to 22 November 1955 were not disqualifying. There must have been no convictions by a court-martial. 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. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160015711 2 1